I wish there were a dependable oracle to answer a couple of questions that continue to bug me about the broad strokes of this election. With one more Menards reference, I have to wonder if Tim Walz… or anyone… can really be that folksy and have been a governor? Touch my hand to my heart-dude? As the Senator from Ohio continues to stress his “my roots are anchored in poverty-stricken Appalachia” essence, is J.D. Vance the only true “DEI Candidate”? With allusions to cat-and-dog-eating Haitians, references to a buzzing fly, an inability to stay on message and an obsession with crowd size, is Donald Trump actually experiencing clinical dementia? Does that hurt or enhance his cause, and if he loses, is that a reflection of ageist bigotry? I wonder if Kamala Harris believes that GOP appointed prosecutors ever ask witnesses or defendants if they are Democrats or Republicans? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I do know that just about everything about this election is just plain crazy… except when you realize what’s at stake.
If the Donald is in fact clinically demented, what does that say about his pledge to pursue criminal charges and broadcast license challenges against ABC for imposing a left-leaning bias in their hosting the presidential debate between him and “Kamala” (mispronounce please), with similar charges against Google because their search engine releases “so many more negatives” about him as opposed to his opponent? We know that he believes that the Dems intend to defund the police, which notion doesn’t seem to be finding traction even in blue cities, but he has repeatedly stated that he will seriously defund a major federal police force, even one that still leans Republican: the FBI. He’ll disband the Environmental Protection Agency plus the Department of Education and turn the Department of Justice into his personal prosecution arm to ferret out his opponents, with direct intervention support from our military, with a pledge to incarcerate the lot.
But what is funny, not ha-ha funny (just odd), is how he and his supporters repeat how he soundly trashed Kamala Harris in their lone debate… but seem to be doing everything in their power to reserve an election and exclude minority voters by the millions. Are they afraid the Donald is truly losing, and if the post-debate polls that have substantially determined that Kamala beat him, does that mean that “mentally-impaired” Kamala (as he has referred to the Vice President at several rallies) won that debate against a self-declared “stable genius”? Hmmmm. That most of Trump’s supporters have made up their minds a long time ago and seem to enjoy his jousting and poking at the media with outrageous misstatements … makes a lot of what JD and the Trumpmeister are saying… unheard by MAGAns except at rallies and his social media.
With hopes of pushing the election results to the GOP-led House or the “we’ve got your back, Donald” US Supreme Court, remembering that Trumpers lost over 60 judicial challenges to the 2020 “stolen election,” the Republican Party (and many of its state offices) seems to be engaging cadres of lawyers, ensuring elections cannot be counted in time (the requirement of hand-count in Georgia, if sustained, guarantees they will not meet their own deadline) and working overtime to cull voter rolls of likely Democratic voters… and seemingly raising more money to challenge the coming election (or prevent it from functioning properly) than they are in traditional campaign support. After all, Trump has even admonished his followers, more than once, that they really do note have to vote at all. He’s got this! I wonder why his both running on fear and guaranteeing his victory.
Nobody screams “election integrity” more than those who are doing everything in their power to make sure that integrity leaves the building. Writing for the September 29th Reuters, Jack Queen, has drilled down on “we’ve got the lawyers in place this time, so we really don’t need the votes” vector that would otherwise suggest Trump’s advantage may have dissipated… and his MAGA party knows that: “In Arizona, one of seven competitive U.S. states that are expected to decide the 2024 presidential election, an advocacy group founded by Donald Trump adviser Stephen Miller is advancing a bold legal theory: that judges can throw out election results over ‘failures or irregularities’ [determined without standards] by local officials.
“The lawsuit by the America First Legal Foundation, a conservative advocacy group, says the court in such cases should be able to toss the election results and order new rounds of voting in two counties in Arizona, where Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris is leading Trump in the polls by a razor-thin margin… The Republican National Committee says it is involved in more than 120 lawsuits across 26 states, in a strategy that some legal experts and voting rights groups say is meant to undercut faith in the system.
“Republicans say the lawsuits are aimed at restoring faith in elections by ensuring people don't vote illegally. Trump and his allies have falsely claimed that his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden was tainted by widespread fraud… While the Arizona case is likely a long shot, legal experts say it fits with a pattern of Republican-backed lawsuits that appear aimed at sowing doubts about the legitimacy of the election before it occurs and providing fodder for challenging the results after the fact… ‘This is part of creating the narrative that there will be irregularities that will require outside intervention,’ said Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault… A spokesperson for the Republican National Committee said the party's top priority is fixing what they say are problems with voting systems before Election Day to ensure no ballots are illegally cast.
“‘Our Election Integrity operation is fighting to secure the election, promoting transparency and fairness for every legal vote. This gives voters confidence that their ballot will be counted properly, and in turn, inspires voter turnout,’ said RNC spokesperson Claire Zunk.
“Trump and Harris are locked in a tight battle ahead of the Nov. 5 election, fueling a wave of litigation by both Democrats and Republicans as they spar over the ground rules… Republicans typically sue to enforce restrictions on voting that they say are necessary to prevent fraud, while Democrats generally ask courts to keep voting accessible… The Harris campaign said in a statement that Republicans are ‘scheming to sow distrust in our elections and undermine our democracy so they can cry foul when they lose.’” Are those election officials who intend not to certify results that do not favor Trump certifiable?
I’m Peter Dekom, and until this year, I have never seen a federal election that was anything but accurate and honest in my lifetime.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment