BloggeRhythms

Naturally, the major headlines today concern Trump’s acceptance of the Republican presidential nomination in Cleveland last night. In that regard, one of the best summations came from Michael Goodwin @FoxNews.com, this morning. 

Mr. Goodwin begins: “Donald Trump needed to give the speech of his life–he did that, and much more. He laid out an inspiring American Manifesto for our troubled times.

“Most important, it keeps faith with his campaign themes of putting forgotten Americans first. In contrasting his view with his opponent’s, the Republican nominee put it this way: “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.”

Observing that “the speech is powerful, and it was delivered with all the might Trump could muster, “Mr. Goodwin explained that it “revealed a full Trump Doctrine that weaves together what has often seemed random threads and instincts into a more coherent vision.” 

Summing up the goals and objectives, Mr. Goodwin writes: “He would unleash America’s energy production, use trade deals to help blue-collar workers and fix the broken immigration system so that cheap labor doesn’t undercut wages and overwhelm our social safety net. 

"He would ensure public safety, rebuild the military and destroy global terrorism. And he forcefully and repeatedly cemented the image of the GOP as the pro-police party, a strong contrast with Democrats, who are recklessly becoming the anti-police party. 

“Trump laid out such a huge undertaking, sweeping in its goals and potential impacts, that achieving even half of it would lead to an economic revival and end the nation’s crisis of confidence. If he focused on just what he outlined last night, and he should, Trump would be a very busy man every minute for the next four years.

“As befits an acceptance speech, the promises flowed like water, yet the important things stand out. This one, from his prepared remarks, was especially powerful: “On January 20th of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced.” 

As far as his competitor is concerned: “He was blistering on Hillary Clinton, saying her legacy as secretary of state was “death, destruction, terrorism and weakness.” Nor did he spare President Obama, accusing him of using “the pulpit of the presidency to divide us by race and color” and said he “has made America a more dangerous environment for everyone.” 

“Trump then added: “This Administration has failed America’s inner cities. It’s failed them on education. It’s failed them on jobs. It’s failed them on crime. It’s failed them at every level.” 

In conclusion. Mr. Goodwin wrote: “If he wins, and can deliver on his vision, remember this speech. Like Ronald Reagan’s in 1976, Trump’s 2016 address could mark the start of a desperately-needed American revival. As he said near the end, “America is back.”

“Imagine that–and pray he is right.” 

After reading Mr. Goodwin’s perception of Trump rebuilding a badly deteriorating nation, putting America first again and repairing the damage arising from what’s been done to it, the major network responses seems to have come from a different planet altogether.   

Scott Whitlock @newsbusters.org, writes: “The three networks on Thursday night immediately derided Donald Trump’s “dark speech” as one coming from a “vengeful” “demagogue.” On NBC, Tom Brokaw allowed that “some” will see Trump as on a “white horse who will lead them to some kind of sanctuary and then pull the drawbridge up.” But he sneered, “Others looking in are going to see someone they will only think as a demagogue of some kind.”  

“Chuck Todd labeled, “I thought it was an extraordinarily dark speech.” Republican operative Nicolle Wallace lamented, “We are now represented as a party by a man who believes in protectionism, isolationism and nativism.”  

“Over on CBS, Evening News anchor Scott Pelley immediately dismissed, “It was a loud voice, more vengeful than hopeful. More hyperbole than details.” CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose huffed that the address had “little appeal to the better angels.”  

“On ABC, George Stephanopoulos, a former Democratic operative, echoed his colleague Chuck Todd: “He [Trump] painted a dark picture of where America stands today.” For emphasis, Stephanopoulos repeated, “And Martha Raddatz, a pretty dark speech.”  

Martha Raddatz chided, “If Americans are not scared for their safety before tonight, they are tonight.”  

Following the networks irrational responses, illustrating an amazingly childish refusal to face reality, scanning the 851 comments from readers found virtually all of them to be in the negative about the network slant. An example came from solidgrounds, who wrote: “Same old canned bilge from the Democrat media machine. I imagine most of the comments were planned and written well before Mr. Trumps speech was even written.” Which wouldn't have been surprising at all. 

And then, a friend sent this one: 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife, who if nothing else is not only consistent in her criminality, but also seems wishful about having similar types surrounding her. 

According to FoxNews.com: “One [Vice Presidential] candidate thought to be an early favorite was U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro. But Castro, who met with Clinton in Washington last week, was just cited for violating federal law when he touted Clinton’s candidacy in an April news interview. 

“The Wall Street Journal then published a potentially problematic report on another prospect, Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who regularly retells the story of grandfather Rafael Brache being forced to flee the Dominican Republic for opposing the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo. Perez has praised his grandfather as being “on the right side of history.” 

“What Perez didn't offer up as often is that his grandfather was one of the dictator’s champions during the first five years of his three-decade rule.  

“The Wall Street Journal said Brache also held a string of high-level offices in the Trujillo regime, including being ambassador to the U.S. Brache reportedly “expressed great optimism” for the regime as late as 1935 when political assassinations had been well documented.” 

Now, fortunately, these two first choices have been exposed for what they are, and no longer in contention for the second spot in the nation’s leadership. However, what they underline is the continuing preference for the Clinton’s in general to closely associate with others who share a disdain for the law. Particularly when legality stands between them and whatever it is they’re trying to accomplish at any particular moment.     

However, had either of these two individuals being considered as a running mate actually attained the vice presidency it would have been an interesting possibility to see both Democrats at the top perp-walked out of the White house together by the DC police. 

Bringing up the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are  you guys reading this?   

 

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios