BloggeRhythms

Sometimes, written words stops one in his tracks, their impact causing myriads of thought. And today, a paragraph in an article by Michael D. Shear @nytimes.com did precisely that. 

Mr. Shear wrote: “John McCain was a conservative, but he was well within, you know, the mainstream of not just the Republican Party but within our political dialogue,” Mr. Obama told Politico. The president said voters would have to judge “the degree to which the Republican rhetoric and Republican vision has moved, not just to the right, but has moved to a place that is unrecognizable.”

What’s truly remarkable about the POTUS’s comment is that by describing Republicans rhetoric and vision as “unrecognizable,” in only one word he’s identified what he’s done to the nation for the past seven years.  

For example, while Republicans respect the Constitution, that would certainly be unrecognizable to the POTUS. As would their concern for the record number of people not in the work force, along with a  record number of people on food stamps, which has never come close to happening under any Republican administration. 

The same holds true for encouraging broad-based entitlement, shrinking the middle-class, destroying the world's best health care system, cutting the work-week by 25%, while allowing the EPA to reign supreme over the nation’s economy.

It’s also totally unfamiliar to Republicans to see a POTUS bow to foreign leaders across the planet, while choosing to support Iran over Israel.

So, is the nation truly “unrecognizable” to Republicans? It certainly is. However, in addition, it’s highly likely that this coming November, American voters will start bringing the picture back into focus again.

Reader BruceBelligan, summed it up this way: “I suppose to a Marxist it would be unrecognizable. And that's a good thing.”

On another issue, according to Ambrose Evans-Pritchard @telegraph.co.uk: “Hedge funds and private equity groups armed with $60bn of ready cash are ready to snap up the assets of bankrupt US shale drillers, almost guaranteeing that America’s tight oil production will rebound once prices start to recover. 

“Daniel Yergin, founder of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said it is impossible for OPEC to knock out the US shale industry though a war of attrition even if it wants to, and even if large numbers of frackers fall by the wayside over coming months. 

“$60 is the new $90. If the price of oil returns to a range between $50 and $60, this will bring back a lot of production. The Permian Basin in West Texas may be the second biggest field in the world after Ghawar in Saudi Arabia,” he said.” 

So, here again, the POTUS’s actions have not only backfired, they’ve stimulated precisely the reverse of his intentions. Because, not only has pressure on oil producers forced them to uncover and develop methods for making oil more available, they’ve driven overall price structures lower. 

Therefore, a rebound is expected to increase prices to only half of what they were at their peak. Which means oil will now be considerably more difficult for any other alternative energy source to compete with in the foreseeable future. The precise opposite of the POTUS's goals.

Which also means that smart gamblers need to find a way to learn the POTUS’s Super Bowl pick for this year. Because betting the other team has to be almost a guaranteed win. 

And then, a friend posted this on Facebook today. 

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

John Wagner and Philip Rucker @washingtonpost.com, write that: “Sanders opens his rallies by ticking through the latest polls — an uncharacteristic touch of bravado intended to convince Democrats that he is not only viable in a general election but a stronger standard-bearer against the Republicans than Clinton. 

“He also is attacking Clinton more directly, not only on policy differences but also on personal character, demonstrating that he has both the stomach and the punch for a political brawl — even one against the Clintons and their defenders. 

Thus, evidently Sanders now senses true vulnerability, whereas in the past, he’s steered clear of the kind of personalizing that sincere candidates engage in.   

During the The Post interview, “Sanders said Clinton was running a “desperate” campaign incapable of generating the kind of excitement his has. He raised questions about her motives and character. He said he expects Clinton and her campaign to “throw the kitchen sink” at him in the coming week in what he described as a craven attempt to avoid an embarrassing loss in Iowa. 

“Even as he tries to claim the moral high ground, Sanders is stepping up his critique of Clinton considerably. For months, he has drawn sharp contrasts with her over issues, and he vowed never to go after her personally or with attack ads. Yet, “at recent campaign stops, Sanders has decried Clinton’s acceptance of hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from banking and corporate interests in the run-up to her 2016 campaign. He singles out her payments from the giant investment firm Goldman Sachs. 

“I do not believe that you can get huge speaking fees from Goldman Sachs and then with a straight face tell the American people that you’re prepared to do what is necessary to take on the greed and illegal behavior on Wall Street,” Sanders said. “I don’t think people think that passes the laugh test. . . . Why do special powerful interests give you money? Are they dumb? I don’t think so.” 

So, it seems that just like last time round for Bills wife, focus on her past and personal flaws has growing effect. To the extent that: “Recent polls show Sanders pulling even with Clinton in Iowa and outpacing her in New Hampshire, next door to his home state.” 

Which brings up the ongoing question, which Bloomberg may already be answering. But, as for the rest: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?     

That’s it for today folks.    

Adios