Read time: 3 minutes

David Urban Spews 'Both Siderism' And Jake Tapper Backs Him Up

The State of the Union host was more concerned with moving to the next segment than allowing lies to be corrected, or blame to be correctly assigned for the Trump Shutdown.

On Sunday's State of the Union show, "Both Siderism" was alive and well. Host Jake Tapper started off the above segment playing Speaker Nancy Pelosi being, well, CORRECT and forthright, then the Orange Menace being, well, HIMSELF, which is a bald-faced liar. The topic was the border wall.

Tapper welcomed his panel, and asked Congressperson Karen Bass (new Chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus!) her thoughts on a way out of the different worlds these two figures are living in. She laid it on the line:

BASS: Well, I think he needs to come back and do what he originally did. We have to look at why he changed his mind to begin with. He was responding to talk radio. He was responding to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. So, as opposed to responding to his advisers, to people in his administration. Everybody had agreed. The House had agreed. The Senate had agreed, under Republican rule. And so, there had never been a reason to shut the government down.

Tapper agreed, and reminded everyone that everyone, including Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell, thought there was a clean CR about to be signed by Mango Mussolini until Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh threw hissy fits. Then David Urban chimed in with his equivocating and smarmy excuses and, of course, flat-out lies. Saying he thought the "president" just changed his mind, and the real problem is that Dems aren't sending their higher-ups to negotiate. He whined that they weren't sending "principals" and weren't willing to negotiate. UM NO NOW WE ARE NOT BECAUSE PLEASE RETURN TO STEP ONE WHERE WE HAD SEVERAL TIMES OFFERED FUNDING IN EXCHANGE FOR PROTECTION FOR UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS OH MY GOD

*cough*

Sorry.

That's when Tapper brings up the morality of having a wall at all, per Speaker Pelosi's arguments. The lengths to which Urban STILL goes to make it seem like Dems are even partially responsible, here, would be impressive if they weren't so infuriating. Exacerbating the issue was Jake Tapper's cutting of Doyle's response, which was a spot-on fact-check. Way to enable, Jake, just to get to the next topic. GRRRRRR.


↓ Story continues below ↓

TAPPER: Patti, Congresswoman, rather, Speaker Pelosi has said this is a moral issue. They're not going to give money for the border wall because it's immoral.

DOYLE: Well, look, experts all across the country have said that a wall is not effective. You know, there are many other things that we can do to prevent illegal border crossings, whether it's technology, whether it's more border patrol agents. There are a lot of things we can do. However, there is a crisis at the border, and it's a humanitarian crisis, basically. We have families, mothers, children, living in tents, living in cages, and we're not really doing anything to address that issue. So, I think there is a bigger conversation to be had about immigration. The way to do it is to have both parties at the table to talk about all of the different issues, whether it's illegal border crossing, whether it's asylum-seekers, whether it's what to do with the almost 11 million people who are here already, undocumented. Open the government and then let's have that conversation.

URBAN: There was a proposal for that, remember. There was a proposal where this president offered amnesty, right? Amnesty, unheard of. Got bashed by his party and it was announced dead on arrival by
Democrats in the Congress --

DOYLE: No, no, no! They offered $25 billion for that wall for amnesty and for DACA, and he turned it down!

TAPPER: Instead of re-litigating the immigration reform, I want to talk about where we are right now...

I have an idea, Jake Tapper! Instead of reinforcing Urban's gross distortion of facts, how about backing up the truth of what Patti Solis Doyle was saying and supporting her fact-checking Urban to his face? It's possible to segue into the next conversation topic without completely ignoring the lies of one of your guests. Here's an example.

"Sadie's right, David. Moving on, I want to talk about where we are right now..."

See? So simple! And fewer syllables, even, so points for brevity! Try it next time, okay? Please?

More C&L Coverage

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.