"Biden's physical deterioration — most apparent in his halting walk — had become so severe that there were internal discussions about putting the president in a wheelchair, but they couldn't do so until after the election."

Write Jake Tapper and Thompson in a book they call "Original Sin," quoted in "Exclusive: Biden aides discussed wheelchair use if he were re-elected, new book says" (Axios).

The book will be out in a week, so presumably Axios can excerpt anything from the text and call it "exclusive."

Nothing wrong with needing a wheelchair while serving in government. Obviously, Franklin Roosevelt did it, but he also hid it. What's up with the shame? What does it say to people with disabilities to hide your need for a wheelchair? How can it be better to walk in a "halting" style and to risk falling? Was he in pain? Was he on painkillers?

It might be Bad Analogy Day on this blog — see the previous post — so I'll say it: It reminds me of a gay person in the closet. The hiding expresses shame that hurts others in your group and that underestimates the intelligence and empathy of those you're hiding from. Is that a bad analogy?

Speaking of things not done until after the election, here's Chuck Todd, denying responsibility for hiding Biden's fitness. I'm embedding this because Todd's inability to enact sincerity is so funny that I think an aspiring comic actor could use this as a model:

"And I will continue, of course, to be a big part of NBC's political coverage, because, as Tom Brokaw said to me, he says, 'Look, some networks do some things well, but nobody does politics like NBC.'"

"And he was referring back all the way to David Brinkley. And that is sort of the tradition I've always sent from Brinkley to Russert. And that's the stuff I want to carry on. That's the stuff Kristen's going to carry on.... So that's all for today. Thanks for watching, and for so many years of loyalty to me and to this show. I'm happy to say my colleague, Kristen Welker, is going to be here next week. Because it doesn't matter who sits in this chair. If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press."

Said Chuck Todd, yesterday, on his last episode of "Meet the Press."

"Senator Joseph R. Biden's characterization of his fellow Democratic presidential contender Senator Barack Obama as 'the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy' was so painfully clumsy..."

"... that it nearly warranted pity. There are not enough column inches on this page to parse interpretations of each of Mr. Biden’s chosen adjectives. But among his string of loaded words, one is so pervasive — and is generally used and viewed so differently by blacks and whites — that it calls out for a national chat, perhaps a national therapy session. It is amazing that this still requires clarification, but here it is. Black people get a little testy when white people call them 'articulate.'... With the ballooning size of the black middle and upper class, qualities in blacks like intelligence, eloquence — the mere ability to string sentences together with tenses intact — must at some point become as unremarkable to whites as they are to blacks."

Wrote Lynette Clemetson in "The Racial Politics of Speaking Well," published in the NYT in February 2007.

I thought everyone would have absorbed that lesson by now, but apparently the old custom of praising black people for stringing words into sentences is alarmingly healthy. Watch this clip:

Chuck Todd and his gotcha questions doesn’t know who he is up against. @VP is showing her bona fides with her eloquent and correct answers. This Administration is performing exceptionally. Justice for ALL https://t.co/6PGVyt7eqn

— Kathleen Wright✍🏻 (@flashmarshvegas) September 10, 2022

I read that tweet because "Chuck Todd" is trending on Twitter right now. That's because of the clip you see there. People are outraged that he suggested that prosecuting Trump would be too "divisive," not that the Vice President can't or won't give a coherent answer to his perfectly sound question. 

Did Trump side with Putin when he said "This is genius.... How smart is that?... Here’s a guy who’s very savvy... You gotta say that’s pretty savvy"?

On yesterday's Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show — audio and transcript, here — here's the part where Trump credits Putin with genius (which his antagonists predictably take to mean that he's siding with Putin!):

I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, “This is genius.” Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine. Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… They’re gonna keep peace all right.

That's criticizing Putin, but you've got to understand that it's sarcasm when he says, "They’re gonna keep peace all right."

It's not siding with the enemy to say the enemy is very smart. And it's so obvious that Trump's enemies would fault him for recognizing Putin's brilliance that I'm tempted to credit Trump with intending to trigger that faultfinding. 

McAuliffe accuses Youngkin of racist dog whistling.

 Transcript. Excerpt:

TERRY McAULIFFE: [P]eople were very happy that I vetoed the bill that literally parents could take books out of the curriculum. You know, I love Millie and Jack McAuliffe, my parents, but they should not have been picking my math or science book. We have experts who actually do that. And look what happened. [Glenn Youngkin] is closing his campaign on banning books. It's created a controversy all over the country. He wants to ban Toni Morrison's book Beloved. So he's going after one of the most preeminent African American female writers in American history, won the Nobel Prize, has a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and he wants her books banned. Now, of all the hundreds of books you could look at, why did you pick the one Black female author? Why did you do it? He's ending his campaign on a racist dog whistle...

