Chris Cillizza actually wrote a fairly decent piece about how ridiculous it was for Rep. Rashida Tlaib to come out swinging at Trump, infamously claiming they were going to ‘impeach the mother f*cker’.
We know, Hell musta froze over or something because we agree with someone from CNN.
What Rashida Tlaib gets totally wrong about attacking Donald Trump | Analysis by CNN's Chris Cillizza https://t.co/EwZ5SYXOBs pic.twitter.com/im7B1rubCB
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) January 4, 2019
From CNN:
But here’s the thing: What Tlaib did on Thursday night might feel good for Democrats. It might make them feel as though they are regaining some of the fire and the fight they lost when Trump won in 2016. But it almost certainly is the wrong strategy if Democrats want to beat Trump in 2020.
Bingo.
And of course, since Chris wasn’t fist-pumping over Rashida’s comment, the Left came after him … HOW DARE HE expect a grown woman who was elected by her constituents to act like an adult?
Totally predictable, unimaginative, and completely boring response to one comment from a very excited first year member of congress.
— TShev (@TShevory) January 4, 2019
Actually predictable would have been Chris talking about how rad she was for acting like a raving lunatic.
We were surprised.
What "Chris Cillizza gets totally wrong about attacking everyone but the President"* fixed it
— DanO LaRusso (@Dappercannon) January 4, 2019
Don’t even need to read the article to tell this is nonsense. It’s 2019 and Trump is president.
— Harold R. (@respassreports) January 4, 2019
So?
Yeah, maybe this guy does need to read it. Heh.
It's amazing to watch CNN devote so much time to a comment. Meanwhile, Trump has installed a corrupt, loyalist stooge to run the DOJ (!!!) and SPECIFICALLY to kill the Mueller investigation into his corruption and espionage for Russia (and others). Ignored by CNN. Grade: F.
— JKDAnthony10 (@JKDAnthony10) January 4, 2019
Right? Because CNN is totally all in for Trump.
We just rolled our eyes so far back in our heads that we might have done permanent damage.
And speaking of eye-rolling, Kirsten Powers dedicated an entire thread to explaining why and how Chris as wrong. Lucky him.
1/Respectfully disagree w/my colleague @CillizzaCNN. He says, "People don't hold Trump to the same standards that they hold other politicians to." Therefore, he argues Tlaib (and thus Dems) will be punished more for her profanity. But the reason she's treated differently matters https://t.co/sv7GRJU2Qb
— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) January 4, 2019
It’s never good when someone starts a tweet with the word, ‘Respectfully.’ That just means he or she is going to say some mean stuff.
2/ Where were the shrieking headlines when Trump said the same word she used? We need to be clear that there is a major double standard here: white man can curse but if a woman, esp a brown one, esp a Muslim one does it….she will be punished…
— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) January 4, 2019
This is whataboutism on steroids.
Seriously.
And to be perfectly honest, the only headlines we’ve seen that are even close to being ‘shrieking’ were ones WE wrote and even then we weren’t exactly shrieking about her … more like dragging her.
3/3 Also let's let's not take complaints from the religious right about @RashidaTlaib seriously when they could care less about DJT using the exact same word she used (and more).
— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) January 4, 2019
Think she meant ‘couldn’t care less.’
And again, not seeing much from the religious right either.
4/4 actually one more — my ultimate point is that the media in covering this needs to not act like it's just a mystery that @RashidaTlaib is being dragged but everyone shrugs when it's Trump. Don't participate in dragging her for something Trump gets a pass on.
— Kirsten Powers (@KirstenPowers) January 4, 2019
Because the media loves Trump so much.
Holy Hell, this was a bucket of stupid, right?
I haven't seen any shrieking headlines.
I think you're making shit up. https://t.co/D5h0KFxON2
— RBe (@RBPundit) January 4, 2019
Winner winner chicken dinner.
Related:
