Opinion | Liddick: Democrats embody sore-loser syndrome
On Your Right
I blame Al Gore. The modern political manifestation of the infantile idea that, if one loses, one should howl and whine until satisfaction is given began with his ungracious loss to George W. Bush in 2000. Who can forget the weeks-long idiocy of butterfly ballots, hanging chads and public seances to determine “the will of the voter?” Until the Supreme Court brought an end to the farce on the grounds of unequal representation, it being obvious that Democrats were cherry-picking districts in which they traditionally did well to contest the count. “Count every vote,” okay. “Count every vote for us,” not so much. The whole petulant business gave us nothing but the poisonous politics of “I win, or else,” and the legitimization of the political tantrum.
2004 saw the same sort of tactics attempted by John Kerry partisans in key swing states, the argument being that exit polls were more accurate than actual votes cast in actual polling places. This time no one had the patience for another round of nonsense, so the whiners were ignored.
They returned with a vengeance in 2018, chiefly but not exclusively focused on Donald Trump, who had the effrontery to make fools of both the political establishment and the commentariat, something neither could abide. So “insurance policies” were enacted and voilà! Through the use of both national intelligence and federal law enforcement organs, a false narrative that the President was traitorously involved with a foreign enemy was concocted and pedaled by willing accomplices in the popular press to a credulous and vulnerable left-leaning segment of the population.
It was the ultimate whine, the action of a political class unable to accept the reality of what had happened; the uber-sore-loser reaction that paralyzed our government for two years. And last week the lie was sunk by Robert Mueller, the very man they had looked to for deliverance from the reminder of their failure that is Trump.
In the immortal words of Rocket Raccoon, “Attention, idiots.” It’s over.
A quote from the Mueller Report, page 10: “…the investigation did not establish that the members of the Trump Campaign conspired or collaborated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” To emphasize: Did. Not. Establish. In other words, those who habitually over the past two years referred to the president as a traitor were either misled, or knaves. Those who, moving forward, do so are liars or illiterates. Neither is very flattering in a politician.
Without missing a beat, and certainly without apology for being vigorously, persistently, utterly and poisonously wrong, the hate-Trump crowd has now switched ground, arguing that if the president did not conspire with the Russians, he at least obstructed justice, for which he must be impeached — the obvious but oft-denied desideratum of Democrats since the man defeated Hilary Clinton.
One could be puckish, as others have been, and simply ask “Obstruct what justice? As the report reveals, the Trump campaign did not do what it was accused by its opponents of doing, so at the most what the president did was to obstruct injustice in the form of wild accusations being pursued by zealots as though they had some basis in fact.” But there is more to this.
Part Two of the report, which deals with the accusation of obstruction, has Andrew Weissman’s fingerprints all over it. The unorthodox theories of crimes, the innuendo, the logical leaps and non-sequitur arrivals at predetermined conclusions are all hallmarks of this prosecutor, for whom “disreputable” would be a compliment. The section is constructed in a “just imagine” style with weaselish phrases like “The president’s actions were facially lawful (but) his position as head of the Executive Branch provides him with unique and powerful means influencing official proceedings.”
In this section the Mueller team does not attack presidential actions but, as exemplified by use of comments to staff members about getting rid of both Mueller and then-Attorney General Sessions, his thoughts and desires. “He said” and “he wanted to” figure big, making the whole exercise something that should make the average American first blanche with fear, then be filled with outrage. When did the Department of Justice establish an Office of Thought Crime? To understand the danger, consider that we all have desires, some of which are expressed: I’ve often mentioned that I’d like to see the Earth from the surface of the Moon. That doesn’t make me an astronaut. But the Trump-haters on Mueller’s team, and Trump-haters in general, insist that it does. By the same logic, anyone expressing appreciation for a co-worker’s physical beauty or wishing a bothersome neighbor would go away might be subjected to an investigation for murder or sexual assault if they peeve the wrong bureaucrat. Ludicrous, yes. But possible once precedent has been set.
Morgan Liddick writes a weekly column for the Summit Daily News.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.