BloggeRhythms

Skipped last night’s debate. Couldn’t find a reason to watch nine politicians try to outpromise each other. Especially when seven of them don’t belong in the presidential race at all. 

Taking a step back, forgetting the rhetoric uttered by each of the candidates, one has to ask where in the world will those having no similar job experience gain the practical knowledge required by the position? 

The U.S. has had an unqualified politician as POTUS for the last seven years. And the nation's current condition and status, here and abroad, clearly illustrate what happens when one is elected who has no proven track record of success in similar positions. Whether it’s the economy, job opportunities, foreign policy, immigration, education, health care, tax policy, environmental restrictions and governmental oversight and interference, the nations gone backwards or fared worse in each and every category.

Then there are some very basic questions regarding five of the current candidates. Such as considering the qualifications of a neurosurgeon for the presidency. Even though he’s a highly engaging, brilliant individual, what does he really know about heading the largest, most powerful military that ever existed? Or negotiating with other world powers, handling uprisings around the planet or dealing with the federal reserve and national debt? And what about the most important issue of all: the economy?

At present, the 2016 U.S. budget is $3.525 trillion, which brings to mind another candidate who delivers marvelous speeches and is extremely adept at debate presentations. Yet, he can’t even manage a couple of thousand dollars in personal credit card debt, while having not a scintilla of governing experience.

Then we have another brilliant debater who also hasn’t an iota of practical experience. This one identified five major agencies that he would eliminate: the IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce and HUD."

When Ted Cruz listed the Department of Commerce twice it was remindful of a Republican debate in 2011, when former Texas Gov. Rick Perry failed to remember one of three federal agencies he pledged to eliminate, saying, "Oops," when his recall lapsed. Which brings up the question: has anyone seen or heard of Perry lately? Cruz will likely join him shortly.  

Then we have the only woman in the race, who had a questionable tenure heading Hewlett-Packard, finally being terminated. As far as her own qualifications of similar successful government experience to the presidency, it doesn’t exist at all.  

And then we come to the blustering blowhard TV-show host who dodged the draft, bankrupted four casinos and failed at many other highly-promoted business endeavors. Nonetheless, it’s always nice to inherit real estate in New York City, especially if its already worth mega-millions when you get it.  

That leaves only two truly qualified candidates, both having done quite well governing major states: Bush and Kasich. Of the two, Bush, has the better record in office. Which brings up the only real question, and one that doesn’t need debating. Do voters really despise what many call dynasty building enough to sacrifice the nation’s best interests by throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Here’s a comment from a reader of Chris Stirewalt’s FoxNews.com’s recap of the debate, which should be responded to by every Republican as suggested by its author: Cape Dog. 

“I would take any of them in a heartbeat over Clinton - by far the lesser of two evils and closer to the middle than the populist left wing radical socialists that have hijacked the Democratic Party and dare call themselves "liberal". The party of Debbie Wassermann Schultz is heading for a rude awakening and self examination next fall.  They are far scarier than any of the worst right wing knuckleheads anybody can identify in the GOP.  They will do anything, espouse anything if it maintains their grip on power - and they will take down this country if that is the price they need to pay. 

“If you are reading this and agree - do your country and kids a favor - vote!  And make darn sure you do what you can to help grandma and others of a like mind get to the polls.  Don't get angry, don't get emotional - just get determined.  All you can do in the final analysis is VOTE and do everything you can - give $5, put up signs, drive folks to the polls,  pass out literature, etc.  You can no longer afford to take this country and all it means to you for granted.  Nothing that means anything is free - it must be constantly earned.  Your parents, grandparents and those who came before you earned it - now its your time to earn it.” 

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

Sandra Sobieraj Westfall @people.com writes that: "Hillary Clinton is counting on an endorsement from her husband's former vice president, she'll have to wait for it. 

Al Gore, who served two terms with former President Bill Clinton, politely but firmly declined when PEOPLE asked him if he supports Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. 

"It's still too early, in my opinion, to endorse a candidate or pick a candidate." 

What’s most significant here, is that AlGore certainly has to be one of the most well-connected politicos on the planet. And if he’s hesitant to endorse the only real Democrat candidate, it suggests he knows something damaging about her candicy that others may not. Stay tuned. 

Which leads to the still ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?    

That’s it for today folks. 

Adios