BloggeRhythms

Very interesting day yesterday for Republicans. Poll results in several Congressional primaries across the nation indicate that the party’s seemingly coalescing while Dem’s have been predicting the party would splinter due to internal discord.

 

One of the standout results on the Dem side, while knocking out a contender for a House seat, may also indicate problems ahead for Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Fox News.com reports that, “Bill and Hillary Clinton can fundraise and stump for old friends like few others, but their political touch was not enough Tuesday to help an in-law win back her old House seat. 

 

Marjorie Margolies, whose son Marc Mezvinsky is married to Clinton daughter Chelsea, lost the Democratic primary for an open House seat in Pennsylvania representing eastern Philadelphia and its more affluent Montgomery County suburb.”

 

Now here’s the part that may be quite ominous and foreboding. “At times, her campaign rhetoric even sounded like Hillary Clinton’s, as she talked about the need to elect more women to Congress, the burden of being the early front-runner, and her own post-political career working at a nongovernmental organization (Women’s Campaign International) helping women around the world. But in a sign that voters are focused more on the future than the past—and a sign of the limitations of running on Clinton nostalgia—Brendan Boyle, an upstart 37-year-old state representative backed by labor, came from behind to handily defeat Margolies.”

 

And what’s even worse, the race wasn’t even close whereas “With 95 percent of precincts reporting, Boyle led Margolies, 41 to 27 percent.”

 

So, I guess folks are tired of political baggage and rhetoric, wanting instead someone in office they think can actually produce for them.

 

Then, for the second time this week, media powerhouse Charles Krauthammer said something on “Special Report with Bret Baier,”  I don’t concur with at all, as follows:

 

“We have a president always trying to downplay the threat which is out there, and then we're surprised there's no domestic support for robust opposition against terror…. Unfortunately, we live in a world where these people exist and the role of the president is to lead the nation in recognizing the threat – mobilizing support – to oppose it. He's done precisely the opposite. Psychologically he demobilized the country.”

 

Now, while his assessment of the incumbent's misleading the public resulting in a weakened, or non-existent, position regarding terrorism certainly correct, I don’t believe that “Psychologically he demobilized the country.” Terrorism’s still a major concern for significant numbers of citizens and being mentioned daily on Fox News, the very station Mr. Krauthammer appears on frequently himself. Benghazi alone is still a subject discussed in depth.

 

So, just because people aren’t picketing, massing in meetings or demanding immediate action doesn’t mean they don’t care or have forgotten. And their concern will be reflected in November when Republicans control both Congressional houses once more, which coupled with Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi hearings, will put the whole terrorism subject in the forefront again, where it belongs.

 

Then lastly, there’s an article from dailycaller.com by Brendan Bordelon that has to be one of the most glaring example of media bias ever seen, while also demonstrating inane irrationality beyond comprehension.  

 

Mr. Bordelon writes that “CNN President Jeff Zucker declared his network was “not going to be shamed” into covering Benghazi and other stories without “real news value” at an awards dinner Monday.”

 

Then, Zucker went on to say that, “Climate change is one of those stories that deserves more attention, that we all talk about,” he explained — though he lamented the fact that “when we do do those stories, there does tend to be a tremendous amount of lack of interest on the audience’s part.”

 

So, here’s a guy whose own audience, which tends to be a left-leaning group, demonstrates clearly they couldn’t care less about, nor do they believe in the effects of climate change. Yet, he insists he won’t address the issues that the polls and his own viewers care about most.

 

Which, I suppose, is why, after reading further, I had to sit here and scratch my head in outright wonder. Because Mr. Bordelon then noted that; “Zucker, who is famous for his inept tenure as president of NBC, moved to CNN in January 2013 and almost immediately drove its U.S. operation into the ground, with the original cable news network suffering its worst prime time ratings in twenty years.”

 

Therefore, one would have to conclude that this guy Zucker is pretty much in a class by himself. Because most hard-core promoters of things like climate change are in it for the money. Such as AlGore and billionaire Tom Steyer. But this guy’s so devotedly dense he’s already one tanked one network and on his way to shredding another. Which is very much like what happens to lots of lunatics;  winding up drooling in rubber rooms mumbling only to themselves.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios