The Exploitation of the Underinformed

Hillary Clinton is at it again.  In the wake of the death of Antonin Scalia and the Senate Republicans’ recommendation to follow precedent and allow the next President to nominate a justice to the vacany, Clinton is calling this “racial language.”

This is the problem with politicians, particularly Democrats.  They prey on the uninformed by telling you there is a problem when there is none, and convincing you that they alone can solve the problem (even though the problem does not exist).  

Case in point: Hillary Clinton has seized this opportunity to tell you that Republicans are racists and bigots, that they will block any nominee from the President no matter how qualified that person is, and that this is because they hate the President because he is black.

Rational people would see through this.  But the average Democrat is not capable of rational thought.  At least not the average Democrat voter who is not in a seat of power.  The power elite of course know that she is, to be polite, stretching the truth.  But they are in on it to maintain their power, so why would they call her a liar?

The rest of us are left to do our best to convey a message of reason.  Let’s take a look at what she is saying:

“The Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates no matter how qualified.”

Who said that exactly?  They did not say anything about rejecting “anyone President Obama nominates” and they most certainly did not say “no matter how qualified.”

You also have to understand that in political parlance, “qualified” means someone who thinks like the person doing the nomination.  Samuel Alito was certainly qualified to sit on the court.  He graduated from Yale Law, sat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and had many major appellate decisions to his credit.  In fact, when nominated to the Court of Appeals, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.

But when he was nominated for the Supreme Court, his nomination was filibustered.  In fact, then Senator Obama said, “I will be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values. When you look at his decisions–in particular, during times of war–we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch.”

Wait a minute.  Barack Obama supported the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee who was fully qualified to sit on the bench of the nation’s highest court?  His reason wasn’t due to qualifications at all.  It was because he didn’t like what Alito stood for.

OK – that’s completely fine.  That’s what the Senate’s job is when it comes to judicial nominees.  It is to provide a system of checks and balances to the system to prevent one branch of government (the executive) from stacking another branch (the judicial) with judges that will support their usurpation of power from the third (the legislative).

Back to Clinton’s comments then.  In light of this, first, no Senator said they will reject “anyone… no matter how qualified.”  Most recommended that based on historical precedent that he not nominate someone.  Others did say they are likely to not support whomever he nominates, but clearly that is their prerogative.  Here’s a list of Senators who did exactly that with Samuel Alito.  Were they racist or bigoted?  Or were they just doing what they thought was right in light of their world view?

“Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone, as if somehow he’s not the real president.”

With this statement, Hillary has elevated her argument from political banter into the realm of the absurd.

Again, like the previous statement, who said this?  If it was someone outside of the Senate, who cares?  If it was Trump – same thing.  But I know of no one involved in the process (read: Senators) who said anything of the sort.

And I am quite certain that no one actually feels that way.  We all know he as the right to nominate.  That’s what the Constitution says.  What it doesn’t say is that the Senate has to bow to his whim.  The term “consent” means that they must content to his nominee – in other words, they must approve it.  Blocking a nominee is part of that process.

Perhaps we should ask Hillary why then she supported Harry Reid as leader of the Senate when he blocked all those judicial appointments of George W. Bush’s from ever coming to the floor for a vote.

“You know that’s in keeping what we heard all along, isn’t it?Many Republicans talk in coded racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics or our country.”

In light of not only the facts, but also the Democrats own actions during the Bush administration, the “paranoid fringe” that is really being encouraged here is those who buy into this outright distortion of reality by a woman who would do anything or say anything to get your vote.

Don’t fall for it.