‘A pack of sore losers’

Nixon was gra­cious in de­feat when com­pared to Hil­lary and her sup­port­ers

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By David A. Keene

It was elec­tion night 1960 and as the votes trick­led in, those sur­round­ing Vice Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon were con­vinced Demo­cratic vote fraud in Illi­nois and Texas were about to cost their man the White House in the clos­est pres­i­den­tial elec­tion since 1840. It would all turn, in the end, on Illi­nois. The Repub­li­can­lean­ing coun­ties had al­ready re­ported in while Chicago Mayor Richard Da­ley was hold­ing back the Cook County vote, know­ing ex­actly how many votes he would need to re­port to give the state to Demo­crat John F. Kennedy.

For­mer Wash­ing­ton Post edi­tor Ben Bradlee, a Kennedy in­ti­mate, re­ported years later that a wor­ried Kennedy called Mayor Da­ley that night for as­sur­ances that all would be well. Mr. Da­ley didn’t hes­i­tate, as­sur­ing his can­di­date that “with a lit­tle bit of luck and the help of a few close friends, you’re go­ing to carry Illi­nois.” Da­ley was right, of course, and by morn­ing he and a few of his close friends de­liv­ered the White House to Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Nixon’s friends, in­clud­ing Illi­nois’ leg­endary Sen. Everett Dirk­sen, be­lieved they had con­vinc­ing ev­i­dence of what had hap­pened and urged Mr. Nixon to de­mand a re­count. In the end, how­ever, Mr. Nixon said no, be­cause even if they were right, a re­fusal to ac­cept the re­sults would re­sult in tur­moil and un­der­mine the foun­da­tions of the coun­try.

But that was then. This year Hil­lary Clin­ton and the Amer­i­can left are ac­knowl­edg­ing noth­ing. They are con­vinced that fraud, lies and for­eign gov­ern­ments con­spired to elect Don­ald Trump on Nov. 8 and are ap­par­ently willing to do what­ever might be nec­es­sary to keep him from be­ing sworn in as our 45th pres­i­dent in Jan­uary. The far left took to the streets as soon as the net­works de­clared him the win­ner and has vowed to close down Wash­ing­ton on In­au­gu­ra­tion Day.

Dur­ing the cam­paign it­self and since, Mrs. Clin­ton’s sup­port­ers and friends in the me­dia have charged that the vot­ers were some­how bam­boo­zled by “fake news,” the FBI and hack­ers work­ing at the be­hest of Rus­sian Pres­i­dent Vladimir Putin to keep her from be­ing elected. Back in 1960, Mr. Nixon blamed the machi­na­tions of vote-steal­ing elected of­fi­cials for what went on, while Mrs. Clin­ton and her al­lies are es­sen­tially blam­ing for­eign pow­ers and an eas­ily bam­boo­zled and not overly bright elec­torate for her de­feat. The old lib­eral ques­tion of “What’s wrong with Kansas?” has mor­phed into the broader “What’s wrong with Amer­ica?”

There seems no con­spir­acy too bizarre as they spin facts to sup­port their be­lief that Mr. Trump should be de­nied the White House. Prior to the elec­tion when they thought the lady would win in a walk, the na­tion’s me­dia and Mrs. Clin­ton spent a good bit of time warn­ing us that if Mr. Trump and his fol­low­ers didn’t im­me­di­ately ac­cept the re­sults, they would be re­spon­si­ble for desta­bi­liz­ing the very foun­da­tions of our democ­racy. In their third de­bate, Mrs. Clin­ton said that in sug­gest­ing things might be rigged against him, Mr. Trump was “talk­ing down our democ­racy” and The New York Times sug­gested that ques­tion­ing the out­come “risks last­ing dan­ger to the Re­pub­lic.”

Mr. Nixon would have agreed with these ob­ser­va­tions, but not Mrs. Clin­ton or her al­lies in the me­dia. First came the at­tacks on the Elec­toral Col­lege, an in­sti­tu­tion both her cam­paign and the me­dia had prior to the elec­tion pointed to as the fire­wall pro­tec­tion against a Trump vic­tory. Any­one who watched the tele­vi­sion talk­ing heads will re­mem­ber the smug­ness with which they talked about Mr. Trump’s nar­row if not nonex­is­tent path to an Elec­toral Col­lege ma­jor­ity, and can com­pare it to the post-elec­tion de­mands

that the col­lege needs to be abol­ished or that duly elected elec­tors some­how have a moral obli­ga­tion to ig­nore the vot­ers of their state, aban­don Mr. Trump and cast their votes for Mrs. Clin­ton. Elec­tors are re­ceiv­ing hun­dreds of emails, let­ters, tele­phone calls and death threats by those de­mand­ing they go rogue and the cam­paign to get them to do so is ac­tu­ally be­ing ap­plauded by the anti-Trump me­dia.

Lest these ef­forts be dis­missed as the rant­ings of a few half-crazed Clin­ton sup­port­ers in­hab­it­ing the fever swamps of the left, it should be noted that the cam­paign is be­ing spear­headed by the left-wing Change.org, which claims to have col­lected the sig­na­tures of 4.6 mil­lion peo­ple in sup­port of what they are do­ing.

Mrs. Clin­ton has her­self de­cided to sup­port the cam­paign to de­mand re­counts in Wis­con­sin, Michi­gan and Penn­syl­va­nia if Green Party can­di­date Jill Stein is suc­cess­ful in get­ting some­thing go­ing — a des­per­ate last shot at the brass ring. Even though few of her sup­port­ers think a re­count will change any­thing, they har­bor the hope that if the re­counts can­not be com­pleted by the Dec. 13 dead­line, deny­ing the Elec­toral Col­lege the abil­ity to de­clare a win­ner when it meets on Dec. 19, there is an out­side chance that they can throw the whole thing into the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and give her one last shot at the of­fice she has craved for so long.

As Trump cam­paign man­ager Kellyanne Con­way said upon hear­ing this news, “What a pack of sore losers.”

Hil­lary Clin­ton should be ashamed of how badly she comes off when com­pared to Richard Nixon.

Dur­ing the cam­paign it­self and since, Mrs. Clin­ton’s sup­port­ers and friends in the me­dia have charged that the vot­ers were some­how bam­boo­zled by “fake news.”

David A. Keene is opin­ion edi­tor at The Wash­ing­ton Times.


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.