BloggeRhythms

FoxNews.com reports: In an interview with radio host Howard Stern on Sept. 11, 2002, Trump tepidly endorsed invading Iraq in September 2002, contradicting his earlier insistence that he opposed the war before the March 2003 invasion.

Trump was asked about a possible war with Iraq during a five-minute phone interview. In between Trump's recollections of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack on the World Trade Center and his thoughts on rebuilding the Twin Towers, Stern asked the billionaire real estate developer, "Are you for invading Iraq?"

"Yeah, I guess so," Trump responded. "You know, I wish the first time it was done correctly," an apparent reference to the Gulf War. A month after the interview, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

However, for months now Trump has cited his opposition to the Iraq War as evidence of his foreign policy judgment. When asked about the statement during a CNN town hall in South Carolina Thursday, Trump initially said he did not remember making the statement, but added, "I could have said that. Nobody asked me- I wasn't a politician. It was probably the first time anybody asked me that question.”

Trump added: "By the time the war stated, I was against it. And shortly thereafter, I was really against it."

So, what we have here is another example of Trump’s vacillating positions, which seem to change, flex and mold to whatever he believes will help him most at any particular moment. And that’s why, over his career he’s been a political Independent, a Democrat, a Republican and who knows what else when it suits him.

As a general consideration, it probably doesn't really matter very much what Trump decides to be whenever and wherever he wants to. Unless by some fluke he actually winds up as president, which is highly unlikely. It’s also doubtful that most people even care about what he does, politically or personally. Approximately 70% of voters like someone else, if the polls are correct.

At the same time, though, Trump has incredible nerve condemning others for a whole host of switches, dodges and position-changes when he does the very thing same quite often himself. And that’s why his presidential competitors ought to produce and present a list of his vacillations, to expose him to the voting public.

In a similar situation, according to David Catanese @usnews.com: Jeb Bush supporters think their presidential candidate has been thrown off his optimistic tone by the “rancorous bullying” of Trump.

As an example, Catanese quoted Edward Scott, a Maryland resident who was traveling in South Carolina and supports Bush. Mr. Catanese, who believes Bush is best qualified to be president, asked him to resist responding to Trump's relentless broadsides.

Mr. Catanese said to Bush: "I was wondering, because of your civility, if you could raise the bar . . . and try to be beyond the bullying, because I think that's who you are and I think they try to knock you off center. It appears you do get knocked off center like anybody would because of the insults to you and your family."

Bush responded: "I don't feel like I'm shaken up by the bullying," indignantly, interrupting the man's soliloquy. "I'm the only guy going after the guy because he's hijacking the party that I believe is the path to prosperity for more and more people. Donald Trump's not a conservative, and he's not a steady hand for sure, and he's not a servant. It's all about him. And I'm the only guy going after him. I don't feel like, that he's intimidating. He's a bully. Punch him back in the nose!" 

Bush went on: "Trump is an obstacle . . . but I will not take a step back for a guy that's like he is. Never."

In this case, Mr. Catanese is trying to make the case that Jeb Bush ought to consider changing his campaign approach, particularly because of “bullying” by Trump. However, Bush has a very clear and successful record as a former Florida governor, while Trump has zero accomplishments whatsoever in any area of government at all. 

Therefore, it’s up to voters to decide who’s best qualified to serve as POTUS. And in that regard, Trump can try to bully others all he wants. But as the field consolidates to fewer candidates, if Trump still uses only bluster instead of demonstrating proven success, he’ll be shown to be the empty political suit that he is. 

And if Trump doesn’t evaporate on his own, Bush ought to just step up, actually "punch him back in the nose," and then really wait for the lawsuit.

Additionally, Chad Pergram @FoxNews.com, reported that Republicans have a method for delaying the POTUS's appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice, as follows: "All McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have to do is schedule what are called “pro-forma” sessions at three-day intervals for the rest of the year. Pro-forma sessions are brief meetings of the House and Senate, lasting but a minute or two – and sometimes, a matter of seconds. They help the House and Senate comport with the constitutional mandate of huddling every three days – even if they aren’t really doing anything."

"The House and Senate don’t conduct any business during these confabs. In congressional parlance, they’re sometimes referred to as just “gavel-in, gavel-out.” No votes. No speeches. Few words are uttered at all."

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Nikki Schwab, U.S. Political Reporter @dailymail.co.uk, writes: "Several members of the audience weren't feeling Hillary Clinton's criticism of Bernie Sanders at tonight's MSNBC Democratic Town Hall in Las Vegas. 

"Clinton defended her husband's record and President Obama's record too and suggested that Sanders was unclear about their accomplishments because he was relatively new to the party.

Then she heard boos.

Boo’s, however, are only a part of her campaigning problems. Because at present, according to Lisa Lerner and Emily Swanson @bigstory.ap.org, a greater percentage of Democratic registered voters view Sanders as likable, honest, competent and compassionate than they did just two months ago.

The numbers came from a new Associated Press-GfK poll in which seventy-two percent now believe he could win the general election. That’s a 21 percentage point increase from the last time the survey was conducted in December.

According to the article: “Clinton's campaign has argued that as voters learned more about his record, Sanders will begin to lose support. Instead, it seems that as Sanders has gotten more scrutiny, support for him has only grown. While Clinton continues to be the Democratic candidate who's most well-liked within her own party, Sanders is gaining on her.”

Another interesting poll result is that: “Sanders is the only candidate in either party who's viewed as somewhat or very compassionate, honest and likable by at least half of all registered voters, and has a significant advantage over Clinton among all voters on each of those measures. Just 30 percent of all voters consider Clinton honest.”

In summation, then, Clinton’s faltering poll performance once again raises the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.    

Adios