Image 01 Image 03

Remember when Clinton staffers trashed White House before hand off to Bush?

Remember when Clinton staffers trashed White House before hand off to Bush?

Democrats have never accepted the legitimacy of the Bush victory, not then, not now.

Donald Trump said at the debate that he would consider whether to accept the election results at a later date. The media and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are pretending to be apoplectic, as if Trump had violated a core principle of our democracy that no election result could be contested.

The NY Times hyperventilated, Donald Trump’s Contempt for Democracy, while WaPo called it Trump’s breathtaking repudiation of American democracy.

In fact, Trump “threatens” to do only what Democrats have done in the past when it comes to disputed elections:

Had Trump given at the debate as detailed a statement above, I’m not sure we’d have the current breathless feigned shock. Or at least it would have been harder to fake.

As we know, Democrats never accepted George W. Bush’s 2000 victory, contested it in the courts, and only technically stopped contesting it after the Supreme Court ruled that selective recounts only in counties in which Democrats expected to pick up votes was unconstitutional. (A later media consortium later determined that Bush won the election based on a recount of the entire state.)

But Democrats never actually accepted the legitimacy of the Bush win, even if they were resigned to the Supreme Court ruling. For years, and even to this day, Democrats claim that Bush stole the election or that Bush, in Hillary’s own words, was “selected, not elected.”

There’s a good historical example of how Democrats reacted to the Bush win. Democratic staffers in the Clinton White House were so incensed at the result that they trashed the White House before handing it off to Bush staffers.

I thought of that trashing when I saw tweeted a copy of the lovely note George H.W. Bush left for Bill Clinton as G.W. Bush vacated the White House:

This L.A. Times article from 2002 reflects on how Clinton staffers vandalized the White House, Clinton Transition Left $15,000 Damage, GAO Says (emphasis added):

A yearlong investigation into whether Clinton administration aides left the White House in fraternity-party disarray as they vacated the presidential premises has turned up about $15,000 in damage, according to a government report released Tuesday.

Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) asked the General Accounting Office last June to look into allegations that Clinton staffers had ripped phone cords from walls, left obscene voicemail messages, defaced bathrooms and vandalized computer keyboards by removing the ”W” keys when they left the White House. A number of items, including a 12-inch presidential seal and several antique doorknobs, were assumed stolen.

”The Clinton administration treated the White House worse than college freshmen checking out of their dorm rooms,” Barr said Tuesday. ”They disgraced not just themselves but the institution and the office of the presidency as well.”

The GAO concluded that ”damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House during the 2001 presidential transition.” The report stated that some incidents, such as removing keyboard keys, placing glue on desk drawers and leaving obscene voicemail messages ”clearly were intentional,” and intentional damage would constitute a criminal act under federal law. No prosecutions are planned, though.

The trashing of the White House and almost 15 years of rejectionism are symbolic of how Democrats never accepted the legitimacy of the Bush victory. And still don’t.

Still waiting for NY Times and WaPo editorials about how Democrats have contempt for and repudiate the foundation of our democracy.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I remember when this happened. And what really PO’d me is Bush didn’t press charges against any of them. I would have because they’re just filth and deserve to be behind bars.

Some people are ready for large responsibly, some will grow into it, some will never reach it. Chairman O, and his minions will never get there. I hope our next leader is capable.

The debate about the honesty of democrats is settled science. Move on.

The actual $ loss was MUCH greater than $15,000. That was only damage. If you count stolen furniture, rugs, paintings and china the number is closer to $200K.

buckeyeminuteman | October 20, 2016 at 3:59 pm

The spoof campaign signs of Sore/Loserman 2000 come to mind. We didn’t have facebook or any of that social media stuff back then and I still remember seeing that everywhere.

It’s true many Dems never accepted Bush’s legitimacy, even though eventually Al Gore gave a concession speech.
Trump’s antics, while pretty funny, is a new low in American politics. He’s not going to accept results of an election, really?
His fans convince themselves that the polls are rigged and are designed to then steal the election. It has to be a pretty vast left-wing conspiracy, I trust. Tens of thousands of people must be involved in coordinating that one. Left unexplained: how come the same polls that show Trump losing show Congressional Republicans retaining majority?
Voter fraud is real and we have legitimate questions about how widespread it is. The issue is too serious to be trusted to Donald Trump. He will do to voter fraud what he did to the border wall – make it the third rail of American politics.

    “…is a new low in American politics. He’s not going to accept results of an election, really?”

    I’d just call you a stupid kook for such absurdity, but I think I’ll be nice and just say you have no knowledge of political history, you’re ignorant.

    Or deranged. Or paid to promote propaganda.

    Could be all of them of course.

    Except, of course, that you Demopublicans refused to address the issue for 50 years. FOAD.

      Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | October 20, 2016 at 7:34 pm

      Yah, no. You’re either a liar or a historic moron.

      Vote fraud has been an issue in the U.S. for at least a century and a half, and both major parties have engaged in it enthusiastically at times, just as both parties have been the Progressive standard bearer at times.

      It can be demonstrated that we have LESS of it now than in times past, and that has come through the work of good people who love the ideals of a democratic republic.

In the first debate, didn’t Trump say he’d accept the results of the election? I have the quote right here: “The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her.” I guess back then – barely three weeks ago – he thought he was even or ahead.

The new low is the Clinton campaign and the Media, don’t fool yourself…

Trump is right, generally about everything…

Trump 2016

3 weeks ago we didn’t have the O’Keefe video and the emails…

Now we do….

    tyates in reply to gonzotx. | October 20, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    It was up to Trump to put together a disciplined and organized campaign and stay on message and for whatever reason he couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. Instead he spent the summer trashing the Bushes who managed to win three Presidential elections, Paul Ryan who has won 10+ elections by margins of 80%+ many times, and Romney and McCain who both will likely get more electoral votes than Trump.

    Lee Jan in reply to gonzotx. | October 20, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    And we never heard of ACORN? Really, this vote fraud just sprung up this minute?
    And those dead people who vote in Chicago…..who knew???

So we hated the disruption caused by Sore/Loserman but we are loving it when Agent Orange and his pooper scooper threaten the same act of disloyalty.

Seemed like a gotcha question. Had he answered yes the msm would have declared it his early concession to hateful hitlery and gone on and on about how he knows he’s going to lose.
Trump probably should have turned it around on them and asked if hateful hitlery is ready to concede the election.

    Ragspierre in reply to 4fun. | October 20, 2016 at 5:29 pm

    No. He should have said what any sane, non-conspiratorial nutbag would have said…

    AND which someone made him say (sorta) today…

    “I will, of course, reserve my rights to challenge an election result if the facts and evidence support that, and within the legal and regulatory systems. Any candidate has that right, and our democratic process has always supported it. But barring good evidence to the contrary, I will recognize the will of the legitimate voters.”