Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Oh, the Humanity! I Just Discovered I Am an ‘Election Denier’
…And I’m definitely not alone.
There have been some excellent columns written lately about the new and wholly inane buzzword(s), “election denier.” I thought it might be helpful if I passed along some thoughts from some writers whose work I admire: Victor Davis Hanson, Roger Kimball, and others. This includes prominently, almost assuredly, the next Governor of Arizona, Kari Lake, to illustrate how quickly the most bizarre words and phrases get adopted by the Loonocracy and become part of the national lexicon.
Hanson, in an article titled “Who Denies Election Results?” has this to say about this new exercise in Orwellian “newspeak”:
The accuracy of the 2020 vote was “unprecedented.”
Unfortunately, the history of U.S. elections is often a story of both legitimate and illegitimate election denialism.
The 1800, 1824, 1876, and 1960 elections were all understandably questioned. In some of these cases, a partisan House of Representatives decided the winner.
Presidential candidate Al Gore in 2000 did not accept the popular vote results in Florida. He spent five weeks futilely contesting the state’s tally—until recounts and the Supreme Court certified it.
The ensuing charge that former President George W. Bush was “selected, not elected” was the Democrats’ denialist mantra for years.
In 2004, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and 31 Democratic House members voted not to certify the Ohio election results in their unhinged efforts to overturn the election. Those denialists included the current sanctimonious chairman of the Jan. 6 select committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.
After 2016, crackpot Democratic orthodoxy for years insisted that Trump had “colluded” with Russia to “steal” certain victory from Hillary Clinton. Clinton herself claimed that Trump was not a “legitimate” president. No wonder she loudly joined #TheResistance to obstruct his presidency.
The serial denialist Clinton later urged Joe Biden not to concede the 2020 election if he lost.
This is just a small sample from this extraordinary analysis from Dr. Hanson; I highly recommend reading the entire article.
Roger Kimball wields his intellectual scalpel with his usual precision in an article entitled “Not Consensus, But Truth”; here are some highlights:
Perhaps the most popular meme floating about in polite society today is the contention that any hint of the 2020 presidential election being tainted is a “Big Lie.” It is so popular, in fact, that some journalists and politicians appear to present themselves to the Office of Acceptable Propaganda each day before setting off on their rounds. They collect their allotted quota of different ways of ridiculing and dismissing those imprudent enough to suggest that, as a matter of fact, there were lots of problems with the 2020 elections.
It is important that these approved scribes and politicians engage in this ritual because there are many different ways in which this rhetorical epithet needs to be expressed if it is to achieve its goal: to silence debate by intimidating people.
To this end, a number of different rhetorical registers must be sounded. Some are blunt and angry, as for example this tweet from a writer for The Bulwark, a marginal NeverTrump site supported by leftist billionaires: “Chris Sununu, Doug Ducey, Brian Kemp, and Glenn Youngkin . . . every single one of them is campaigning either for or with an election-denying lunatic.”
The obloquy is directed not simply against certain ideas, but also against the people who express, or might express, them. Thus we find Michael Steele, an anti-Trump Republican and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, castigating supporters of the former president as “lice, fleas, and blood sucking ticks.” The formula does have the advantage of clarity: I mean, partly because of its unsavory historical echoes, you know where you stand with Steele.
***
The aim, as I said, is to silence any and all criticism. The means is largely intimidation, but it is intimidation that aims first of all to create a consensus: a unanimity of sentiment so widespread that it no longer has to be prohibited because it is regarded as morally outrageous by polite society.
***
Was the 2020 election “stolen”? Perhaps that is not quite the right word. But, pace The Bulwark, what is “lunatic” is not distrusting the election but giving it a pass because, as every right thinking person will agree, it produced the desired result.
Perhaps, notwithstanding these intellectual dissections of this lunatic phrase, no one said it better than gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake of Arizona. Referring to the media’s constant attempts to slime her with the shibboleth “election denier,” she had this to say at a recent press conference,
Let’s talk about election deniers. Here’s 150 examples of Democrats denying election results. Look at this–this is from Joe Biden’s Press Secretary–‘remember, Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election from Georgians and
Stacey Abrams.’ A Democrat was saying that-is that an election denier? Oh look at this–‘just heard Republican Ryan Costello said it would be difficult for Stacey Abrams to win because she lost her state bid, but she’s still claiming she never lost.’ Hillary Clinton: ‘Trump is an illegitimate President,’–is she an election denier? This one says, ‘was the 2016 election legitimate? It is definitely a question worth asking.’ That was the Los Angeles Times. So it’s okay for Democrats to question elections but it’s not okay for Republicans? It’s a crock of BS, everyone knows it; we have our freedom of speech and we’re not going to relinquish it to a bunch of fake news propagandists. If you want a copy of these, I’m sure Anthony will help you get a copy and help you learn how to be a journalist but look it up. It has been happening for a long time. –
Here is the video of her statement, which is, quite simply, delicious in vividly illustrating the gargantuan hypocrisy of the Democrats and their enablers, such as the Never Trumpers;
Our friends in Mississippi have a wonderfully descriptive phrase for a situation in which one had a particularly effective repartee to another’s statement which fits exactly what Kari Lake did to these reporters in that video: “She cut ‘em long, deep and wide”!
As the title of this post suggests, I have had to come to terms with the stark realization that I am, mea culpa, it seems, an “election denier” according to a tweet sent out by Mollie Hemingway about a CBS report identifying those in this dreaded category. Here’s her tweet and the truly incredible list of those identifying characteristics:
Holy bleeping bleep. CBS and @macfarlane assert without reason or sense here that if you want election audits, or use your right to object to a state’s electors, or even if you oppose *unconstitutional* changes to election laws, that makes you an “election denier.” INSANE.
I hereby fully, openly, and publicly confess to satisfying just about all those criteria and I do so in the genuine hope that the sinister Black Helicopters don’t land on the lawn as soon as this post goes out:
- I have questioned, over and over and over again, the legitimacy of Biden’s election.
- I have said, as is my right under the First Amendment, that the 2020 election was stolen from President Trump.
- I have lamented the sad and tragic reflection on our Judiciary in the fact that many of our courts would not even hear, much less decide, complaints of fraud, many of which are now being adjudicated and proven in courts in several states.
- I admired the fine advocacy which went into the Texas lawsuit and lamented its dismissal.
- I thought Dr. Eastman and others made a very credible argument about objections to the Electoral College count on Jan 6 and consider it a crime against our Constitution that he is being prosecuted for advocating that cause for his client.
- I supported the 2020 audit and also the audits now being conducted as a result of some of the aforementioned lawsuits in various states.
In conclusion, let me close with a little picture that sums up quite succinctly the whole ludicrous nature of this rank hypocrisy:
Published in General 
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 32 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
I’m with you on 3, 4, 5, and 6. So, I guess I’m a denier too.
As far as I’m concerned, judges that dismissed cases before the election for “standing” and dismissed cases after the election as “moot” (Nelson Muntz: “Ha-ha!”) should probably be in prison.
How can Gary Robbins have such hate for this woman? She’s having a ball. She’s enjoying this. Such irrepressible joy is infectious.
I think she’s a stand-up dame. I cannot see why any reasonable person would pick Abortion Mouse over her.
BTW, Corporate Media coverage of Kari Lake: 100% Negative. That’s actually worse than how they covered Trump. (95% Negative).
Oh. I see. “Reason” is the operative adjective here.
That explains it a bit.
Addendum:
How can he have voted for Biden, knowing what a demagogue he has been all his life?
How can he call himself a “Reagan Republican” when his every action speaks loudly in the opposite direction?
How can he vote for and send money to a woman who advocates abortion to the moment of birth?
How can he continually use the term “election deniers” and never answer reasonable inquiries as to what exactly does that phrase really mean; if, indeed, it means anything at all about which see above.
How can he, a practicing lawyer trained in the foundational principles of this country, continue to call Jan 6 an “insurrection” and speak with favor of the disgraceful actions of the Federal District Court in DC and talk about his admiration for Liz Cheney, who is easily, next only to Hillary Rodham Clinton, the most treacherous [ ] of the West?
