Kamala Harris ga Mike Pence en historieundervisning som skulle vise ham at Abraham Lincoln ventet til etter valget da et sete i høyesterett ble ledig rett før et valg. Problemet er at historien er feil. Noen sier at Harris ikke får med seg hva som skjedde, andre sier at hun lyver.
Harris ville gjerne vise at Lincoln ikke gjorde som Trump. Han ventet til etter valget da et sete ble ledig. Harris satte Pence på plass på en nedlatende måte:
“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris told Pence. “In 1864… Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.”
Men så viser det seg at hun tar feil, og ingen ringere enn Washington Post tar henne fatt og refser henne.
The Washington Post offered a sharp rebuke to the «little history lesson» Sen. Kamala Harris shared during Wednesday night’s vice presidential debate, which apparently «wasn’t exactly true.»
Utgangspunktet er riktig: Det ble et sete ledig i oktober 1864, men grunnen til at Lincoln ikke nominerte en erstatter, var ikke at velgerne skulle få sagt sin mening. Det var helt andre hensyn.
«Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won,» the Post wrote. «But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay.»
Det er interessant at woke-avisen til Jeff Bezos insisterer på at fakta gjelder. Vanligvis er det bare moralisme.
According to Lincoln historian Michael Burlingame, Lincoln told his aides he wanted to delay his Supreme Court confirmation process because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country,» though the Post noted, «that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail.»
«The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln’s broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together,» the Post explained. «Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session.»
Behovet for å holde en koalisjon sammen, gjelder dagens Demokrater. De kan ikke si hva de mener om å utvide høyesterett, da det ville sprenge det Demokratiske partiet og frastøte uavhengige velgere.
En skribent i National Review mener at Kamala lyver. Hun omskriver historien slik at den passer hennes behov.
National Review senior writer Dan McLaughlin went even further, accusing Harris of «dishonesty» with her Lincoln anecdote.
«Lincoln, of course, said no such thing,» McLaughlin refuted the Democrat Wednesday night. «He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December.»
He added, «Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.»