Stating the Obvious?

John P. Warren
|
Posted: Apr 13, 2016 10:18 AM
Stating the Obvious?

Two obstacles bar what should be the ordinarily raucous, muddy, and loud nominating process enjoyed by partisans and political junkies of all stripes. One of them threatens our nation. The other continues to be a head-scratcher.

First comes what should be described for what it is: the fix, the cover up, The Great Suppression of Hillary Clinton’s likely unlawful, certainly negligent, definitely reckless conduct spanning enough time to presume ongoing intent to conceal and deceive. And the cover up is going on right in front of us.

The stratagem isn’t new—it’s one the Clintons learned as political babes listening to Nixonian front men acquaint the nation with what was famously called, “stonewalling.” The tactic didn’t do much for Nixon in the end, but as practiced by progressives ever since, it has become a high art. Benghazi and the Email Evasion are two most recent examples of it.

The tactic is a simple one. Delay, evade, obfuscate, counterattack, orchestrate minions, enlist State Media shills (who will do absolutely anything to keep an A-List Access Pass), and then lie, lie, and lie some more. And shame on us as Americans—half may vote for her if given the chance. When everyday people are interviewed, they either do not know of Mrs. Clinton’s serial falsehoods, they brush them off as Republican smears, or they assume she must be innocent because no one has ever held her responsible—for anything. What she would do with the truth if president is beyond imagination.

Then comes our constitutional law professor president, who vows no political influence in the matter’s disposition, then does precisely that by pre-judging his former SOS as merely “careless,” but not unlawful. A sewer stench filled the air this past weekend as he carefully chose words about “intent.” Irrelevant though one’s intent may be under the Freedom of Information Act and the Espionage Act, it cannot have been coincidence that the minion-master himself and all of his spokespeople, including nearly every mutt in State Media kennels, have used the same—exactly the same—talking point in recent days.

Where are all the crusading journalists? Where are the idealistic whistleblowers in DOJ? Where are the ivory-pinnacled law professors? Where are the tireless watchdogs of liberty?

Answer: Guarding their retirement accounts.

“There’s a cancer on the presidency,” was a line for Nixon’s comparatively small-time lie, but it is more apt to describe the high crime being committed in front of our eyes. Left unadjudicated, the explosive forces of its nasty gases could shake loose the very foundation stones of our nation.

Then there’s the imbroglio about the nominating process in both parties. Those who have attempted to reduce it to the simple math of a Villanova-UNC basketball game score have missed the very purpose of a party convention.

Coming close to winning, but not winning, is not winning. Unlike Little League these days where every kid gets a trophy, the dramatic three-pointer by UNC no more entitled it to a win than the extent of earlier wins or the size of their crowds.

The framers of our constitutional blueprint never imagined political parties, and of course, described no process or method to manage them. Republicans and Democrats are in the truest sense private entities, subject only in certain ways to federal and state laws, inasmuch as party processes underpin principles framed in the Constitution, such as the Electoral College. Beyond that, each state party entity is relatively free to organize itself according to its own lights, fair or otherwise. It has been up to each party’s adherents, over time, to grind a certain equity into the rules, but whether or not they have been successful is irrelevant. The rules are what they are, and every candidate could have known them and ran their game accordingly.

Party managers imitated the framers with a representational structure, and it exists, often to rubber stamp a fore-ordained victor, or to sort through the warriors and choose the one who will best carry forth the party’s principles and platform.

A Ford Taurus cannot be a Mercedes by putting a luxury badge on its hood, and party regulars have the right to frustrate or deny any candidate who fails to meet their test, or represent their brand. That Donald Trump has warred skillfully on the political battlefields is undoubted. Yet, his supreme confidence, his pride in not being a politician, his claim to be totally self-funded, his avoidance of details—both in policy and in party processes—have all blunted what should have been an unstoppable march to Cleveland and beyond. While he stomped the stage and commanded the ether, others labored quietly in the precinct vineyards in every state and district, and reaped their harvest: committed delegates on the first or second ballots. He didn’t know what he didn’t know—but should have.

Gameover? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Those who have counted out Trump before are as mown blades of grass across an endless prairie. Yet, Donald Trump, master of so many things, neglected to read the rules in the new game he chose to play, and now, he doesn’t like how it might come out. Little League again.

With Bernie and the Dems, it’s almost as if he was hired to make their otherwise boring coronation somehow interesting when neither candidate punches very hard, and questions of integrity are off the table. The biggest nomination scandal is not with Republicans. It’s with the Democrats where the game was rigged with superdelegates before the first primary.

Not in a perfect world, but in a merely just world, Mrs. Clinton would have been indicted and placed under house arrest by now, Bernie would be moving to Denmark, and Republicans wanting to be president of the United States would know and understand the rules of the game, then find their path to 1237.