BloggeRhythms

Skipped last night’s debate, as usual, then read a recap on-line this morning. A list below contains the 12 “issues” FoxNews.com selected as the most important discussed at the event. 

“WHO CAN SETTLE IT? Cruz eligibility question may go through courts

“NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER': Bush, Rubio slam Clinton on Benghazi

“HE'S A TRAITOR': Rubio attacks Cruz, flips focus to Snowden

“HIT PIECE': Cruz explains $500,000 Wall Street loan, criticizes NY Times story

“'I AM VERY ANGRY': Trump accepts 'mantle of anger' from Nikki Haley

“Cruz explains what New York values are |Trump says Cruz was insulting to New Yorkers

“Rubio sounds off on Cruz | Cruz responds to Rubio’s attacks on immigration

“Cruz — Under extreme birthing rules, Donald would be disqualified

“Trump admits raising birther issue after Cruz’s rising poll numbers

“Kasich talks open trade | Christie focuses on Social Security Bush says we can observe peace through strength

“Bush says Clinton would be a national security disaster

“Cruz settles birther issue but Trump, Rubio also win at debate”

From the 12 items selected as major topics by Fox, 10 concern personal issues between the candidates. None having a thing to do with their qualifications for deserving the office of POTUS based on their platforms, merits, capability's or qualified experience. 

Thus, while the bouts between the candidates might have been good theater, even fun to watch, they certainly offered nothing worthwhile as far as attending to the nation’s needs are concerned.

While Bush and Rubio slammed Clinton on Benghazi, and Cruz and Rubio battled each other about immigration, the only issues of real importance arose from the three governors on the stage. Kasich talking about open trade, Christie focusing on Social Security and Bush saying the nation can observe peace through strength, and that Clinton would be a national security disaster. 

While it was a pretty skimpy amount of real substance, at least the governors tried to discuss some important national issues, as opposed to the amateurs in the race who had nothing important to offer at all.

As far as the earlier debate was concerned, while the candidates painted a darker picture of economy than Obama, nothing much more was found when searching the Web this morning.

Consequently, once again, by skipping the mudslinging contests it seems I missed nothing of importance whatsoever. The amateurs still remain highly unqualified for the job, while those having governing experience brought the only substance to the event. Any one of the three governors in the top tier would likely perform well as POTUS, with very little difference as to which  one was elected. 

And when all is said and done regarding last night’s debate, there's still almost a year to go until election day. Which means that since most humans have about 15 minute attention spans, by tomorrow whatever anyone said last night will long be forgotten anyhow. 

On the same subject, adding further confirmation regarding the debate’s lack of substance, FoxNews.com’s Chris Stirewalt wrote the following this morning: 

“When Trump got tripped up and admitted that his Canadian birtherism was, in fact, motivated by Cruz’s rising stature in the race, it was the first clean, clear defeat Trump had taken on stage to another candidate. Cruz flipped a negative into a positive, and that’s the highest art in all politics.

“But just about the time Cruz was getting cocky, Trump not only came alive but delivered what was the single best answer of his debate career thus far. Cruz had laid it on way too thick in his answer about what he meant when he accused Trump of having “New York values.”

“When Trump answered, he took everything you knew about him and threw it out on its ear. Trump spoke tenderly and so softly that the audience needed to lean in to hear him tell the story of 9/11 and reminded his now-rapt that “everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers.” It was a grand slam.

“We already knew that Trump could shout down or insult a rival. What we hadn’t seen him do on stage is show this kind of range in so doing. Trump has continued to improve as a debater and a candidate, and in this one answer was all the proof you need.”

In this case, while I have great respect for Mr. Stirewalt and his reporting, quoting him here quite often, I simply don’t understand what he thinks he saw of importance in the preceding exchange between Trump and Cruz. 

Perhaps Mr. Stirewalt thinks one-upsmanship between two debating candidates will have some impact on presiding over the greatest nation the world. However, its doubtful that a spat between two unqualified candidates is going to help resolve any current U.S. problems in any way. Because, regardless of who won the pointless argument he thought was so impressive, neither candidate has a shred of governing skills nor qualifying experience.   

On another issue, Fox News business channel reports that Wal-Mart is closing 269 stores, more than half of them in the U.S. Reasons for the closures include Obamacare costs and the increases in the minimum wage. Both of which aren’t affordable and therefore, shrinking employer’s size, or driving them out of business altogether.

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

Ted Johnson, Senior Editor @variety.com via Drudge, writes about a new movie about Benghazi soon to be released, as follows:

“Michael Bay’s “13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi” does not contain any mention of Hillary Clinton. Also not named is President Obama. At times, the movie even goes out of its way to avoid politics, as the director has said that he has no political agenda. 

“But any movie about Benghazi is bound to still get caught up in the political fray, particularly one that is being released just weeks before voters caucus in Iowa in the official kickoff of the presidential race. 

“Last week, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly previewed the movie on “The Kelly File” and interviewed three of the CIA contractors at the center of the movie. Kelly introduced the segment as the “gripping new film that may pose a threat to Hillary Clinton’s hopes for the White House.” She then showed footage from the film.” 

Adding the movie to Bill’s wife’s list of woes at this time may prove truly harmful. Because the trend of her campaign seems to indicate a significant slide is already taking place. This one being even worse than the last time she ran for the presidency. 

According to Philip Bump @washingtonpost.com,: “If we compare where Clinton is now in the Real Clear Politics polling average, the 2016 picture and the 2008 picture aren't really all that similar. 

“Nationally, she was doing much better in 2008 than she is right now, perhaps in part because the anti-Clinton vote in 2008 was still split between two people -- Barack Obama and John Edwards -- instead of just one. But that recent trend line, a function of two new national polls that were close after a bit of a lull, is not very good news.” 

Thus, what the polls seem to be clearly indicating is that it really doesn’t matter who Bill’s wife competition is. Because whether it’s an inexperienced street-corner hustler from Chicago or an aging socialist from Vermont, it isn’t them that’s her problem. What she simply can’t overcome is the fact that most people just don’t like her, period. 

Bringing up the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?

   

That’s it for today folks.   

Adios