BloggeRhythms

At the moment, it seems that the new president’s address to the joint session of Congress on Tuesday night has completely overwhelmed his opposition. The situation’s forcing the hapless competition to grasp at flimsy negative straws whereas they have nothing positive to offer to their constituents or anyone else. 

Cal Thomas defined the Democrat's problems @FoxNews.com today by summarizing their quandary this way: “For Republicans who have been concerned that President Trump has not been specific about his policies and about where he wants to take the country, Tuesday night’s address to Congress and the nation was a welcome relief. For liberals, however, it was a problem precisely because he offered specifics.” 

Relating that before the speech, all that Schumer could do was repeat the “familiar and overused claim that Trump wants tax cuts for wealthy Americans at the expense of the middle class, Mr. Thomas asked: “Is that the best he and his aging fellow Democrats can do? Re-runs should be limited to summer TV shows.” 

What came next was a recapitulation of steps Trump's already taken to put the nation on a firm and fast upward footing while “the Democrats remain frozen in a time warp of their own making.”  

Focusing on “solutions and full of optimism for a change,” positive solutions were mentioned, even when nagging problems, such as violent crime in our cities, were mentioned followed by Trump's plan to create a Homeland Security task force. 

Regarding familiar themes, Mr. Thomas cited “removing immigrants with criminal backgrounds and not allowing what he called “a beachhead of terrorism” to form inside America, taking “strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism” and immigrant vetting. “It is not compassionate,” he said, “but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur.” 

And then Mr. Thomas addressed a Trump tactic that’s worked for him throughout his ascendancy to the White House, wherein Trump used everyday situations to illustrate his rationale and purpose for particular endeavors. In this case, pitching school choice as a civil rights issue “he introduced Denisha Merriweather, an African-American woman in the gallery, who Trump said failed third grade twice before being given a tax voucher to attend a better school. She eventually became the first in her family not only to graduate from high school, but from college. She will earn a master’s degree in social work later this year.” 

Thus, Mr. Thomas suggests that Trump “reinvented himself with this speech. Instead of the harsh and condemning personae he projected during the campaign and his first 100 days, the president displayed kindness, compassion and a love for America. Americans want their president to love the country and Trump gave them that. 

“My job is not to represent the world,” he said. “My job is to represent the United States of America.” 

And that's where the new POTUS has gained the most as reflected in an interview before the speech. Presidential historian Jon Meacham told Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly: “Great presidents don’t govern from their base, but from their base plus.” 

And with that speech, the president probably added some of that plus to his base.

As far as Trump’s adapting is concerned, a reader, farmerboy1, commented: “Trump hasn’t changed he’s a businessman and simply adapts to changing situations to keep the advantage.” 

Which is something pure, ideological politicians simply don’t understand and don’t want to. 
Yet, by continually pushing the same tired agenda, the probability is that most others, except for hard-core constituents, will likely lose interest in the constant repetition.   

That likelihood can be seen today in an article @FoxNews.com, which notes that in the final hours of Obama's presidency, “some White House officials reportedly raced to spread and preserve information about possible communications between associates of then-candidate Donald Trump and Russians.” 

Naturally, the “New York Times, citing former American officials, reported that these officials were concerned that the information they were gaining on the Russian meddling in the election and the possible campaign contact could be compromised with the new administration, and they wanted to set up any future investigation with the information. 

“According to The Times, after Obama asked for an investigation into Russian tampering into the elections, officials found some "damning" evidence.” 

Attempting to gain as much anti-Trump negativity as possible: “The New York Times reported that intelligence agencies pushed forward as much “raw” intelligence they could analyze. The intelligence reports were also reportedly labeled a low classification level, so they would be accessible to more government workers — and some European allies.” 

Now, while the preceding seems like the most serious kind of accusation one would ever see regarding a newly elected U.S. president, these kinds of politically-motivated story’s no longer seem to raise even slight concern among much of the voting public. In fact, seen for what they are, astute readers quite often fire their own opinions back.     

Today that was reflected in a comment from OldNoodle, who wrote: “Chuckle Schumer is concerned with the potential of deleted emails. Hysterical. 

“What was the old boy's stance when Hill and her foul minions were deleting the emails, smashing Blackberries and just plain lying about her home server in her closet?

“Where was Barry when his girl, our SoS and her hubby Willy J were being gifted/grafted Millions of dollars? 

“They should be concerned about any inappropriate contact. Review it. Tell us what was going on and while they are at it, let the new administration review the Hill/Billy/Russia money swap. 

"Wonder if they thought their payola was going to buy her for them? Wasn't old Hill claiming she was guaranteed the election? Wonder if the Russians are feeling ripped off and want all those rubles back? Oh wait, she already delivered for them. That uranium rich land was their payback for the millions donated to Hill/Billy.” 

Thus, it appears that the political game isn’t played the way it used to be.  Today’s constituents are far more well-informed with access to myriad data from countless sources. Which means that if mud-slinging politicos can’t back up what they claim, the backfire will be devastating. 

Which pretty much sums up where the whole Democrat party now finds itself. 

That's it for today folks. 

Adios