 It's racializing to call it a racializing, of course.

... just like he started the campaign when he talks about election integrity. But Chuck, we have a great school system in Virginia. Dorothy and I have raised our five children.

But McAuliffe sent 4 of those 5 children to private school (Catholic school). 

"The egregious ploy to reject electors may enhance the political ambition of some.... The congressional power to reject electors is reserved for the most extreme and unusual circumstances."

"These are far from it.... President Trump’s lawyers made their case before scores of courts; in every instance, they failed.... My fellow Senator Ted Cruz and the co-signers of his statement argue that rejection of electors or an election audit directed by Congress would restore trust in the election. Nonsense. This argument ignores the widely perceived reality that Congress is an overwhelmingly partisan body; the American people wisely place greater trust in the federal courts where judges serve for life. Members of Congress who would substitute their own partisan judgement for that of the courts do not enhance public trust, they imperil it...."

From Senator Mitt Romney's written statement.

Meanwhile: "Vice President Pence... welcomes the efforts of members of the House and Senate to use the authority they have under the law to raise objections and bring forward evidence before the Congress and the American people on January 6th."

And, from Ted Cruz: "I think everyone needs to calm down.... I think we need to tone down the rhetoric. This is already a volatile situation. It's like a tinderbox and throwing lit matches into it... That’s not helpful ... at a time when we’re pitted against each other. Just relax, and let’s do our jobs... We have a responsibility to follow the law."

AND: Chuck Todd to Ron Johnson: "Stop! You don't get to make allegations that haven't been proven true."

WATCH: @chucktodd to @senronjohnson: "You made an allegation that there was widespread fraud, you failed to offer specific evidence of that widespread fraud, but you're demanding an investigation on ... allegations of widespread fraud."

"Essentially, you're the arsonist here." pic.twitter.com/PtZMSPoWtu

— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) January 3, 2021

I'm trying to understand why #FireChuckTodd is trending on Twitter. It was not immediately obvious.

I'll just give you a screen shot of what filled my screen when I clicked on #FireChuckTodd:

That first one made me think I'd missed a town hall with Trump and Chuck Todd. But no, the town hall is tonight. 

Here's an AP article that went up today: "NBC faces backlash after agreeing to Trump town hall."

NBC News faced a sharp backlash to its decision to host President Donald Trump for a town hall Thursday in direct competition with ABC’s event with Democrat Joe Biden, including a social media call to boycott the network.

Well! That's what happens when you cancel the debate and don't put the 2 men on the same stage (which is what Trump wanted).  The networks are in competition. Why should ABC own the airwaves by signing up boring Biden for a town hall? NBC got Trump and is putting the Trump show on at the same time. It's just commerce. And by the way, the networks are at a disadvantage these days, with all the streaming media. That's a reason for them to compete aggressively, and it's also a reason for us not to get bent out of shape by 2 shows on at the same time. We'll be able to stream either show on YouTube and elsewhere. I've had a TiVo for more than a quarter century, and that's how long it's been since it's mattered to me that 2 things are on at the same time.

Apparently, Rachel Maddow freaked out (but doesn't she need something every damned night to freak out about?):

During an interview with Biden’s running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris, Maddow asked whether she was “as mad as everybody else” about the Trump town hall. “I’m not touching that,” Harris replied. In a second reference to the town hall as her show ended, Maddow spoke as the words “Apparently They Are Not Kidding” were shown on the screen behind her.

I think it's great that the shows are on at the same time. It implicitly argues that there should have been a real debate — something I agree with. And it's kind of like another chance to vote, but the question isn't Who do you want to be President? It's Who would you rather watch on TV? And then we can compare the ratings. 

I'm sure Biden supporters are irked by the prospect of seeing that "vote" by Americans, because, of course, we expect Trump to win. He's much better TV, even for those who loathe him. In fact, I bet Rachel Maddow, in her own private space, clicks her remote to Trump. 

What's the point of watching Biden? Waiting to see if the questions are at all challenging? Putting up with tedium in the hope of seeing him remain arguably lucid or waiting for a truly embarrassing screw up? That's not a good show. You'll hear if there's a big screwup, and if you don't hear about it, you'll know he remained decently lucid. 

What more do you need? The excitement is with Trump. The election is about Trump. Biden is simply this weird person to whom we will turn our attention if he gets elected. When/if Trump is finally ousted, everyone will wake up and look at Biden and be free — at long last — to freak out about this odd old man whom we're stuck with as the next President. 

Rachel Maddow will be free to insist that he get the hell out of the office he has no business clinging to. Get out of the way and let Kamala take over — Kamala, who was never made the slightest connection with the American people, whose statements are all about as enlightening as "I’m not touching that."

By the way, Biden's town hall is scheduled to go 90 minutes, while Trump's is only 60 minutes. So if you want mainly to know how well Biden is holding up late at night, you can watch all of Trump, then switch over to the last 30 minutes of Biden. 

"The Cubans also have two medicines, one for diabetes, of which my mother died for, lung cancer, which my father died for, and I would like to have those drugs tested in the United States."

Said Karen Bass — a congresswoman on Biden's VP shortlist — on "Meet the Press" today when she was prompted by Chuck Todd to talk about what seems to have been her "celebrating" of the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba.

My bullshit detector went off at "diabetes, of which my mother died for, lung cancer, which my father died for." I don't doubt that her mother died of diabetes and her father died of lung cancer, but obviously they did not die for their disease. I don't think that's an error that arises out of ignorance of proper English. I think that's the kind of thing that gets out when you're thinking something different from what you are saying.

And what are the drugs that they have in Cuba that aren't even tested here? I'd like to know. Bass was oddly enthusiastic about Cuban medicine and purported to have expertise:

[F]or the last 20 years, I've actually been working on health care related issues in Cuba. You know, the Cubans train U.S. doctors. And I've been recruiting those doctors to work in the inner city because they come in tuition free....

"The completely dishonest editing by Chuck Todd..."

The completely dishonest editing by Chuck Todd on Meet the Press is exposed below.

Attorney General Bill Barr DID “make the case” that he was upholding the rule of law, but Todd uses deceptive editing to leave that part out.

WATCH ⬇️ https://t.co/ssOfKI4lNy

— Kayleigh McEnany (@PressSec) May 10, 2020

"And as a young black girl growing up in Mississippi, I learned that if I didn't speak up for myself, no one else would."

"So... my mission is to say out loud if I'm asked the question, 'yes, I would be willing to serve.' But I know that there's a process that will be played out, that Joe Biden is going to put together the best team possible. And I believe that he will pick the person he needs."

Said Stacey Abrams, on "Meet the Press" yesterday, when Chuck Todd asked her, "Do you believe you'd be the best running mate Joe Biden could find?"

Notice that she's answering a different question from the one that was asked. One could infer that the answer to the question asked is no. She's not the best running mate Biden could find. She contorted her way to another question — Are you willing to serve? — which is, apparently, the question she wanted or anticipated. To that, she says yes.

But couldn't she have said yes to the question asked? Before she got to the part of her answer I've quoted above, she said, "I was raised to tell the truth. And so when I'm asked a question, I answer it as directly and honestly as I can." Who knows if that is the truth? But assuming it is, I infer that her answer to the question asked is no.

I guess she wasn't raised to answer questions straightforwardly. Only "as directly and honestly as I can." But why can't she give a yes or no to the question Chuck Todd asked? The answer seems to be that she was raised to speak up for herself. And yet she did not take the opportunity to promote herself as the best person.

That's as far as I go for now understanding the rhetoric, ethics, and mind of Stacey Abrams.

Did Chuck Todd actively prevent Ted Cruz from detailing how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the 2016 election?

Transcript.

CHUCK TODD: What I don't understand is, why do you believe that, if an American is committing corruption, we should ask a foreign government to announce an investigation? Is that appropriate? Or do you go to American authorities?

SEN. TED CRUZ: So I believe any president, any Justice Department, has the authority to investigate corruption. In this case, there was serious evidence, on the face, of corruption. The reason Hunter Biden got that position is because his daddy was Vice President of the United States.

CHUCK TODD: So you believe Ukraine meddled?... Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?

SEN. TED CRUZ: I do. And I think there's considerable evidence of that.

CHUCK TODD [with intensity]: You do? You do?

Laughter can be heard in the studio. At this point, I really want to hear the details on how Ukraine supposedly interfered in the election. I've avoided reading up on this story, but now I really want to know because I'm so irritated by Chuck Todd trying to crush it immediately. Todd immediately changes the subject to reasons why Ted Cruz should have a personal animus against Trump:

CHUCK TODD: He launched a birtherism campaign against you. He went after your faith. He threatened to, quote, "spill the beans," about your wife about something...

