Tuesday, May 26, 2015

BloggeRhythms

An article on FoxNews.com today by Howard Kurtz, begins: “David Letterman’s Top Ten List may now be history, but Fox’s Top Ten List could shape the Republican presidential campaign.
“By announcing this week that only the 10 candidates polling highest in recent national surveys will make it to a Cleveland debate stage in August, Fox News has set a bar that will make it difficult for the also-ran’s to get political traction.”
 
Although I don’t ever pay much attention to Mr. Kurtz, the headline struck me because I don’t understand the purpose of debates either. Thus, I’ve never watched one.
 
As a practical matter, political candidates are in the news 24/7 for about two years before the debates take place. Therefore, anyone needing the debates to learn about them is either extremely dense, or has not paid attention until then and is probably unlikely to vote at all. 
 
When it comes to policy proclamations, if new ideas are mentioned in the heat of a debate, that would indicate lack of prior planning in the past and the instantaneous change would suggest intellectual instability.
 
Furthermore, what the US needs is a skilled, accomplished and tested leader in a comparable role, not just someone who can spout eloquently in theoretical situations such as a "debate."
 
And lastly, one of the greatest debaters of all time, perhaps the best ever, was Ronald Reagan. But so was Barrack Hussein Obama at times. So, I rest my case about debates.
 
Regarding Obama, Michael Goodwin today wrote on FoxNews.com’s Opinion, that “The stirring speeches of yesteryear inspired us then, and still do. In times of grave danger, great leaders rallied their nations with appeals to duty and visions of victory.

“With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God,” FDR said after Pearl Harbor.

“We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job,” Winston Churchill said in 1941.

“I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!” Gen. Dwight Eisenhower said in his D-Day address to Allied troops.

And then, “There is Barack Obama. After the Islamic State won major battles in Iraq and Syria last week, he said: “I don’t think we’re losing.”

Mr. Goodwin concludes by stating that, “Obama has put himself at odds not just with that history, but with the very concept of national leadership. Nowhere has his failing been as obvious as in the fight against Islamic terrorism.”

The comparisons to former world statesmen was pleasing to see because, for the past four years now this blog’s contained the same kind of analogies. Which means that others are finally waking up, and if enough do the same, next time there actually might be a capable, well-experienced POTUS in the oval office. 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. It comes from the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol, who writes that, for him, three “boomer” president's are enough. 
 
Mr. Kristol opines that, “None of the three most recent presidents had much to show for himself by way of accomplishments, personal or professional or political, when he ran for office. Each could in fact be said to have had more in the way of disqualifications than qualifications for office. Yet Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all became president.”
 
As far as Bill’s wife is concerned, Mr. Kristol writes: “Last week, Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin convened a focus group of Iowa Democrats to discuss Hillary Rodham Clinton. They were Ready for Hillary. Indeed, they were enthusiastic about the prospect. But when Halperin asked them to name an accomplishment of Hillary as secretary of state, they couldn’t come up with one. Nor, for that matter, could they have named an accomplishment of Hillary as senator. Nor as first lady. Nor as Arkansan.
 
“So Hillary Clinton would fit right in. She would be a worthy successor to the boomer presidents who have stood at the pinnacle of American politics for almost a quarter century. Hillary’s would be the echt-boomer presidency. She would be our second affirmative action boomer president (after Obama), our second boomer legacy president (after Bush), and our second reflexively dishonest boomer president (after her husband).”
 
What’s most remarkable about Mr. Kristol’s summation is that he points out two well-known, widely accepted truth's regarding Bill Clinton’s wife. She has no accomplishments to her name, and is recognized as a "reflexive” knee-jerk liar. Yet, she’s first choice at present for Democrats to be their president. So, what exactly, does that say about them and their expectations of their own? And, especially, about themselves, if that’s the best that they can do or offer.
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment