BloggeRhythms

Didn’t watch the debates last night. Primarily because I couldn’t figure out a reason to spend the time. And now, after reading the recaps, it seems that despite all the pre-debate hype and promotion, nothing’s changed. According to the articles, nobody made a particularly strong impression, while the calendar tells me there's still 14 months go until the presidential election. Which means that these debates will be long forgotten by then.   

One sentence in a debate review by FoxNews.com summed up the results, as follows: “ If anything, the debate signaled the primary race is about to get tougher and is still wide open as 17 candidates vie for the lead with months to go until the opening contests.” Which means in other words, nothing really happened.

Following an op-ed article @nytimes.com by Frank Bruni, titled, A Foxy, Rowdy Republican Debate, reader Left of the Dial posted the following comment: 

 

“I turned it off when Rubio began giving the same answer to a different question. That said, The forum was more "Beauty Pageant" than political event and Megyn Kelly's false eyelashes didn't help ( or Rubio's giant ears). Too many candidates to get down to anything meaningful, but I thought they each did a good job of turning negatives into positives in their responses save for Trump who looks like a shrunken head and acts like a fool. Christies plain spoken demeanor was good but not presidential, and Paul (petulant), Carson (erudite but nuts), Huckabee (zealot with a soft spot for seniors), Cruz (seems like an illegal immigrant himself) are basically over. That leaves Jeb, Walker, Rubio, and Kasich. Jeb will be the nominee.”

Therefore, except for Rubio who sorely lacks presidential credentials, Left of the Dial reached the same conclusion’s posted here since the presidential campaign began all those many months ago. Which brings back the same question asked here for years now regarding debates in general: Why have them at all?

On another subject, FoxNews.com reported on Chuck Schumer’s decision to oppose the POTUS’s nuclear deal with Iran. Schumer and Representative Eliot Engel of N.Y., the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “both announced their objection to the deal in a blow to the Obama administration ahead of next month’s vote.”

Schumer’s the first Senate Democrat to step forward to oppose the deal, while “two other Senate Democrats — New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen — announced their support for the international accord.”

In Schumer’s case, he probably waited until he was sure there were enough “yea’s” in the Senate to insure that the bill would pass before coming out against it cosmetically. And then, to cover his tail with the POTUS, he made sure to go on record saying that he wouldn't lobby hard against the accord. 

 

He then issued a typically weasly statement, saying "There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way. While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion."

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife that regards her closest associate, Huma Abedin.

Josh Gerstein @politico.com writes that, “The State Department's request that Hillary Clinton's former deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, return any work-related emails in her possession went unreceived for two months because of issues with delivery of State's mail and email messages asking for the records, according to Abedin's lawyers.”

Abedin’s among 10 current or former State Department officials asked by their former agency to provide any similar messages on their private accounts, after the controversy over Bill’s wife use of a private email account and server for official business erupted in March.

The reason the situation’s noteworthy is because, “Abedin's lawyers said she didn't receive that request for more than two months after it was sent on March 11.” Which is typical of anything even remotely related to the Clinton’s, who continually hem, haw, scramble and attempt to weasel their way out of anything before making every attempt to insure that any incriminating evidence is “lost” or buried deeply. 

 

Nonetheless, the way things have been going with Bill’s wife’s presidential campaign so far, it looks like any debate she might have in the future will be with Justice Department lawyers or special agents from the FBI. Leading to the ongoing question: Mayor Bloomberg, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios