Broken Clocks, Political Parties and Watch Repairmen

Photo Credit: Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay

Okay, sometimes twice a day is better than one can hope for.

Take, for example, the Arizona state Senate Republicans who have been using their position, influence and party apparatus for positive action, doing something patriotic Americans have been hoping for over the last few months. YES, they are actually going to conduct an audit of the 2020 general election vote in Maricopa County.

You may recall Fox News called the state for President Joe Biden just before midnight on election night. At the time, Biden was up 9 percentage points over former President Donald Trump. The Associated Press called the state for Biden the next morning, and were immediately followed by NPR which gets its data from the AP. Biden was ahead by 136,000 votes and 80 percent of the vote had been counted.

No additional networks called the state over the next eight days as Biden’s lead steadily dwindled to just over 10,000 votes. Finally on November 12, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN called it for Biden, handing him the state’s 11 electoral votes.

Allegations of election fraud have lingered in the Grand Canyon state ever since.

Just the News’ Daniel Payne reports:

Republicans in the Arizona legislature will perform a full hand recount of the nearly 2.1 million votes cast in Maricopa County in the 2020 presidential election.

Arizona Senate President Karen Fann said in a statement released by Arizona Senate Republicans that state GOP leaders have decided on a “preferred forensic audit” the final details of which are currently being worked out.

“The audit will be broad and detailed,” Fann said. “[T]he team will include, but is not limited to, testing the machines, scanning the ballots, performing a full hand count and checking for any IT breaches.

Be still my beating heart … a real audit … with real answers … done by real Republicans (okay Richard Edward, don’t get your hopes up too high).

I used to think that the state-level GOP structures were like broken clocks, destined only to be correct twice a day. Well, I reasoned, better than not right ever, anytime at all. Still, as the 2020 general election fades in the rear-view mirror and voter attention spans shift in recoil to the latest outrage from the socialist left Biden Administration, I realized that I was still left unfulfilled by the court challenges that were never taken up, the audits that never happened, the ‘investigations’ that always seemed to result in ‘nothing to see here, move on’.

I asked myself, “Richard Edward, how do we fix the vote process if we don’t know where or how it’s broken?” I understood that the answer lay in a thorough review of how the vote was counted, absentee ballots and all.

The Arizona Senate Republicans recently got into more than just a contretemps with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (who also hold a GOP majority) over the 2020 election audit. Suits filed lawsuits. The Board appeared to want a quick and dirty audit while the state Senate wanted to dig deeper. Okay, this appeared to be just another episode of Republicans doing the circular firing squad routine that was outlined in the Romney/Ryan manual for political success.

Now what to make of my beloved Arizona GOP? What a surprise. Someone showed up and wound that party clock and now it appears to be running properly. If this gets any better, the Arizona Senate just might renew my faith in the Republican Party and local politics. (Hope, is thy real name hyperbole?)

Well, now that my state GOP is on the road to seeking truth, I am asking myself, “Who is the clock repairman that made this happen”?  Who pulled out the political manual on broken clocks, started teaching this group about standing up and not taking any guff from their political opponents?

Richard Edward thinks back on lessons from his career … sometimes change percolates from the bottom up; but sometimes, it’s the result of bold leadership that models the possible, leads by example, instead of acting like the same old tired leadership that came before.

Think Richard Edward, think … Who is that bold leader that Trumped the old, status quo thinking, showing the Arizona Senate Republicans a new way?

If you believe that conventional thinking by political party structures is, or can lead to, an American Crisis, please leave your thoughts in a comment below..

—  Richard Edward Tracy

Prominent Conservative Notices How BADLY the Left Wants Him to Say the Election Was Fair


Former Trump Administration national security official and conservative scholar Michael Anton has a question for Biden supporters. Why do they require his agreement that the November presidential election was free and fair?

