Somebody tell me why Rep. Brian Higgins (D, New York-26) is 9/11 Truthering?

Seriously, haven’t we all learned better by now?

Partial transcript (also via the WFB):

HOST: Mary[*] is part of a group out there that is skeptical of the investigation that was done of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

BRIAN HIGGINS: The 9/11 commission?

HOST:  Yes the 9/11 commission skeptical of their investigation.

BRIAN HIGGINS: I have a responsibility to review all relevant information relative to that situation most certainly. Any information that is compelling that change the dynamic of the debate relative to cause and effect, I would certainly review.

You’d think that Rep. Higgins would simply say something like You are smoking crack, Mary-the-CSPAN-caller, and since you are from Florida I can easily get away with telling you to go look at chemtrails or something, so I shall.   At first I just assumed that he was smiling, nodding, and releasing blather**, but Andrew Johnson over at NRO noticed something that I missed: Higgins actually shushed the CSPAN moderator to let the crazypants troofer woman talk.  And I literally mean ‘shushed,’ which is just a little rude to somebody, nu?

Then again, this guy voted for Obamacare, so maybe he’s just an idiot in other ways, too.  That’s always a possibility.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*”CSPAN caller,” which is a designation that makes political operatives (present company not excepted) across the spectrum smirk in fully-deserved derision.

**Don’t grin too much; that’s what our legislators do when somebody comes up to them and earnestly explains to the legislator’s left eyebrow why Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, or my Aunt Katherine are ineligible to be, or become, President of the United States. Our politicians typically don’t shush media people while engaging in such media-blather-release exercises, though.

3 thoughts on “Somebody tell me why Rep. Brian Higgins (D, New York-26) is 9/11 Truthering?”

  1. Because deliberately giving offense to a group of voters who *might* support you in the general, no matter how nutty or distasteful, is really only something Establishment Republicans do, and then only to Tea Partiers and Red State readers (or former readers), eh?

  2. The calm and rational part of my brain tells me that the Congressman was only making conciliatory noises to humor a nut case.
    The realistic and cynical part of my brain tells me that this schmuck wouldn’t have the slightest hesitation in calling a Republican who pandered to conspiracy nuts an insane extremist who should be removed from office. So what the heck, we’re entirely justified in nailing his ears to the wall for this.

  3. I don’t know that he’s necessarily engaging in Trutherism. If he calls her an idiot then he’s going to have to deal with an argumentative caller. On the other hand, by blandly stating he’d review all *relevant* information, he gets her to shut up. I don’t know if this was what he was doing, but it’s certainly a tactic I would consider. Unspoken would be, “but of course 9-11 truthers are morons.”

    On the gripping hand, if someone DID actually come up with credible evidence that 9-11 WAS an inside job, you WOULD want that investigated!

Comments are closed.