Napoleon once said, “Treason is a matter of dates.” The Democrats seem to have taken Napoleon’s words to heart when they identified Republicans as traitors or anti-Democrats in their proposed challenge for the confirmation of votes next week. Both the media and Democratic members have developed this narrative, although Democratic members have repeatedly raised such challenges in the past. In the few recognitions in this story, the Democrats seem to be pushing a simple and familiar defense: Trump. Once again, open hypocrisy is negated by Trumpunity. After all, they cannot be anti-democratic because they are democrats. That final position was evident in former California Senator Barbara Boxer’s release this week on CNN, which posed such a challenge to the 2004 election results.
In January 2005, Boxer joined former MP Stephanie Tubbs Jones to question George W. Bush’s victory over Democratic challenger John Kerry in Ohio. I worked for CBS in these elections and shared concerns about the voting irregularities. At the time, Boxer argued that Republicans were engaged in voter suppression that contributed to Bush’s victory. The leadership of the media and Democrats has been very supportive. Indeed, many who condemn the challenge today have given boxers high praise in 2004. There was no scream in the media about anti-democratic measures and the refusal to respect the election results.
For example, spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi described the current challenge as an attack on democracy, but during the 2004 election campaign she praised Boxer’s challenge as a “witness to democracy at work”. This is not what some of our Republican colleagues have sadly called lightly. This debate is fundamental to our democracy. “
In particular, many Democrats such as Senator Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Have made analogous complaints about electoral systems, insisting that “we as Americans should all be concerned by reports of electoral problems in many parts of the country.”
Senator Dick Durbin also denounced the challenge earlier this year, but went to the Senate in 2005 to praise boxers. He stated: “Some may criticize our colleague from California for bringing us here for this short debate. I would like to thank her for this because it gives the members the opportunity to look at a non-partisan challenge that we will have to face not only in the last elections in one state but in many states. “
However, now the Democrats claim it is unfair to compare their past actions and statements with today’s. As we have seen in other areas, such clearly conflicting positions pose no problem for democratic politicians unless they are brought up or challenged in the media. In today’s media and politics, democratic voters are largely protected from such confrontations. The interview with Boxer is an example of the light treatment of such members. She remained largely unchallenged in the CNN interview in clearly opportunistic and vulnerable positions.
Boxer insisted that the challenge “had nothing to do with overthrowing the election” because it was short and would not succeed. These current efforts will fail even after a debate on some of the same electoral irregularity issues. Still, Boxer insisted, “No, why should I regret talking about the right to vote for an hour? Not at all. If these Republicans lie about it and say it’s the same, it’s up to them, and I’m sorry they do. “
CNN simply carried this transparently hypocritical spin with no significant challenge. After all, this counts as a spin, not a lie. While MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell (and recently Jake Tapper) have pledged not to interview Trump characters for being “liars,” Democratic members can voice absurd denials without challenge. The fact is that this is an important interview, although no essential questions have been asked. It is information, not disinformation. The problem is the biased approach to booking such political figures based on whether they support or disapprove of Trump.
Ultimately, this is not “on them”. And it’s on boxers because it’s the same. However, I did not view Boxer as an attack on democracy by exploiting their right to object in 2005, and I do not view these objections as anti-democratic today. I did not support the 2005 challenge and I do not support this challenge. However, this is a constitutional and legal challenge. However, Democrats and media outlets like CNN want to portray the vote as practically unprecedented and even treasonous.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (DN.H.) told CNN that members of Congress who question the election results “border on riot and betrayal”. That would mean that more than 70 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of Democrats across the country are potential traitors if they believe Trump has won. Shaneen and her colleagues denounced Trump for calling traitors and tried to protect officials who denounced his use of the “enemies of the people” label against reporters. Just two years ago, Trump was called Stalin by Democrats for using labels like that. It is the same position that Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro recently took before the Supreme Court, who called a legal challenge to the election “inflammatory”. Of course, using the courts or Congress to raise such objections is the opposite of rioting trying to overthrow the legal system.
As I mentioned earlier, the Democrats did not accuse their colleagues of treason or turmoil when they tried to block the certification of Ohio votes in Congress in 2004. They didn’t treason Hillary Clinton for advising Biden not to allow Trump to win on election night. They did not label members of Congress or the media as traitors who Trump had repeatedly declared “illegitimate” over the past four years.
So in the end, as Napoleon said, “treason is a matter of dates.” And the deadline in the United States appears to be November 7th for now – the day the media declared Joe Biden the alleged winner. All legal challenges then became unethical for attorneys and all challenges in Congress became riot for members. It’s just a matter of the dates.