Another Big, Fat "Eff You!" to "Red" State America
It was so predicable....
Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a challenge signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each.
While Bush's victory is not in jeopardy, the Democratic challenge will force Congress to interrupt tallying the Electoral College vote, which is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. EST Thursday. It would be only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes.
"I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election," Boxer wrote in a letter to Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, D-OH, a leader of the Democratic effort.
Such excruciatingly overbearing faux piety. Also unmistakably selective. President Bush won Ohio by 118,775 votes, or, as I've pointed out before, over 221 times his final margin of victory in Florida four years ago. It simply isn't possible to botch an election that badly, and even less possible for it to be stolen by that big a margin without any evidence of fraud being discovered - for the purpose of which, as you'll recall, the Dems had armies of lawyers on hot standby on Election Day.
Meanwhile, John Kerry won Pennsylvania by 128,869 votes, and we know there was Dem-orchestrated fraud and military disenfranchisement going on there. He won Minnesota by 98,444 votes, Oregon by 67,488 votes, Wisconsin by 11,813 votes, and New Hampshire by 9,171 votes. All of the margins in these four states were less than the President's Ohio cushion, and yet there's no attention at all being given to whether the Boston Balker succeeded in stealing any of them, particularly the latter two.
Ergo, it is not difficult to conclude that Democrats really don't give a rat's ass about "election irregularities" per se, but only those that may have worked against them. Furthermore, it would also seem that gaming the election process is SOP for the Dems (just look at the ongoing gubernatorial drama going on in Washington), and they just assume that Republicans do it also, which gives them a ready-made excuse whenever they lose an election - which, these days, is happening with metronomic regularity.
So how can they mount such a moral high horse about what they're just positive must have happened in Ohio while doing the very same thing themselves elsewhere? Simple - because in their minds, they're inherently virtuous, and thus any tactic that puts them in office is permissible, whereas Republicans are Evil Incarnate, and thereby taint everything they touch. Or, in short, the ends justify the means.
This is nothing I haven't opined for years and years, but it's only now that parody is being matched by maniacal reality. The Left's halo-polishing has reached such a level of insufferability that it's crowding out every other consideration, particularly the sort of self-examination and introspection that losing parties typically undergo in order to lay the foundation for a political comeback. Many Donks really believe that there can be no such thing as a legitimate election that doesn't elect them. Ipso facto, if they lose, they must have been robbed, no matter how big the margin.
Hence, Ohio.
The more intriguing question is whether Senator Boxer and Representatives Tubbs-Jones and John "Turkey-Grabber" Conyers, et al are genuinely as deranged as the tinfoil hat brigades to which they pandered yesterday. And, lest you think I'm being merely perjorative with that expression, let me emphasize that at least a portion of the Donk grassroots, from what was posted on Democratic Forum and Democratic Underground and other wacko, black-helicopter boards, really believed that this whole crazy Ohio expedition was going to pull a bombshell rabbit out of the proverbial hat and pull off a last-minute coup de tat that would see George W. Bush frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs and John Kerry installed in his place.
So, again, whither the "Boxer rebellion"?
Well, I think we can safely conclude that these elected Dems (well, maybe not in Sheila Jackson-Lee...or Maxine Waters...or...) - okay, most of them - knew that what they were doing was pointless, that it wasn't going to change anything, or accomplish anything except making their party look even smaller, more puerile, more "bush-league," and more marginalized than it did already (and that's saying something).
Just read some of their preambles:
OBAMA: I am absolutely convinced that the president of the United States won this election. I also believe that he got more votes in Ohio....
LAUTENBERG: I want to make it clear, I'm not challenging President Bush's victory in the state of Ohio....
HARKIN: I want to be clear that I do not question the legitimacy or outcome of our 2004 presidential election, nor will I vote to overturn the result of the vote in Ohio....
KENNEDY: While we do not question the outcome, many of us remain deeply concerned that for the second time in a row in a closely contested election, there were so many complaints....
Pretty much every Dem that got up and spoke sounded like this. "I'm not questioning the President's victory, but...." Well, if none of them were questioning the President's victory, than what the hell were they doing contributing to this travesty? This was like masturbating with barbed wire, for pity's sake.
Did any Dem senator vote against certifying the Electoral College results? Actually, yes - one. Namely, the aforementioned Barbra Boxer. Who, I might add, is beginning a new term, and reportedly isn't going to run again, which is why she could afford to go on the record, unlike any of her jackass colleagues, who ran for the tall grass when it was time to actually do more than just bloviate noxiously.
So why did any of them bother with this despicable nonsense? Because they feel compelled to appease their core supporters. And as we've seen ad nauseum, their core supporters are mentally and emotionally unbalanced.
I haven't blogged much about this Ohio business because after its resounding defeat at the polls, Michael Moore-ism has just seemed uninteresting and irrelevant in more or less equal measure. Yesterday it reached its impotent and inevitable climax. But the lunatic spirit will live on, and as long as it does the Democrats will remain in the political wilderness.
Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a challenge signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each.
