Jack Danforth disputes election fraud claims. Will Missouri, Kansas senators speak out?

Former Missouri Senator John Danforth said what many, many more of his fellow Republicans should be saying about President Donald Trump’s dangerous rant mischaracterizing the perfectly normal counting of legal, mail-in ballots as the work of thugs out to steal the election from its only possible rightful victor, who would of course be him.

“By alleging widespread fraud,” Danforth said in a statement, “President Trump’s purpose is to undermine Americans’ belief in the legitimacy of the election and therefore in the foundation of our democracy. He is causing incalculable damage to our country.”

Was that so hard? Yes, even with Donald Trump Jr. urging supporters to “go to total war over this election,” it was too hard for most current GOP officeholders, including Danforth’s former protege, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley.

Only a few prominent Republicans across the country have summoned the courage to defend our democracy in such a straightforward way. And no Missourian or Kansan was among them.

Kansas Senator Jerry Moran came closest, just by mildly tweeting, “Our democracy is based on the ability of the American people to elect our leaders in free and fair elections. We must make certain every vote is counted correctly, and I’m confident the principles outlined in our Constitution will guide us through this moment.”

He also thanked election workers for their efforts, the implication being that they’re working hard for all of us, and not there to steal anything: “Thank you to all Americans who volunteered at polling places and continue to count ballots in accordance with their state’s laws.”

That Moran didn’t repeat Trump’s disinformation doesn’t make him brave, but it does put him ahead of retiring Kansas Senator Pat Roberts, who has declined to comment, and Missouri Senator Roy Blunt, who per usual is trying to have it both ways.

Blunt told reporters, “I think the president has some reason, based on what’s happened the last four years, to be to be aggrieved. You know, certainly many people on the other side never conceded his election. And were complaining about it. As late as a couple of weeks ago, I think I heard Mrs. Clinton explain once again why what had happened wasn’t fair. So, this is not a new position for a candidate to take.”

There is a difference between having reason to be aggrieved, which all humans could claim if they really wanted to, and reason to allege widespread fraud.

Hillary Clinton conceded, congratulated Trump

Hillary Clinton most certainly did concede the 2016 election; she called Trump to congratulate him on his win, told her supporters to “accept the result and look to the future” and attended his inauguration. There is also quite a difference between complaining that aspects of an election were unfair and refusing to acknowledge the outcome.

The only sense in which this is “not a new position for a candidate to take” is that Trump also alleged widespread fraud when he won in 2016. Also without any evidence, he said then that he would have won the popular vote if millions of immigrants hadn’t voted illegally. The commision he set up to investigate this allegation disbanded after finding nothing.

Asked whether he sees any credible evidence of fraud now, Blunt hedged: “You know, I’m sure there was some fraud. There’s always some fraud,” and “often mistakes made in the unofficial numbers that get found in the official canvass that happens in the next 10 days or so in almost every state.”

Election fraud is in fact exceedingly rare, and is not the same as the minor mistakes that do get corrected. Asked if “it wasn’t at all concerning to you for the president to be using this kind of language” Blunt said, “I think the president should turn this discussion over to his lawyers.” Yes, he should.

Blunt also made this reasonable comment: “You can’t stop the count in one state and decide you want the count to continue in another state. That might be how you’d like to see the system work, but that’s not how the system works.”

And Hawley? Soon after Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that 2024 GOP hopefuls weren’t forcefully enough echoing Trump’s fraud allegations, he added that Hawley was one of the only exceptions.

Hawley’s response was to promise to introduce election integrity laws. On Fox News, he told Tucker Carlson, “Americans need to have confidence that their elections have integrity. That means things like poll watchers. Poll watchers from both parties need to be present as ballots are being counted.”

Every state already has poll watchers from both parties present as ballots are being counted. Hawley also said ballot-harvesting is “rife with abuse” and should be illegal.

Last year, a Republican operative in North Carolina was arrested, along with four of his employees, and charged with election fraud for collecting ballots to send in. In North Carolina and nine other states, only a family member can be designated to mail in someone else’s ballot. In 16 other states, doing so is allowed with various limits. Though there would be nothing wrong with limiting that practice further, there’s no evidence that this is a real problem, either.

Kansas Senator-elect Roger Marshall, who during his campaign made a point of never differing with Trump on anything, said he’ll donate $20,000 to the Republican National Convention legal fund to “ensure our democracy is protected.”

Marshall and Hawley could better protect our democracy if they’d stop pretending that Trump’s claims have any merit.

Senator Mitt Romney of Utah is standing up for our democracy, saying that the president is within his rights to exhaust all legal remedies but “is wrong to say the election was rigged, corrupt and stolen.” Doing so “damages the cause of freedom here and around the world, damages the institutions that lie at the foundation of the Republic and recklessly inflames destructive and dangerous passions.”

Likewise, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania has called the president’s remarks “very hard to watch,” and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland has said there is “no defense” for the way Trump is “undermining our democratic process.” Senator Susan Collins of Maine is seen as having spoken out against Trump’s fraudulent fraud claims just by saying, “We must all respect the outcome of elections.”

Never before has this been considered bold or patriotic, but today it is.