How can he…. the list goes on…. but I offer a possible answer….
I know.
There’s a standard view that polls always narrow in the week before elections. Which is another way of saying that Republican support tends to climb in the polls just before an election — as we’ve been seeing this past week.
This is not true. It’s not true that people suddenly begin supporting Republicans when there’s a week to go. Rather, pollsters do not deliver honest results until there’s about a week to go. Because there are two things that matter to the pollsters.
1) That they retain their Democrat clients. And they do that by delivering the results their Democrat clients want to see. At least until just before the election when . . .
2) . . . they need to make sure they’re seen as accurate enough to get clients for the next cycle. Because nobody looks at how inaccurate they were in the weeks and months before an election. They only look at the final polling. So polling firms only make sure it’s their final polling that’s accurate. And they explain away the earlier inaccuracies as “polls always narrow in the week before an election.”
Understand how you’re being gaslighted here, too.
You want to know which pollsters are accurate? After election day, check the ones who got it right two months ago. Those are the polling firms that are more trustworthy.
Thank you for that most interesting document! As we learn from experience over the years, there is nothing which even comes close to solid documentary evidence. A Democrat in “Reagan Republican” clothing! Who knew?
I continue to be bothered that amongst all the effort spent demonizing people who raise questions about the 2020 elections, and pointing out that none of the bases identified in those questions have been proven, those who insist the 2020 election was above question have presented little or no evidence of what processes and protections are in place to ensure that questions about the election process should not be questioned.
I know that in a court of law challenge, the burden is on the party claiming there was a problem with the process. But in the court of public opinion if those who control the process won’t explain why the process is so reliable and secure, it is reasonable for the public to raise questions.
Plus, some of the questions are not accusations that the law was violated, but that the process was set up in biased ways that still make the election unfair.
Why won’t those who insist that election processes are beyond question take some of the energy they are spending demonizing “election deniers” stand up and give reasons why election processes are fair, equitable, and beyond doubt?
Excellent observations; such a shame they never will!
Okay, okay, just this once I’m going to say it again.
He’s only a family law attorney.
In a court of law, showing that chain of custody was not followed, for example, is sufficient for evidence to be excluded. It is not necessary to provide video evidence or sworn testimony etc, that someone tampered with it.
Its such a stupid argument because they focus only on the idea that Dominion machines miscounted votes. Which was nonsense. The ballots were counted properly, no sain person who looked at the data is saying otherwise. There whole argument is a red hearing. The question is how many of those were valid ballots from actually eligible voters and followed the law like signature validation.
To me the trade-off is this. You want a secret ballot. Vote in person. If you want to vote by mail except if you are US military. You have to have your serialized ballot tied to a specific name on the voter rolls with a request from that voter for the ballot. If the ballot serial is not tied to a name. It can’t be counted and you get felony charges if you count it. Aka if you audit there should not be secret ballots for mail-in.
Rhetorically she is at Newt’s level of fighting back and intelligence. She might actually be Regan level good in her own way. Getting things done I will wait and see what she does as Governor. Her State legislative history proves she has at least some chops to do what she says. I really hope she is not another Cruz who does not due squate but talk.
Gary’s a Lawyer, what else due you expect. He is the norm not the exception.
It’s not quite that simple, since the Dominion machines are known to be capable of fractional counting, for example. As might be often used in stockholder voting. So it’s possible – and there have been claims – that in some areas the Dominion machines might have been programmed to, for example, count a Trump vote as a .5 vote for Trump and a .5 vote for Biden. (Or maybe every-OTHER ballot is processed that way, the possibilities are endless.) While Biden votes were counted all for Biden. With a final rounding, that gets you a total that matches the number of “ballots” counted, and that’s apparently enough to satisfy many people. But it’s not a valid result.
And in many places there may never have been separate physical “ballots” to start with.
Also, even in places where there is a printed piece of paper that says “Trump,” that doesn’t prove that it was counted for “Trump.” Just for starters, the bar-code data may mean something different than the plain text.
State legislative history? Kari Lake was never in the Arizona Legislature.
Kari Lake to Hillary Clinton: “I’m in perfect health, my brakes on my car are in good shape & I’m not suicidal. That is all.”
I doubt there’s a single Republican in the US Senate with iron balls like that.
Too bad she didn’t specify no explosive device attached to the gas tank.
She wasn’t smiling at the end of it.
That was funny. She’s the most joy-filled candidate since Trump.
But wait. This is a signed and co-signed government form dated in Jan,. 2016 on which the signatory affirms that he is a DEMOCRAT. Something here disagrees with what the signatory has been saying here on Ricochet all this time. How can this be???
I never thought of this. Secret for those who show up in person and want their votes to be secret, and not secret for those who want their votes to be easy and not in person.
As a lawyer with over 60 years at the bar, I respectfully dissent.
I’m re-commenting this here:
I’ve long considered my support for police in general and my condemnation of police actions in particular to be contradictory. I suppose it’s like the problems of war and undertakers: they are sometimes absolutely necessary, but are not in themselves good and to be desired except as imperfect remedies for a fallen and evil world.
Added: I suppose we should include law and lawyers as well. Necessary but a flawed system that presents its own problems.
I would ask, generally, why are lawyers so prevalent on the US, and why do lawyers make twice to four times the income of doctors? After all, diseases are generally not the fault of society and community, but laws and lawyers are. That is, a man alone on a desert island may need a doctor to save his life, but never a lawyer.
But Gary is only a family law attorney.
Discretion dictates that I let my previous comment stand without further elucidation.
This may not be a satisfactory answer and is definitely not intended to be a complete answer, but I would start by noting that of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, almost half were lawyers -26. So we start with that historical fact which may or may not be in some general way related to my next point: it was my experience that lawyers took part in civic activities quite frequently, much more so than doctors and other professional groups. This is not in any way meant to be disparaging to any other group, just to relate my own experience based on personal observations over many years in our former community as a practicing lawyer. I would venture the opinion that the reason there are so many lawyers in legislatures is that they are trained by education and experience to be proficient in drafting and reading and understanding legislative acts. I am realistic enough to understand that in our current environment, there’s a lot more to it than that; for example, it is my observation that as to the reading part, it is physically impossible for members of Congress and the Senate to read voluminous legislative acts on such short notice, much less to understand them. But that would be my theoretical answer at any rate. It is also my experience that lawyers are some time driven to be more prominent in civic and community affairs by the need–and here I will date myself as we started our firm long before lawyers were permitted to appear on the ghastly billboards and even more disgusting TV ads we see now, and we never did engage in any of that kind of gross advertising– to become more well known in the community. This might well be a factor nearly as necessary in other professional groups.
As to the second part of your statement, I can only answer from our standpoint, and based on our own experience, that was never the case on a general basis and absolutely was not the case in our own case– would that it would have been or we would be living now in [here fill in exotic venues and climes in our dreams!].
Here is what Sir Winston had to say:
Sums it up, doesn’t it?
Sincerely, Jim
But is it just my imagination, or did the founding lawyers do a lot of other things aside from being lawyers, and perhaps even more than they were doing lawyering?
I’m not sure. It seems to me that the Founding Lawyers were also at the same time agronomists, publishers, surveyors, philosophers, and historians. So maybe law was not then the bubble it is now.
And perhaps the part of the problem with people committing 5 felonies a day has to do with the idea that if law is good, then more law is better.
On the other hand, I’m personally in the midst of a bit of a strait in that for a couple months I’ve need a single relatively minor point of regulatory environmental law (with major financial implications) cleared up and have yet to find a lawyer who is confident that he knows the law, and who is willing to take the case, and who is not a 3 or 4 hour drive from the site or the local seat of government.
To get the simplest remedies under that law, it seems that lawyers are the only answer, and as I said, cost more than a doctor which may save life or limb.
Then again, maybe justice should be considered a human right and be free, just like socialized medicine.
I don’t have any answers. :)