The Partisans Who Cried “Bear”

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

You know, I’d be a whole lot more concerned with hacking-Russians news if it didn’t smell so strongly of the stink that Democrats and progressives try to attach to everything Republican and conservative so as to scare people and treat their opponents as if they simply aren’t legitimate participants in public debate.

I recently found video I’ve long sought of Democrat Congressman David Cicilline’s primary debate with Anthony Gemma on WPRO, in which Cicilline repeatedly warns, “I’ve seen these Republicans close up. They’re not kidding.” Because of “the radical Republican agenda,” which (he said) is “led by the Tea Party,” the “American dream [is] really under threat right now.”  This from a guy who likes to tout his “No Labels” principles.

Well, here he is again, taking a prominent place among those attempting to discredit the incoming Republican administration before it’s even reached Day 1:

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill…

“To the extent that foreign interference in the United States presidential elections may have influenced the final result, I believe the electors have the right to consider that,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said in a statement to POLITICO on Saturday.

Mark Sumner declares at Daily Kos, “Even if they never touched a voting machine, there’s absolutely no doubt: Russia hacked the election,” revealing that the word “hacking” doesn’t mean anything anymore.

If Russia hawks want everyone to take this accusation seriously, then it has to sound different from the usual partisan whining that the other side cheated.

Jim Geraghty has it exactly right.  How long is the list of excuses that the Left has offered up for the loss of a profoundly flawed, unlikable candidate under a constant shadow of corruption?  Four of the more memorable talking points are “whitelash,” Comey, fake news, and now Russian hacks.  Of course, here’s the New York Times:

The C.I.A.’s conclusion [that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump] does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday.  Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.

This whole thing is starting to sound ridiculous.  If the big evidence has to do with DNC and other private personal hacks, that was hardly the only source of negative information about Hillary Clinton and her allies.  FOIA requests, investigative journalism, and other sources all flowed together to paint a consistent image, and that image was entirely the doing of Clinton and the Democrats.  Nobody has proclaimed the released information as false, just unfairly shared with the public.

Not only that, but the decisive vote totals were so narrow that any given factor could be declared to have been decisive.  Personally, I agree with those who suspect that, whatever Russia’s activities, they were undertaken with the expectation that Hillary Clinton would win.

At this point, Americans’ biggest fear should arguably be that we’ll become so accustomed to the histrionics of Trump’s opposition that we won’t listen to them when they stumble upon something that’s of actual concern.  That’s especially true when the same people churning the outrage machine over “foreign interference” in the election tend also to promote giving international governmental bodies increased authority over American society.



Quantcast