BloggeRhythms

Looking around the table when playing poker, if you can’t figure out who the sucker is, it’s always yourself. And that’s exactly the case for the POTUS in his Iranian nuclear deal.

 

This morning on nytimes.com, David E. Sanger and William J. Broadjune reported that, “With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been “frozen” during that period.”

 

Making matters worse, “Western officials and experts cannot quite figure out why. One possibility is that Iran has run into technical problems that have kept it from converting some of its enriched uranium into fuel rods for reactors, which would make the material essentially unusable for weapons. Another is that it is increasing its stockpile to give it an edge if the negotiations fail.”

 

Therefore, nearing the end of the most important negotiation in the Middle-East, affecting the safety and protection of the entire free-world, those responsible for decision-making haven’t a clue as to what the other side is doing. 

 

The article’s authors conclude that, “In essence, the administration will have to convince Congress and America’s allies that Iran will shrink its stockpile by 96 percent in a matter of months after a deal is signed, even while it continues to produce new material and has demonstrated little success in reducing its current stockpile.”

 

Considering that the administration was caught flat-footed, whereas the Iranians have obviously been far less than truthful from the beginning, the authors added the following, “With the stockpiles and the number of operating centrifuges reduced, “we know that even if they wanted to cheat, we would have at least a year, which is about three times longer than we’d have right now,” to react, Mr. Obama told Thomas L. Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times, in April, “and we would have insights into their programs that we’ve never had before.”

 

Having been so far off the mark regarding the “insights” the POTUS thought his negotiators had, and the embarrassing situation in which the administration now finds itself, might explain what happened to John Kerry. Because, according to dailymail.co.uk he “fell off his bike Sunday morning after striking a curb near Scionzi, a French Alpine village, and fractured his right femur in the 9.40am incident.” 

 

Therefore, after learning that Iran was in fact increasing its nuclear resources, perhaps he was trying to commit bikeacide.

 

Rush opined that Kerry’s riding is beneath the stature of his office, as follows: “You'd have never seen Dean Rusk with a bicycle out there like John Kerry. You'd have never seen Dean Acheson out there at Dulles on a bike. You'd have never seen the great Colin Powell out there on a bicycle heading off to a meeting at the UN. This is embarrassing.”

 

Reading that Secretary Kerry was flown to Boston for treatment, Joan Norwood of Springfield, commented, “Has there never been a broken leg in Europe? Do the doctors there not have the knowledge to repair a fractured femur? Or was he flown to Boston because Switzerland does not accept Obamacare?

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Fred Barnes suggests in an article on weeklystandard.com, that, “Things may pick up. Clinton’s funk will lift if the media start touting her future as the first woman president. This will happen eventually, the sooner the better from her point of view.”

 

In essence, Mr. Barnes thought is truly pathetic. Because if the only reason to elect Bill’s wife to the most important job in the world is that she’s a woman, the nation is really beyond hope. What’s next, a transvestite? Or even better, a bisexual who’d cover both genders at once.

 

Nonetheless, Mr. Barnes goes on to address the real problems he perceives for Democrats by writing that, “The Democratic presidential candidates, as a group, are a metaphor for the entire Democratic party.

 

“They’re old and tired and unimaginative. In the past, Democrats won the White House with bright, energetic, young candidates. In 1960, John F. Kennedy was 43. Bill Clinton was 46 in 1992. Franklin Roosevelt was 50 when he won the presidency in 1932. Today the youngest of the Democratic Five is O’Malley. He’s 52.”

 

And then, Mr. Barnes came to the most important point, one that’s been made for the past four years that this blog’s been in existence. Barnes wrote: “For good reason, voters have a preference for electing governors to the White House. They’ve done things and have records. Senators give speeches and vote on legislation. Among Republicans, Jindal, Walker, Christie, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and John Kasich have impressive records as governors. Democrats have Chafee, a flop as governor, and O’Malley, the tax man.”

 

Which comes down to this simple question for voters that's asked here frequently. Do you want to get buried in eight more years of continual, undoable, babble? Or do you want to finally turn the nation around by electing someone who’s proven they know how to govern successfully?  

 

Mr. Barnes concludes with the simple truth that, “Democrats have a weak bench at the presidential level, Republicans a strong one. This is also true at the state level, where Republicans dominate. Democrats hold 18 of 50 governorships and a mere 30 of 98 legislative chambers. Republicans are blessed with the most legislative seats they’ve controlled since the 1920s. Democrats are barely hanging on.”

 

In another item on the same subject, Bill’s wife electability, Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director, writes on cnn.com: “More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race. 

 

“A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March).

 

“In head-to-head match-ups against top Republicans, her margin is tighter than it has been at any point in CNN/ORC's polling on the contest.”

 

So, as has been suggested here quite often, the best route for Republican presidential candidates to take versus Bill’s wife is to do nothing regarding her presence at all. Last time around, another Democrat came out of nowhere to defeat her. But even if that doesn’t happen this time, her continual exposure will do the same job, whereas time certainly isn’t on her side at all.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios