Another “WHY?” Question

In my last post, I questioned why militias are permitted to roam the country freely, leaving mayhem — and kidnapping plots — in their wakes, with just a few individual arrests here and there. 

Now comes my bafflement at the fact that the Democrats, given myriad opportunities to call, “Foul!” have remained silent.  It passes understanding that they haven’t taken advantage of the blatant, militant Republican hypocrisy to demand changes of course on various issues, or at least to better position themselves for the election. 

The current, ultra-newsworthy example is, of course, the confirmation hearing of Amy Coney Barrett as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.  Senator Lindsay Graham, in a quest to derail the confirmation of Merrick Garland during Barack Obama’s second term, drew a line in the sand and invited future critics to, “use my words against me,” meaning that if he should advocate confirming a new justice in a Presidential election year, he should be reminded of his 2016 stand.  Thus far, no one such as, say, Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer has called Graham on this braggadocio, when the calling-out should be in ten-foot-high letters in the NY Times and Washington Post editorial sections, and front-and-center on the Sunday news shows.  How can the Dems ignore such an easy target, a go-for-the-jugular moment if ever there was one?  Far from going on the attack, Senator Diane Feinstein was actively fawning over Graham at the conclusion of Barrett’s confirmation hearings, a gag-inducing moment if ever there was one. 

Along the same lines, Republicans are ginning up to start wailing about Dem plans to expand the Supreme Court, dragging out the “court packing” bogeyman.  Could the hypocrisy possibly be more unabashed?  So, instead of storming forward with a counterattack, Uncle Joe simply refuses to make a comment about plans to add more justices, because, well, it might not look good if he were to be seen to be attempting to restore balance after three-plus years of Republican court packing. 

Another flagrant instance is the Occupant’s continual ranting about violent leftists and antifa members.  Never mind that the protests of this summer and early fall have been overwhelmingly peaceful, and that several mayors and governors have strongly opposed the Occupant’s “remedy” of deploying anonymous federal officers to forcibly seize legally assembled protesters off the streets with no probable cause.  Instead, the Occupant continues to escalate all heated situations, calling for the “liberation” of Michigan and giving a nod to extremist groups.  He’s openly inciting the very combative, belligerent actions about which he complains and warns ad nauseam.  Yes, some are standing up and pointing out that he is the first cause when it comes to violence, saying he was complicit in the plot to kidnap Michigan’s Governor Whitmer.  But these accusations aren’t coming from Dem leaders.  They’re coming from commentators and other outliers. 

Then there are the ballot drop boxes.  In California, the GOP is adding unauthorized boxes, passing them off as official and sanctioned by the counties.  In South Carolina, the Republicans are taking away drop boxes, leaving those with mail-in ballots no option but to use the now-inconsistent U.S. postal service.  But it’s the GOP that is alleging massive vote fraud.  Likewise, the Occupant has more-than-hinted that he may deploy the military at polling places, and he has already predicted that the election will be decided by the Supreme Court.  And of course, major Republican donor and now Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has done everything in his power to shackle the postal service and throw a wrench into the vote-by-mail process.  This is in-your-face election fraud and tampering.  And yet….the Dems have made no concerted outcry about any of these openly disruptive tactics.  The banner headlines were theirs for the making, but they’ve declined. 

And on and on.  The Occupant twits Biden about Democratic states’ not doing well in the pandemic.  Biden lets it pass.  The Orange Menace contracts the coronavirus after having ridiculed Uncle Joe for wearing a mask.  The Rose Garden gathering honoring Barrett becomes a superspreader event.  The upshot?  Biden tiptoes around, wishing the Occupant a speedy recovery, making no reference to all the people who were put at risk, while the White House makes hay of the fact that the Occupant was out of the hospital in three days, so obviously, the virus is, in fact, no worse than the flu.  Silence from the Dems, despite the Occupant’s receiving platinum treatment and nostrums not available to anyone else, while a looming Supreme Court case may strike down the ACA, leaving millions with no insurance, and no hope of getting coverage, because COVID will be a pre-existing condition. 

