Apparently the latest deceptive slur on those who question the integrity of the 2020 election—which had less than any Presidential election in this century plus at least 40 years back in the previous one—is “election denier.” Nice. I found it ironic that just as an esteemed commenter here has been trying mightily in good faith to argue that the New York Times is not a constant purveyor of partisan propaganda, the paper headlines a front-page story, “Election Deniers Seek State Posts To Certify Votes,” a slimy and misleading header by any standard. Following in the muddy footsteps of the climate change fanatics, using “denier” to characterize those who oppose the Left’s cant, the Times headline plays a despicable cognitive dissonance game. “Denier,” until the climate change mob started using it, had previously only applied to the deniers of the Holocaust–fascists, anti-Semites, and morons. Thus, by extension, “deniers” in any context is similarly damning—and that’s the idea.
In a similar vein, a CNN “factchecker” recently railed that “Twitter says it has quit taking action against lies about the 2020 election.” The story begins, “Twitter quit taking action to try to limit the spread of lies about the 2020 election, the company said on Friday — a day after another social media platform, YouTube, removed a Republican congressman’s campaign ad because it included a 2020 lie…Twitter has not been enforcing its ‘civic integrity policy’ in relation to lies about the 2020 election.”
What is this “lie”? CNN’s reporter is outraged that the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Missouri Rep. Billy Long, is still allowed on Twitter and Facebook when he uses the phrase, “Democrats rigged the election.”
That is not a “lie,” nor is it “election-denying.” Merriam-Webster’s relevant definition of “rig” is “to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means: rig an election.” Manipulate, like, say, oh, just to pick a random example out of the air, deliberately keeping relevant and negative information about one candidate (Biden’s son’s laptop, with hinds of shady involvement by “the Big Guy”) away from voters, while burying them in false negative stories about the other (President Trump let the Russians pay bounties on dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Trump has said the election was rigged or “stolen,” and there is solid evidence to back that position. As for “stolen,” A Pennsylvania court last week held that undated mail-in ballots should not be counted in a local judiciary election, though such ballots were counted in the 2020 election. Another Pennsylvania Court held that the state’s mail voting law, which the state’s Democratic Governor signed into law in anticipation of the 2020 Presidential race, was unconstitutional. The Quaker State’s Constitution requires voters to cast ballots in person unless they meet certain requirements, and an amendment is required before such a law is valid.
Without the mail-in ballots, it is very possible, even likely, that Trump would have won Pennsylvania. That doesn’t mean that Biden wasn’t elected—Trump needed more electoral votes than just one state could provide—but it does mean that suspicions about the fairness, integrity and legitimacy of the election are not “baseless,” which is the word some DNC memo apparently directed all of the party’s media mouthpieces to use.
As for the “denier”…I’ll quote myself in another thread:
As an analogy, I believe that the home umpire’s [Larry Barnett] wrong call in Game 3 of the 1975 World Series probably cost the Boston Red Sox that World Championship. They wuz robbed, as the saying goes—but I have never denied that the Cincinnati Reds won that World Series.
They shouldn’t have won; it was unfair that they won; the Sox might have very well won had Barnett gotten the call right, but even in 1975, I never said that the Reds didn’t win.
It is unfortunate that Donald Trump’s facility with the English language prevents him from making such distinctions, but I expect better from the New York Times. I guess I shouldn’t.
As an addendum, I also want to point out that the Times headline suggest that the “deniers” want to become secretaries of state to “certify votes,” implying the they want decertify valid votes. That is pure partisan spin. I would assume they want to hold those offices to make sure that unconstitutional laws don’t pollute the crucial institution of fair and democratic elections…like they did in Pennsylvania, where the Secretary of State looked the other way.