Fair and Square
Ohio Senator Rob Portman appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning. Portman, a “moderate Republican” has been a disappointment. I don’t expect a “moderate Republican” to agree with me on many issues. But what I keep waiting for is Portman to act like the decent man he seems to be. Unfortunately, each time Portman has had the chance to show that decency; on the health care vote, on the current tax legislation, and most importantly, on the conduct of the President of the United States; Portman has folded to the pressure of the Trump gang.
Today was no exception. Portman, in trying to dodge the obvious questions about the Russia Investigation and Trump, said the following: “Trump won the election, fair and square.” He stated this as an accepted fact.
Clearly the ultimate issue of the Russia Investigation is that exact question: did Trump win the Presidency “fair and square?” The absolute threat that the Mueller and Senate intelligence committee’s investigations represent is to the legitimacy of the Trump Administration.
In what ways could Trump’s actions have made the election less than “fair and square?” Keeping in mind that the election was not determined by the more than two million more votes that Hillary Clinton earned, but came down to 77,744 Trump votes spread over three states. Wisconsin (22,748) Michigan (10,704) and Pennsylvania (44,292) were narrowly won by Trump, giving him the electoral college margin of victory.
We know that Russian intelligence was targeting social media in these states. We know that they were using “micro-targeting” of Facebook, Twitter, and other media sites to zoom in on the marginal areas within those states, targeting that showed they had an intimate knowledge of American politics. Political experts here in the United States are agreed that it is unlikely the Russians were able to produce those results without American advice. If the Trump campaign is linked to that “advice,” that’s not “fair and square.”
While state election authorities continue to deny it, there are ongoing questions about the security and validity of the actual voting processes, particularly in Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida and Michigan. “Unhack the Vote,” a private organization investigating the integrity of the electoral process has found evidence which raises questions about whether Russian incursions went beyond “tests” to see if the data could be breeched. This, combined with the across the board discrepancies between exit polling and voting outcomes increases the concern that the vote count itself might be flawed or manipulated. If Russian Intelligence hacked and changed votes, that’s not “fair and square.”
There are now questions raised regarding Cambridge Analytica, a data company financed and owned by the Mercer Family. The Mercer’s are also the money behind Bretibart, Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, and ultimately the support of the Trump campaign. Computer code inadvertently posted by a Cambridge employee seems to show a program to hack and manipulate voter registration data. There are also connections between Cambridge and Wikileaks (Cambridge offered to organize the hacked Clinton emails into a searchable database for Wikileaks.) If Cambridge Analytics, representing the Trump campaign, worked with Wikileaks and/or Russian Intelligence, that’s not “fair and square.”
We have accepted the phrase: “all fair in love and war – and politics!” We anticipate that there might be “dirty campaigning,” that candidates will exaggerate and even lie about both their opponents and themselves, and that in this new day of technology; every campaign will try to take advantage of the latest advancements.
What we haven’t, and shouldn’t accept, is that the actual vote counting mechanism might be altered, and that a third party, in this case Russian Intelligence, may play a huge part in the outcome of our elections. And while today this is a Democrat versus Republican issue, Republicans should look a little farther down the road. If Russian Intelligence’s goal is to disrupt the political process, not necessarily support one party or the other, than the 2018 Congressional elections are just at much at risk, and the Republicans have just as much to lose.
So no, Senator Portman, it’s not an “accepted fact.” Not only is the legitimacy of the current President in question, but also the future of American elections. In fact, as a United States Senator, it is incumbent upon you to assure a thorough investigation so that the American electoral process IS “Fair and Square.”
It’ll come as no surprise that this is ONE column of yours that I largely disagree with.
“each time Portman has had the chance to show that decency…. Portman has folded to the pressure of the Trump gang.”
That is not accurate. While I too am disappointed that Sen Portman hasn’t opposed President Trump more often, the fact is, only 13 out of 52 GOP Senators have voted against Trump by a greater % than he has. He has shown more independence than, eg, the Sen that Trump called “Lyin’ Ted” or another whom he called “Little Marco”. While I might wish that he were more in the range of a Ben Sasse or a John McCain, to suggest that he “has folded” “each time” isn’t correct. In particular, he twice opposed the President’s position on sanctions against Russia. He was only one of 7 GOP Senators (along w the likes of McCain, Collins and Murkowski) who voted against partial repeal of ACA.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/25/us/politics/senate-votes-repeal-obamacare.html
Yes, he also voted for repeal of ACA. His position was well known to the voters of Ohio, & a solid majority supported him. I also don’t think having a different opinion than you may have on tax reform or on ACA reflects on a person’s “decency.” You & I probably don’t agree on those things: do you think makes me not a “decent” person? I don’t think that of you. Is questioning his “decency” bc you disagree “civil discourse”?
Finally, as to speaking out on Trump’s “conduct”, Sen Portman was quite strong as to then-candidate Trump:
Donald Trump’s comments were offensive and wrong…, I can no longer support him.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/portman-says-hell-vote-for-pence-instead-of-trump-229393
Sen Portman, like most mainstream GOP figures, has had to be muted in his criticism of Trump, for the very reasons you pointed out a few columns ago: there is that core 38% that LOVES Trump and/or that want to just tear the whole thing down.
The only ones speaking up are the ones who are quitting the process. Others, like Sen Portman, have to stay the course, try to work from within, bite their tongue as to the outrageous conduct or statements of the Provocateur in Chief. The more responsible, decent people we have in Washington, the better. And I’m glad we have a VERY decent man as our Senator, even if I don’t always agree with him.
First even though I disagree with Portman (and you) on many issues I do think you both seem like decent men. My concern is that while you have made it clear how you feel up the President – Portman really has not shown ANY LEADERSHIP. For example – he voted against the ACA repeal AFTER it was clear it was going to fail. When it was in question – he carefully maintained his post astride the fence. As far as Russia sanctions – he was safely among 98 other Senators.
Kasich – also a decent man who I don’t agree with on most issues – HAS been willing to stand up. And yes – he may not be running for office again. But I don’t think political expediency should let these guys off the hook.
I think Trump exists because “decent men” and maybe some not so decent, have done the expedient thing rather than the right thing.
To be clear – I do not believe you feel up the President!! I do think I know how you feel ABOUT the President – which is what I meant.
And I KBOW you are a decent man and have made your decency clear (in many ways) but also by speaking out about what is obviously wrong.
I know you know and respect Portman. I don’t know him, and
can only go on what he “seems” to be.
I truly do NOT intend to offend.
I’m glad I “seem like” a decent man to you. (I’ll try not to take offense where none was intended).
I don’t know about feeling up the President. He seems more like a guy to feel up others, than vice versa. (ha, ha)
You see a guy who has ridden the fence. Fair position. I see a guy who ran on an anti-Obamacare position, won handily, and has voted that – but has tried to be nuanced, and has NOT kowtowed to the POTUS.
There are many things I could say, & started to say, and wrote out at length but deleted, but I’m just going to take a pass on the rest of it. because, as you said, in cutting off what I thought was a very illuminative dialogue (which really enlightened me), we are not changing minds here.
This is a great blog, EXTRAORDINARILY well researched, VERY well written.