Escondido, CA

When the ‘wrong people’ win elections: A tale of two nations (and maybe more)

Someday I would like to see the origins and results of “Russiagate” covered with the same hagiographic devotion as the origins and results of Watergate were in the celebrated 1970s movie “All the President’s Men;” which was the mother’s milk on which many infant journalists suckled in the years following the 1970s.

Of course, Watergate became the touchstone upon which the media measured all presidential scandals great and small. If a Republican president hid the fact that he got a paper clip lodged in his upper sinuses for several hours without noticing it, that became “paperclipgate.” If a Democratic president allowed the IRS to target conservative groups as if they were threats to the republic that was . . . well, ignored and not assigned a “gate.”

That’s because the purpose of the “gate” keepers—otherwise known as the mainstream media—is to protect and advance the interests of the Democratic party. Since the way the news that is coming out of Russiagate in the last few weeks isn’t advancing that narrative, the MSM chooses to ignore large parts of what is becoming fairly common knowledge about Russiagate: That top level officials in the CIA, FBI and Justice Department made a conscious decision in 2016 to spy on the Trump campaign. That they basically manufactured the evidence needed to convince FISA judges to let them do it. After Trump won, they made a conscious effort to discredit his election, cast aspersions on his legitimacy, and conduct a silent coup to remove him. 

We are in the midst of the uncovering of what may someday be considered by non-biased historians as the worst political scandal in our nation’s history. The closest thing I can recall from American history is when the disgraced former vice president Aaron Burr (the guy who shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804) got involved with some equally shady people as himself (they called them filibusters back then,) including a high ranking general, and apparently plotted to carve off some of the Louisiana purchase into an independent country.

Equally bad was when the Republican-controlled Congress in 1876 engineered the “stolen election” that engineered the installation of Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden who seems to have won the votes.

The current scandal shows that when the “wrong people” or rather the “wrong sort of people” win elections, the elites go into overdrive to reverse the course of the election. 

This clearly happened in the United States after the 2016 election with the creation of the fake and odious “Russian hacked the election” and it happened in Great Britain after the 2016 Brexit vote several months earlier. In both instances the nations’ elites either purposely or without conspiracy reach one mind: that whatever the cost they most overturn the will of the electorate.

The “elites” of the Tory party have for three years been bending themselves into pretzels to try to pretend that the Brexit vote to take the UK out of the European Union didn’t take place. That the results of that election were simply too horrible to contemplate and that maybe there out to be a “do over,” of the referendum in order for the right side to win.

This has become such a toxic mess for the ruling Conservative party that Prime Minister Theresa May is tossing the towel in defeat and leaving the contest open for some other Conservative to win.

This is sort of a variation on the old socialist meme that says “If I win, the people have spoken. If I lose, the people were duped!” Or, “Let’s have elections until I win—and then we don’t need to hold any more elections.”

The “elites” in the UK and the US are roughly equivalent in how they look down on those who hold opinions they find obnoxious.

Whatever things Trump have said that are idiotic, outrageous and execrable, none in my mind equal what Hillary Clinton said about roughly half of the voters when she called them “deplorables.” 

That may have lost her the election. The attitudes of the elites who were so righteously offended by Trump’s election that they hatched up scheme after scheme to run him out of office could very well lose the next election to Trump. I’m not saying it’s gonna happen. I’m not saying it’s likely—but IF it happens, the craziness of the liberals will resemble one of those shambling mobs from a “Walking Dead” episode. 

And won’t that be fun?

*Note: Opinions expressed by columnists and letter writers are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the newspaper.

One response to “When the ‘wrong people’ win elections: A tale of two nations (and maybe more)”

  1. Ronny L. Savage Doll says:

    Response to “When the wrong people win elections…

    I recently read the opinion piece noted above and decided that a counter opinion was warranted.

    In his narrative, Mr. Ross discusses what he considers to be harassment of Republican politicians, in particular our current president, Mr. Trump. He writes that “If a Republican president hid the fact that he got a paper clip lodged in his upper sinuses for several hours without noticing it, that became “paperclip gate”. He laments that this harassment is only the case for Republican presidents. Has Mr. Ross not heard of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? What about the various investigations during the Obama presidency; the investigation into the $535 million dollar federal loan made to Solyndra, a solar company that supported Obama and collapsed shortly after receiving the monies; or the investigation into the botched rollout of the ACA, to name a few. Should these things be investigated? Yes! Should Trump also be investigated for issues which concern our country? Yes!

    Throughout our modern political history, opposing political parties have tried to make as much trouble as possible for each other. If there is a Republican in the White House, Democrats oppose him, investigate him, and try to ensnare him in scandal. If the President is Democratic, Republicans do the same thing. This can be a good thing. It supports the system of “checks and balances” among the three branches of the U.S. government. It was created so that no one branch could become all powerful. Is there the potential for abuses of this? Of course, but the Muller Investigation is not one of these.

    What Mr. Ross refers to as “the mainstream media” is also influenced by the political party in power. But unlike Mr. Ross, I believe that most media outlets are unashamedly biased. I have heard reporters on both ends of the political spectrum ridicule those that do not support the same issues they do, going so far as to pick on things as ridiculous as what type of shoes a candidate’s supporters are wearing. I have also noted that many of my friends will only listen to the news broadcasts that support their views and the opinions they express are often a word-for-word repeat of what they heard on last night’s broadcast. What happened to our own responsibility to listen to both sides of an argument? How and when did we loose the ability to express respect for opponents and compromise for the benefit of the majority?

    About the Mueller Report/Investigation:

    Mueller’s key findings
    ● Mueller rejects the argument that the president is shielded from obstruction laws.

    ●Trump, when told of appointment of special counsel Mueller, said: “This is the end of my presidency.”

    ● “Substantial evidence” supports Comey over Trump in account of Flynn meeting.

    ●Trump campaign attempted to obtain Hillary Clinton’s private emails.

    ● Campaign expected to benefit from stolen information released by the Russians.

    ● Mueller probe spawned 14 other investigations, including two unidentified cases that remain ongoing.

    ● Putin stepped up outreach to Trump after election.

    ● Special counsel team concluded Trump intended to obstruct probe in tweeting support for Manafort.

    ● Mueller appears to kick obstruction question to Congress.

    To summarize; The Russians tried to influence our presidential election, just as they have tried to influence elections in Poland, Spain, Latvia, France and the United Kingdon. In addition, at least 34 indictments have been made. Of these, several people close to Mr. Trump were included; Paul Manafort, former campaign chairman, Roger Stone, longtime informal advisor and George Papadapoulos, former campaign advisor.

    Wether you like Trump or not, I think most would agree that it’s a good thing that the powerful individuals noted above that were within Trump’s circle of influence, have been removed, thereby protecting the presidency from outside manipulation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *