They whine without end. At times one wonders whether the Democrats are a political party, a stomping grounds for urging people to stomp on opponents’ grounds, or a whinery. And when they whine, they never stop, no matter how often the truth is explained. So we again GOPsplain, as truth demands we must, why four of their latest whine revivals are so lame:
1. The Electoral College
How many times must it be explained?
A contest has rules. When all contestants are advised of the rules, the contest begins. Everyone plays by the same rules. In America, we have a nickname for that process. It is called “Fairness.”
In baseball, for example, the contest is to score the most runs. Not to get the most hits, to strike out the most batters, to steal the most bases, or to hit the most homers. Rather, whoever gets the most runs wins. Here is how that plays out: The Visitors are leading by a score of 4-3, and the Home team is up in the bottom of the ninth. The Visitors have hit three home runs, and the Home team has hit only two. They have an equal number of base steals, have struck out the same amount. The Visitors have eight hits, the Home team seven hits. There are two out, and the Home team has the bases loaded. The count is 3-0 (three balls and no strikes; if you are lost at this point, go two paragraphs down.) The next pitch is wide outside. Under the rules of baseball, any sane batter who has not been fooled by the ball’s trajectory (e.g., by a nasty slider) will not swing at that pitch; rather, he will take ball four and walk in the tying run. Now the next batter steps in and soon also works a 3-0 count. Again the next pitch is wide. That batter, too, will take that pitch and walk in the winning run. His teammates will celebrate and douse him with a bucket of Gatorade. The goal was to get the most runs, and the home team has won 5-4. That is why the last two Home batters did not swing at the 3-0 pitches in a desperate effort to tie or exceed the Visitors’ numbers of hits or home runs. Because hits and homers do not matter in deciding the winner; only runs matter.
In HillaryClintonWhineCountry, what difference does this make? Does the whiner from the Visitors side whine for the next two years “But we had more hits: 8-7. And we had more home runs: 3-2. How could they say they won?” And indeed such logic may make perfect sense in an episode of the “Handmaid’s Tale” or in an episode of “Alec Baldwin Interviews Robert De Niro to Compare Who Curses More Often in Public.” But for people who have an idea of what is going on in the baseball game — what difference this actually makes — the Home team has won 5-4.
Now, for Presidential politics (and we welcome back our readers from “The Handmaid’s Tale”). In Presidential races, the contest is to score the most Electoral College votes. Moreover, for reasons rooted in historical anomalies and in decades of our country’s broken immigration system, the Democrats start with a ridiculously unfair advantage: The giant Electoral College states of New York, California, and Illinois are locked in with 104 votes for the Democrats before the election campaign even begins — while the Republicans begin with a lock on the eleven votes of itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny Electoral College contingents West Virginia, Montana, and North Dakota. So the system is rigged from the outset — 104 to 11 — against the GOP. But Republicans do not whine. They smile, are polite, ask for their copy of the rules, and then set off on a quixotic journey to overcome the gravely severe imbalance. And they occasionally surprise.
Donald Trump won the 2016 Presidential election because he followed the rules of the contest. He correctly determined the states whose electoral votes he had to win, and he laser-focused his campaigning on those states. He showed up in the Rust Belt states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — and he campaigned his every ounce of energy there. Meanwhile, because she was so much smarter than was Trump, Hillary Clinton decided to campaign again and again in Republican states she was not going to win — and often visited California and New York. Trump strategically ignored California and New York. California and New York have huge populations (and therefore send huge electoral vote contingents to the Electoral College). By the time the votes were tallied, Trump had won more electoral votes nationwide (306-232), and Hillary had won more popular votes (65,853,625 to 62,985,106). She ran up the popular vote numbers in California (8,753,788 to 4,483,810) and in New York (4,556,124 to 2,819,534) — her focus — while Trump ran up the electoral votes in the Rust Belt — his focus. Under the rules of the contest, Trump won, fair and square.
Had the rules in our hypothetical baseball game above been different, the Home team would not have accepted two ninth-inning walks with the bases loaded, but instead would have swung for more hits and home runs. And had the rules in the 2016 Presidential election been different, Donald Trump would have campaigned aggressively in California and New York, would have spent money on ads up and down the two expensive states, and would have beaten Hillary in the national popular vote, too, by gaining millions more votes than he had sought in California and New York.
But those were not the rules of the contest, so only a fool would have misallocated time, money, and campaign resources that way. QED.
In the 2016 Presidential election, the Trump campaign signaled California and New York Republicans that their votes would not determine the election. Because of the particular insanity of the California “Jungle Primary,” there actually was no statewide Republican on that state’s ballot for any other meaningful election in 2016. The race for U.S. Senate was between Democrats Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. No Republican was in that contest. Therefore, with the Trump campaign focused in other states, California Republicans understood that our job was not to get out the vote for Trump but to get him some extra cash. However, had the rules been different — had popular vote been determinative — then Trump would have asked us to get out and campaign for votes. Hillary still would have won California and New York, but Trump then would have gotten millions more California and New York votes and would have won the overall national popular vote anyway.
Meanwhile — while we are talking about popular votes and the Clintons — Bill Clinton was named winner of the 1992 Presidential race despite attracting only a minuscule 43% of the popular vote. Not even close to half the votes cast. Donald Trump did solidly better than that. Was Clinton’s 1992 election legitimate? In 1996, #MeToo Bill once again failed to garner even half the votes cast. Come to think of it — Hillary only got 48% of the votes cast in 2016. In three Presidential tries, no Clinton ever got a majority the country’s votes. So cork that whine.
2. Stacking the Court
For half a century, the Democrats-Leftists have prevented Republican Presidents from naming conservatives to the United States Supreme Court. By sabotaging GOP conservative nominees like Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell, and Robert Bork — and almost Clarence Thomas — they managed to intimidate or convolute the thinking of Republican Presidents who ultimately capitulated with the likes of Harry Blackmun, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter. As a result, Democrats have manipulated the process for decades to assure an activist leftist-majority Court that legislates from the bench by making up laws that are not in the Constitution. Finally — finally, finally — a Republican President entered the White House in 2016 and demonstrated the mettle and guts to stare down the Leftist mob. Now that President Trump has gotten both Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, old whines from the Democrat whinery are being revived. For the first time since Franklin Roosevelt eighty years ago, the whining Democrats again talk of stacking the Court. So if there now are five conservative justices and four liberals, the Dems would add two more radical liberal justices to give themselves a 6-5 advantage in a reconstituted eleven-justice Supreme Court.
This, from the Roe v. Wade side of the aisle that demands eternal obeisance to stare decisis and precedent. How true the meme: “If Leftists did not have double standards, they would have no standards at all.” They say that precedent is sacrosanct and that there must not be tinkering with the justice system — except that thing about the nine justices. If baseball’s American League can deviate from nine-player precedent and add a tenth player, the designated hitter, to the lineup, why can’t the Supreme Court expand beyond nine, too, to move the goalposts closer?
Aside from the unlikely chance that such lawless Democrat-Left cheating ever would get through the Senate and the courts, something more obvious comes to mind: If the Dems increase the Court from nine to eleven, what is to stop the Republicans thereafter, when their turn comes again, from increasing the Court to, oh say, 731? Yeah, to add another 720 justices. That would change the imbalance from 6-5 Left to 725-6 conservative. Sure, and then the Dems could increase the Court the next time to, say, 3,893 — 3,168 Leftists v. 725 conservatives. And then the GOP, when their turn comes.…
When the black robes are ordered from the catalog, leave them dressed to the nines. Because when the Democrats under Harry Reid ended the filibuster on judicial nominations, the Republicans played twice as hard and confirmed Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. When Joe Biden introduced a new rule against a President nominating Supreme Court justices in his election year, Republicans remembered when Obama tried forcing Merrick Garland through.
So cork that whine.
3. Impeaching Kavanaugh
The Dem-Left regularly speaks about impeaching people: “Impeach 45.” “Impeach Kavanaugh.”
Only one Supreme Court justice (Samuel Chase) and only two Presidents ever before have been impeached in all 229 years since the Constitution was ratified? Why so few? Because the idea is so lame. After the House of Representatives manages to put the country through the disruption of an impeachment, the office-holder still is not ousted unless two-thirds of the Senate thereafter votes accordingly. Two-thirds of the United States Senate never will vote to oust President Trump nor Justice Kavanaugh. Not in a million years. For the foreseeable future, with Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, and the late Senator McCain (G-d rest his soul) out of the Senate, the only Senate NeverTrumpers on the horizon will be Lisa Murkowski and presumably Mitt Romney. Add them to the 46 or 50 or so Senate Dems, and the vote to oust would not even be close to the necessary 67. Never ever gonna happen.
Beyond that, any step to impeach Justice Kavanaugh invites the deliciously concurrent impeachment of Justice Ginsburg. From the time that she called the President a “faker” to her suggesting that her late husband was correct in recommending that Americans move to New Zealand if President Trump were to be elected, she strikingly has abandoned all proper judicial temperament. Any move to impeach Justice Kavanaugh should be met within weeks, if not hours, with the filing of Articles of Impeachment aimed at relieving Justice Ginsburg from the bench so that she can be freed to work full-time for the Democrats. Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey may have scrunched their last clown car and packed their last elephant trunks, but the circus will be back in town.
