Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Have Democrats Been Fair?

 

An Open Letter to Senator Murkowski

Dear Senator:

“Fair is fair.” That’s what you said about your decision to oppose voting for Justice Ginsburg’s replacement. It sounds a great deal like the maxim in Equity that “he who seeks equity must do equity.” It’s a good rule, but only when this appeal to good faith is made in good faith. Perhaps it would benefit you to examine the principles of fairness that underlie President Trump’s term, and consider anew what “fair is fair” really means. Because, to paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Was it fair for Hillary Clinton to pay Christopher Steele for a dossier filled with “bar talk” that claimed, without evidence, that President Trump was in Putin’s pocket? Does that seem fair to you? Because, I have to tell you, to rational people across the country, that just doesn’t seem fair.

Was it fair for the FBI, on getting the dossier, to assume its status as holy scripture above reproach and launch a spying operation through both human sources as well as electronic sources on the Trump campaign? That seems a bit over-the-top to me.

Was it fair for the FBI, in seeking the FISA warrant to omit all manner of exculpatory information? Was it fair for Clinesmith to doctor an email to further defraud that court? Was it fair for the FBI not to pull the plug after January of 2017 when they knew from talking to the sub source, who was in the US, not Russia, that the dossier was bunk? Think about that Senator! Was that fair?

Was it fair for Rosenstein to appoint Mueller when he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence would have known, that the dossier was a paid-for political hit job with all the credibility of a Nigerian Prince email? Was it fair for Mueller, who had to know moments after he was appointed that there was no basis in fact or law to assume that Russia had Trump on its payroll, to continue the probe? He had to know that the dossier was full of disinformation. Did he care? Did he act fairly? Ask yourself.

And knowing that there was no “there” there, was it fair for Mueller to continue the Russia probe past the mid-term elections for the sole purpose of handing the Democrats the House of Representatives so that they could launch a meritless impeachment? Was that fair? Think about that. Had Mueller turned out his report in September, when he clearly knew there was nothing there, would the mid-term elections have gone the way they went? You already know the answer.

Was it fair for Mueller and his team of Hillary Clinton donors to consistently leak knowingly false information to the media to suggest there was a case against President Trump? Was it fair for them to set up a perjury trap for General Flynn? Was it fair for the D.C. Circuit to override the three judge panel and allow Judge Sullivan to engage in Star-Chamber proceedings against General Flynn? Does any of that comport with traditional notions of justice and fair play? Does any of that sound in some way like the Democrat partisans were acting in good faith?

Was it fair for the House through Jerry Nadler to throw out the rules that govern impeachments and that were recognized as fair when President Clinton was impeached? Was it fair to disallow counsel for the president to participate? Was it fair for Adam Schiff to classify and refuse to release the deposition of the Intelligence Community IG? The public still does not know what he said. And in the law, when a party has evidence that it refuses to bring forward, the law allows a presumption that the evidence would be harmful to their case?

And was it fair for the Democrats, upon learning that Mueller had nothing on the president, and after his very disappointing testimony (as far as Democrats were concerned) to immediately gin up a fake Ukrainian scandal? You must believe he did nothing wrong, even though you virtue signaled by calling his actions shameful. If investigating the openly criminal conduct of the former vice president, actions that he bragged about on video, is shameful, then what are we to make of your conduct in voting not to convict? It appears you wish to ride the fence on every issue.

Senator, you were sent to Washington to do a job. Apparently, you believe it is more important to keep your job by not doing your job, than it is to do your job. Understand that your base will return you to Washington if you stick to the conservative principles that got you there in the first place. But if you continue to waffle on major issues because you fear the electorate, that wont’ stop your opponents from going after your seat. It will, however, stop people like me and thousands like me from sending you a dime for your campaign. If you continue down this road you will be dead to us. You will be as big a traitor to conservative principles as John McCain and Mitt Romney. If you wish to surround yourself with such people, God help you.

Perhaps you should remember what a truly great president said about standing up for your principles and being willing to withstand the criticism:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
— Teddy Roosevelt, Citizenship in a Republic

There is no room today for political cowardice. We are in a fight for the very survival of the Republic. There are forces at work that seek to eliminate our Republic and replace capitalism with communism. If you align yourself with these forces Senator, you become to Americans as Benedict Arnold. Your name will not be kindly remembered. There will be no Murkowski federal building. There will be no Murkowski bridge. There will only be the enmity that accompanies the view of your actions.

Published in Politics
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. Get your first month free.

There are 22 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. philo Member

    Anthony L. DeWitt: “Fair is fair.”

    A three word summary that confirms this person is every bit as stupid as I assume everyone brandishing the title “Senator” is these days (until they prove otherwise). Based on her expanded comments, she doesn’t even understand what was done in 2016 and why. Hands down the dumbest move by a “Republican” Senator since this:

    When history calls, history calls. - Olympia Snowe

    Expect Mittens to put on his best dress and follow suit.

