It’s time to find a new drum
Iwould like to take exception to Robert Price’s column (“ROBERT PRICE: Can Biden’s inaugural words soar the way predecessors’ have in times of division and crisis?” Jan. 17).
First, I am disappointed that the bulk of his opinion was not about Joe Biden’s inaugural speech, but a continuation of his critique of Kevin McCarthy. I began reading it with the hope that Price would give some insightful opinions of what Biden might say or why he might say it, but that hope was not met as the Biden part of the piece was relegated to the back burner.
Second, Price’s observation that “many of those calling for unity and reconciliation have been the same ones impeding, even widening, that division” is right on. But not exclusively for the reasons he states. Since President Trump was elected, liberal lawmakers and members of the media have impeded, widened, fostered and continually widened that division.
Third, Price then continues his critique of McCarthy, calling him the “poster child” for hypocrisy because he joined with other Republicans and signed on to a case that Texas brought to the Supreme Court. This case court was not “essentially demanding that four swing states observe the election laws of Texas.” The case argued that these four states didn’t even follow their own state constitution when they modified their own voting regulations. The case was not reviewed because Supreme Court justices determined that Texas did not have “standing” to bring the case forward. Nowhere can I find that the court called the claim “absurd,” or filed the claim in the “absurd drawer.” In not reviewing the case, the merits of its claims were not discussed nor determined.
As an American voter who was concerned that pre-election gamesmanship by certain states would make the election outcome questionable, I was dismayed when these cases were not looked at by the Supreme Court justices. Would they have supported or denied the case, we will never know. Living in California, where I have watched our state leaders change voting rules to suit their party’s long-term ambitions (ballot harvesting), I had hoped that there would not be any credibility issues with our federal election. Maybe that was naïve on my part. I think there are a large number of American voters who think the Democratic states that changed their voting rules did it to help defeat Trump and then, after the election asking the same people who may have orchestrated it if their vote count was legitimate, is like asking an umpire if he made the right call on a close play. How often do you think they will say, “No, I blew that one?” Optics and transparency are important!
Fourth, Price claimed that “McCarthy voted along with 146 others, without any constitutional authority or precedent, to contest the Electoral College vote.” That got me asking myself what is the purpose of certifying the Electoral College vote? I found the following on the internet attributed to the Washington Post: Congress will convene for a joint session at 1 p.m. to count the votes. The president of the Senate, in this case Vice President Mike Pence, presides over the session. He will “open and present” the electoral vote certificates from each state and Washington, D.C., in alphabetical order, according to the Congressional Research Service. Next, the certificates will be read aloud by “tellers,” members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate appointed to the roles. The vice president then asks if any members of Congress wish to object to any of the votes.
I believe this is what McCarthy and the 146 others did. They have been labeled treasonous for this.
Lastly Robert, I read your articles and opinion pieces because they are usually pretty good, well informed and non-biased. I was completely taken aback by this opinion piece. I expected a well written article about Biden’s inaugural speech and instead was accosted by a vicious hit piece against McCarthy. You have been banging on this drum for awhile. It’s time to find a new drum.