Ron Fournier's most recent column about the immigration debate and Mo Brooks' 'War on Whites' comment is an elegant illustration of what's wrong with The Village.
Here it is, right out of the gate:
First, two facts for the record: I am white (not that it should matter), and I am not a Democrat (nor am I a Republican). Like most Americans, I am disgusted with both major parties for reasons that the immigration debate—and Brooks's baffling remarks—underscore.
I cannot possibly rant in a manner worthy of Driftglass, but I did feel it necessary to point out some basic facts to Mr. Fournier, and so I did. On Twitter.
That sparked a three-tweet defense of his position, with the last tweet being a casual dismissal of anything I said as choosing not to 'hear it.'
That right there is the problem. Not 'both sides.' The problem here is that once a Villager has made up their mind that it's 'both sides,' no one else can introduce a fact-based point of view to counter it.
Both sides did not shut down the government.
Both sides did not sit on every initiative to create jobs in this country.
Both sides did not drive the country to the brink of debt default.
Both sides did not kill immigration reform.
Both sides did not block common sense gun safety laws.
Both sides did not deny climate change science.
Both sides did not kill the DREAM Act.
Both sides did not do that. One side did that. Just. one. side. The one that doesn't put a (D) beside their name. One side.
We all know which side did that. Why doesn't Fournier? Is the 'both sides' thing a choice or is it a mandate for all Village pundits?
Then there is this observation by Mr. Both Sides, referring to his Sunday show appearance last week on Fox News Sunday:
After some back and forth, I added, "The president had a chance to have immigration reform in 2010 [and 2009]. His party passed on it. They wanted the issue."
I guess he took his talking points from Rep. Marino, but The Google is an amazing thing.
For example, Google tells us that Rep. Gutierrez introduced Comprehensive Immigration Reform in the 111th Congress on December 15, 2009.
That was, by the way, in the middle of the House debate over the Affordable Care Act, passage of the stimulus bill, Dodd-Frank debates, and more. In December, 2010 the House passed the DREAM Act and sent it to the Senate, where it was filibustered into sure death, despite a few Republicans joining Democrats. But still, it was 'both sides,' right?
Tell me more about how Democrats shied away from the immigration debate again, please? I realize they were a little bit busy that year, but somehow they managed to get something done.
And then Republicans assumed control of the House. And lo, for four years it has been nothing but obstruction. Obstruct everything, do absolutely nothing.
But for Fournier, it's both sides, and because it's both sides, he thinks this is a good idea, as does his pal Chuck Todd:
Why is it so difficult to explain to the people who are so deeply dissatisfied with government that it's NOT both sides, Ron? Why not actually put some facts in front of them instead of playing the "blow up the government" card?
This is the problem, right here. Instead of pretending you're Amazon or Apple, why not tell people the truth about what those in power are NOT doing?
The days of 'both sides' are long over. Start saying so.