In an attempt to shield Democrats from the “election denier” moniker, TIME Magazine lunged at the opportunity to take one for the team by penning a piece which asserts that new House Democrats leader Hakeem Jeffries has certainly denied the outcomes of elections in the past, but in no way does that make him an election denier.
No, being an “election denier” is exclusively reserved for conservatives and those who contested the voting integrity of the 2020 election – and that election alone.
What sparked this bout of justified, liberal mental gymnastics was a recent tweet from the RNC, which was posted when it was confirmed that far-left Congressman Hakeem Jeffries would be succeeding Rep. Nancy Pelosi as House Democrat Leader.
“BREAKING: Election Denier Hakeem Jeffries was just elected as the new leader of the House Democrats,” the RNC had posted on top of screenshots from as far back as 2018 in which Jeffries repeatedly denies elections.
TIME wrote, “In tweets, news interviews, and House hearings, Jeffries called to question the legitimacy of Trump’s election because of Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 race, and accused Trump of colluding with Russia to win the election.”
They also added that the special council investigation in 2019 “did not find sufficient evidence that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia.”
Right there, the author Jasmine Aguilera doesn’t deny that Jeffries himself denied that Trump was the lawfully elected president, going as far as to repeatedly call him “illegitimate.” With that fact stated, you’d think it would be hard to make a case that someone isn’t an election denier when you’ve already firmly shown that they have denied election results.
This is where things get stupid.
Aguilera argues that since the 2020 election, the term “election denier” doesn’t just mean someone who denies elections.
No, she states that the “phrase has come to be associated with Republicans who claim the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, assert without evidence there was fraud in 2020 voting, and cast doubt on secure voting systems—claims that lead to the deadly January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.”
Well, of course. That’s a fait accompli: the liberal media insists that it is that way, and flood the airwaves with it. Jeffries can’t be an election denier because he’s a Democrat. The term’s definition magically changed and we all have to accept that now.
“Calling Jeffries an ‘election denier’,” she continues, “is misleading and conflates different issues.” No, actually, it isn’t misleading at all.
You don’t get to just go around changing the definitions when they become inconvenient – or in this case, downright embarrassing. This used to be an accepted fact of life, but now, we go by the rules of 1984 where words can change meaning in order to prop up the Party.
Aguilera tries to add emphasis to this point by quoting Rachel Orey, an associate director of the Elections Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who had stated that “Casting unfounded doubt on the outcome of an election is irresponsible when either party does it, but I think it’s important to remember that the culture around elections was quite different before 2020.”
Once again, an election denier is a denier of elections, except when Democrats deny elections. Confused? I certainly am, especially with Orey’s assertion that before 2020 things were just magically different.
I’m certainly old enough to remember that Democrats denying the outcomes of elections didn’t start (and sadly won’t end) with Donald Trump.
Democrats – including former Presidents – have denied every single election Republicans have won since the year 2000.
Denying elections is as much a part of the Democratic Party as slavery and taxpayer funding of abortion. This isn’t ancient history either.
Former Vice President Al Gore, Presidents Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, and former Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz were all vocal election deniers in 2000, claiming that Republican George W. Bush had stolen the election.
In 2004, Democrats attempted to do the exact same thing again, with Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Shiela Jackson Lee and even Democrat nominee John Kerry attempting to paint the 2004 election results as illegitimate.
And of course, we all know about Democrats denying the 2016 election.
This dangerous attempt by TIME to allow a writer to assert that we can change very basic definitions based on a very open political narrative isn’t just dangerous to public discourse, it’s an outright threat to our democracy.
Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”
The list of potential Republican presidential candidates for 2024 is growing faster than President Volodymyr…
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy defended Capitol Police officer Lieutenant Michael Byrd, who shot and killed…
By Adam Andrzejewski for RealClearPolicy Included in the $1.7 trillion omnibus package supported by Sen. Joe Manchin…
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is poised to sign a bill that will re-define drag…
Editor's note: In his first inaugural address, after the "Revolution of 1800," President Thomas Jefferson…
Donald Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2024, is calling for…