Chuck Todd: "Why are you supporting an election denialist [the New Hampshire Republican senate candidate Chris Bolduc] and do you think the inflation issue is enough to [justify supporting an election denier]"?

Chris Sununu: "Let me tell you, you're in a bubble, man."

Todd: "You think [inflation issues] should be prioritized over election denialism?"

Sununu: "Of course! … [That's] why … a whole bunch of these Democrats are going to get fired [on Nov. 7, 2022]"

—Meet the Press, Oct. 31, 2022

YouTube screen grab.

The recent exchange between Chuck Todd, presenter on NBC's Meet the Press, and Chris Sununu, governor of New Hampshire, was illuminating for a number of reasons.  Chuck Todd has not been this upset since Texas's Gov. Abbott sent 50 poor Venezuelans to Martha's Vineyard, the Democrats' safe, quaint, quiet, mostly white elitist paradise that "liberals" desperately want to keep rigorously illegal alien–free.  Sununu's sin is that he supports his state's Republican candidate for the Senate, Don Bolduc, and this, Todd informs him, is not acceptable to the left, which now believes that it has the right to decide whom Republicans are permitted to support for higher office.

Gov. Sununu responds, correctly, that Todd lives in a (liberal) bubble because the voters are concerned not with alleged "election deniers," but with the economy, crime, children's education, etc.  However, there is a more basic problem with Todd's question (and implicit argument that so-called "election deniers" are not acceptable candidates).

The first point is that Todd and others who have suddenly cultivated an aversion against "election deniers" are themselves in denial.  Democrats have "denied" elections for decades, but for some mysterious reason, the category of "election denier" was coined only recently, when Donald Trump "denied" the victory of Joe Biden in an election the Democrat-media complex had employed "any means necessary" to "win." 

Al Gore denied the 2000 election for months, tying up the Bush transition team in lawsuits while Osama bin Laden was planning the terror attacks on America.  Hillary Clinton "denied" the 2016 election, claiming, falsely, that Trump won because he colluded with Russia to steal the election when, in fact, Hillary and the DNC had bought the Trump-Russia dossier to frame Donald Trump and steal the election from the American people (yes they are that shameless).  Stacey Abrams denied the 2018 Georgia governor's election when she claimed, falsely, that the election was stolen from her.  Hillary Clinton has already denied the 2024 election two years before it is even held (yes, she is that shameless).

One can surely sympathize: Trump had inflation down to 1.4%, the southern border was more secure than it had been in decades, North Korea had stopped testing nuclear weapons and firing ballistic missiles over Japanese territory, Trump brokered the Abraham accords for peace in the Middle East, China was forced for the first time to sign fair trade agreements with the United States, crime was down in the U.S., and the United States achieved energy independence.  Clearly, all this Trump success had to be stopped!

There is, however, an even deeper problem with the notion of "election denialism" that goes beyond the Democrats' shameless hypocrisy.  That is, in order to neutralize criticism of their hypocrisy, the Democrat-media colluders have defined "election denialism" to mean that only Republicans, specifically Trump-Republicans, can be "election deniers"!

Some are quite explicit about this.  The editor at the Erie Times starts out promisingly when he begins by admitting that "the term election denier is a loaded one, but the definition isn't always clear."  That is correct.  Will the Erie Times provide a neutral (fair) definition of "election denialism"?

On the contrary, the editor explains that "it's important to define it for the purposes of this USA TODAY package detailing candidates ... we've labeled 'election deniers.'"  That is, the editor narrows down the range of "election deniers" to "this year."  Miraculously, therefore, the expression does not apply to Al Gore in 2000, Hillary Clinton in 2016, or Stacey Abrams in 2018!  None of them, by definition, has committed the unforgivable sin of "election denialism."  The editor goes farther.  In order to craft the definition of "election denialism" that "we" (at the Erie Times) like, he cites the fact that

[t]he USA TODAY Network focused on seven key states that sent false electors saying Trump won the 2020 election — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

In these seven states, a candidate is included as an election denier if they:

• Were one of the 147 members of Congress who voted against certifying the election results or said they would have if they were in office.  
• Have publicly said the 2020 election was "rigged," "stolen," marred by voter fraud or otherwise illegitimate — and have not recanted their false claim.
• Or still publicly question the results of the 2020 election, nearly two years after it has been certified.

In addition, an "election denier" is, by definition, a Trump-supporter in 2020!  How convenient!  The Democrats win automatically.  No questions; no investigations; no discussions; and, most of all, no free speech permitted in this case.  Just check the dictionary!  Case closed!

In another amazing coincidence, USA Today, which in its first ever presidential endorsement endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, made the definitions, and, surprise, surprise, they are made so that Trump-supporters are reprobates!  A neat trick!  The ancient Greek Sophists, who endeavored "to make the worse appear the better cause" (that is, win by logical-linguistic cheating), could do no better.

The Democrats employ this same species of sophistry in a variety of areas.  If one disagrees with the Democrats' climate agenda one is a "climate denier."  Kathy Hochul, current unelected New York governor, has criticized "data deniers" — that is, people who commit the unpardonable sin of disagreeing with her.

But two can play that game.  In fact, most Democrats are "hypocrisy deniers" — that is, they deny the Democrats' transparent hypocrisy on election denial.  Similarly, most Democrats and their media sycophants are, ironically, "free speech" deniers, ironically, precisely by defining their opponents out of the debates by labeling them as "election deniers," "climate deniers," "data-deniers," etc.

The accusation that someone is an "election denier," a "climate denier," a "data denier," etc., is just a deceptive way of being a "free speech denier" — that is, of denying one's political opponent the right to express their opinion.  Indeed, all of these Democrat accusations are deceptive ways of being a "First Amendment denier."  When Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, Joy Reid, or any of the other Democrat party sophists accuses one of being an "election denier," a "climate denier," a "data denier," etc., one should respond: "And you are a free speech denier.  We're not going to let you get away with denying people their First Amendment rights in that deceptive way."

One might conclude this argument with a modicum of common sense, should this still be permissible in what remains of our formerly free republic: if one wants to know if a particular election was stolen, one need only determine whether one is prevented, perhaps by using deceptive language and time-worn sophistical tricks, from even being permitted to discuss it.  If they won't let you discuss it, then it was likely stolen.