Miller-Meeks inconsistent and out of step, but at least not resident evil

The resident evil part would be closer to the persons of Rita Hart and the Democrat apparat supporting her. Our support of MMM does not absolve her of very serious apostasies that undermine what we presume to be genuineness in other policy areas. But if you have not noticed from our raison d’être, long set forth on our page bar under the moniker  about   “We will not hold back criticizing a “Republican” who . . . has done something to compromise Republican principles or other ethical values. We believe it is an ethically devoid thought that a Republican should be beyond reproach because they “won” the primary, or are in office, or may be helping other Republicans, that those factors require they be given a free pass on a significant matter.” 

So as regards our critique of MMM consistency we point out that MMM issued the following as part of her explanation for voting to accept the alleged validity of electoral college submissions regarding the 2020 presidential election: (bold our emphasis)

I have serious concerns about how elections were conducted in some states and outraged at abuses of the election systems in those states.  Such abuses undermine election integrity and trust in the system of that state, and more broadly those actions have affected the presidential election. I share the disappointment of millions of Iowans and Americans with the outcome of the presidential election results. I have suspicions about the integrity of the votes cast in several states, the mass mailing of ballots to every name on the voter rolls which are not up-to-date, the allegations of a lack of a chain of custody of their election materials, and the actions of elections boards and courts assuming authority beyond what is granted to them in a state’s constitution or by their legislatures.   . . .

Indeed the abuses were serious enough to subvert our constitutional republic and did not require rubber stamping through weak constitutional and historical analysis. She went on to maintain that:

I am also concerned about the effect that it would have on the rights of states and the precedent it would establish by putting power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress, and not in the hands of the people who reside in those states or the laws that have been enacted in those states through their legislatures.

As a Member of Congress who wants to limit the power of the federal government, I must respect the states’ authority here. I understand this decision will disappoint and anger my supporters, but I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution above myself.

The above statement should have had implications for her vote, dramatically out of step with the Republican caucus including 87% of Republican women as regards the assault on states rights and other matters embodied in the Violence Against Women Act .  We will flesh that out a bit in the next day or two.

0

0