Chris Hayes asked him again and again if it's legitimate to question a judge's impartiality based on race or ethnicity.
Burgess kept trying to answer other questions Hayes didn't ask. Hillary Clinton gave a speech with no specifics. What about Iraq, what about how she's conducting herself?
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/738898457663016960
What he couldn't do was respond to Hayes simple question: is it ok for Trump to attack a judge based on his Mexican heritage? The most Burgess could manage was 'There are a lot of things on both sides I don't like.'
Whoopie. I don't like Hillary's hairstyle and Trump's a white nationalist. I have complaints on both sides.
With Paul Ryan's endorsement, it is now Trump's Republican party. All these Republicans have to defend the indefensible.
Mitch McConnell in his interview with Andrea Mitchell played this same weird game. He doesn't know the Trump U judge, you understand?
As if racism is ok unless you know the individual personally.
Meanwhile. tell me Mark Halperin is kidding:
"Bloomberg journalist Mark Halperin said Friday that Donald Trump’s attacks on the Mexican heritage of a federal judge overseeing a case against him were “not racial” because “Mexico isn’t a race.”
The co-host of his show “With All Due Respect,” John Heilemann, insisted that Trump’s frequent invocation of judge Gonzalo Curiel’s ethnicity is beyond the pale.
“He did it over and over again, he kept calling Curiel a Mexican, right?” Heilemann said, in an exchange flagged by Media Matters. “It is not even dog whistle politics. It is just pure racial politics.”
“No, it’s not racial,” Halperin responded.
“It’s racial politics. It is,” Heilemann insisted.
“Mexico isn’t a race,” Halperin said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mark-halperin-trump-attacks-judge-not-racial-mexico-not-race
So it's ok to discriminate against Mexicans because they're not a race?
You can never go broke underestimating the Beltway press.
They should rename the show to Beyond all Due Respect
Burgess kept trying to answer other questions Hayes didn't ask. Hillary Clinton gave a speech with no specifics. What about Iraq, what about how she's conducting herself?
https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/738898457663016960
What he couldn't do was respond to Hayes simple question: is it ok for Trump to attack a judge based on his Mexican heritage? The most Burgess could manage was 'There are a lot of things on both sides I don't like.'
Whoopie. I don't like Hillary's hairstyle and Trump's a white nationalist. I have complaints on both sides.
With Paul Ryan's endorsement, it is now Trump's Republican party. All these Republicans have to defend the indefensible.
Mitch McConnell in his interview with Andrea Mitchell played this same weird game. He doesn't know the Trump U judge, you understand?
As if racism is ok unless you know the individual personally.
Meanwhile. tell me Mark Halperin is kidding:
"Bloomberg journalist Mark Halperin said Friday that Donald Trump’s attacks on the Mexican heritage of a federal judge overseeing a case against him were “not racial” because “Mexico isn’t a race.”
The co-host of his show “With All Due Respect,” John Heilemann, insisted that Trump’s frequent invocation of judge Gonzalo Curiel’s ethnicity is beyond the pale.
“He did it over and over again, he kept calling Curiel a Mexican, right?” Heilemann said, in an exchange flagged by Media Matters. “It is not even dog whistle politics. It is just pure racial politics.”
“No, it’s not racial,” Halperin responded.
“It’s racial politics. It is,” Heilemann insisted.
“Mexico isn’t a race,” Halperin said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mark-halperin-trump-attacks-judge-not-racial-mexico-not-race
So it's ok to discriminate against Mexicans because they're not a race?
You can never go broke underestimating the Beltway press.
They should rename the show to Beyond all Due Respect
I saw that interview. I think Hayes basically did call Trump racist, and CNN's Tapper did basically say "Isn't that the definition of racism?"
ReplyDeleteErick Erickson isn't satisfied though: he thinks the press and GOP are both failing to call out Trump for a clear cut case of racism. I have to hand it to him: he can be principled:
http://theresurgent.com/damn-them-for-that/
Yes. It's ironic but it's some of the conservatives who are really doing the most to vet Trump and really take it to him.
DeleteThe Hayes interview was funny because Burgess simply wouldn't answer the question.
He tried to go off on all these silly 'But Hillary' tangents and they all just sounded like desperate deflections and grasping at straws next to the gravity of what Hayes was asking him about.
It's more than just' Well I don't like a lot of things.'
You know 'Hillary will continue Obamacare and Trump is a NeoNazi. Both sides are naughty.'
It makes you think of Sumner''s point about NGDP. Saying Trump supported NGDP is like saying Hitler was a vegetarian.
'That's nice, but it's really not the point.'
This guy streiff goes off the deep end again here in his anti-Hillary rhetoric:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/04/one-weird-reason-susan-sarandon-says-nevertrump-nuts-video/
What a moron: she should be hauled before a war crimes tribunal? WTF? How about Bush, Cheney and the gang? The death's they "caused" (if we expand the definition to the one streiff uses for Hillary) are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER... and that's true even if we don't expand the definition to his nutty level he uses for Hillary.
He continues his rant here, but the comment he gets (just one so far) is pretty good:
Deletehttp://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/04/madeleine-albright-wrong-hillary-clintons-email-scandal-video/
Well, in light of this (hilarious) post, I partially forgive him:
Deletehttp://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/04/fake.-donald-trump-campaign-tweets-fake-image-black-supporters/