Democrats think they should be able to steal a close election won by a Republican

 NPR:

Democrats Reviewing Whether To Overturn A Certified Iowa U.S. House Election
...

"Our committee should not be moving forward with overturning our colleague's state-certified election. [Miller-Meeks] is a sitting member of Congress with all of the same rights and privileges as each and every one of us," said Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois, the top Republican on the committee, at the March 10 meeting. Republicans have noted that Hart's campaign opted not to challenge the election results in Iowa court, but rather through a partisan House process with a Democratic advantage.

There are growing political tensions around this particular challenge in the House, where relationships between Democrats and Republicans have deteriorated since the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the day of the certification of the Electoral College vote results. On that day, 139 House Republicans voted to object to state-certified results in Arizona and Pennsylvania after extremists ransacked the Capitol. Now, Democrats are in control of a process to decide whether to overturn a certified election result.
...

However, with a narrow 219-211 current majority, some Democrats are aware that the review could be cast as a power grab to pad their margin in the House. "Losing a House election by six votes is painful for Democrats. But overturning it in the House would be even more painful for America. Just because a majority can, does not mean a majority should," tweeted Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota, a centrist Democrat.
...

I think they did not challenge the election in an Iowa court is because they thought they would lose.  They have instead decided to use a partisan power grab in Congress. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The myth of 'voter suppression'

 DailyWire: Harmeet K. Dhillon, founder of the Dhillon Law Group Inc., blasted Democrats’ claims of race-based voter suppression while pointing out the real threat to U.S. election integrity: the federalization of election law. Dhillon and her law firm are representing The Daily Wire in its legal challenge against the Biden administration’s order mandating that large employers either vaccinate or mask and COVID-19 test all their employees. The Supreme Court stayed the order on January 13 in a major blow to the government. Roughly two weeks later, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration withdrew the rule to reassess its implementation. Dhillon is set to appear on “The Ben Shapiro: Sunday Special” episode airing Sunday, January 30. During the episode, Dhillon and host Ben Shapiro cover topics from the Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay President Joe Biden’s vaccine order for large employers and conservatives’ reluctance to engage in “lawfare” with Democrats. When th...
Read more
A global war on insurgency Roxanna Tiron: The anti-insurgency tactics the U.S. military is learning in Iraq could be applied globally, which would turn the war on terrorism into a “war on insurgency,” said Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and war fighting support. “My position is that this is a global insurgency,” said Boykin during a forum on special operations and low intensity conflict. In Iraq and other trouble spots, the United States has to come to grips with the nature of the enemy, he explained. “It is a web of networks that come together in a coalition of convenience. There are links to drug trafficking, money laundering and the like,” he said. An insurgency is a political-military activity, in which the political aspects are much more ...
Read more

Kerry's false premise on UN resolution

Gregg Roman: ... Although administration officials have been reluctant to explain the precise reasoning behind their last-minute series of attacks on Israel, as near as I can tell it rests on three assumptions. The first, as Kerry outlined in his speech, is that a freeze on Israeli settlement growth makes it easier for Palestinian negotiators to make painful compromises at the negotiating table. It supposedly does this by easing Palestinian suspicions that Israel either won't make major territorial concessions at the negotiating table, or won't implement these concessions once made. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put this assumption to the test in November 2009 when he imposed a 10-month moratorium on new housing construction (East Jerusalem excepted) at the urging of the Obama administration. What happened? Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to return to talks until the very end of the moratorium and remained every bit as intransigent as ...
Read more