BloggeRhythms

Watching Fox News this morning caused scratching one’s head. Listening to their various commentators analyses of Trump's South Carolina primary, it seems they’ve practically claimed his victory as the Republican presidential candidate already. Yet, only three contests have taken place to date, and 67.5 of voters selected someone else. Which means, this contest is very far from over.

Furthermore, to date no Republican contender has really gone after Trump, or confronted him regarding his record. However, when they do, the following graphic posted by a Facebook friend just now should certainly help them.

On another subject, yesterday this column addressed the massive employment rolls of some of the major business successes wherein the principals and/or investors are among the 400 “richest” individuals on the Forbes list. And these are the people whom the Democrat presidential candidates have deemed targets for as much tax increase as possible. Because, evidently, they haven’t helped the economy enough.

In that regard, it later occurred to this writer that above and beyond the 40 or 50 million American jobs created by this group, there are considerably more individuals earning their livings, all or in part, due to them. Because, beyond the major businesses themselves, those huge entity's rely on others to provide goods and services. Such as raw materials, machinery and equipment, buildings and construction, travel and entertainment, food, beverages, maintenance, security, communication, computerization, software, employee training, trucks and automobiles, fuel, energy, environmental control and compliance, along with a whole host of additional outside providers.

So, once again, if “progressives” continue demanding additional taxation, above and beyond the major contribution the “richest” provide at present, demonizing these mega-producers in their rants, those at the pinnacle should simply stop. And when they close down their enterprises, they'll take all those no-longer-needed goods and services providers with them. 

And, as also suggested yesterday, when all that money-flow ceases due to the business closures, perhaps the Clinton Foundation can contribute a billion or two to help cover the shortfall.  

And then, Michael Goodwin @nypost.com today, explaining how Sanders has attracted young voters who seek ever- increasing government support, provides one of the best synopsis of the perils of liberalism one could find anywhere.  

Mr. Goodwin writes: “There is, of course, an irrational dimension to the Sanders phenomenon. Obama is the most far-left president in memory, with his liberalism mixing higher taxes, an explosion of regulations and an expansion of social programs with a weak foreign policy. 

“The results everywhere are ­awful: The economy never fully recovered from the recession, and looks ready to slip back again. The world Obama tried to withdraw from is on fire, with talk of a global war growing louder. 

“America doesn’t need a double dose of the same bad medicine, but that is what young Democrats want. They believe Obama has been too moderate and see Clinton as even more old-school. 

And then Mr. Goodwin offers a glimmer of hope, defining the path that lead to the election of Ronald Reagan, as follows: “The [Democrat] party made this mistake before. After Lyndon Johnson ushered in the Great Society, a new generation furious about Vietnam pushed him aside for successors who were radicals at home and doves abroad. 

“Fortunately, most did not win the White House. Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern were rejected by voters, and Jimmy Carter probably would have been, too, were it not for the backlash over Watergate. After Carter’s disastrous term, the GOP won the next three thanks to Ronald Reagan’s pro-growth agenda and muscular foreign ­policy.” 

Bring us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

Ron Fournier, formerly a strong supporter, offered an explanation today @theatlantic.com, illustrating the differences between Bill Clinton and his wife, in the eyes of typical Democrat voters, as follows:

“Voters learned not to trust Bill Clinton to tell the truth about his private life. But they believed him when he said he got up every morning determined to work for them. “Is he in it for us or is he in it for himself?” Even when Bill Clinton disgraced himself and faced impeachment for lying about sex with an intern, most voters believed he was still in it for them. 

“Most voters don’t feel that way about Hillary Clinton, and it’s a dangerous matter of trust. She can’t convince voters that she’s always been honest—not in an era that equips people to be their own electronic fact-checkers. She can’t give today’s voters the authenticity they crave.” 

And although the FBI may be the deciding vote that eliminates her from the race, her weakness in veracity still creates a significant opportunity for alternative candidates. Leading to 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