Mike Johnson’s meteoric elevation from an under-the-radar congressman from Louisiana to second-in-line to the U.S. presidency sent journalists, Democrats and Republicans alike to uncover information about the personal and professional history of the most right-wing and least experienced House Speaker in history, who took the top job on Wednesday.
On the day Johnson was voted in, several major right-wing social media accounts on X, formerly known as Twitter, began circulating clips of an interview Johnson gave to PBS in 2020, in which he told journalist Walter Isaacson that the police killing of George Floyd was “an act of murder” and called for “systemic change.” Notably, Johnson said in the interview that he had learned about racism in America through the experience of raising a Black son, Michael.
Wait, what? This isn’t something to be criticized for. Having a black adopted son and learning the realities of racism in America and learning from it is a good thing. He should be criticized for all the other shit, but not this.
They aren’t complaining that he had a black son, but that he’s an “undercover Democrat” because he’s stated that he learned about racism from the kid, saying things like, “Michael being a Black American, and Jack being white Caucasian. They have different challenges,” he said. “My son Jack has an easier path. He just does.”
Further, there was a question as to if the kid was real since there are no photos. That led to the new clarification:
Speculation about whether Michael was a real person prompted Johnson’s office to clarify. “When Speaker Johnson first ran for Congress in 2016, he and his wife, Kelly, spoke to their son Michael—who they took in as newlyweds when Michael was 14 years old,” said Corinne Day, Johnson’s communications director, in a statement first reported by Newsweek. “At the time of the Speaker’s election to Congress, Michael was an adult with a family of his own. He asked not to be involved in their new public life.” Day added that Johnson “maintains a close relationship with Michael to this day.”
So if we are to believe him, there are no photos because that is the way the now-adult kid wants it.
I’m not going to believe a dang thing any Conservative says without concrete evidence and peer review.
If the black kid adoption story is real, there will be photos, and someone will be able to produce them. If there are no photos, it’s all a lie.
You should apply that practice to all politicians. They never tell the truth if a lie will serve.
So if we are to believe him, there are no photos because that is the way the now-adult kid wants it.
Let’s start a new conspiracy theory that he doesn’t actually have a Black son. It’ll go viral in a day. Space lasers!
deleted by creator
I’m not saying you’re wrong. But the right has a habit of only showing empathy only when it directly affects them.
Black people deserve protection from the law, yes. But let’s not pretend that he’d change his tune about LGBT people in a split second if his son turned out to be gay or trans.
Black people don’t deserve protection from the law. Black people deserve equal treatment under the law.
It’s not at all something to criticize, it’s noble to adopt a child. It’s his party base that will pillory him.
He hasn’t legally adopted this “son” and he’s not shown in any family photos.
And he had a history of making up bullshit
deleted by creator
I think he’s being criticized because, as per the article ‘there are no pictures of his “adopted" child in public family photos.’
So either he lied altogether or he didn’t want to be seen publicly with him. Since he spoke about it publicly, that might not be the actual reason
Let’s see the long-form
birth certificatefamily photos first!
Having a black adopted son and learning the realities of racism in America and learning from it is a good thing
Has he learned from it, though? I don’t know enough to know about if he has or not.
Also, what were the motives in raising that kid? A lot of evangelical christians view adoption as a way to proselytize and they tend to treat those kids like shit- and usually white washing the kid. (see, for example, most adoption campaigns run by christian organizations… especially those that specialize in placing foreign kids- or indigenous kids.)
I can’t speak to their motives, either, but the nobility of an act depends entirely on the motives behind the act. if somebody, for example, offs putin only to gain power themselves and continue on… that is quite different than offing putin to end the war in ukraine, yes?
I find it really odd they were able to get an adopted child immediately after getting married. I have some friends who’ve been trying to adopt unsuccessfully for years and they’re fairly straight-edge professionals.
from NYT
In his public remarks over the years, Mr. Johnson describes Michael as his son and did not correct an interviewer who described Michael as “adopted.” Ms. Day said in an interview that the Johnsons did not formally adopt Michael because of the “lengthy adoption process.” Ms. Day declined to say whether Michael was using “Johnson” as his surname.
So, I’m not sure who Day is, that’s the only time they mention her. but apparently Ms Day is saying that, it wasn’t a “real” adoption. whatever that means. non legal, but the kid lived with them? they abducted him? he really is his son, but didn’t want to admit that?
So we have another Gaetz on our hand with this mystery boy who previously lived with him but is of no relation or guardianship?
Are they trying to adopt a teenager?
From another reply, it seems they never actually filled out any paperwork to adopt the guy so apparently he just lived with them for a little bit if he actually exists at all.
Adopted in this sense of the word that I had a friend stay by me for a few days when he was in town. Gotcha
Not how it should work necessarily, but if they’re trying to adopt a white baby it’s a very different wait time compared to a black 14 year old.
The right wing doesn’t like that he has a black son.
That’s why McCain lost to Bush Jr.
You can thank Karl Rove for that.
