If I was in the House of Representatives and I truly believed that the President Elect had, in fact, committed absolutely unprecedented election fraud on an unimaginable scale, and believed that the challenger had been denied over 100 electoral votes I would not, under any circumstances allow that person to become President if it was within my proper powers to thwart it.
I hope/assume that goes for everyone. Right?
So, if what I expect to become RW dogma develops, no RWer could justify voting to certify. The certificates being certified would, in fact, be the result of fraud.
It's no technicality. It will be their duty.
Now, one can say that they will not really believe it and I agree that many or most Republicans will know they lost straight up.
But how do you explain that vote to your electorate?
You cannot play along with the tea-party while defending that vote. No moral actor who believed what these people will have to pretend to believe could have cast that vote. Birtherism and evolution are easy to finesse. Certifying "the greatest political crime in human history" with foreknowledge wouldn't be so easy.
So for them, it's a political loser either way. (If I was a tea partier I would start my campaign the next day with, "Rep. X voted for Obama."
I do think that that institutionally they would have to fall in line, unless Limbaugh was pushing it, but I didn't expect them to try to default on debt service payments either.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read