NY Times: The 63 Million Are Tyrannical, And Impeachment Vindicated Democracy Or Something

You can always count on the NY Times to provide a good Hot Take, and Excitable Michelle Goldberg has been on a roll lately. She even has to go back to George Bush 43

The Tyranny of the 63 Million
Impeachment didn’t undermine democracy. It vindicated it.

When George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000 but became president anyway, he did so with almost 50.5 million votes. I didn’t know that number until I looked it up, because it would have been unimaginable for that president — even though he could be quite demagogic — to brandish it as proof that he represented some quasi-mystical conception of “the people,” in contrast to the nearly 51 million citizens who voted for his opponent.

Anyone who pays attention to politics, however, knows that Donald Trump got around 63 million votes in 2016. That number has taken on a totemic significance for him and his supporters; any attempts to restrain his power are seen as a sin against the 63 million. During the long impeachment debate in the House on Wednesday, Bill Johnson, a Republican from Ohio, called for a moment of silence to “remember the voices of the 63 million American voters” whose will Democrats would defy, as if seeing Trump held to constitutional standards was a sort of death.

On the surface it seems strange, this constant trumpeting of a vote total that is more than two million less than the total received by Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump didn’t just lose the popular vote — he lost it by a greater margin than any successful presidential candidate in American history. The right’s bombastic repetition of Trump’s 63 million could be just a propaganda trick meant to bully America’s anti-Trump majority into seeing itself as marginal, despite the more than 65 million votes Clinton received. But as I watched impeachment unfold, it seemed like something more than that — an assertion of whom Republicans think this country belongs to.

If you think she’s upset over the way the rules are laid out, you’d be correct, just like so many Democrats. If you understand the reasoning behind the Electoral College, there’s no need to explain it. If you hate it because Hillary lost (and, let’s face it, most were simply voting for the Democrat candidate because that’s who they always vote for or against Trump, just like a goodly chunk against Bush 43, not for John Kerry. Do you think people really liked Hillary?), then there’s not point wasting finger movement explaining the point.

In a sense, he’s right: We face the horror of Trump because the structure of American democracy gives disproportionate power to a declining demographic group passionately convinced of its right to rule. Trump, with his braying entitlement, his boastful ignorance, his sneering contempt for pluralism, is an avatar of a Republican Party desperate to return to the 1980s, or the 1950s, or maybe the 1910s. He can’t betray America if, to those who fetishize the 63 million, he embodies it.

It’s interesting that Michelle positions this as a “right to rule”, rather than as the President and Congress serving the people. It says quite a bit about the Modern Socialist/Progressive/Statist mindset.

“There’s been a lot of talk about the 63 million people who voted for Mr. Trump,” the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said in his surprisingly moving speech on Wednesday. “Little talk about the 65 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton.” With the House’s impeachment vote, the America outside of Trump’s ruling faction finally mattered.

So, right there, we see that impeachment is about overturning the 2016 election. Case closed. She attempts to downplay it in the next paragraph, but, we know what she, and the rest of the Dems, mean with impeachment theater.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “NY Times: The 63 Million Are Tyrannical, And Impeachment Vindicated Democracy Or Something”

  1. John says:

    teach
    Mexico will ay for the wall

  2. formwiz says:

    the horror of Trump???

    Sounds more like the heartbreak of psoriasis.

    convinced of its right to rule

    Sorry, dear, your Freudian slip is showing. This is not the Administration that talked about ruling.

    That was the Mocha Messiah’s minions forever going on about being “ready to rule”.

    In this country, we are governed. In dictatorships, people are ruled.

  3. formwiz says:

    Remember Jeffery’s little screed about an op-ed in Christianity Today (founded by Billy Graham) endorsing the impeachment and what a wet dream it was for him to say, “Look, look, didja see? Christians agree with the House.”?

    Well, Billy Graham’s son took pen in hand after this was trumpeted by Fake News and had a few things to say,

    Christianity Today released an editorial stating that President Trump should be removed from office—and they invoked my father’s name (I suppose to try to bring legitimacy to their statements), so I feel it is important for me to respond. Yes, my father Billy Graham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree with their opinion piece. In fact, he would be very disappointed. I have not previously shared who my father voted for in the past election, but because of this article, I feel it is necessary to share it now. My father knew Donald Trump, he believed in Donald Trump, and he voted for Donald Trump. He believed that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.

    For Christianity Today to side with the Democrat Party in a totally partisan attack on the President of the United States is unfathomable. Christianity Today failed to acknowledge that not one single Republican voted with the Democrats to impeach the President. I know a number of Republicans in Congress, and many of them are strong Christians. If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him. But the Democrats were not even unanimous—two voted against impeachment and one voted present. This impeachment was politically motivated, 100% partisan. Why would Christianity Today choose to take the side of the Democrat left whose only goal is to discredit and smear the name of a sitting president? They want readers to believe the Democrat leadership rather than believe the President of the United States.

    Christianity Today feels he should be removed from office because of false accusations that the President emphatically denies.

    Christianity Today said it’s time to call a spade a spade. The spade is this—Christianity Today has been used by the left for their political agenda. It’s obvious that Christianity Today has moved to the left and is representing the elitist liberal wing of evangelicalism.

    Some of the rah-rah political stuff was removed (by me) to focus on the theological differences.

    If you want the full thing, search engines exist.

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH typed: we see that impeachment is about overturning the 2016 election

    Then wasn’t Clinton’s impeachment about overturning the 1996 election? If not, why not?

    That’s just silly whining. Impeachment is about a president attempting to force a foreign country’s help in the 2020 election. A majority of Americans knew Trump was unfit for duty, and he didn’t disappoint – it’s proven he’s unfit. He’s shown himself to be an immoral asshole who lies, cheats and steals.

    In addition, he obstructed justice in the Russian collusion case. He has advocated violence against opponents. He has attacked the free press. He obstructed Congress’ right and duty to check the president. He has used the power of the presidency for personal financial gain.

    Are you surprised that trump denied wrongdoing?

    Franklin Graham wrote: If the President were guilty of what the Democrats claimed, these Republicans would have joined with the Democrats to impeach him. How laughable is that statement?

    • formwiz says:

      Not at all. Mr Graham merely stated the truth.

      Then wasn’t Clinton’s impeachment about overturning the 1996 election? If not, why not?

      Are you trying to present yourself as a teacher because you are the most untruthful one AFT has.

      And Willie’s impeachment came late in his second term after too many incidents of bribery, rape, perjury, and subornation.

      That’s just silly whining.

      It certainly is. One would think you’d lost the impeachment vote.

      And, in fact, you did.

      Impeachment is about a president attempting to force a foreign country’s help in the 2020 election. A majority of Americans knew Trump was unfit for duty, and he didn’t disappoint – it’s proven he’s unfit. He’s shown himself to be an immoral asshole who lies, cheats and steals.

      In addition, he obstructed justice in the Russian collusion case. He has advocated violence against opponents. He has attacked the free press. He obstructed Congress’ right and duty to check the president. He has used the power of the presidency for personal financial gain.

      So did Zippy, so did Willie. Let’s haul them into court and try them.

      But, to the issue at hand, why didn’t the House enumerate any of these crimes in the Articles of Impeachment? Unless, of course they were non-existent.

      And that’s it. Most of Jeffery’s “crimes” are not crimes, just whines because Trump keeps outsmarting the Left? Zippy was the one advocating violence (punch back twice as hard). And every President has attacked the free press (free speech ring a bell?). And no obstruction because he nor his records were never subpoenaed.

      He’s shown himself to be an immoral asshole who lies, cheats and steals.

      No, That was your boy, Willie. And his lies were what finally nailed him.

      Are you surprised that trump denied wrongdoing?

      No.

      He did nothing wrong.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7577 access attempts in the last 7 days.