McCain’s adopted daughter is from Bangladesh, by the way.
deleted by creator
Wikipedia says he has four kids. His campaign website also says ‘father of four’. Looking at pictures of his family… on his campaign website…
I’ll just… leave it at that.
deleted by creator
I mean, That’s from his campaign website. That’s his family.
I’m not sure which is more psychotic. making up having a black son. Or… cutting said black son out of your family (well, public-political-grift) photos.
deleted by creator
The story is that the kid is now 38. According to his campaign prior to running they talked and the kid requested to not be involved in the new public life.
If true that’s actually pretty big.
Okay.
but.
There’s zero photos online at all. No mention on the campaign, either. his campaign “about” section says “Father of four”. that decision is said to have happened after his~~ speakership election~~ election to congress. There is a complete vacuum of photos online when you do an image search. plenty of family photos with four kids, but none with a fifth, older, black kid.if this son exists, then he was scrubbed out of existence… which is weird. I’m actually not sure which is worse. (I mean, at least acknowledge him somehow, right?)
(edit, fixed timing. Either way, he would have had a black son during at least one campaign,)
If I was a republican with an African American son, I would world tour with him. At least get SOME photos of me with him.
At least seen proud with him.
But there is nothing.
Day told Newsweek that the Johnson family did not formally adopt Michael because of the “lengthy … process,” and declined to say whether Michael used the same surname as the family.
So… he wasn’t their son, he was their project.
Johnson said that he had asked his son about the idea of reparations for slavery, and that his son said he opposed it.
Convenient. That a 14 year old is making the decisions for an entire demographic.
Sounds like at best, he was supposed to be a stand for the African American voters for Mike Johnson. He realized his role early on and broke away from them, or the Johnsons decided to whitewash their history in order to secure the white supremacy vote.
Either way, it sounds like an unloving household if you cannot even get 1 picture with him.
It’s entirely possible for all of that to be accurate and still be a loving household. Families are weird, and love is love. There are plenty of real, tangible, known reasons to oppose Mike Johnson politically and morally, and we don’t need to be casting aspersions on adoptive parents without any evidence.
I definitely don’t know the whole story. I’d love to know the truth provided it didn’t invade on the privacy of someone that didn’t ask for any of this. Which would be impossible to know without invading the privacy of someone. I know time and time again I’ve been fooled when trying to give conservatives even the slightest benefit of the doubt.
Which would be impossible to know without invading the privacy of someone.
not that hard, really. I mean, yeah. I guess it could be an invasion… but, like a quick wave to the cameras make sense, because people are absolutely going to go nuts over it. I absolutely feel for the supposed son who absolutely deserves his privacy.
The only reason i could see the guy absolutely refusing to bail his dad out and just announce that he exists or maybe drop some old family photos with the son in it… is trauma. like. I’m not sure which is worse here- making up a token black son, or, that son deciding they were so awful to him that it was necessary to cut them out of his life.
The only reason here, is BS. The kid is real, he’s a grown-ass adult with children of his own that he wants to keep away from the general public. This is conservative propaganda to make you think Johnson’s statements on racial injustice (which lean toward "my white kids get opportunities and have an easier life that my black kid doesn’t) are bunk. Which they’re not, just because the guy doesn’t want to do photo ops and give press releases doesn’t mean he’s fake. Johnson was first elected to Congress less than 10 years ago. His son made a decision not to be a pawn for his adopted father’s political career to avoid the public, not his father; and the public are generally terrible, which makes it an appropriate and rational decision.
Which they’re not, just because the guy doesn’t want to do photo ops and give press releases doesn’t mean he’s fake. Johnson was first elected to Congress less than 10 years ago. His son made a decision not to be a pawn for his adopted father’s political career to avoid the public, not his father; and the public are generally terrible, which makes it an appropriate and rational decision.
-
explain this screen grab from his own campaign website:
-
Recognizing the son wants no part of his political career doesn’t mean disavowing said son, does it? Why on earth would would they say ‘father of four’ instead of ‘father of five’?
Wikipedia also lists his family as being 4 children. every source I can say he has four children. I can see no photos on any variation of websearch I can find of Johnson with a some one both identified as his son, who is black. none. Maybe, some how, magically, nobody ever looked into that or posted pictures on line… ever… or maybe it was scrubbed.
I don’t know. What I do know is scrubbing yourself out like that is only going to raise questions. because as you say, the public is… well terrible.
(edit:) There seems to be some prior interiviews where Michael is mentioned. In that article they talk- too briefly to be clear about it- an interview with Ms Day (I can’t tell if she’s the one asking the questions or being asked?) from the article-
In his public remarks over the years, Mr. Johnson describes Michael as his son and did not correct an interviewer who described Michael as “adopted.” Ms. Day said in an interview that the Johnsons did not formally adopt Michael because of the “lengthy adoption process.” Ms. Day declined to say whether Michael was using “Johnson” as his surname.
