BloggeRhythms

If the Republican elitists can dismount their high horses, and support Trump’s candidacy, their party has more than an excellent chance to regain the White House. All three of today’s items indicate that the competition has serious, perhaps insurmountable, problems. 

To begin, Michael Goodwin @nypost.com today, explained how Trump “was able to brawl his way to the GOP nomination.” And that was because: “All his nice Republican rivals couldn’t stir voters because they never knew how to rattle Obama the way Trump is doing. The president didn’t mention Trump yesterday, but the whole speech was nothing but a desperate and incoherent reaction to Trumpism.” 

Describing Obama’s “tantrum [as] a striking display of failed leadership,” Mr. Goodwin wrote: “If it is true that the best defense is a good offense, President Obama should be celebrating in the end zone now. Obviously furious over criticism that his anti-terror policies are weak and that the Orlando slaughter proves it, he went on a televised tirade to let America know he’s mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” 

And then from there, Mr. Goodwin shredded Obama’s term in office as an unmitigated disaster in a way that’s well-worth quoting, as follows: 

“Obama’s demeanor and tone were far from presidential — tantrums rarely are. Nor was he effective in rallying the nation to his cause. No surprise there. His cause is himself, always and only, and his greatly diminished historic presidency looks especially insignificant next to the bloodshed in Orlando. The iconic redeemer who promised hope and change never seemed so small and hopeless. 

“America saw Barack Obama at low tide yesterday, revealed as brimming with fury and bankrupt of ideas and even sympathy for the dead. The man who had an answer for everything and a solution to nothing is now also out of excuses.” 

Building on the premise of how badly the POTUS has failed, Mr. Goodwin then projected that the tirade yesterday portends a major change in the campaign that will favor Republicans, and Trump especially. Whereas: “As such, it was a huge moment in the general-election campaign, even though it comes before the nominees are formally crowned. For one thing, it showed that Obama’s plan to campaign against Trump as if he is running for his own third term won’t be a cakewalk for the president or his legacy. 

“For another, the Obama-Trump war means Hillary Clinton could be overshadowed in what was supposed to be her campaign for vindication. Throw in her husband and the stage is going to get crowded with alpha males competing for attention.” 

And if that "Obama-Trump war" happens, Bill’s wife will wind up precisely where she belongs. Somewhere in the background, trying to make voters believe that her empty career is more than just filling the various slots that her husband put her into. However, she hasn’t the talent or the credentials to truly win that argument with any others than the hard core Kool-Aid drinkers who’d vote for the left no matter who the candidate was. 

Then, in the meanwhile, as the POTUS was imploding from the pressure of failure, the left was simultaneously losing substantial ground in Europe. Indicating voters frustration with liberalism there, as well. 

Tobias Buck @ft.com, headlined his column today: “The PSOE tells the story of European social democracy’s demise” 

Mr. Buck writes: “The leader of Spain’s Socialist party [Pedro Sánchez] is busy travelling the country, giving speeches and interviews, smiling, rallying, hugging and doing all the other things politicians do in an election campaign. Yet the confidence is gone, as is the requisite optimism. If the polls are right, Mr Sánchez is on course to lead his party to yet another painful defeat on June 26.” 

What’s happening is, Spain’s Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) looks likely to be beaten not just by the centre-right Popular party but also by the far-left Unidos Podemos movement and obtain only 20 per cent of the vote.  

At the same time: “All over Europe, the decline of the PSOE is, of course, part of a broader story. In Germany, the Social Democrats are polling around historic lows, as are the French Socialists under their unpopular president. Pasok has turned into a splinter group in the Greek parliament. In the UK, meanwhile, the venerable Labour party has undergone something of a reverse takeover, and is currently led by a politician who spent his entire career on the party’s leftist fringe. With few exceptions — Italy being the most obvious — the European centre-left finds itself in the midst of a long and painful retreat.” 

Mr. Buck provides the rationale for the swing away from the left in his summation: “They saw — rightly or wrongly — that the party of the welfare state, of the public sector and of the blue-collar worker had turned its back on all three. They saw their jobs disappear by the millions, and yet there was no one around to even articulate their fear and their anger and their frustration. Socialist leaders thought they were simply bowing to reality. But along the way they left millions of core supporters without a voice.” 

And that’s exactly what’s happening here in the U.S.. Because even the Republican hierarchy has turned out to be nothing more than a cadre of politicians protecting their turfs. Refusing to take on the administration’s overbearance, preferring to hide behind political-correctness as an excuse. 

Trump, however, isn’t bound by any hamstringing allegiances, and truly doesn’t care about the inside-the-beltway mentality. Which is why, by addressing the nation’s major issues directly, voters support his efforts regardless of their former party preferences. Because he’s addressing those voters as individuals who need his help, and not as one's to be conned by empty, repetitive, worthless rhetoric.  

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

Richard Pollock posted an “Exclusive,” today @dailycaller.com,  titled: “Cryptic NY Filing Revealed Clinton Foundation Foreign Donations.” 

According to Mr. Pollack: “Clinton Foundation officials used an obscure New York state charity board filing to disclose that the non-profit received nearly $18 million in donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.  The specific foreign governments were not identified in the document, entitled “Exhibit A.” 

What’s most important about this new revelation is that: “Criticism of the latest revelation concerning Clinton Foundation tax returns came from across the political spectrum.” 

One such critic is Leslie Lenkowski, “an expert on philanthropy who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1993 as a founding director of the Corporation for National and Community Service, a government-operated volunteer organization, [who] told The DCNF that the Clinton Foundation was “an appearance of a conflict of interest waiting to happen.” 

Another complainer is former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova, who told the DCNF that the foundation’s failure to break out foreign government donations specifically was part of an effort to “protect” Clinton while she headed the Department of State. 

“There is no doubt that the foundation purposely refused to make public certain things as a way of protecting the Secretary of State during her tenure,” DiGenova charged. “The entire process to hide information from the public is completely inconsistent with a public charity.”

“DiGenova predicted that “the new revelations will up the ante for the FBI.  This will just add fodder to the ongoing investigation.” The former federal prosecutor also doubted that the $18 million figure was accurate. 

“There is no reason to believe that the $18 million figure is complete,” he said, citing the “unreliability” of past foundation accounting's. “It may very well be much, much more.” 

Thus, while most of the emphasis in the news is the pending outcome of the FBI investigation into Bill’s wife’s email abuses, there’s a parallel effort occurring simultaneously into a potentially illegal charitable organization. Adding that burden to the preceding problems for the POTUS, his party and eventual “legacy,”  one has to wonder just how long he’s willing to risk the taint to what remains of his image by staying tied to either Clinton and their criminality. 

It also raises the ongoing question once more: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

  

That’s it for today folks.      

Adios