My appearance in 1996Wayne Stegall

Copyright 2011 by Wayne Stegall
Updated October 20, 2011.  See Document History at end for details.


Will you vote by your will or by the will of others?

My experience observing politics has led me to believe that the candidates most favored by the media are those approved by established political interests.  As a result, seeing the media fawn over Chris Christie as if they were already prepared to crown him, if only he would delight them by entering the presidential race, gave me reason to pause and wonder why.  After he publicly declined to enter, I searched the web to solve the mystery, until the following clip from a news article dated Friday, September 23, 20111 gave clue:

During the past few weeks, several leading Republican donors and fundraisers have been urging the popular Republican governor to reconsider his decision not to run and to enter the GOP primary.

These Christie supporters note that significant GOP support has remained on the sidelines of the primary fight. Many leading fundraisers have yet to commit to any current primary contender, including frontrunners Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

Newsmax has learned that the effort to draft Christie culminated in a hush-hush powwow held in the past week with Christie and several notable Republican billionaires.

Odd isn't it, that he refused the crown?  With public sentiment rising to put those who impoverished our country to the guillotine, perhaps he was the shrewdest after all to refuse for the time to be anyone's crony.  Liberals would cry out against those Republican billionaires, but their liberal media was as eager to crown Christie as any or more.  Politics at this level can only be properly understood with money-colored glasses, rose colored ones will not do.  Remember, that in the 2008 election cycle, liberals George Soros and the wife of Senator Kerry contributed to the campaign of John McCain, and the recent revelation that conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch contributed to an Obama campaign that alleged not to have received any funding from big money sources!  (I appreciate Rupert's help with the conservative cause, but facts are facts.)  Money interests have money priorities, ideology is a secondary concern.  Aside from shared money matters, liberal political interests would like to influence the Republican primary to mitigate their own interests, all the more if they believe their man is already a lame duck.  Did you notice how liberal debate moderators sought to draw the Republican candidates into a quarrel or into misspeaking themselves to possibly offend undecided voters?  (It is probably well that they are tested this way, as the adversarial process is going to test them increasingly as the race progresses.)  Perhaps they think us mere spectators, ready to cheer the victors they have prewritten into their political script, all the more if we can smell the blood.2

How does the 2008 election appear through money-colored glasses?  In my view Hillary was the chosen one.  After all, the liberal media began promoting her almost before the results of the last election were in.  Bill Clinton then worked with much fervor with Rahm Emanuel's help and George Soros' money to steal back Congress for the Democrats in 2006.3  Now he would make his wife president with a desperation that pushed the limits of his anger when any obstacle seemed to frustrate.  There were so many loose ends to resolve for him and his benefactors, and Hillary had told him publicly in her Soprano's spoof that she would take care of him.4  In that context, the matters to be resolved for him were not trifles.  There were other factors that could not be scripted however.  The machinations to gain power had created enough voter dissatisfaction with both parties that the viability of a third party candidate became very real.  Conservatives were considering the Constitutional party and others, liberals the Green party.  Money interests had vested all their interests in the two established parties; they could not assure themselves that a third party president would pull their way.  In order to keep voters on track with their two parties, a spoiler would have to be written into their script.  Enter Barack Obama,  a man radical enough to scare the stray conservatives back to the Republican party and different enough to keep any disenchanted liberals in the Democratic fold.  Things would have gone well enough but Barack perhaps was not one to follow the script.  When it would seem that Hillary would get the nomination, Barack played his own card.   On the basis of contacts he had with leaders of the New Black Panther movement he rallied with in Georgia, he threatened to roust the rabble if the Democratic superdelegates did not swing his way.  Fear of domestic troubles sufficient to harm the economic fortunes of the mighty then required the script to be rewritten followed by a peace offering to appease one suspected not entirely with their system to raise his campaign bounty to 750 million dollars.  What a mess!  What a twisted way to govern!

My interest here is that you see past the subterfuge and discover the candidates that serve the voter's interest rather than those that hold or seek to hold power with a corrupt association.  Perhaps it speaks well of candidates if it genuinely appears that they are rejected by established political interests.

Choose well.

1Jim Meyers, "Chris Christie Reconsidering 2012 Run, Will Decide in Days," September 23, 2011, Newsmax. linkarchive.
2Refer article Red Meat.
3Refer article The Democratic Coup of 2006.
4The Clinton's Sopranos Spoof  Uploaded Jun 19, 2007.  Link verified Oct 20, 2011.

Document History
October 20, 2011  Created.
October 20, 2011  Made corrections and improvements.