How Many Elephants in the Room?
What do you think? I’d say that -- with the Mueller dump on Buzzfeed’s “bombshell,” the Friday night NYT piece telling us that the FBI had no evidence when it decided to investigate President Trump after he fired James Comey, and Bruce Ohr’s leaked testimony that the DoJ, etc., didn’t have any actual evidence in 2016 on Trumpian collusion, and with the wink that the Mueller report will be “anti-climactic” -- the Deep State is signaling that there is no there there as regards Trump Russia.
So that leaves us with the simple fact, as I blogged last week, that:
The Obama administration spied on the opposition presidential campaign.
If you are a liberal-lefty picking daisy petals in your comfortable media walled garden, you should be noticing about now the uncomfortable fact that something outside the wall -- an elephant maybe -- is bumping around and may knock the garden wall down.
Stop picking petals! In 2016, the Obama administration sicced the FBI and DCI on the opposition! Cue the Drudge siren! The elephant is right there in the room!
Remember Watergate, sweeties? You told us that the Nixon Administration covering up the freelance spying of its campaign operatives on the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex was the worst thing ever.
Hey! How about the government’s Department of Justice and the government’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and the government’s Director of Central Intelligence feeding phony opposition research to get the FISA Court to okay government surveillance on Trump campaign operatives?
Grading on scale of 1 to 10, I’d put the 1970s Watergate coverup at a 2, and the 2016 Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign at a 7. What does it take to get a 10? In my book it would be an actual assassination of a political opposition figure.
The charitable way to understand our liberal friends is to realize that they have “lost the plot.” This is a Brit-ism that means that you are too dumb to grasp what is going on. As in, how can there be populist nationalism when we wise and evolved liberals put a stop to that right after World War II? How can there be white supremacists today when we wise and compassionate liberals put a stop to racism in the 1960s? It is well-nigh impossible for liberals to get their brains around the possibility that almost everything going wrong today is the result, the “unanticipated consequence” of a century of progressive politics, from bankrupt entitlements to racial animosities and the seething rage among liberal women.
The uncharitable verdict on the left is that nothing matters to them except political power.
It just happens that I’ve been reading a bit of history lately, of Henry VII chasing conspiracies down every rabbit-hole in 1500, of the Brits in India inventing colonialism and playing off one suspicious, drugged-out Mughal prince against another in 1750. That is the world as it has always been: power for the sake of power. But then the bloody bourgeoisie said: “I know, let’s lower the temperature on politics a bit. Suppose we limit the power of government to beat up the opposition? Suppose we transfer political power with elections rather than civil war? Hey, here’s a wild one: separate the powers of the executive, the legislative, and judicial branches of government! Crazy? But it might work, and it sure would be good for business!”
Oh, those Crazy Rich Bourgeoisians. They should make a movie!
Just don’t forget that “normal” throughout history is that the ruler is convinced of his divine right to rule (or to fundamentally transform America). The ruler is paranoid about conspiracies, and doesn’t hesitate to sic his police thugs on the opposition.
What is abnormal is for the governing party to say: “Hey guys, we’ve been in power for a couple of terms, and the settled science says that the voters probably think it is ‘time for a change.’” Then when the opposition wins, you forget that your FBI tells you that the opposition probably stole one state, and maybe two. You graciously concede the election, saying that “we are all Americans,” and you tell your supporters: “wait until next year!”
Yes, that’s the other elephant in the room. For the last two change elections, when the Democrats lost after two terms in office, their candidates refused to concede. Knowing Al Gore and Hillary Clinton as we do, this is not surprising. But it is still wrong. Or, to use the fashionable word: immoral.
It tells us how far today’s Democratic Party has fallen that, first, it is perfectly content with siccing the government’s gumshoes on the opposition and, second, that its leaders lack the basic decency to concede a normal change election.
And Democrats have no clue that they have a problem.