Democrat Designs- When You Can’t Win, Change the Rules
As any Little Leaguer knows, win or lose after the game, you shake hands (or “high five”) with the opposing teammates, and say, “Good game.”
It’s the ultimate expression of good sportsmanship that somehow got lost on Democrat politicians who find themselves on the losing end of an election.
Cases in point:
- Hillary Clinton…enough said…In an upset, she lost big (in the electoral college) to a first-time candidate who all of the “experts” said would go down to defeat. Rather than accept the results of the election, congratulate the winner and call for national unity as so many of her predecessors have done, she writes a book, “What Happened…”, and goes on the lecture circuit blaming practically everyone else for her loss and demanding an end to the Electoral College that has been in place since the beginnings of the republic. Not surprisingly, Democrats far and wide have jumped on this bandwagon, as well.
- Donald Trump. His stunning victory prompted members of the Obama Administration to use a fake dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign to launch a bogus investigation into Russian collusion, all in an effort to besmirch Trump’s unlikely victory and take down a duly-elected president or, at very least, de-legitimize his presidency. If that were not enough the former President, Barack Obama, and his second Secretary of State, John Kerry, travel the world meeting with foreign officials all in an effort to undermine the newly-elected President and subvert his foreign policy. Domestically, Obama launched an organized resistance movement whose tentacles reach far into the “deep state” and into the halls of Congress, itself. This has never been done in the history of a United States which heretofore prided itself on the smooth and peaceful transition of power whenever an opposing party won the White House.
- Supreme Court. After a bitter and contentious Judiciary Committee fight (where Democrat Senators vowed to do all they could to prevent President Donald Trump from successfully nominating his second Associate Justice to the Supreme Court), they used those hearings to try and destroy the reputation of a man who quite possibly may be the most qualified nominee, ever. To hedge their bets against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they spent two months sitting on an unsubstantiated and salacious claim that Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault a teenager thirty-six years ago, when both he and his accuser were in high school. When it became apparent that none of the people she claimed to have first-hand knowledge of the alleged assault could corroborate her story, they then solicited other claims of sexual misdeeds from his college years, each claim successively even more ridiculous than the prior. That failing, they insisted upon yet another FBI investigation into the claims which ultimately failed to show any collaborating evidence. Then, they attempted to label the FBI investigation upon which they insisted, a “whitewash” and a “sham.”. Once Kavanaugh’s nomination was approved by the Senate, they immediately claimed that he will forever have an asterisk by his name and that his seat on the high court be deemed “illegitimate,” calling to mind the asterisk they put on President George W. Bush’s narrow victory over Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election. They have also promised to launch more hearings on the allegations against Kavanaugh, and seek his impeachment, if they win control of the House of Representatives and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) seizes the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee.
Now, disaffected Democrats are calling for gradually expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court to…get this…nineteen so as to dilute the philosophical shift towards a more constructionist direction. It’s not the first time Democrats have sought to pack the Supreme Court when they don’t get their way. President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to do the same when in 1937, the Supreme Court ruled against certain elements of his National Recovery Act. His brazen attempt to suddenly add six more seats to the Supreme Court ultimately failed, but the attempt was made, all the same.
It has been said that Democrats don’t know how to behave when they lose an election, just as Republicans don’t know how to act when they win an election. This maxim has taken on a life of its own, when losing Democrats seek to undo the results of an election when their candidate comes up short…time now to launch altogether new and divisive “witch hunts,” as if the ones currently in play are not despicable enough.
The message in all of this is quite clear. When you can’t win, change the rules.
The one consolation, if there is any, is that their bad behavior has netted one positive result for Republicans and, specifically, conservatives. It seems to be the case that the anti-Trump/NeverTrump Republicans are a dying breed, for nothing can unify a divided G.O.P. like a nasty fight over a judicial nomination. With the passing of John McCain (R-AZ), the pending retirements of Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Bob Corker (R-TN) and the circling of Republican wagons over Kavanaugh’s nomination, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) excepted, those remaining Republicans who once opposed Trump are rapidly coming to the conclusion that the President is “their guy,” after all…
…and given the excesses of the Democrats in Congress, and the extremes to which many of their supporters seek to cause mayhem, the anticipated “blue wave” will barely register a ripple and may, in fact, become a Republican “rip current” taking Democrat designs out to sea.
Election 2018 cannot happen soon enough.
-Drew Nickell, 9 October 2018
© 2018 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.
author of “Bending Your Ear- a Collection of Essays on the Issues of Our Times”
now available at Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Bending-Your-Ear-Collection-Essays/dp/1633932907?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc
Signed and personalized editions now available at my website:
Follow my postings on the RSS feed: http://www.drewnickell.com/?feed=rss2