Ruling Out a Democratic Win

This is one of the stories I clicked on last week, from my news feed:

There’s a lot that set me off right from the get-go. Let’s start with the journalistic trope about when they ask you to “rule something out.” I hate that because it only serves journalists who want a big scoop, whether they create it out of thin air or otherwise. The press always wants people to rule things out so they can frame a story as “Hey, this is possible,” or “Hey, he said he’ll never do this,” the latter of which they keep for a future story when he eventually does the thing in question.

If I were a politician (or athletic team coach, business exec, or anyone else the press would care to interview), my inclination would be to never rule anything out ever. Why eliminate an option you might need, even if you don’t currently see it as necessary? It just ties your own hands.

“Sorry, it’s my policy to never rule anything out because you never know what the circumstances will be when it’s time to make a decision.” Those would be my exact words every time I’m asked for a rule-out.

So I can see how AG Blanche might want to dance this dance.

However…

There ARE certain things I could easily rule out because they’re immoral or blatantly illegal. Like, I could say that if the Steelers won the next Super Bowl, I could rule out my running down the street clad only in a pair of Steelers Crocs and a Terrible Towel. (This is Baltimore, after all. A guy could get seriously killed for that here.) And if I were the nation’s top attorney, I would certainly know that taking steps to alter election results is not within the federal government’s powers, “Doomsday” or not, so I would rule out doing so. The AG did not do that, leaving the door open for future interference. And by omitting a definition of “Doomsday,” it leaves it wide open to interpretation.

I’m confident, however, that “Doomsday” equals “The Republicans lose control of Congress.” It’s the usual mindset: “Heads, I win; tails, you lose.” There’s no fraud unless the Democrats win. Such a nice world they’ve created for themselves, huh?

So yes, such actions would definitely be illegal. But why would that ever stop them from happening? Who is the authority here, to whom people could appeal? The Justice Department itself is the perp. They’re not going to sue on behalf of The People, or do anything at all. The courts are hit and miss, until you get to the Supreme one, which stands 6-3 with the perps. I presume they’d do rock-paper-scissors to see which one of the three “reasonable ones” gets to dissent, while keeping the 5-4 win. The whole process is guaranteed to take lots of time. And what happens during this Constitutional crisis? The White House claims emergency powers and has its toadie Speaker of the House refrain from seating the new Congresspeople.

What? That’s not a legal maneuver for the White House? They’ll just put it on the same legal carousel with the original interference and start bleeding the clock.

You can’t rely on game rules when the refs have thrown out the rulebook.

The thing I’ve heard that I most believe is that the Administration is setting up California for the next big emergency. You can see they’ve started by demanding the state withhold ballots from 20k people they say are illegally registered. They’re getting it all teed up so that after the Dems sweep through results, they can use that to create an emergency, from confiscating ballots and voting machines to sending troops/ICE, suing the state, and ultimately refusing to seat any of California’s Representatives. Because California has so many, that alone may be enough to keep the Republican majority.

As for the line I circled in the screenshot above, the administration is also trying to torpedo Democrats from taking the Senate. You’ve heard about the two Republicans who have the same name, running for the seat? Despite this having already been adjudicated within the state court system, and the two candidates have been easily differentiated on the ballot (one having the word “incumbent” by his name), the president is still crying foul and claiming it’s a Democratic conspiracy. It’s all a big conspiracy unless the Republican they want wins, or the Democrat wins by less than the amount of votes the “other” Republican draws, in what’s expected to be a very tight race. So once again, it’s “rigged unless we win.” So much victimhood, so little character.

Do you know what I don’t hear? Republicans making an effort to draw attention to their nominee of choice by emphasizing his middle initial, or stressing that he’s the incumbent. You know, running some effective advertising.

OR, just as a wild, last-gasp ploy, trying to put forth an agenda that makes life better for Alaskans, as opposed to continually smearing the opposition and anything they can tie to the opposition.

But then, you just can’t draw water from an empty well.