I wish Cruz had said: Don't change the subject. I just said there is considerable evidence that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election and you very intensely and reflexively tried to block that subject. But Cruz just sarcastically said:

SEN. TED CRUZ: ... I appreciate you dragging up all that garbage. That's very kind of you, go ahead.

And that allowed Todd to avoid the subject he wanted to avoid. Todd's next question is:

I'm hearing that Nancy Pelosi will "cuddle with her caucus."

The topic is impeachment, on "Meet the Press" today, and NBC's Carol Lee must have meant to say, Nancy Pelosi will "huddle with her caucus" (which is what they've got in the transcript). But listen for yourself. It's cute and funny:



"And you're going to see in the coming week Speaker Pelosi try to figure out where the next step goes. Because, you know, she'll have a Monday night leadership meeting. She'll then cuddle with her caucus. This is the point at which she's under the most pressure than she's been about impeachment."

Don't trust that transcript. Look, the closed captions back up what you hear with your own ears:



Just a delightful "speako" (a typo of speech).

Don't freak out, Chuck...



I love the gender politics of it all. The female talking head, talking about the female Speaker of the House, wanted to get to that word from the quintessentially masculine activity — football — and she couldn't quite get there. She got 5 sixths of the way there. Got the "-uddle" but not the "huddle." And she ended up with the quintessentially feminine activity — cuddling.

But I don't know if we can do that anymore, cuddle. Ask Joe Biden. We're supposed to have woken up to the importance of personal space and no physical intrusions.

And yet, maybe that's what we need at long last. A big group hug.

Make America cuddlesome again. 

"It's a little jarring to hear an American president say, 'Our country is full,' given the history of the United States of America."

Said Chuck Todd, prodding Senator Mitt Romney to set himself apart from President Trump. But that's not what happened. Romney staunchly backed up Trump:

MITT ROMNEY: Well, we've seen a dramatic shift in the nature of immigration and illegal immigration just over the last few weeks. I mean, a number of years ago and up until just a few weeks ago, the great majority of people coming into our country were coming, looking for work. Single men and oftentimes just were turned at the border. Sent back home typically to Mexico. In the last few weeks, there's been a dramatic change and that is we're seeing unaccompanied young people, as well as families with lots of kids, pouring into the border. And they say the magic word, "I'm seeking asylum." And by virtue of our laws and processes here, we bring them into the country. We don't begin to have enough space in our facilities to maintain the kind of care that these people deserve. And so they're being just turned out into our country, 125,000 of them so far this year. It's overwhelming our system. We have got to be able to deal with this in a way. It's going to take some legislation to get it fixed.

CHUCK TODD: Well, and that's what I'm curious about. How would you be handling this?...

SEN. MITT ROMNEY: Well, I think what has to happen is an effort for Republicans and Democrats to come together, generally with presidential leadership. That's what's going to be essential to get us all together and say, “Okay, we need to fix --

CHUCK TODD: But you just said-- Senator I just heard your hesitation there. Does he have the credibility to do this?

SEN. MITT ROMNEY: Well, he does. He has the capacity to bring together the top Democrats, top Republicans and to sit down and say, "Okay, what can we do legislatively to make sure that we're not creating this extraordinary asylum magnet that's bringing people into the country?" And let me tell you, in my opinion, the Democrats are making a huge error by making border security an issue and saying it's a partisan issue. Look, this is an American issue. We can't have millions upon millions of people flooding into our country without a border that's secure, without ICE making sure the people that are here illegally are sent back. This is a winning issue I think for Republicans. But more importantly, it's a winning issue for Americans to say, "We have to have the sovereignty of our nation." I think the president has tapped into something which the people feel very deeply.

The Green New Deal — don't ask if it's practical, it's "aspirational," and people are looking for "dreamers."

That's the message Markos Moulitsas (founder of The Daily Kos) delievered — with an assist from WBUR news correspondent Kimberly Atkins — on “Meet the Press" today (transcript).

The moderator Chuck Todd got the conversation going by reading Trump's tweet:

"I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called carbon footprint to permanently eliminate all planes, cars, cows, oil, gas, and the military even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant." 

... and asking Kos if this is "a healthy debate" from the point of view of Democrats.

MARKOS MOULITSAS: Yeah, I think this is aspirational. This is actually popular. And if Trump thinks that this is going to hurt us politically, he's absolutely not really paying attention to the pulse of the country. This is aspirational. Like, like you said, it's not a bill. The details would have to be worked out. And this is so ambitious that these details would have to be worked out over decades. This is a broad, aggressive, bold agenda. And it'll take time to implement. But at least it shows people where the Democratic Party is going on the issue of climate change.

A little while later Atkins sounded like she had absorbed the same talking points:

KIMBERLY ATKINS: It's something that people understand and connect to.... And I think that is an issue that moves. And I think the aspirational aspect of this, I actually think it was pretty brilliant to not put in a bunch of details that people can immediately start taking down...

Chuck Todd wondered if Democrats were worried about making themselves "less electable." And:

CHUCK TODD: So, Markos, this, today, I think is a great framing. You had Amy Klobuchar and yesterday, you had Elizabeth Warren. And we -- Elizabeth Warren -- very, I would call it a clarity of purpose. There was no ambiguity. Amy Klobuchar's going to talk about bragging about getting bills signed by President Trump. That’s two different -- I say this, that’s two different -- she's saying, "I'm a get-things-done person. You can dream all you want." How is that going to play out?

MARKOS MOULITSAS: I think we're looking for dreamers at this point. I mean, Trump is going to accuse us of being socialist no matter what. It doesn't matter what the agenda is. He's going to use the same playbook. It didn't work in 2018. It's not going to work in 2020. And so, I think it's important to really think aspirationally, to give people a sense of where the candidate wants to be. "Yes, we can," is actually a very positive messages as opposed to maybe Klobuchar or Sherrod Brown saying, "No, we can't."

What did Tom Brokaw say that had him apologizing so awkwardly last night on Twitter?

Let's read the original text, the transcript for "Meet the Press." I saw the show at the time, and I wasn't paying that much attention to the words. I was noticing how old and out of it Tom Brokaw looked and sounded. He is speaking on a panel moderated by Chuck Todd, and the subject, at this point, is the government shutdown. Brokaw says:

I really didn't think that you could widen the gap between the Beltway and the rest of the country any more, until this happened. And now, it's completely gone. 

Notice the incoherence. What is "completely gone"? The "gap"? He means the gap is much greater now, so he's saying the opposite of what he means.

I mean, you know, I told you earlier that I talked to these westerners who began by saying, "Like Trump, like his policies." Then, they said, "Wish he’d stop, wish he would stop tweeting all the time." Last time I talked to them, "He's a clown. I can't stand him. But it's still the policies that we believe in." 

How often does 78-year-old Tom Brokaw go out west and reinterview characters who give him the clichés he needs —  "stop tweeting all the time," "clown"? He's in trouble for what he said about Hispanics, but "these westerners" is also a stereotype.

But anywhere I go, Republican, Democrat, or Independent, "Why can't they talk to each other and find common ground?" Every community in America finds a way to build a new school or to do something about downtown. But here, we can't do it, because we breathe the same air. And it's toxic, in its own way, about what needs to be done and how seriously people take their very minute positions on something.

That's just generic ranting about how people in Washington can't work together.

Next panelist Hugh Hewitt opines that dealing with the political situation in Venezuela is "going to bring us together," and Chuck Todd expresses skepticism. Then Yamiche Alcindor, the White House correspondent for the PBS NewsHour, talks about the new bipartisan committee that will be looking at border security, and they are going to "actually talk about facts and, maybe, try to get on the same page."

It's at that point that Chuck Todd — with the skeptical remark, "The problem is in Wyoming and in South Dakota, they think they need a wall, and in Texas and in Arizona, they don't" — throws it to Tom Brokaw, and Tom Brokaw says the things that will get him in trouble:

I'll link to this in case you want to talk about it, but I'm not in the mood to have my agenda set.

"Trump Lawyers’ Sudden Realization: They Don’t Know What Don McGahn Told Mueller’s Team" (NYT).

That expands on this, published by the NYT on Friday (and not yet blogged by me), "White House Counsel, Don McGahn, Has Cooperated Extensively in Mueller Inquiry."

And the new article dredges up something from last fall:

Last fall, Mr. McGahn believed that he was being set up to be blamed for any wrongdoing by the president in part because of an article published in The Times in September, which described a conversation that a reporter had overheard between Mr. Dowd and Mr. Cobb.

In the conversation — which occurred over lunch at a table on the sidewalk outside the Washington steakhouse B.L.T. — Mr. Cobb discussed the White House’s production of documents to Mr. Mueller’s office. Mr. Cobb talked about how Mr. McGahn was opposed to cooperation and had documents locked in his safe.

Does the Times ever consider that Dowd and Cobb intended to be overheard? They were speaking loudly, next to a NYT reporter.

I don't like being nudged to get excited about this — sudden realization, etc. etc. Is something specific and important happening here or is the NYT serving its own interests? Without looking more deeply into this, I'm inclined to assume McGahn did what he was asked to do and operated within his role as White House Counsel of protecting the institution of the presidency. That's different from Trump's own lawyers, who focus on this particular problem. And the longterm interest of the presidency is in preserving confidentiality and executive privilege. Trump with his lawyers wanted to cooperate with Mueller (or at least appear to be doing so unless and until Mueller goes too far). What is the sudden crisis?

And, yes, I know that Trump's lawyer Giuliani said "Truth isn’t truth." It's a fantastic quote for Trump haters to use to the hilt, but I'm not getting excited about it. In context:

“It’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth,” Mr. Giuliani said of any statements by the president in such an interview.

“Truth is truth,” the show’s host, Chuck Todd, answered.

“No, it isn’t truth,” Mr. Giuliani replied. “Truth isn’t truth.”

Giuliani was obviously repeating his point that it's "somebody's version of the truth" and not the truth. He's not saying truth isn't truth or there is no truth. He's saying what Chuck Todd called "truth" isn't truth.

ADDED: At Facebook, my son John links to "Giuliani walks back 'truth isn't truth' comment" (Politico) and I say:

Politico spins by saying he's walking it back. If you understood the line they way I did (see above), it's not a walk-back but a confirmation. What Giuliani said was, "My statement was not meant as a pontification on moral theology but one referring to the situation where two people make precisely contradictory statements, the classic 'he said,she said' puzzle. Sometimes further inquiry can reveal the truth other times it doesn’t." I understood it that way all along. No walk back. Just more spin from the anti-Trump press.

Credit to Politico for choosing a great photo of Giuliani (in support of its spin).

Mark Sanford was living a lie, in the chapter of his life when he imploded, so he has a unique vantage point on Trump and his lies.

I wasn't going to turn on the Sunday shows today, but I did. You can see in the previous post that I watched "State of the Union." I blogged the discussion of the Bob Corker observation that "It's becoming a cultish thing, isn't it? It's not a good place for any party to end up with a cult-like situation as it relates to a president that happens to be purportedly of the same party."

I also watched "Meet the Press," and I'd scribbled a note for what I wanted to blog from the transcript, and I'm surprised to see that this too is something that began with that Corker quote. The host, Chuck Todd, was talking to Congressman (and former Governor) Mark Sanford, who tried to get the GOP nomination for South Carolina Senatorut his congressional district in South Carolina but lost out to someone who, unlike him, supported Trump.

Todd asked Sanford if he'd use the word "cult" to describe what has happened to the GOP, and Sanford said:

I wouldn't go so far as cult, but I would just say that, from an electoral sense, people are running for cover because they don't want to be on the losing side of a presidential tweet.... And from a popular standpoint, it's almost a Faustian bargain. I'll pander to you if you pander to me.... And that exchange is very dangerous really, with regard to, again, what the Founding Fathers set up, which is a system designed to garner debate and dissent. 

Garner! I exclaimed the word out loud.

The idea that you can't speak out and say, "I disagree with you here but I agree with you on 90% of the stuff"... is, again, a twilight world that I've never seen.

Huh? You are about to enter another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight World!

Todd pushed Sanford to talk about the way "that literally the president can just say whatever he wants, fact free, mischaracterized." And Sanford said:

That's a larger commentary on society and where we are. But because we've gone from George Washington, "I can't tell a lie by cutting down the apple tree"...

Apple tree?!!

... to they've become so replete that nobody even questions him anymore. And that's, again, a dangerous spot to be in a reason-based republic. I have a unique vantage point on this front.

Yeah! He's famously a liar!

We all know the story of 2009 and my implosion.

Implosion.

A lie was told on my half -- behalf, which means I own it. 

We paused after he said "half" and laughed a lot. Then when we got to "behalf," we were puzzled. What? Did someone else lie for him and it's big of him to take responsibility?

More to the point, I was living a lie in that chapter of life.

Yeah, get to the point. You were a liar. Living a lie. Chapter of life. Implosion. A lie was told on my half. Ludicrous! We were laughing here at Meadhouse.

But there were incredible consequences..... Financially, politically, socially, I lost my -- I can go down a long list. A long list. And so maybe the reason I'm so outspoken on this now is there is no seeming consequence to the president and lies. 

He's envious! How does Trump get away with all his lies? (It's like the sexual harassment conundrum: Why did Al Franken need to resign, why did all those Democrats crash and burn, and Trump gets to be President?)

And if we accept that as a society, it is going to have incredibly harmful consequences in the way that we operate going forward, based on the construct of the Founding Fathers.

Consequences, consequences. If the liar doesn't get consequences, there will be consequences for all of us, going forward. Ask the Founding Fathers.

Chuck Todd attempts some joshing about religion with Congressman Conaway, who seems to take religion quite a bit more seriously.

On "Meet the Press" this morning, Chuck Todd introduced Mike Conaway (who is in charge of the Russia "collusion" investigation in the House of Representatives) and Conway immediately remarked that this was his "first Sunday morning show ever" and he "should be in church and Sunday school but I'm here with you instead."

Todd's response was, "I, I, I appreciate that and my apologies to your pastor," which seemed reasonably appropriate, but then Todd brought the subject of religion up again, this time on his own, as he was closing the interview, and this time it felt perhaps less appropriate:

CHUCK TODD: Mike Conaway, I have to leave it there. Republican from Texas. Thanks for coming on.

REP. MICHAEL CONAWAY: My pleasure.

CHUCK TODD: Missing church this morning. I hope your, I hope your pastor forgives you. I appreciate you coming on--

REP. MICHAEL CONAWAY: I don't need my pastor's forgiveness. I need Jesus Christ's forgiveness.

My first reaction was, wow, Conaway went heavy, when Todd was keeping it light. That is, I thought "I hope your pastor forgives you" was almost silly — like: Of course, "Meet the Press" is more important than showing up for church and Sunday school in any given week. And all Conaway heard was doctrinal incorrectness — That pastor doesn't forgive; forgiveness comes from Jesus Christ. This isn't something casually social between me and the man who happens to be my pastor, but the most important thing in my life, and maybe you don't hear that much on a network news show, but I'm going to say the words in utter seriousness: I need Jesus Christ's forgiveness.

My second reaction was that Todd had contempt for this man. In fact — I encourage you to read the whole transcript — Todd had batted him around throughout the interview, and that last line about religion was a final get outta here. And Conaway heard the contempt and knew how to stand his ground and speak in the language that is understood by the People he represents back in Texas and the Man who represents him in Heaven.

I'm interested in hearing your interpretation. Here's video for more perspective:

Must we talk about Hillary? Steve Wynn is worse. He's more like Harvey Weinstein.

The question of Hillary Clinton and sexual harassment came up on "Meet the Press" this morning. The moderator Chuck Todd began with a question based on the Ruth Marcus column I linked to — here — earlier this morning.

CHUCK TODD: All right. There was the reckoning, I guess is probably the best way to describe it, the reckoning. Right? We have a reckoning at the U.S.A. Gymnastics. Reckoning with the U.S. Olympic committee, that in itself. But then there's been more reckoning with Hillary Clinton, a little bit the story in the Times that in 2008 her campaign that somebody was accused of sexual harassment. Campaign manager wanted to fire this person. Hillary Clinton stepped in and said no. Ruth Marcus today just eviscerates Hillary Clinton on this and, Heather, says, "Why can't she admit that that was a mistake?

How unfortunate for Hillary to have her story break at the same time as the truly nightmarish gymnastics story! And yet I feel no pity for her. In my view, her behavior protecting Bill Clinton and suppressing his accusers set the sexual harassment cause back 20 years.

Todd's question goes to Heather McGhee, president of the liberal group Demos. Look how quickly she changes the subject:

HEATHER MCGHEE: I think that you're right. I think that Ruth Marcus is right that she should have just admitted that it was a mistake. Hillary Clinton has a very difficult history with men in power abusing their positions in terms of sexual abuse and harassment. I think that our desire to bring Hillary Clinton continually into the story is understandable. I think the bigger story right now is obviously what's going on in the U.S. Olympic committee. I think the Steve Wynn story is a huge one in terms of finance share of the RNC. And some of those stories are terrifying....

So, Hillary Clinton's "history" is "difficult," and we just have a problem — albeit an "understandable" one — of "continually" dragging Hillary Clinton into the story! News just broke about the sexual harasser she kept on her campaign. We're not obsessively going back to her old misdeeds.

