But on his newly released Netflix special, Davidson is apparently regretting the whole incident for a different reason entirely.
“I didn’t think I did anything wrong,” Davidson adds. “It was like words that were twisted so that a guy could be famous.”
Davidson also pushes back on the notion that his ridicule helped Crenshaw win his congressional seat. “That guy is a Republican with an eyepatch in Texas, so it was a lock before he even started,” he jokes. “In Texas, I’m pretty sure they only have pictures, that’s how they vote.”
But while Davidson evidently felt “forced” to apologize to Crenshaw’s face, he is now using his stand-up special to more or less rescind that apology.
The “only thing” that Davidson says he is now willing to apologize for is making Crenshaw “famous and a household name for no reason.”
Household name or no, Crenshaw has proven himself to be the bigger person. About a month after the two initially met, Crenshaw called to check on Davidson's well-being when there were concerns he was suicidal.
I honestly feel bad for Davidson, given he seems incapable of experiencing much joy in his life.
- How do you know your brain is suffering from "political rot?" When you're unable to enjoy much of anything due to partisan politics consuming your life.
Country mega star Garth Brooks was about to take the stage in Detroit recently. On Instagram, Brooks posted a picture of himself donning a Barry Sanders #20 jersey. Makes perfect sense, right? After all, Barry Sanders spent his entire NFL Hall of Fame career in Detroit. Also, Garth likely feels a special connection to Barry Sanders given both are Oklahoma St. alums.
So would you believe some felt this jersey was Brooks endorsing Bernie Sanders for President in '20?!?!?!
Oy Vey.
- Between the coronavirus, the stock market tanking and Dems on the verge of making a septuagenarian commie their presidential nominee, a crucial vote in the U.S. Senate hasn't seen a lotta light (Hey, Democracy dies in darkness, right?).
This past week, the U.S. Senate took up the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation which would require physicians to provide medical care to babies who survived an attempted abortion. Because this is the Senate, 60 votes are required to allow such legislation to even have an up-or-down vote for passage. Unfortunately, 41 Democrat Senators was all that was required to successfully filibuster this legislation.
I imagine there might be more outrage if the media was actually intellectually honest enough to report the facts on this bill. National Review's Alexandra DeSanctis collected some examples of some media deception.
CNN: “Two abortion restriction bills that forced tough votes for vulnerable senators fail in the Senate.” Politico: “Anti-abortion bills fail to advance in Senate vote.” CBS News: “Two bills banning most late-term abortions blocked by Senate Democrats.” Newsweek: “Mitch McConnell faces backlash over bid to force Senate votes on anti-abortion laws.”
The content of most of these articles, and similar reports at other outlets, was even more inaccurate than the headlines.
The New York Times published an article that, as Ramesh Ponnuru has observed, got key facts wrong. It also framed the entire debate in Democratic Party talking points while offering only inaccurate strawman versions of the argument in favor of the born-alive bill. The Times’ congressional editor shared this article in a tweet claiming that the Senate bills would “curb women’s rights to late-term abortions.”
Yes, Democracy dies in darkness. But it can also be buried alive under layers of bullshit.
----------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment