One of the websites I prefer for my news is the Yahoo site because it brings in media from multiple spectrums and not just a liberal or conservative styling.
In the past day, two such opinion pieces have shown up in my feed that I felt demanded a rebuttal. The first was from a writer in Florida who published an article in the Palm Beach Post titled, "Capitol riot caused by anti-speech Democrats."
My rebuttal was appropriately named, "The Attempted Scapegoating of the Media for the Capitol Riot."
The second article, and the one I will be responding to in this article, was from the Chairman of the Portsmouth (NH) Republican Committee that appeared in the Portsmouth Herald and was in itself a rebuttal to another column but it was so filled with misconceptions that it compelled a response. This one was titled, "Those who went to D.C. on January 6 wanted fair and transparent elections."
Once I read Alan Forbes’ Commentary: “Those who went to D.C. on Jan. 6 wanted fair and transparent elections” that he posted in response to a previous column by John Broderick, I was stunned at some of the revisionist claims made in the commentary and wanted to become part of the discussion to add some relevant information for the average citizen to digest.
Read More From Soapboxie
The biggest revisionism I saw was in Mr. Forbes’ attempt to redesign the definition of the ‘Big Lie.’ Trying to convince America that people are mistaken about why Trump supporters went to the Capitol and that they went because they wanted fair and transparent elections was bold. It just begs the question of where does the gallows fit in to wanting a fair and transparent election? Everyone knows the one, it was assembled at the Capitol during the riot. That kind of threat of violence might have taken some advanced planning, unless of course the crowd happened to borrow one from certain members of the Freedom Caucus.
Next, Mr. Forbes notes how many states changed election rules just prior to the election without legislative approval. He conveniently omits the fact that this happened due to the pandemic, which by all measures constitutes a time of emergency. He also noticeably forgets to mention how in Florida in 2018 after Hurricane Michael hit the state, then-Gov. Rick Scott cited these emergency laws in his order to lift some rules related to mail ballots and in-person voting. In many states, elections officials are granted powers to adjust rules in times of emergencies.
It was quite something to watch on July 27 as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott personally extended the early voting for the 2020 election by six days and then filed a lawsuit alleging that a few battleground states that made similar changes without legislative approval had violated the Constitution. Does anyone wonder why Mr. Forbes might have left out such details when arguing that this constitutes a stolen election or why Gov. Abbott or the Trump Campaign never contested the other 24 states that made changes to protect their citizenry during a pandemic?
Lastly, it was actually comical when Mr. Forbes used the far-right Rasmussen polling to achieve his confirmation bias. Most of the country is aware of the wide deviation from most other polling to the right that the Rasmussen polling reports. Three other more credible polls in Monmouth University, YouGov/Economist and Morning Consult/Politico note that the percentage of Americans who think the 2020 election was free and fair is closer to 60%, with those doubting the legitimacy likely being the same 40% who supported Trump during his four years as the least popular President in the history of polling. It’s easy to claim a majority think the same thing as you do when you choose biased polling as your reference.
One thing I could agree with Mr. Forbes on was the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. Anyone who watched the testimony could plainly see that it was a case of self defense. Despite clear political differences, it is still refreshing to note that some common ground can be found between members of divided political factions.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
© 2022 JOC