Why are Democratic leaders not screaming from the rooftops, using every interview, seizing every sound bite, to hammer home the unmitigated, unprecedented, utterly harmful, endless hypocrisy of their opponents?  One would almost think they don’t care about winning the election, and one could not be faulted for such logic.  That, or the Dems are expecting everyone to look the other way when they commit the same crimes. 

12 thoughts on “Another “WHY?” Question

  1. Partly because the Dems are spineless, but mostly because they are so deeply compromised by money. Again, the Dems are very effective at suppressing Bernie Sanders and other progressives, but they essentially kowtow to the Republicans, as symbolized by Feinstein’s warm hug and fulsome praise of Lindsey Graham.

    Until we get big money out of politics and create a true opposition party, this scandalous behavior will continue.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You’re so right, on all counts. However, you know it and I know it, but the devoted Dem supporters are absolutely as willfully ignorant on these points as GOP’ers. I know quite well that the rhetorical question of my post probably wouldn’t change any minds, but at least I can publicly vent my outrage.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Follow the money” is the answer (or a major clue) to why Dems and Repubs do most anything in Washington.

      Though I think some Repubs really are motivated by things other than money and power; consider the evangelicals and their quest for the End Times. Eternal rewards in heaven, I suppose …

      Liked by 1 person

      1. What I’ve heard is she was encouraged to resign so that Obama could name her replacement.

        Hey, it’s not RBG’s fault the Dems lost in 2016 to a “reality” TV B-list celebrity …

        Liked by 2 people

  3. That strikes me as a very odd situation: someone at the top judiciary level being asked to submit to manipulation by the leader of the executive level. I can understand why RBG held her ground.


  4. If indeed Obama did request RBG’s resignation because of age and cancer, that should be the norm for anyone in a high-ranking, responsible position, and we well know that it’s not the norm. To me, sounds discriminatory at best, slyly opportunistic at worst.


  5. Yes DD, I too was staggered by the unabashed chutzpah of the Republicans in pushing through the Conley nomination after stalling Obama’s nomination for 8 months! I’ve ‘lightly’ followed politics for about 60 yrs, so I’m not exactly naive about the machinations involved, but this was just WAY over-the-top in its sheer blatancy!! In my mind, at that time they forfeited ANY right to be considered an ethical, credible organization for at least 5 years, but I know that next week the MSM will be hanging on their words like they’re serious, sincere statesmen.

    As far as RBG being approached by Obama to take ‘early retirement’, I can’t get too shocked. I have an old HS friend who’s been active in US government organizations and lives near Washington DC, and he’s confirmed that DC is almost only about politics and political strategy (ie; like Hollywood is always about ‘the biz’, Vegas is about gambling, etc), and a POTUS is virtually always going to be a manipulator/strategist — the system effectively filters-out people who AREN’T long before the elections. (e.g.; 2020 Democratic primaries). So, as much as I disliked Obama’s policies (other than getting rid of pre-conditions in health insurance, his one positive accomplishment), discussing a ‘strategic retirement’ with a SCOTUS judge doesn’t strike me as bad, especially in the highly politicized court environment that it’s become since the 1980’s…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. In my American government class in high school, we were taught to follow politics and do our own analyses. Since then (well over 40 years ago), I’ve paid close attention to the political realm. Therefore, I decided before the Reagan era that the GOP was totally lacking in ethics and concern for constituents. But the Dems are rapidly catching up on that scale, after having squashed Bernie’s candidacy twice. I don’t trust any of them, to be honest.

    I agree with you completely about Obama—really not much to admire there. His escalation of drone warfare, for example, was unconscionable. I can understand how he’d look at SC appointments strategically and want to have the opportunity to confirm a progressive thinker to replace RBG, in terms of political maneuvering. Given her never-fading abilities, knowledge, and experience, though, asking her to step down was a bit like a mortician haunting the ICU. It was tactless and not a little cold.


Leave a Reply to Eddie S Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: