Winning Is for Losers | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
Winning Is for Losers
by

Democrats sure put a scare in Republicans this week and last. (Normally Republicans get scared just peeking into a mirror — just ask Rep. Jason Chaffetz.) First in Kansas, a Democrat came within 7 points of defeating a Republican in the special election to replace Mike Pompeo, now CIA director whom Roger Stone has taken a perverse disliking to (as is his wont). For Dems, a seven-point loss was deemed as a good as a win, maybe even better than a lopsided triumph. Why none of them has demanded a recount is beyond our IQ.

(Of course, why recount when you’re certain you’ve won by losing? A favorable recount might declare you the winner, and then you’ll know you’ve lost. No Democrat wants to be like President Trump, shorn of all legitimacy because he actually won.)

Then last Tuesday we had the burning in Atlanta. The Sherman? None other than district non-resident and future baby-stroller pushing papa Jon Ossoff, a 30-old-slacker whose greatest achievement is that he’s a faithful boyfriend of twelve years standing of an Emory University medical student. He won 48.1 percent of the revved-up vote, falling 1.9 percent short of the 50 percent threshold that would have seen him declared victor.

Republican weakness was visible in several ways. Donald Trump had barely carried the district last year. On top of that, Republicans  could muster only 11 Republicans to vie for the seat, well short of the 17 candidates who normally compete in an important Republican contest. But more troubling, Enemy Central has learned, Mr. Ossoff bears an uncanny resemblance to Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. It is entirely possible and probably a certainty that many of Mr. Ossoff’s voters thought they were marking their ballots for Mr. Kushner. When you hear that Ms. Ivanka Trump has enrolled at Columbia Medical School, don’t act surprised.

“This is already a victory for the ages,” the callow Mr. Ossoff declared upon falling short on Tuesday. By the June 20 final vote, ageism may not suffice. Then again, by then he may be old enough to qualify for Enemy of the Week (EOW) recognition. We’ll see what he’s made of these next two months.

But now we have a bigger fish to fry (or bigger fish, if we include Lena Dunham, but let’s not). The instant best seller Shattered has brought Hillary back to us, under another glass ceiling that refuses to shatter. It’s all so easy now, to pile on against her because she wasn’t forward-thinking enough to win by losing, even with all those popular votes buttressing her case in disposable California. For all the heroic reporting by Shattered’s authors, and their restraint in holding back on releasing all the damning facts about the Hillary campaign before the election when that news might have meant something, and dumping that info instead months after Election Day when it was of absolutely no use to anyone save those trying to guess the identity of all of the book’s unnamed sources — their project is worse than a crime. It’s a felony.

We suppose it was brave of the authors and their publisher to put their names on their book — Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes, in case you’re thinking of nominating them for Pulitzers — but we would have preferred some greater honesty on that score. Why not have the authors variously known as “A White Liberal Reporter Close to the Presidential Campaign” or “A Longtime Lackey of the Washington Press Corps” or “A Five-Time Attendee of the White House Correspondents Dinner”? If they’re not going to name their sources and make use of them in a timely matter, maybe they should disappear from polite company. It would also save Mr. Allen and Ms. Parnes the embarrassment of seeing their names enshrined in the EOW Hall of Shame.

One thing we do know: don’t blame Hillary for their loss… of name recognition.

o
Sign Up to receive Our Latest Updates! Register

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!