BloggeRhythms

Today, a Facebook friend posted a link to an article by Curtis Houck @newsbusters.org, in which George Will explains what Ted Cruz was really saying about “New York values.”

The Fox News Sunday panelist and Washington Post columnist, opined that “Cruz's slogan has had nothing to do with 9/11 but instead how the city's liberal base has recently honored Soviet spies and elected a mayor who used to work for the Sandinistas.” 

Recapping the liberal media's “infatuation and uneasiness” with Ted Cruz's New York comment, Will also explained how Cruz's appearances in the city’s various boroughs have made for "an uneasy fit, but are necessary as he tries to pick off congressional districts from Trump due to the primary's proportional allotment of delegates”

Will further noted that Cruz had not been stating that "New York firemen are any less brave than New Mexico firemen" or that he's demeaning the memory of those lost on 9/11, but that he “has repeatedly meant to remind voters of the overwhelmingly Democratic city's far-left beliefs and despite the influence the city has on the country in so many facets, they don't represent the rest of America politically:

“He was saying I'm campaigning in a city which last September, the city council voted to honor Ethel Rosenberg, the traitor who, with her husband Julius, sold out the United States secret to Stalin. There is a city in which the mayor spent part of his youth working for the Sandinistas. There are New York political values and they're not shared by the rest of country.” 

And then, as happens quite often, readers sharpened the perspective with far less politely dignified, but certainly appropriate, commentary. 

Reader John (magnum) wrote: “The entire country knows what New York values are ! 

They have none ! 

Here is one fine example of New Yawk values.”

6Penguin0 responded to John (magnum); ”I would add that they elected Shillary the carpet bagger also. Sheep.” 

John in OK added: “Not to mention electing the dipstick Bloomberg three times.” 

To which, RIP replied: “At least Bloomie was fiscally responsible. The other viable candidates for mayor were all much worse. With DiCommio the lesser of the evils was the dreadful council speaker, Christine Quinn.” 

So, it seems Cruz is quite wise in attempting to attract particular New Yorkers. Because, surly, not all of them are welfare dependent, but have jobs, intellect, ambition, and are fed up entirely with socialism. And although it was some time ago, Rudy Giuliani did pretty well there too, elected twice as mayor. 

Staying on the subject of the Republican presidential campaign, an article @FoxNews.com this morning begins: “Republican front-runner Donald Trump took a new round of shots at the GOP's nominating process Sunday, while his newly-hired convention manager Paul Manafort accused Trump's rival Ted Cruz of using "gestapo tactics" to earn delegate support at nominating conventions across the country.” 

Didn’t bother to read the story itself, because it’s more of the same old, same old, from Trump and his crew. Beyond his claim that he’ll get a wall built between the U.S. and Mexico and limit foreign trade, there’s not much real substance his "campaign" at all.

But, beyond all that, what’s really annoying is that he’s so much like the spoiled brats one met in the yard or the park in grade school. Those that you had to let play in the game, because they were the only one’s that could afford to buy a ball. Or, whined and threatened to call their parents if you looked at them cross-eyed. However, when it came to real capability, athletic or otherwise, all you got from them was lot’s of bluster, without any real skills whatsoever.  

Now today, he’s grown up and has some inherited wealth. And despite the fact that he’s failed at most endeavors to date, he can still afford to put himself in front of thirty-five percent of other whiners and complainers around the country on average. But, just like back in the schoolyard, the majority of others either have talent,capability or success of their own, causing them to ignore him. Or simply don’t want to hear constant belittlement or complaining of just about everything from someone totally unproven himself. 

However, if by some chance, this guy is ultimately elected POTUS, the greatest fear the nation’s enemy’s will face is a carload of attorney's with attaché cases full of subpoena’s. Because that seems to be the only thing he really knows how to do. 

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

Significant supposition continues, as to whether the FBI investigation into Bill’s wife’s use of a private email server will lead to eventual charges being brought. But now, there’s another hint of abuse of power, collusion, and possible corruption in the wind, adding to the growing distrust of the Clinton’s, and those around them, in general.   

On Friday, Robert Tracinski @thefederalist.com, wrote: “The revelations from the Panama Papers—leaked documents from a secretive Panamanian law firm that helps political elites hide their money—have been hitting home across the world, exposing the widespread corruption of world leaders and their hangers-on. 

“It ought to hit here, too, because it reminds us of everything that should give us the heebie-jeebies about Hillary Clinton.” 

Mr. Tracinski continues: “Because a couple of other names pop up in the Panama Papers, including those of a few well-known associates of Hillary Clinton: longtime Democratic Party fixers John and Tony Podesta and Clinton sycophant Sydney Blumenthal. And why not? Hillary Clinton has been up to her neck in crony deals from the very beginning. All the way back in 1978, for example, she indulged a sudden mania for trading cattle futures, from which she made just shy of $100,000 in less than a year—a lot more money back then than it is now, and a whole lot for a young couple like the Clintons. She has shown no interest in commodities trading since, which is surprising considering how successful she was at it. But maybe not so surprising when you consider that her trades back then were made under the guidance of an attorney who worked for a large company that just happened to be regulated by her husband. Gee, that almost looks like a bribe.” 

In this case, while Mr. Tracinski dredges up some quite old facts and details, they are still matters of public record which won’t be ignored when the presidential campaign truly heats up. Thus, the amassing of evidence illustrating Bills wife’s highly questionable behavior is something that will not, and should not, be ignored by her political opponents. It also, very well may have the same effect as water dripping on a rock as time elapses.   

Which certainly makes the following question still appropriate: 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