Mr. Johnson has spoken publicly about Michael largely when he has talked about race. He has described Michael as a “success story” and likened the experience of being a white couple adopting a Black teenager to the movie “The Blind Side,” the 2009 film that depicts a wealthy white family taking in an impoverished Black teenager who becomes a football star.
(end edit)further, here’s the 2020 PBS article he talks about him. Relevant quotes:
Yes, sure. We took Michael in almost 20 years ago. He was 14. I often — the easiest way to summarize the story is, I ask friends, have you seen the story “The Blind Side”? That was our story, except my Michael was not an NFL prospect, a similar story to that. And we took him in as our own. And Michael is now doing great. This is 20 years later. He’s in his mid-30s. He lives in California, four children of his own. He and Adonza (ph), they have a great family life. And he says to people, he shares his testimony that, were it not for our intervention in his life, that he would certainly have joined a gang, gotten on drugs, wound up in prison, or dead on the street somewhere. And that’s the harsh reality that we have here. What it’s taught me is, we now have four other children of our own. And my oldest son, Jack, ironically, this year is 14. And I have thought often through all these ordeals over the last couple of weeks about the difference in experiences between my two 14-year-old sons, Michael, being a black American, and Jack being white, Caucasian. They have different challenges. My son Jack has an easier path. He just does. The interesting thing about both these kids, Michael and Jack, is they’re both handsome, articulate, really talented kids gifted by God to do lots of things. But the reality is — and no one can tell me otherwise — my son Michael had a harder time than my son Jack is going to have simply because of the color of his skin. And that’s a reality. It’s an uncomfortable, painful one to acknowledge, but people have to recognize that’s a fact.
Any one you know whose actually adopted people? They do not make the kind of distinction he makes here. “My oldest son Jack …” So; I say, either the guy doesn’t exist, or something happened that caused the guy to not want to be part of Johnson’s family.
It is interesting that a guy who supposedly learned about racism second hand, by raising a black child… is so deeply part of the anti-civil-rights crowd… is a bit shocking. And his issue with reparations is that “they have a culture of self reliance”?!
something smells off here. that’s all I’m saying, really.
-
Which should be respected. People who aren’t interested in being public figures should be able to bow out of it.
Very odd indeed. Is this guy another George Santos?
deleted by creator
So his ‘black son’ was born in 1985 and is now 38.
deleted by creator
Funny how the christians said the gays were trying to ‘redefine marriage’, and yet they did just that by making laws to accept ‘covenant marriage’.
I think same-sex marriage should have included a legal stipulation that we get free tacos every Tuesday for the lifetime of our marriages!! That’s how you redefine marriage!!
Lol the secret exposed news that he’s actually not racist is a controversy, but there’s zero issues against his intense anti gay stance.
That kid’s going to be so scarred.
They all lie to get to power. They all tell us what we want to hear so we will elevate them to this power. If a politician is moving their mouth, they are lying.
“All politicians are the same, amirite?”
No, you are wrong
“Nuh-uh, YoU aRe WrOnG”
Yes, meet any politician anywhere in the world, and I can guarantee that they lied somewhere about something to get to that power. I would have to lie too, it’s the game, not the players. I count bending the truth and withholding info as lying as well.
This is such a daft take - I know plenty of local politicians - and indeed a couple of MPs local to me in the UK who have precious little “power” and work stupid hours looking after their constituents. They aren’t trying to get cabinet positions or a cushy jobs. The kind of people who think ‘there are some problems here I think I can solve’ and sign up for what can be pretty grim work.
Good point. There are some “Mr. Smith”s out there, and yes, local level politics do have genuine helpful people. I should amend my statement to “politicians at such a high level”.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Why is this so hard for people to realize. You aren’t inline once you are on the ride
I keep seeing people saying this and don’t understand why…
This isn’t about minimizing Harris. This is because you misunderstand what it means to be “in line”.
- Biden isn’t in line. He’s President.
- Harris is first in line.
- Johnson is second in line.
If you are currently riding an amusement park ride, you aren’t in line for it. You’re first in line if you’ll be the next person to get on the ride.
He’s third in line to the US presidency! As much as the media has and continues to undermine and undersell Kamala Harris, she would become president if something were to happen to Biden. I’m just tired of all these fucking “journalists” acting like Harris doesn’t exist or has no value.
no. He’s second.
Biden is president. Harris is first in the line of succession. Floppy Johnson is second in the line of succession.
I’m from San Francisco and have watched and voted for Kamala Harris since her first race.
Here are some unfortunate truths: Kamala Harris is an absolute dogshit politician who has zero constituency, zero political strategy skills, zero retail politics skills, and seemingly zero ability to break out of the box she’s mostly gotten herself into.
deleted by creator
Kamila is first in line, though
The president is not in line- he is the president. biden is the Zeroeth-in-Line.
I think you need to check your math.
The Vice President is first in line to succeed an ailing or dying President. The Speaker of the House is second in line. Third in line is the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Wikipedia does a nice job explaining it, with a rank chart showing Kamala Harris first, and Mike Johnson second.
Who is first in line?
