While most are agog with BP CEO Tony Hayward being grilled before the House Energy Commerce Subcommittee, and blithering about his watching a sailing regatta, taking shape away from the attention-deficit-disordered media's focus is an act of treachery, deceit and betrayal such as to make King Lear pale in comparison.
I'm referencing South Carolina Democrat Alvin Greene's election as the party nominee for the U.S. Senate. In my June 15 Facebook "daily morning rant," I wrote: Alvin Greene has been elected. ... James Clyburn, D-S.C., and Vic Rawl are howling foul. It's not whether he's qualified or not (Obama won although many rightly consider him not to be qualified) – what matters is that the people spoke."
Clyburn first accused Greene of being a Republican plant, which was an opprobrious form of specious ipse dixit, but it was certainly not out of character for him. When that wouldn't fly, he began referencing the voting machines as being the same ones that were used in Ohio in 2004 – his serpentine way of saying Bush stole Ohio in 2004 by having the voting machines rigged, and that Greene was doing the same thing.
Advertisement - story continues below
Rawl, a former state representative who lost to Greene by nearly 19 percentage points, filed a protest contesting Greene's victory. "We have filed this protest not for my personal political gain, but on behalf of the people of South Carolina," Rawl claimed.
Are you kidding me? Personal and political gain are precisely the reasons he filed the protest – which brings me to my point. This is about supplanting the will of the people. The Democrats are trying to change the election results using any means necessary because they didn't like the outcome. Since 2000, this has become common practice for them anytime they don't like election results.
You will remember the repeated efforts by liberal Democratic groups in California to have the courts overturn the parental-notification requirement in cases where a minor seeks an abortion – even though a huge majority of Californians voted for its passage. We saw liberal Democrats attempt to have the courts dismiss the election results of Prop 209 – the referendum outlawing racial preferences – even though it was overwhelmingly supported by Californians of every color and stripe. We saw them attempt to change the status of Roland Burris, the senator from Illinois. We continually witness liberal Democratic efforts to have the courts overturn the will of the people in the ongoing battle regarding homosexual marriage.
This is why liberals place such a high premium on the court appointments – it's because they know that with "their judges," they will always be able to advance their agendas.
Advertisement - story continues below
In each of the aforementioned instances, among many more, liberal Democrats have stacked the courts to overturn the will of the people. When that fails, they resort to demonization and the politics of personal destruction – which is exactly what Mr. Greene is experiencing now.
It's true that South Carolina Democratic Party officials, in deciding to allow Greene's primary victory to stand, surprisingly displayed common sense not typically associated with their ilk. But with that said, they also ratcheted up the ad hominem attacks. "He's unemployed, he's unknown and he allegedly shared adult pictures of some description with a coed (who was certainly of age or we would have heard 'underage' in conjunction with same). We're told he lives in his father's basement, and questions surround his having saved the $10,000 filing fee."
This is not the first time a nobody from nowhere defeated a heavily favored candidate. It happened in Indiana just recently when unknown Tim Crawford crushed favored Democratic son and party-backed Nasser Hanna in a landslide. And lest we forget, it happened in 2008, when a nobody with more secrets than J. Edgar Hoover, with no experience and sporting a questionable legitimacy as well took over the White House.
Judicial elections and appointments are extremely important because, as we have witnessed many times over, in many different circumstances, judges have not only rendered deplorable decisions, they have even more egregiously legislated from the bench. We can replace the elected, but those with lifetime appointments can corrupt the halls of justice until their last gasp.