Rennie -- NPR |
Kevin Rennie’s op-ed piece -- Two Connecticut Republican campaigns. One inspiring. One nauseating – appeared on October 22, about 20 days before the 2022 off year elections.
Rennie finds
Republican Larry Lazor’s campaign in the 1st U.S. Congressional
District against John Larson, who has held the seat since 1999, “inspiring.”
However inspiring, political
bookmakers very likely would call the race in Larson’s favor. The last
Republican to have held office in the 1st District was Edwin May in
1957, and Larson has held the seat in a gerrymandered district for 11 terms.
Lazor is quoted in
the Rennie piece to this effect: “We cannot reap the benefits of discourse and
negotiation afforded by our two-party system while promoting the false and
misleading narrative that the Presidential election was stolen.”
It may be helpful --
and inspiring -- in the next few weeks before Election Day, if Republican
candidates for office who appear to imply that current Connecticut Republicans
office holders are “promoting the false and misleading narrative that the
Presidential election was stolen” should be required to name the Connecticut
Republicans currently running for office who cling to this view.
Rennie himself, a
judicious writer and a former state Republican Senator, might find it somewhat
difficult to discover any current Connecticut Republican office holders --
following the seemingly endless, politically useful public hearings concerning
the riot at the U.S. Capitol -- who maintain that the 2020 presidential
election was “stolen” due to ballot fraud. Pretty much every current
Connecticut Republican officeholder would give an affirmative answer to the
question: “Is Joe Biden the President of the United States?” The notion that
there are huddled masses of Connecticut Republican office holders “promoting
the false and misleading narrative that the Presidential election was stolen”
is a pre-election campaign myth useful to Democrats and foam-at-the-mouth
anti-Trump Republicans.
Some Republicans may
continue to believe that ballot fraud was in evidence during the 2020 election.
Indeed, it would be surprising if no
ballot fraud could be found. But Connecticut Republican office holders
generally would agree that ballot fraud was not so extensive as to deny
Democrat nominee for President Joe Biden the presidency. However, it should be
pointed out that ballot fraud is only a small part of election fraud.
There are
Republicans – and in recent days others, including Democrats and unaffiliateds
-- who now know that former President Donald Trump did not collude with Russian Communists to deny Democrat candidate
for President Hillary Clinton an opportunity at becoming the nation’s first
female President. Election fraud is a wider category than ballot fraud.
The charge of
Russian collusion, now exploded, took up a great deal of newspaper space during
and after the 2020 Presidential election. And it had been false data that led
to FISA court findings on the basis of which a bill of impeachment was passed,
by one vote, in the US House. The bill failed to pass in the Senate, and Trump
remained in office.
The impeachment
proceedings rested in part on the FISA court findings, rooted loosely in a
casual conversation between Steele and a Communist connected “source” in a bar.
Under threat of possible prosecution, Steele later admitted to the FBI that he
could not vouch for the accuracy of his second hand and unreliable information.
This, however, did not prevent upper crust FBI officials from offering Steele a
cool million should he be willing to support assertions he had made in his
fanciful oppo-research document. Steele wisely declined the offer. One is never
on one’s oath when producing oppo-research documents for use in political
campaigns. The impeachment proceedings took up a great deal of space during and
after the election.
It has now been
convincingly shown that the so called Steele “dossier,” a jumble of fanciful
tales – No, Trump did NOT pay ladies of the evening to soil a bed once slept in
by President Barack Obama -- was, as Trump had colorfully suggested, an
overblown fiction paid for in part by the Clinton machine. Some would argue
that the use made of Steele’s oppo-research document constituted election
fraud?
One wonders whether
Rennie considers the “dossier” soap opera and its unfortunate aftermath more or less nauseating than former State Senator George Logan, who is
challenging U.S. Representative Jahana Hayes in Connecticut 5th
District.
No one who ever has
had a moment’s conversation on politics with Logan would regard him as
nauseating for having welcomed Elise Stefanik to Connecticut to pitch for his
campaign. And even if Rennie does regard Stefanik, “an upstate New York
moderate young Republican representative who transformed herself into a
poisonous presence in national politics” by co-sponsoring “a resolution to
expunge Trump’s impeachment,” only a post-McCarthyite tar-brusher would regard
Logan as inescapably tainted by the Trump stink.
In nearly the same
graph in which Rennie tars and feathers Logan’s “nauseating” campaign, he
writes of Logan “He is an energetic campaigner with a lot of personality. He
exudes goodwill…”
Something wrong
there, no?
Comments