BloggeRhythms

Headline news today, naturally, concerns the implosion of the Senate Republican health care bill, about which there are virtually unlimited opinions as to how that happened. And what comes next for healthcare, is just about anyone’s guess. 

What's truly amazing, however, is that at present voters have given the Republican party the White House and both houses of Congress. Yet that discombobulated group of politicians can’t figure out how to work together. Which is why, in 2018 Democrats will almost undoubtedly regain the House, while the Senate will likely prove somewhat tougher, but not impossible to accomplish.

On the Republican side, what’s now become quite obvious is that for many in office, party affiliation and concern for their constituents matter much less than personal gain for themselves. Which one can only hope will be remembered by voters when these self-interested sellouts run for reelection. 

As far as the POTUS himself is concerned, Rush offered some interesting, non-scientific insight yesterday saying this weekend he “went up to play in my annual member-guest golf tournament up in Connecticut, Country Club of Fairfield.”

“Some people just want to talk about golf and the tournament and all that, but those who wanted to talk about events were just totally invested in what’s going to happen to Obamacare.

“They are fit to be tied. They’re frustrated. They were livid. They are under the impression that nothing is going to happen because they think — and, look, I’m talking about maybe 15 people here, so it would be dangerous to extrapolate that. But it was common that they don’t think Trump is the problem. Not one of them thinks Trump is the problem. I didn’t have anybody — and these are achieved businesspeople, some of them still actively working, most of them are, some of them with their sons, otherwise with associates or just friends.

“And I didn’t hear a single criticism of Trump from anybody. I heard people laughing about Trump.”

And that is most likely reflective of voter opinion in general. Particularly those who’ve given the time and effort to follow daily media reportage which reflects pretty much the same thing. Trump's fine, Congress isn't.

Next comes an opinion on the subject from one who’s obviously grossly biased against the POTUS and therefore presents a premise not only questionable, but quite short on simple business/legislative logic.   

Found on Drudge, the article comes from theweek.com, written by David Faris. He’s an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the author of Dissent and Revolution in a Digital Age: Social Media, Blogging and Activism in Egypt. He’s also a frequent contributor to Informed Comment, and his work has appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, The Christian Science Monitor and Indy Week.

In his opening paragraphs he writes: “the new Congress would work with a sub-literate tabula rasa named Donald Trump, a man who could probably be persuaded to inject himself with experimental medication if an important-seeming person whispered "do it" in his ear.

“But a funny thing happened on the way to libertarian utopia. Indeed, it turns out that the GOP-controlled Congress can't seem to pass any meaningful laws at all. Either they have forgotten how, or the divisions in their own increasingly radicalized caucus are proving too difficult to surmount. Whatever the explanation, thus far these GOP legislators are on track to be the least productive group since at least the Civil War.”

And then, after haughtily demeaning Republican Congressional members and the POTUS in particular, Faris slips-in the following paragraph: “Now, okay, technically the Ryan-McConnell 115th Congress is so far actually a bit more active than recent Congresses, if you measure by the 43 laws that President Trump has adorned with his garish signature. Obama was at 40 at this point in 2009. George W. Bush had signed even fewer midway through 2001. But sheer number is not the best way to think about how much is being achieved. As The Washington Post's Philip Bump pointed out, a majority of the bills signed by Trump thus far have been one page long, meaning many are just symbolic or ceremonial.”

And that’s where simple outrage kicked in. Whereas after spending a business life in financial contract negotiation, concerning a couple of thousand dollars at the low end to multi-million agreements deals at the other, closing deals is something I know intimately well. And, in that regard, contract length or number of pages has nothing whatsoever to do with document validity, party obligations, terms and conditions involved, underlying intent, or intensity of enforcement. Simply because the paperwork's voluminous doesn't mean anything at all.

Thus, it isn’t the number of words on the page that count, or the number of pages themselves. All that matters is what those words say: whose responsible for what, where, why, how and when.

In that regard there are attorney’s who feel that every single iota of possibility should be included in a contract, leaving nothing to argument. Others feel that less verbiage is better, that it’s impossible to address every contingency in print, and that courts will determine the outcome of litigation anyway, so drafting far less is fine with them.

Which means that in the case of Obamacare, if all a single page said is that the program’s terminated, period, that would suffice to end the legislation on whatever date was stated. 

Therefore, this  example also goes to illustrate that, before writing columns about subjects such as the form and context of presidential bills signed, which he assumes to be “symbolic or ceremonial,” Faris really ought to do at least an iota of homework. 

As practical matter -interestingly enough- according to information found at washingtontimes.com from March 8, 2017, the Affordable Health Care Act comprises 2,300-pages.

The Republican replacement bill at present is accompanied by clear explanations in plain English, while “the legislation itself is a mere 46 pages long.”

Next we have developing news indicating that the more Dem’s push their fictional case against Trump collusion with Russia, they may very well eventually wind up seeing their presidential candidate and her husband facing legal ramifications.

Today, Malia Zimmerman writes @FoxNews.com: “The former president indeed had received a personal call from then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin expressing his appreciation for [a] speech. According to Mrs. Clinton’s ethics disclosure form filed while she was secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by the Russia-based finance company Renaissance Capital for his June 29, 2010, speech in Moscow to its employees and guests attending the company's annual conference. 

“The speech is now coming back to haunt the Clintons, considering the company that cut the check was allegedly tied to the scandal that spurred the Global Magnitsky Act, a bill that imposed sanctions on Russians designated as human-rights abusers and eventually would become law in 2012.

“This was the same law Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya was lobbying against during her sit-down with Trump Jr. last year. And back in 2010, it would have put the Clintons on her side. 

“Shortly before Bill Clinton’s speech in 2010, when members of Congress pushing the sanctions bill had asked Hillary Clinton to refuse visas to Russian officials implicated under the policy, the State Department denied the request. The Obama administration initially was opposed to the Magnitsky Act because then-President Barack Obama was seeking a “reset” with Russia and did not want to deepen the divide between the two countries.

“Former President Bill Clinton’s speech to Renaissance just weeks later was all the more curious, considering Renaissance’s Russian investment bank executives would have been banned from the U.S. under the law.”

Thus, while it seems the facts presented above are readily believable, considering the Clinton’s implication and the dollars involved, one has to truly wonder why other Democrats would tie themselves to this sinking ship. 

Because although Trump Jr. was well-within the limits of campaign information-gathering, as reported by John Merline @investors.com back in May: “Democrats have a long history of business and political ties with Russia, for the simple reason that there is money to be made by people who can peddle their political connections.” And that rationale has always been right in the center of the Clinton wheel-house.

That’s it for today folks.

Adios