It’s become a common theme lately: Democrat leaders seem to never have been told that we have the internet, and can check their past words.
First there was former Senator Harry Reid, who was revealed in an uncovered 1993 video to be strongly against illegal immigration — at least when it suited Democrats. Videos of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama similarly opposing illegal immigration have also come out, while clueless liberals act as if they’ve been champions of border-crossing migrants all along. They think you won’t notice the reversal.
Now, that same trend of liberals completely contradicting themselves while assuming nobody will call them out is happening again. This time, the hypocrite-in-chief is Chuck Schumer, the Democrat senator from New York.
This past Tuesday, Schumer pushed his bespectacled nose into Florida’s business by ranting about the midterm recount controversy. As a down-to-the-wire numbers and legal battle raged between Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Bill Nelson, Schumer declared that the recount should go on seemingly indefinitely.
Election officials “should have all the time they need” for the recount, “even if the vote count has to go beyond” the legal deadline, the New York blowhard insisted after the early numbers favored the Republican. Rules? What rules?
But he was singing a very different tune back in 2006. At that time, another midterm election recount was underway, but the numbers favored a liberal candidate.
“One (option) is to go through a long, elaborate process, after which (Democrat) Jim Webb will be declared the winner, and the other is to do the right and gentlemanly thing to do and just declare Jim Webb the winner now,” Schumer insisted 12 years ago.
While liberals this week have encouraged President Trump to stay out of the Florida recount process, the Schumer of 2006 did the opposite and all but pleaded with President Bush to step in.
“I am urging, with all due respect, the president today to urge (Republican George Allen) to forgo this futile recount and contestation policy, which will simply delay the inevitable, which is that Jim Webb is going to be the next senator from Virginia,” the New York politician stated back then.
And that “futile” recount? At the time, the Republican Allen had about half the vote margin of what Democrat Nelson faced on Tuesday.
In other words, when a liberal has a huge vote deficit, Schumer thinks they should have “all the time they need,” presumably so that magical boxes of “forgotten” ballots can be discovered in dark corners and they can be declared a winner.
But in a similar situation where the conservative has a much smaller recount margin to overcome, we’re not supposed to waste time in declaring them the loser, even if it means dragging the president in.
Amazingly, Schumer isn’t the only liberal to have been caught talking out both sides of his mouth.
“(Rick) Scott has already called out Nelson’s lawyer Marc Elias for his own hypocrisy when it comes to recounts, pointing to comments made when initial vote counts had Democrats in the lead,” pointed out The Washington Free Beacon.
“In 2013, for example, Elias wanted a Republican to concede when his Democratic client was ahead by just 165 votes, saying recounts ‘do not tend to change the results.’ A year later, with his client up by 12,000 votes, he said recounts should only be done when there are ‘dozens or a few hundred votes separating the candidates,'” the news outlet continued.
The conclusion is simple: Liberals want one set of rules when it suits them, and a completely different set when it’s inconvenient. All the while, they think you won’t notice.
This says a lot about how they view the American people. More disturbingly, however, it also says a lot about the lengths they will go to in order to win — actual election results be damned.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.