BloggeRhythms

Several story’s today, illustrate clearly how the Democrat party has taken on illegality as part of its mantra, perhaps in anticipation of anointing a new leader who’s always felt that being truthful never applied to her. 

Now that Debbie Wasserman Schultz has achieved her goal of helping insure that Sanders never got a fair chance at the presidential nomination, the barn door’s being locked behind her. She won’t have a major speaking role at the convention in Philadelphia in an effort "to keep the peace" in the party, after the release of nearly 20,000 emails.

The emails show that from January 2015 to May 2016, Democratic staffers debated everything from how to deal with challenging media requests to coordinating the committee's message with other powerful interests in Washington to promote Clinton over Sanders. 

An unnamed top Democrat said Schultz will still get recognition for the job she did and is expected to gavel the convention in and out, but not speak in the wake of the controversy surrounding the leaked emails. 

However, what Schultz did seems quite appropriate for what’s become the preeminent standard for the Democrat party in general. While dishonesty at all levels is now not only acceptable, for their new leader it's constant and habitual. Yet their voters don’t care a whit, so long as the payoffs keep coming in the form of handouts, freebies and government benefits.  

Democrat voter willingness to support a liar as their leader can be seen in the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll which found that nearly 7 in 10 voters don’t believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy. “A like number say she did “something wrong” with her email. Her trust deficit -- fewer than 3 in 10 voters say she is honest and trustworthy -- may be her single greatest weakness heading into the fall campaign. And if she wins, it is a reality that would seem to presage a presidency of unusual secretiveness.” 

However, that “secretiveness” may be quite selective because, when it comes to others, a wholly different set of rules apply. 

Edward-Isaac Dovere and Gabriel Debenedetti write @politico.com, that potential Clinton running mates, “had to turn over every password for every social media account for every member of their families. 

“They had to list every piece of property they’d ever owned, and copies of every résumé that they’d put out for the past 10 years. Every business partner. Every gift they’d ever received, according to those familiar with the details of the vetting process.” 

For the finalists, “it was five weeks of questions and follow-up, and follow-up to the follow-up questions, starting from when they were summoned one-by-one to meet with campaign chairman John Podesta and lawyer Jim Hamilton and told to bring along just one trusted person who’d serve as the point of contact. 

“Last Friday was interview day at Clinton’s D.C. home, the final exam that some of the VP candidates had spent weeks with their staffs preparing their pitches for. Clinton, with Podesta seated nearby as the only other one in the room, would start the session by talking them up.” 

What’s most interesting about the VP vetting process, is that judging by the meticulous procedures followed to insure that a squeaky clean candidate was chosen, the objective was to offset the crook at the top. Which would mean that Kaine is the most pristine that the party can offer.

And yet, according to politico.com: “Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) “took advantage of the state’s lax gift laws to receive an $18,000 Caribbean vacation, $5,500 in clothes and a trip to watch George Mason University play in the NCAA basketball Final Four during his years as lieutenant governor and governor. 

“Now a leading contender to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Kaine reported more than $160,000 in gifts from 2001 to 2009, mostly for travel to and from political events and conferences, according to disclosures compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project.” 

So, for the Democrat party, the consistency remains from bottom to top. Leadership is fraught with outspoken foes of capitalism, free markets and certainly anything whatsoever favoring the “rich.” But, when it comes to themselves, a couple of hundred thousand in “gifts” from supporters is perfectly acceptable for governors, while a couple of billion is okay too, for those who have “Foundations” in their names.

Apparently, the party deterioration has extended to the point where even President Obama’s Kenyan half-brother wants to make America great again, so he’s voting for Donald Trump.

According to Isabel Vincent @nypost.com, Malik Obama told The Post from his home in the rural village of Kogelo: “I like Donald Trump because he speaks from the heart. Make America Great Again is a great slogan. I would like to meet him.” 

“Obama, 58, a longtime Democrat, said his “deep disappointment” in his brother Barack’s administration has led him to recently switch allegiance to “the party of Lincoln.” 

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

Emily Schultheis @cbsnews.com, writes: “President Obama said in an interview this weekend that he's "clear-eyed" about [Bill’s wife’s]strengths and weaknesses--but that there is no candidate in modern history who has been "more prepared" than her to be president.

“Meanwhile, on the Republican side, Mr. Obama said the fact that someone like Trump--who, four years ago, was openly questioning whether Mr. Obama was born in the United States--can win the Republican nomination is a sign the party is undergoing a major shift. 

"I think it says something about what's happened to the Republican Party over the course of the last 8, 10, 15 years," he said. "If you think about what a Bob Dole, or a Jim Baker, or a Howard Baker, or a Dick Lugar, or a Colin Powell stood for, yeah, they were conservative. They were concerned about limited government, and balancing budgets, and making sure we had a strong defense. But they also understood that our system of government requires compromise, that Democrats weren't the enemy, that the way our government works requires us to listen to each other."

What’s most interesting about the commentary on former Republican leadership understanding compromise and also that our government requires listening to each other, is that it comes from one who to date has issued 235 executive orders. 

While that number isn’t the largest amount recorded, this particular POTUS is known for avoiding having to deal with Congress. Which is also why so many of his orders have wound up in court.

So, much like Bill Clinton’s wife who he hopes will continue his “legacy,” it seems they both have a questionable relationship with the truth. Which means that there is still time for someone to take on their fabrications, when the convention begins in Philadelphia tomorrow. Leading to the ongoing question again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are  you guys reading this?    

And then, a PS:

With all good intentions, a Facebook friend posted the following this morning. I responded that I was fearful of machine gunfire. 

That’s it for today folks. 
     
Adios