Florida Sen. Marco Rubio delivered a masterclass Sunday on how Republicans should respond when media partisans ask them to prematurely commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election.
NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked Rubio if he would “accept the 2024 election results no matter what happens.”
“No matter what happens? No! If it’s an unfair election, I think it’s going to be contested by each side,” Rubio said.
“No matter who wins, Senator? No matter who wins?” Welker asked.
“You’re asking the wrong person! The Democrats are the ones that have opposed every Republican victory since 2000. Every single one. Hillary Clinton…”
“No Democrat has refused to concede,” Welker interjected. “Hillary Clinton conceded. Senator, will you accept the election results?”
“Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen from her, and that Trump was illegitimate. Kamala Harris agreed,” Rubio said. “By the way, there are Democrats serving in Congress today who, in 2004, voted not to certify the Ohio electors because they said those machines had been tampered with. And you have Democrats now saying they won’t certify 2024 because Trump is an insurrectionist and ineligible to hold office. So you need to ask them.”
Rubio then pointed out that having “over 500 illegal dropbox locations” in Wisconsin, for example, is something that legitimately undermines confidence in elections.
Rubio’s answer was excellent because he understands the insidiousness of such a question: Republicans are being goaded to relinquish their right to question problematic election administration. Instead of being bullied into agreeing with Welker’s presuppositions, he immediately went on the offensive.
Left-wing corporate media have already smeared Rubio and other conservatives as election “deniers” for refusing to play into the media’s trap. It’s a cheap trick designed to silence legitimate concerns about election administration by painting them as threats to “democracy.”
When Republicans treat the question as anything but a cheap trick, they put themselves immediately on the defensive by assuming the question’s dishonest premises. That’s exactly what South Carolina senator and potential vice presidential pick Tim Scott did during a recent interview of his own with Welker. When goaded as to whether he would accept the results of the 2020 election, Scott chose to side-step the question.
“At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump,” he said.
When asked again, Scott responded “That is my statement” and “I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president — the American people will make the decision.”
Scott’s answer was abysmal because he was obviously afraid of the question. But no Republican should be afraid to refuse to play along with corporate media partisans’ bad-faith “gotcha” questions. What’s more, there’s nothing wrong with refusing to resoundingly affirm the results of an election that has not yet taken place, especially at a time when Democrats are deploying everything from weaponized lawfare to unconstitutional attempts to federalize elections via “Bidenbucks” to rig elections in their favor.
Besides, as Rubio pointed out, the 2020 election was far from the first to face scrutiny. Democrats called Republican George Bush’s election in 2000 “fraudulent,” said his 2004 victory was “stolen,” and objected to the certification of Trump’s 2016 election while claiming he had colluded with Russia to steal the presidency.
In the 1960 presidential election, some electors declared Richard Nixon the winner of Hawaii’s electoral votes before a recount eventually led to John F. Kennedy’s electors’ votes being certified. Should Kennedy have resigned his right to question the incorrect initial results prior to the election?
Of course not — yet that’s what Republicans are being asked to do now. They should understand the question as the unserious hackery it is, and answer accordingly.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.
Comments are closed.