Pence: “Just So Disappointed” by Lewis’ Decision to Skip Inauguration
VPEOTUS Mike Pence had his feelings hurt by Atlanta Congressman John Lewis.
Lewis, who has, uh, caused a bit of a stir the past few days, confirmed he will be skipping PEOTUS Trump’s inauguration. Lewis said he considers Trump an “illegitimate” due to concerns of Russian meddling in the election.
Pence told Fox News today:
“I served with John Lewis and I disagree with him on many issues. But I respect the role he’s played in the civil rights movement and the voting rights movement. That’s why I was just so disappointed that he would make the statement that he made suggesting that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president.”
File this one under the Whaaaambulance Watch…
If Pence is genuinely concerned with how the opposition party views and engages with the incoming administration, then Pence should counsel the PEOTUS to not immediately attack congressmen with objectively incorrect, made up statements once they express opinions about how Trump was elected.
You can view Pence’s statement below the fold.
VP-elect @mike_pence says he was “disappointed” in Congressman John Lewis for saying #DonaldTrump is not a legitimate president. pic.twitter.com/PmSrGXJkzd
— Fox News (@FoxNews) January 16, 2017
About Author
edatlanta
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oh my. Pence failed to refer to Lewis as a “civil rights icon.”
so, if you’re a Repub., isn’t this the exact statement that one would be expected to be made abt this issue?
it took pence what- 48+ hours?- to figure out this language?
why is the VP-elect so much more measured than the pres-elect?
Because VPEOTUS thinks about things and has a strategy whereas PEOTUS a thin-skinned buffoon.
Yes. I don’t agree with Pence’ views and legislative record, but at least he can talk calmly and make coherent sentences.
To be fair, Lewis did more than just “express an opinion about how Trump was elected”. He said an objectively stupid comment calling Trump an “illegitimate president”. Why does everybody have to name-check the civil rights movement everytime someone disagrees with Lewis? It has nothing to do with any of this.
Lest we forget that he was physically assaulted and imprisoned multiple times by various governments in the United States for having the temerity to seek full democratic participation for Americans who had a different level of melanin than others…
And the context of his statements are very clearly rooted in him having grave, legitimate qualms about how PEOTUS Trump was elected. It’s interesting now to see that a prominent Democrat has voiced concerns about that he shouldn’t speak up on it or, well, something. Here’s his quotes:
TODD: You do not consider him a legitimate president. Why is that?
LEWIS: I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians and others that helped him get elected. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open, democratic process.
and yet no one speaks out against legal Undocumented, Unaccountable, Untraceable SuperPAC ‘Dark Money’ ads, think tanks and focus groups delivering propaganda and lies for votes.
i would support enhanced administrative and litigation options for counteracting committee-sponsored political advertising which shows gross reckless disregard for the truth.
Oh, so Lewis is concerned with fairness and the democratic process. Where was he when the DNC was rigging the nomination process against Sanders?
Trump is an ass but he is a legitimate president.
Nice jon muddying the waters.
there’s been so many words tossed around casually this election, with vague meaning and no analysis, that have gotten lots up in arms. like “qualified”, “legitimate”, and “rigged”.
those all seem more like matters of opinion imo. unless there’s some sort of actual legal standard being applied as necessary.
“Where was he when the DNC was rigging the nomination process against Sanders?”
Nowhere, because that wasn’t a thing that happened? Sanders spent TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to lose by 3.7 million popular votes and over 350 pledged delegates. He did best in caucuses, which were controlled and administered by the party organization,, and worst in primaries, which are administered independently by the states in question. There was literally no “DNC Rigging” except in the minds of whiny Sanders supporters, his whiny campaign, and the Russian propogandists who played both of them.
Oh sure, it wasn’t rigged. Just like this “free market” isn’t rigged.