While Bush's victory is not in jeopardy, the Democratic challenge will force Congress to interrupt tallying the Electoral College vote, which is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. EST Thursday. It would be only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes.
"I have concluded that objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate way to bring these issues to light by allowing you to have a two-hour debate to let the American people know the facts surrounding Ohio's election," Boxer wrote in a letter to Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, D-OH, a leader of the Democratic effort.
Such excruciatingly overbearing faux piety. Also unmistakably selective. President Bush won Ohio by 118,775 votes, or, as I've pointed out before, over 221 times his final margin of victory in Florida four years ago. It simply isn't possible to botch an election that badly, and even less possible for it to be stolen by that big a margin without any evidence of fraud being discovered - for the purpose of which, as you'll recall, the Dems had armies of lawyers on hot standby on Election Day.
Meanwhile, John Kerry won Pennsylvania by 128,869 votes, and we know there was Dem-orchestrated fraud and military disenfranchisement going on there. He won Minnesota by 98,444 votes, Oregon by 67,488 votes, Wisconsin by 11,813 votes, and New Hampshire by 9,171 votes. All of the margins in these four states were less than the President's Ohio cushion, and yet there's no attention at all being given to whether the Boston Balker succeeded in stealing any of them, particularly the latter two.
Ergo, it is not difficult to conclude that Democrats really don't give a rat's ass about "election irregularities" per se, but only those that may have worked against them. Furthermore, it would also seem that gaming the election process is SOP for the Dems (just look at the ongoing gubernatorial drama going on in Washington), and they just assume that Republicans do it also, which gives them a ready-made excuse whenever they lose an election - which, these days, is happening with metronomic regularity.
So how can they mount such a moral high horse about what they're just positive must have happened in Ohio while doing the very same thing themselves elsewhere? Simple - because in their minds, they're inherently virtuous, and thus any tactic that puts them in office is permissible, whereas Republicans are Evil Incarnate, and thereby taint everything they touch. Or, in short, the ends justify the means.
This is nothing I haven't opined for years and years, but it's only now that parody is being matched by maniacal reality. The Left's halo-polishing has reached such a level of insufferability that it's crowding out every other consideration, particularly the sort of self-examination and introspection that losing parties typically undergo in order to lay the foundation for a political comeback. Many Donks really believe that there can be no such thing as a legitimate election that doesn't elect them. Ipso facto, if they lose, they must have been robbed, no matter how big the margin.
Hence, Ohio.
The more intriguing question is whether Senator Boxer and Representatives Tubbs-Jones and John "Turkey-Grabber" Conyers, et al are genuinely as deranged as the tinfoil hat brigades to which they pandered yesterday. And, lest you think I'm being merely perjorative with that expression, let me emphasize that at least a portion of the Donk grassroots, from what was posted on Democratic Forum and Democratic Underground and other wacko, black-helicopter boards, really believed that this whole crazy Ohio expedition was going to pull a bombshell rabbit out of the proverbial hat and pull off a last-minute coup de tat that would see George W. Bush frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs and John Kerry installed in his place.
So, again, whither the "Boxer rebellion"?
Well, I think we can safely conclude that these elected Dems (well, maybe not in Sheila Jackson-Lee...or Maxine Waters...or...) - okay, most of them - knew that what they were doing was pointless, that it wasn't going to change anything, or accomplish anything except making their party look even smaller, more puerile, more "bush-league," and more marginalized than it did already (and that's saying something).
Just read some of their preambles:
OBAMA: I am absolutely convinced that the president of the United States won this election. I also believe that he got more votes in Ohio....
LAUTENBERG: I want to make it clear, I'm not challenging President Bush's victory in the state of Ohio....
HARKIN: I want to be clear that I do not question the legitimacy or outcome of our 2004 presidential election, nor will I vote to overturn the result of the vote in Ohio....
KENNEDY: While we do not question the outcome, many of us remain deeply concerned that for the second time in a row in a closely contested election, there were so many complaints....
Pretty much every Dem that got up and spoke sounded like this. "I'm not questioning the President's victory, but...." Well, if none of them were questioning the President's victory, than what the hell were they doing contributing to this travesty? This was like masturbating with barbed wire, for pity's sake.
Did any Dem senator vote against certifying the Electoral College results? Actually, yes - one. Namely, the aforementioned Barbra Boxer. Who, I might add, is beginning a new term, and reportedly isn't going to run again, which is why she could afford to go on the record, unlike any of her jackass colleagues, who ran for the tall grass when it was time to actually do more than just bloviate noxiously.
So why did any of them bother with this despicable nonsense? Because they feel compelled to appease their core supporters. And as we've seen ad nauseum, their core supporters are mentally and emotionally unbalanced.
I haven't blogged much about this Ohio business because after its resounding defeat at the polls, Michael Moore-ism has just seemed uninteresting and irrelevant in more or less equal measure. Yesterday it reached its impotent and inevitable climax. But the lunatic spirit will live on, and as long as it does the Democrats will remain in the political wilderness.
posted by JASmius at 6:24 PM
<<< Home