Dick Polman marvels at the disparate treatment.
Imagine the outcry if Hillary Clinton’s transition team was led by a scandal-plagued sleaze whose gubernatorial reign was best known for shutting traffic lanes on a major bridge, jeopardizing the public’s safety for the sole purpose of punishing a local mayor who’d refused to endorse. Imagine the outcry if Clinton’s transition leader was named by federal prosecutors, on day one of a major federal trial, as being fully aware of the bridge scandal while it was happening. Imagine the outcry if Clinton then came forward to robustly defend her aide, calling him “a spectacular advocate.”
We all know what would happen. The mainstream media would nail Clinton for the “perception” that a “shadow” had been cast over her campaign. They would assail her for refusing to dump the aide. They would amplify Donald Trump’s inevitable declaration that this episode proved the perfidy of “Crooked Hillary.”
But since Trump is inexplicably permitted to play by banana-republic rules, there will be no such equivalent oucry over the fact that his own transition leader, Chris Christie, was outed yesterday in federal court by a prosecutor who said he was fully aware of the bridge closures while they were happening. It was a milestone moment in the long-running scandal, the first time that a federal official has said such a thing in a formal judicial proceeding, and it flatly contradicted Christie’s long-running lie (which he repeated Sunday on CNN) that he has been exonerated by all the investigations.
More troubled waters at the link.
Gene Nichol comments about North Carolina Republicans’ gut-out-the-vote effort; he minces no words, though he does mince Republicans’ lame justifications for racial discrimination in the franchise. A nugget:
Hindering the participation rights of racial minorities is, I’m inclined to believe, the highest sin in a pluralistic democracy. Given our brutal history, and our past hypocrisies, I am certain it is the gravest sin in this democracy. Racial inequity has been our largest constitutional transgression from the first day of our existence as a commonwealth until this morning. If the purposeful burdening of African-Americans triggers no obligation of disassociation in decent people, I’m not sure what would.
I can attest that Republican leaders take potent umbrage at being compared to the segregationists of a half-century ago. But why is that? Is it because they seek only to disenfranchise blacks, not to hang or shoot or beat or use water cannons on them? Is the implicit suggestion that, given the treatment their grandparents got, African-Americans today ought to be grateful their government now pursues only electoral suppression?
Peter St. Onge finds himself flabbergasted at the capability of North Carolina Republican election board members to believe stuff that ain’t.
Just read it.
Richard Eskow speaks with Ian Millhiser about how the legislative record in North Carolina documented North Carolina’s racist gut-out-the-vote motives and actions and how the Tarheel GOP is doubling-down on the deception.