But Todd lets McGhee shift to the other new story, Steve Wynn. He even muses: "Steve Wynn feels like the closest thing we've gotten to Harvey Weinstein. Like almost as bad as Harvey." McGhee is all: "Worse in some ways." And Todd prattles: "It is. Harvey I thought is in a class by himself I think. But Steve Wynn was pretty close."

Like it's a contest of who's more loathsome. But Nasser, the Olympics doctor alluded to earlier, is obviously the most loathsome of all. He's forgotten at this point however because what McGhee and Todd are really talking about is whether "we've" finally gotten a Republican who's as bad as the Democrat Weinstein.

Feel the truth: "Read the book. See if you don't feel like you are with me on that couch in the White House. And see if you don't feel alarmed..."

So said Michael Wolff on "Meet the Press" today, after Chuck Todd confronted him about "a lot of little errors" — "One page had three in one. Some of them may be copy edits, small, factual errors. But it adds up. Why shouldn't a reader be concerned about some of these mistakes?"

Wolff's answer was just "I think a reader should read the book. The book speaks for itself" and that quote I put in the post title, which I thought was a very weird answer. Wolff wouldn't defend the book and the method and care he used. He just insisted that people read the book. Questions about whether the book is true should be determined by readers simply feeling whether it's true.

That reminded me of the way Stephen Colbert presented himself years ago on the first episode of "The Colbert Report": "Now I know some of you may not trust your gut...yet. But with my help you will. The 'truthiness' is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news... at you."

It felt like a complete concession that the book was fiction. Because that is how fiction works. It isn't reporting, but a different way of getting to the truth. If it feels true, it is true, for the purposes of the mental life of the reader. What's out there in the real world is... oh, what is it? Is that "real world" you speak of anything at all? I'm here in my own head, where whatever is felt is.

Here's Mark Leibovich, chief national correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, also in the above-linked "Meet the Press" transcript:

Where I am is first of all, is it possible to go any higher than number one on Amazon if you're going to write a book? I mean, this is just, it's incredible. 

No, it's not incredible. People love a hot pile of salaciousness. They love it even more than whatever hot pile they're cooking up in the pressure cooker they got for Christmas (judging from the Amazon best-seller list, which has Instant Pot recipe books at ##3 & 4).

Back to Leibovich:

I do think... there are very significant journalistic critiques that you can throw at this book. But I also think the "it rings true" truth about this is absolutely valid. 

Ah ha ha ha ha. He's buying the feel-the-truth-at-you/fiction-is-truth theory that sounded like bullshit when Wolff said it.

And part of it is what Michael Wolff has said and will say again I'm sure is that this is exactly how people around him, or many people around him at the White House, certainly Republicans on the Hill speak privately. Now, if you were to ask, probably I would say 80% of elected Republicans on the Hill, "What do you think of the president's fitness for office?" The first thing you will hear, I guarantee you, is, "Can we go off the record?"

So he's using the fiction method. Just making up something. Even putting a number on it. 80%! He hasn't asked this question of all the congressional Republicans. He just feels that if he did 80% of them would say let's go off the record. And he's feeling that at you.

ADDED: In the comments, some are puzzling over the phrase "See if you don't feel like you are with me on that couch in the White House" (in the quote in the post title). But it relates to something earlier in the transcript. Chuck Todd asks Wolff how he managed to become — as he claims — "a fly on the wall in the West Wing." Wolff answers:

You know, I literally kind of knocked on the door and said, “Can I come in?” and they said “Okay.” And I came in. I sat on the couch and that’s the point of view that I’ve written this book from. I mean, in the real intention of this book, is to have readers sit with me on the couch and watch what’s going on in the West Wing. I went into this with absolutely no agenda whatsoever. I have no particular politics when it comes to Donald Trump. This is really all about human nature.

Notice how much Wolff sounds like a novelist. Nothing wrong with being a novelist. But there is something wrong with reading a novel and not realizing it's a novel. Remember, recently, the internet went wild talking about the New Yorker short story "Cat Person," and it seemed rather obvious that a lot of people were just talking about it as if it were a blow-by-blow account of a real relationship? Come on, people! That's incompetent reading. Fiction is different.

AND: "Fire and Fury" takes on the burden of being "fake news." Then mainstream news media can report on the book, pass the material along, and claim not to be doing "fake news." Remember the Allcott/Gentzkow definition of fake news I've been talking about (beginning here). The definition (by 2 economists and adopted by at least some political scientists) excludes "rumors that do not originate from a particular news article." I don't accept the definition myself, but I'm seeing the gears turning in the minds of the mainstream media people who want to say things but still worry about their journalistic professionalism.