BloggeRhythms

Skipped the Republican debate last night, had no reason to tune in. And from the recaps, didn’t miss a thing, as usual. Because nothing happened of any interest at all. 

When all was said and done, four of the seven onstage are totally unqualified to hold the office of POTUS, lacking necessary governing experience and credentials. And of the three others, any of them would make an excellent chief executive, be it Bush, Kasich or Christie, all of whom are proven leaders.

As far as the “debate” itself is concerned, Howard Kurtz current host of Fox News Channel's (FNC) "MediaBuzz" summarized the event this way: “I’m tempted to say Cruz was the winner by default, since he is neck and neck with Trump in the Iowa polls and wasn’t left bloodied by the debate, as his team feared he might be. But it was an off night for him. Rubio did slightly better, but he too was bruised by the intense back-and-forth on immigration. Christie seemed to overreach when he said as a former prosecutor he could put Hillary Clinton in jail. Perhaps there were no winners. 

“Or maybe the winner was Trump, by creating an alternative narrative.” 

In summary then, while a lot of noise was made by those competing for the presidency, the debate added absolutely nothing toward determining any of the candidates qualifications for gaining the office they seek.  

As far as Trump is concerned, his childish decision to back out of the show seemed to make no difference to viewers at all. 

Brian Stelter @money.cnn.com reports: “Fox's Trump-less debate had an 8.4 household rating, according to early Nielsen data from so-called metered markets. 

“The most recent GOP debate, televised two weeks ago on the harder-to-find Fox Business Network, had a household rating of 7.4. 

“So Thursday's debate was bigger -- but not by much. The other five GOP debates of the cycle have had household ratings ranging from 8.9 to 15.9.” 

It’s estimated that were likely 11 million to 13 million viewers for the debate. “The ratings held pretty steady between 9 and 11 p.m. Eastern, which means the audience was loyal even though Trump was absent.” 

Ted Cruz underlined Trump’s absence by stating: "I’m a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat and ugly, and Ben, you're a terrible surgeon,” as the debate opened. His next sentence began: "Now that we’ve gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way."

Which pretty much summarizes what the debates are worth.

On another issue, Sarah D. Wire, Contact Reporter @latimes.com, writes: “Obama administration officials are scheduled to meet in Los Angeles on Friday with Mayor Eric Garcetti, local nonprofits and business owners to discuss ways to encourage immigrants to become U.S. citizens.

“The meeting is part of a multi-city tour by the White House’s Task Force on New Americans, which the administration previewed in a call with reporters Thursday.” 

And there we have the never discussed, but primary objective, of the POTUS’s push for unguarded borders and the permitting of as many undocumented foreigners into the country as possible. Because, chances are, the vast majority will wind up as Democrat voters, one way or another, regardless of the risks to the nation itself from unbridled entry.   

“Senior Deputy Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement Julie Chavez Rodriguez said Friday’s meeting will allow federal officials and members of Garcetti’s staff to coordinate with local leaders in business, nonprofit and community organizations. 

“Starting in California is a perfect kickoff from our perspective,” she said.”

And here’s the reason Ms Rodriquez is so pleased: “In recent years California has moved repeatedly to provide rights, benefits and protections to immigrants in the country illegally, including in-state tuition, driver's licenses, rules to limit deportations and state-funded healthcare for children.

“Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose have signed on to participate in the task force, as have cities in 25 other states.” 

So, regardless of national security risks, costs to taxpaying citizens, or burdens placed on affected communities, growing the rolls of future voters to insure party longevity is all that matters to the POTUS. 

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

A recap of Bill’s wife’s current problems was offered yesterday by Mark Halperin @bloomberg.com, as follows. 

“[W]ell, there are three things people are keying off of. There's a lot of chatter amongst FBI agents, many of whom have never been big fans of the Clinton's, but a lot of FBI agents seem to be saying something is happening here. 

“Second is, from a legal point of view, you look at some of the recent developments we've talked about here on the program, it's hard to see how the Justice Department, the FBI, doesn't want to interview Secretary Clinton. And that interview alone, short of an indictment, short of anything else, that would be a huge political development and would undermine confidence in some Democrats in the notion of going forward with Secretary Clinton. 

“And the last thing is, there are some people in the White House are starting to talk about this. It's not clear whether they know what's happening or it's just their intuition but the body language among some Obama administration officials is, this is more serious and something is going to happen. Again, the timing of it could be if not cataclysmic pretty bad for Secretary Clinton if Senator Sanders is still alive." 

However, while the ongoing FBI investigation may indeed prove "cataclysmic" for Bill’s wife’s presidential aspirations, Bill himself may not be able to come to her aid as he often has in the past.  

According to Mike Flynn @breitbart.com: “Bill Clinton’s poll ratings are in free-fall, and that surprise crash undermines the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton has a lock on the Democrat nomination.

“A new CBS/New York Times poll shows that just 39 percent of American voters have a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton. 

“This is down from a 50 percent approval rating just a few months ago. In 2012, when Bill Clinton was campaigning aggressively for President Obama’s reelection, 66 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of Mr. Clinton.” 

What may be even more foretelling is that: “By comparison, Bill Clinton’s favorable rating today is actually lower than it was in 2008, when he last campaigned forcefully for Hillary as she was battling Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination. As that contest heated up, Mr. Clinton’s favorable rating sank to 46 percent.” 

Therefore, to Mr. Flynn, the potentially insurmountable problem is: “Even for those who do remember the old controversies, the kind of conduct allegedly committed by Bill Clinton is viewed much differently today than 20 years ago. This may be the clearest sign that the Clinton era is truly over.” 

Which brings up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?    

  

That’s it for today folks.  

Adios