    • #1
    • September 19, 2020, at 11:31 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. Anthony L. DeWitt Coolidge
    Anthony L. DeWitt

    philo (View Comment):

    Anthony L. DeWitt: “Fair is fair.”

    A three word summary that confirms this person is every bit as stupid as I assume everyone brandishing the title “Senator” is these days (until they prove otherwise). Based on her expanded comments, she doesn’t even understand what was done in 2016 and why. Hands down the dumbest move by a “Republican” Senator since this:

    When history calls, history calls. - Olympia Snowe

    Expect Mittens to put on his best dress and follow suit.

    You expect less from Mittens, and you get it. But I figured Murkowski would understand the issue. I am so sick of RINOs I can’t stand it.

    • #2
    • September 19, 2020, at 12:34 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  3. Full Size Tabby Member

    A major difference between 2016 and 2020 is that in 2016 then candidate Donald Trump declared judicial selection a campaign issue, and told the public the type of judges he would nominate (including a list of specific people for Supreme Court), so voters could factor into their voting decision the difference between the judges Democrats would nominate (as a continuation of President Obama’s activity) and the judges Donald Trump would nominate.

    In 2020, the Democrats have refused to describe the types of judges they would nominate, so voters do not have information to factor judicial nominations into their vote for a Democrat for president. Judicial selection will not influence someone to vote for a Democrat for president. Since there is no basis for judicial selection to influence a vote for a Democrat for president, Sen. Schumer’s call to delay so the voters can decide is without foundation.

     

    • #3
    • September 19, 2020, at 12:48 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  4. EODmom Coolidge

    Have you sent this to her office? Please do. 

    • #4
    • September 19, 2020, at 1:14 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. CACrabtree Coolidge

    The good ship “Objectivity” sailed a long time ago. This is now political combat which many Republicans fail to grasp. It’s incredible that they have forgotten the Kavanaugh Debacle and the depths the guttersnipe Dims will go to achieve their goals. Murkowski is proof that the spirit of Jeff Flake lives on. The Republicans owe the Dims not one thing…

    • #5
    • September 19, 2020, at 1:37 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Hang On Member
    Hang OnJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Why bother? I can’t imagine anyone voting for her. If I were from Alaska, I would at least vote for a full-frontal Democrat before the back end of Murkowski.

    • #6
    • September 19, 2020, at 1:42 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. JoelB Member

    When the Dems argue against the 2/3 majority rule in the Senate it is called fairness. When the Repubs do it, it is the “nuclear option” with scare quotes. You know the Dems will do it at the first sign of need if they get a simple majority.

    • #7
    • September 19, 2020, at 2:25 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  8. PHCheese Member

    She will never read your letter if you email it. Sending a fax wakes up the whole office because it is rarely used anymore. Of course being the government they all still have them.

    • #8
    • September 19, 2020, at 3:37 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  9. EHerring Coolidge

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    She will never read your letter if you email it. Sending a fax wakes up the whole office because it is rarely used anymore. Of course being the government they all still have them.

    So do I, but mainly because I haven’t mastered how to translate my papers into things that can be sent electronically over the Internet. It is easier to insert, dial number, and walk away….but agree….send it by fax….they can’t avoid noticing it.

    • #9
    • September 19, 2020, at 5:15 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Django Member

    After what the Demos did to Kavanaugh, anything the Republicans do is fair. Even Lindsey Graham agrees. 

    • #10
    • September 19, 2020, at 8:15 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. Stad Thatcher

    Senator: The problem with staking a position this early is it gives you little leeway if you decide to change your mind later.

    @anthonydewitt, print your letter and mail it!

    • #11
    • September 20, 2020, at 6:31 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  12. EHerring Coolidge

    Stad (View Comment):

    Senator: The problem with staking a position this early is it gives you little leeway if you decide to change your mind later.

    @anthonydewitt, print your letter and mail it!

    Lindsey is in a tight race. He will make room for leeway or go down to a Pelosi puppet.

    • #12
    • September 20, 2020, at 9:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Goldgeller Member

    Agenda setting is in many ways as important as influencing the outcome of final votes. For the purposes of many final votes, a Republican in the hand is worth two in the bush. Sure. I get that at some level of abstraction. I’d rather have the seat filled and lose a vote or two. 

    The reticence of a few marginal Republicans to go all in on one of the biggest political contests Rs and Ds can have makes me wonder why I should worry about her career. A Republican [party?] that is afraid to do anything other than manage democrats expectations… well… I guess there is some logic in that, but it isn’t what I signed up to hold my nose and vote for.

    Too many politicians ask us to do a solid for them as opposed to the other way around. I would launch into a rant about how they are bad and so on and so forth. But I remember that in the end we actually all leave work early and stand in line and re-elect them so maybe they aren’t the problem. 

    • #13
    • September 20, 2020, at 11:36 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  14. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Why bother? I can’t imagine anyone voting for her. If I were from Alaska, I would at least vote for a full-frontal Democrat before the back end of Murkowski.

    Murkowski is only in office because Mitch McConnell supported her independent run why she was rejected by REPUBLICANS in Alaska in the Tea Party wave election. McConnell was terrified of losing power to real conservatives, so put the word out that she would keep all the perks if she won. She did so, narrowly, in the resulting 3 way race.

    Murkowski’s god is herself and her one sacrament is abortion. 

    • #14
    • September 20, 2020, at 12:51 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  15. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Senator: The problem with staking a position this early is it gives you little leeway if you decide to change your mind later.

    @anthonydewitt, print your letter and mail it!

    Lindsey is in a tight race. He will make room for leeway or go down to a Pelosi puppet.

    He is in a tight race because he is a squish and a big supporter of endless war.

    • #15
    • September 20, 2020, at 12:53 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. Eridemus Coolidge

    Biden says not letting Dems into the process is an “abuse of power.” Is that kinda like when they literally locked the doors to keep Republicans out of their work on Obamacare, didn’t release it in time to even read before the vote, and knew all along that they didn’t need any Republican votes?

    • #16
    • September 20, 2020, at 2:55 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  17. Al Sparks Thatcher

    From Murkowski’s Wikipedia page:

    After losing the Republican Party primary to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller, Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate and defeated both Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams in the general election; this made her the second U.S. Senator, the first being Strom Thurmond in 1954, to be elected by write-in vote.[1] Although Murkowski has won three full terms to the Senate, she has never won a majority of the vote; she won pluralities in each of her three races, with 48.6% of the vote in 2004, 39.5% in 2010, and 44.4% in 2016.

    Anthony L. DeWitt: Understand that your base will return you to Washington if you stick to the conservative principles that got you there in the first place.

    She has no conservative base, and though she caucuses with the Republicans, she didn’t win as one. She won her write-in ballot by in part appealing to Alaska’s liberals as well as a negative campaign against Joe Miller (which he mostly deserved). In fact the Democrat stopped campaigning that year. She does not owe Alaska conservatives anything.

    I have voted against her everytime.

    • #17
    • September 20, 2020, at 7:04 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. philo Member

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    From Murkowski’s Wikipedia page:

    After losing the Republican Party primary to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller, Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate and defeated both Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams in the general election; this made her the second U.S. Senator, the first being Strom Thurmond in 1954, to be elected by write-in vote.[1] Although Murkowski has won three full terms to the Senate, she has never won a majority of the vote; she won pluralities in each of her three races, with 48.6% of the vote in 2004, 39.5% in 2010, and 44.4% in 2016.

    Anthony L. DeWitt: Understand that your base will return you to Washington if you stick to the conservative principles that got you there in the first place.

    She has no conservative base, and though she caucuses with the Republicans, she didn’t win as one. She won her write-in ballot by in part appealing to Alaska’s liberals as well as a negative campaign against Joe Miller (which he mostly deserved). In fact the Democrat stopped campaigning that year. She does not owe Alaska conservatives anything.

    I have voted against her everytime.

    A write-in win where they all had to spell “Murkowski” correctly…sounds fishy to me.

    • #18
    • September 20, 2020, at 7:26 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. Django Member

    Another RINO heard from. Anyone surprised?

    EDIT: Shouldn’t the Democrats hold the same position they held in 2016 when they demanded that Merrick Garland(sp?) be given an up or down vote? Doesn’t their hypocrisy damage the institution of the Senate as well?

    • #19
    • September 20, 2020, at 7:49 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
    • This comment has been edited.
  20. CACrabtree Coolidge

    Django (View Comment):

    Another RINO heard from. Anyone surprised?

    EDIT: Shouldn’t the Democrats hold the same position they held in 2016 when they demanded that Merrick Garland(sp?) be given an up or down vote? Doesn’t their hypocrisy damage the institution of the Senate as well?

    So Flake’s still alive? Dang.

    • #20
    • September 21, 2020, at 9:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. Django Member

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Another RINO heard from. Anyone surprised?

    EDIT: Shouldn’t the Democrats hold the same position they held in 2016 when they demanded that Merrick Garland(sp?) be given an up or down vote? Doesn’t their hypocrisy damage the institution of the Senate as well?

    So Flake’s still alive? Dang.

    Sort of. Dead from the neck up. 

    • #21
    • September 21, 2020, at 9:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. kedavis Member

    Django (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Another RINO heard from. Anyone surprised?

    EDIT: Shouldn’t the Democrats hold the same position they held in 2016 when they demanded that Merrick Garland(sp?) be given an up or down vote? Doesn’t their hypocrisy damage the institution of the Senate as well?

    So Flake’s still alive? Dang.

    Sort of. Dead from the neck up.

    Has there ever been a senator with a more appropriate name than “Flake?”

    That bureaucrat in the first Ghostbusters movie could be a contender, but “Dickless” never ran for office.

    • #22
    • September 22, 2020, at 12:52 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
    • This comment has been edited.