As time marches on, it well may be expected that the musings to impeach Justice Kavanaugh will evaporate. The allegations by Deborah Ramirez were specious. Those proffered by Julie Swetnick were insane. Swetnick’s attorney most recently was seen challenging people to mixed-martial-arts fisticuffs and losing another foolish Stormy lawsuit against the President. And, with each passing day, the compelling testimony of Christine Blasey Ford unravels more-and-more as questionable in some aspects, and as outright false in others. In short time, we already know that Ford put in that second front door in her home for reasons unrelated to claustrophobia — so she seems to have lied under oath on that one. We already know that she flies for fun and adventure, so that area also caught her in alie. As Connecticut’s Vietnam War Hero [sandwich] Dick Blumenthal reminded us: “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.” (“If you get caught lying under oath about one thing — like why you install front doors and a bogus fear of flying — it is fair to infer that you will lie under oath about a bunch of other things, so don’t try intimidating fair-minded observers with that ‘#Believe Survivors’ stuff… or, as ‘Judge Judy’ Sheindlin titled one of her books based on a Yiddish expression.…” ) Notably, Ford’s attorneys still will not share her therapist’s notes with the Senate Judiciary Committee, even though they may disclose that Ford is one-ten-thousandth Cherokee. More and more, it appears that the Ford testimony, where it was not conscious perjury, included sadly convoluted false memory. Time will continue elevating this wonderful man’s reputation and crown of a good name to its full well-deserved honor. Justice Thomas today is a man of sterling reputation, and Justice Kavanaugh will follow in Justice Thomas’s steps. Christine Ford will continue to be a lessor and ultimately lesser. Julie Swetnick soon will be mistaken for a typo. And a future generation of American boys and girls will dream of someday clerking for Justice Brett Kavanaugh — or just getting to hear him speak at graduation.
So cork that whine.
4. Negroes Who Don’t Read
The Democrat-Left and their media golems gang-attacked Kanye West for going to the Oval Office to express support for President Trump.
Although I may be among the few Americans whose time learning Talmud has interfered with living vicariously through Kanye and the Kardashians, I never knowingly have heard any “music” he has written or performed. My preferences are Alan Jackson and George Strait, the Garth Brooks of the 1990s, Toby Keith, and the greats whose shoes George Jones recognized would be so hard to fill. My knowledge of Kanye West is that he is the boor who disrupts music-awards twerking ceremonies that I never watch. So I will not present here as though I always have liked Mr. West. (Indeed, can it be surprising that Taylor Swift — who has all the political insight and depth of a piece of dry sponge cake, and who now joins the Dixie Chicks in country music’s dustbin — would align opposite whoever West endorses?)
Nevertheless, for goodness sakes, how can anyone of any ethnicity, gender, religion, or race speak of Kanye with the vicious bigoted calumny that CNN and MSNBC and their Democrat stooges leveled at him after he told President Trump that he loves him? I listened to every word of that Oval Office meeting. The man was meandering from his heart, from his soul. He was talking about how Hillary’s “I’m With Her” campaign had been emasculating for so many African-American men like him and how he had reclaimed pride in donning the red MAGA hat, essentially saying, from a place of empowerment: “I stand for what I believe in, and I will not be intimidated by the Left mob.” And he stands for Trump.
He understands — perceptively indeed — that African Americans have lost terribly by casting all their chits with one party. That party takes them for granted, has done so for decades, and never will offer them more than Pelosi-quality crumbs as long as they are tucked away safely in the “D” column. The cities where Democrat monopolies have controlled for decades — like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore — have ruined African Americans and robbed thousands of their lives to street violence and murder. Although the Obamas came into politics as community organizers and left the White House as millionaires, they leveraged African-American voters but abandoned them to skyrocketed unemployment and “entitlements” (i.e., low-grade government hand-outs), cheating so many out of the dignity of gainful employment and the road to economic upward mobility that the Obamas assured for their own children. Kanye West figured out, in his way, what such sophisticated African-American thinkers as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Ben Carson, David Clarke, Allen West, Larry Elder and so many other African-American conservatives have figured out in their ways. Why does that make him mentally unfit to opine? Actually, despite Kanye’s profound eccentricity and terrible behavior at awards ceremonies, he seems a great deal wiser than the Democrat shills who, although themselves well paid for herding the vote, continually have left so many in mainstream Black America to be passed over and leap-frogged by newcomers to America, who wisely have sidestepped the siren songs of the Democrats and the sirens of the Democrats’ inner cities.
It is disgusting to watch bigots like Don Lemon laugh while a guest on his show says that Kanye reflects what “happens when Negroes don’t read.” What kind of Black-on-Black racist hate talk is that? That is worse than tolerating the “N-word” — transcending a filthy word of historic oppression and instead superimposing the classic racial epithet uniquely advanced by racists to conjure up slavery images of a time when African Americans indeed were denied reading and education. Really? Kanye West does not read? He composes lyrics. He makes millions in companies. But because he is black with a mind of his own, he cannot read? Would Don Lemon say that Susan Rice’s praise of Bo Bergdahl as someone who “served with honor and distinction” reflects “what happens when Negroes does not read”? Despicable. Look up Kanye on Wikipedia. This guy is a major force in his genres, among the most awarded and most successful performers of his era, a profoundly successful entrepreneur. It takes profound race hate to say that such a man is a “Negro who does not read” and is just a shuffling push-over “token Negro.” Really disgusting.
Send them all to the electoral college for a bachelor’s degree. And cork that whine.