In a recent op-ed published on American Greatness, he wrote:

Recently, I appeared as a guest on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast. Sullivan is vociferously anti-Trump, so I expected us to disagree—which, naturally, we did. But I was surprised by the extent to which he insisted I assent to his assertion that the 2020 election was totally on the level. That is to say, I wasn’t surprised that Sullivan thinks it was; I was surprised by his evident yearning to hear me say so, too.

Which I could not do.

Sullivan badgered me on this at length before finally accusing me of being fixated on the topic, to which I responded, truthfully, that I was only talking about it because he asked.

After Anton was pressed on this by two other pundits, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait and The National Review’s “conservative” (but not really) writer, Ramesh Ponnuru, he gave the issue some thought.

He wrote:

At any rate, why [Andrew] Sullivan or anyone else should care what I think of the 2020 election I find difficult to understand. Surely no one can seriously (as distinguished from crocodile fears) fret that my disbelief is a threat to the regime? If my opinion carried any weight at all, then my 406-page book and dozens of articles last year would have had some impact. They manifestly did not.

Or are they concerned for my soul, that I not be plagued (as Plato put it) by a “lie in the soul”? If that’s the case, let me worry about my own soul…

Machiavelli says in chapter six of The Prince that for a founder-prophet to be secure, “things must be ordered in such a mode that when [men] no longer believe, one can make them believe by force.” Does this regime currently possess that power? Is it seeking it? Chait would no doubt like to think so; would Sullivan agree? Is forced “belief” really belief?…

Sullivan repeatedly demanded that I explain how Our Democracy™ can survive as a democracy if something like half the country doesn’t believe in it anymore. The question was rhetorical. Sullivan knows the answer: it can’t. His purpose in asking was to shift blame from those who rig everything, refuse to explain anything but instead gaslight, gaslight, gaslight, onto those who, in response, decline to believe.

What I’ve noticed from liberals and anti-Trumpers is they frequently present the high number of state judges who declined to review Trump’s lawsuits as evidence that no fraud occurred.

For example, a headline in The Washington Post on this topic read: “From a presidential commission to Trump-nominated judges, here’s who has rebuked Trump’s voter fraud claims.”

Well, one can’t find something if they refuse to even look.

Rather than being proof that no improprieties occurred in the election, it could very well be they chose not to review the cases because what if, God forbid, they actually did find evidence of fraud?

If Sullivan, Chait and Ponnuru are so sure the vote was counted fairly, why are they so concerned that Anton doesn’t think so?

Anton’s position is that he really does not know if the election was stolen or not. None of us do. Below, he produces a list of “oddities” that make him skeptical.

The 2020 election came down to a narrower margin than the 2016 contest: fewer than 43,000 rather than 77,000 votes in just three states. In 2016, nothing fishy in Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin—the states on which 2016 turned—was detected. Certainly nothing like:

  • Counting shutdowns in five states, in which one candidate was ahead, only to lose after the counting resumed;
  • “Found” tranches of ballots going overwhelmingly—sometimes exclusively—to one candidate, the eventual “winner”;
  • Sworn affidavits alleging the backdating of ballots;
  • Historically low rejection rates—as in, orders of magnitude lower—of mail-in ballots, suggesting that many obviously invalid ballots were accepted as genuine;
  • Mail-in and absentee ballots appearing without creases, raising the question of how they got into the envelopes required for their being mailed in;
  • Thousands upon thousands of ballots all marked for one presidential candidate without a single choice marked for any down-ballot candidate.
  • The absolute refusal to conduct signature audits—indeed, the discarding of many envelopes which alone make such audits possible—i.e., of the kind of recounts which are performed not merely to get the math right but to evaluate the validity of ballots;
  • Other statistical and historical anomalies too numerous to mention here.

All of which, and much more, did occur in 2020. Any one of these things would have caused Hillary Clinton to march into court in 2016 with an army of lawyers larger than the force Hannibal brought to Cannae.

On Thursday, I posted the results of a survey of Democratic voters. They were asked to rank their greatest political concerns. The top spot went to “Donald Trump’s supporters.”

Why do Trump supporters pose a threat to Democrats? Why is it so important to them that we all move on?

Maybe they know something we don’t know – yet.

After Months of Demanding Elections Not Be Questioned, Dems Move to Flip House Race Won by GOP


Democrats, ultimately joined by many establishment Republicans, have vigorously condemned former President Donald Trump’s efforts to contest the 2020 election. Countless attempts by his legal team to expose what sure looks like chicanery have been blocked by local elections officials, state judges, and finally on Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court. All of this, despite the fact that over 1,000 Americans have signed sworn affidavits claiming they’d witnessed a wide range of irregularities including chain of custody issues. Incredibly, the state of Pennsylvania wound up with 200,000 more ballots than people who voted.

The race for the open seat in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District was one of the tightest House races in recent memory. In the weeks following the election, the lead changed hands several times until finally the Republican candidate, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, was declared the winner. She had defeated her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart, by six votes and the state certified the results.

With the recent concession by New York Democrat Anthony Brindisi in the state’s 22nd Congressional District, Democrats hold the House majority by nine seats.

Ironically, Brindisi’s attorney, Marc Elias, of the infamous Perkins, Coie law firm in Washington, D.C., argued that, “In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes … and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi …”

“In addition, Oswego County admitted in a sworn statement to this Court that its tabulation machines were not tested and calibrated in the days leading up to the November 3, 2020 General Election as required by state law and necessary to ensure that the counts generated by tabulation machines are accurate,” the document continued.

Elias, according to The Washington Times, “led a team of President Biden attorneys successfully fighting Trump challenges in over 50 courts” and “is alleging voter machine discrepancies” in the race.

Oblivious to the gross hypocrisy of it all, House Democrats have initiated a rarely used procedure that could yet flip the Iowa seat back into the blue column.

Even crazier is the fact that Elias is the lead attorney on Hart’s legal team in her appeal to the House Administration Committee to overturn her loss to Miller-Meeks.

Yes, it’s true.

Politico reported: “The House Administration Committee gathered virtually Friday afternoon to finalize the process by which it will adjudicate Hart’s claim, which was filed under the Federal Contested Elections Act. The committee has been largely silent since Hart first made her contest in December, but the hearing suggests that it is preparing to review the matter further. At the center of Hart’s complaint are 22 ballots that her campaign says were improperly rejected.”

The report noted that Hart “has made the experiences of these voters central to her post-campaign messaging: They have taped videos and called into virtual campaign events to express their disappointment at being disenfranchised. One voter accidentally ripped her ballot envelope while sealing it but was told it would count anyway. Another received an absentee ballot that was already sealed and was told to reopen it and then tape it shut.”

“The Friday meeting was brief. Members unanimously agreed to a resolution that establishes procedures the committee will abide by as it considers recent elections contested under the act. The committee has yet to act on a request by Miller-Meeks to dismiss Hart’s contest. A formal refusal to dismiss is what would truly set an investigation into motion, opening up a lengthy discovery period during which the campaigns can submit evidence and the committee could request ballots or even send staff into the southeastern Iowa district.”

Republican Rep. Rodney Davis of Illinois , the ranking member on the committee warned colleagues not to go forward with this action. He said, “I can’t think of a worst first step this committee could take in a new Congress than to waste taxpayer dollars by moving forward with overturning this election.” He added that it would set a “dangerous precedent.”

“The last time the House chose to overturn a state-certified election was an acrimonious affair,” the report explained. “After the 1984 elections, the House Democratic majority refused to seat the Republican challenger to Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey. A Republican official in Indiana certified the GOP candidate, Richard McIntyre, as the winner, but a recount conducted by Congress found McCloskey won by 4 votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans stormed out of the chamber in protest.”

Miller-Meeks was “provisionally seated” by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in January.

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!