BloggeRhythms

In advance of Super Tuesday 2 primary’s in 5 states, yesterday Rush seemed to be offering Cruz an endorsement of sorts on Facebook.

At first, Rush offered simply an observation: “It's in Ted Cruz's best interests for Kasich to lose and to have no reason to stay in. If Kasich wins Ohio, there's a reason to stay in. What's going on here, the establishment has one last great hope, and that's Kasich winning in Ohio... It's in Cruz's best interests for Trump to win Florida and Ohio.”

And then, an hour later, Rush was somewhat firmer: “Ted Cruz Is Not the Establishment!”

And then an hour after that, a flat-out push: “My guess is that as president, Ted Cruz would use the power of his personality and the ability to persuade and his positive nature and love of country to persuade an even larger number of people than those who voted for him to participate with him in revitalizing America. I know he has the ability to make that case, and I know he has the ability to inspire the American people to want to join him on it if he has access to them in that regard.”

Now, whether Rush will stay true behind Cruz obviously remains to be seen. But, as for right now, it seems clear as to what he wants his listeners to do with their votes.

For the present, the media, pundits, political experts and commentators, focus their time and efforts on interpreting polls, voting trends, and guesses about who’ll win what in November. However, other often overlooked trends and undercurrents in the news provide very strong indicators about key issues on the public’s minds. 

One such issue was written up by Tina Moore, Larry Celona and Daniel Prendergast @nypost.com, via Drudge, who discovered: “The vast majority of NYPD officers who answered a new survey hate their jobs and believe they were a lot safer before Mayor de Blasio and Police Commissioner Bill Bratton took office, according to a new survey by the city’s police union.” 

More than 6,000 of the NYPD’s roughly 24,000 rank-and-file, “revealed a resounding lack of passion for the job, with cops on average rating morale at just 2.49 on a scale of 1 to 10.” 

Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, said: “The results of this survey prove what we’ve been hearing time and time again from members over the past two years — the job is more difficult than ever, the dangers are greater, and morale is extremely low.” 

So, here we have police officers, those closest to what transpires in the streets every day providing the feedback. Roughly 87 percent of them saying the “Big Apple” has become “less safe” since the new administration took over at the beginning of 2014. 55 percent of them describing New York City as “a lot less safe.” 

Thus, if this is what law enforcement thinks, imagine how those far less safe voters feel. Because it would hard to believe that political loyalty will override the threat of being mugged, molested, robbed and/or shot when the next election rolls around. 

And then, a friend posted the following today illustrating things all tax-paying voters ought to consider about the nation’s direction.

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

FoxNews.com reports: “Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton committed her second gaffe in as many days on the campaign trail Monday night, claiming that the U.S. "didn't lose a single person" in Libya during her time as secretary of state.”

The outright fabrication was made at an Illinois town hall hosted by MSNBC while she was defending her push for regime change in war-torn Libya. 

Saying: “Now, is Libya perfect? It isn't," she then contrasted her approach toward Libya with the ongoing bloodshed in Syria's civil war. And then, she delivered the unmitigated falsehood: “Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn't lose a single person ... We didn’t have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO." 

In presenting her self-serving fabrication, she made no mention at all “of the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans: U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.” 

At the same time, another group is having problems with Bill’s wife’s ever-changing position’s for political gain. This time, it’s AIDS activists, according to Kevin Naff @washingtonblade.com in an article titled: “Hillary’s Painful Mistake”

The authors write: “Hillary Clinton’s epic gaffe — if that’s what it was — in which she praised Ronald and Nancy Reagan for their efforts related to AIDS in the 1980s inspired an immediate and deserved backlash over the weekend. 

“It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s,” Clinton told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan – in particular, Mrs. Reagan – we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it. Nobody wanted anything to do with it.” 

In this case, the facts again refuted Bill’s wife’s attempts to gain support for herself. However, “AIDS activists, including Larry Kramer and Peter Staley among many others, leapt in to remind Clinton that it was Reagan’s cruel indifference and criminal neglect that drove the mounting death toll in the ‘80s. Reagan did not deliver a speech on AIDS until 1987. By then, 40,000 people had already died, most of them society’s castoffs (gays, drug users, Haitians), that the Reagans didn’t give a s*** about.” 

The authors go on: “Given her laudable involvement in the fight against HIV/AIDS, it’s inconceivable that she didn’t know about the sorry Reagan record or the LGBT community’s widespread and justified hatred of President Reagan. 

“So what explains her reprehensible comments? Her gay supporters worked overtime on social media this weekend minimizing the incident, dismissing the whole thing as Clinton’s “exhaustion” or suggesting she merely “misspoke.” They say she deserves a pass, because, well, the Republicans are so much worse.” 

And then, the authors answered their own question by inquiring, “Did she misspeak? Or were her comments a calculated pivot toward an expected general election contest against Donald Trump? Praising the Reagan's is a good way to curry favor with conservative voters repulsed by Trump’s racism and xenophobia.” 

And there you have it, classic Clinton. Because for the entire family it truly doesn’t matter what the situation is, lie, cheat and steal, because it’s always about the win since that’s where the money is. 

Leading to the ongoing question: Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this? 

That’s it for today folks.   

Adios