BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, went after guest, Mitt Romney, trying to force him to state that he was planning to enter the Republican presidential contest. Which Romney repeatedly denied quite firmly.

Romney conducted himself with polished statesmanship, holding his ground. Refusing to come down to Wallace’s level of tabloid reporter-like efforts to obtain a scoop. In the end, Wallace looked like a frustrated housewife unable to open a sealed jar -unkempt, frazzled and exhausted. Romney remained calm, cool and collected, like someone who actually belongs in the Oval Office.  

Wallace also interviewed Rush, who seems to have a problem with the current status of the campaign. Because, as all true followers of El Rushbo know, his greatest pleasure as the icon of conservatism is to be correct in his analysis. Something he most often accomplishes. 

However, Trump’s thrown Rush a curveball too. Whereas, on one hand Rush knows exactly what Trump is: a self-serving opportunist taking advantage of a frustrated Republican electorate, having no real conservative credentials whatsoever. Yet, he might win anyway.

On the other hand, at this point the closest thing to Ronald Reagan, according to Rush himself, is Ted Cruz. Leaving Rush in a quandary. Because he has to find ways to back both Trump and Cruz to create the soundbites to be used later on to prove he was right all along. Unfortunately though, in the meantime, Rush is uttering highly sophisticated double-talk and he knows it.

And then, back on Saturday, Michael Goodwin, an intellectually astute, well-informed and ordinarily quite accurate columnist, wrote a piece @nypostcom, in which he asked: “Is Trump built to go the distance? Can the author of “The Art of the Deal” close the deal of a lifetime?”

Mr. Goodwin then answered his own question, writing: “Yes he can. He can get a majority of delegates and beat Clinton, too. But he’ll have to tone down the juvenile nastiness, flesh out and stick to clear policies and build a national campaign infrastructure. Oh, and he’ll need to spend real money, at least $1 billion, either his own or other people’s.”

And then, farther along in the text, Mr. Goodwin explains in detail what Trump has got to do to reach his goal. 

“First: His me-me-me ego can be a turn-off to Main Street Republicans who are culturally wary of braggarts, so he needs to talk less about himself and more about the Americans he’s trying to enlist. Off the cuff is interesting until he wanders off into the weeds of TrumpLand. 

“Second: His stumbles and lack of knowledge on foreign affairs give cold shivers to policy and intellectual conservatives. He needs to develop a brain trust that can get him up to speed on major hot spots. Respected advisers can also act as surrogates to comfort others who don’t know or trust a candidate. 

“And, third: His relationship with congressional Republicans, which is somewhere between frosty and nonexistent. The aim of holding the Senate should be a common ­denominator, especially with the Supreme Court in the balance. As virtual head of his party, Trump would need to keep congressional candidates’ interests in mind.” 

So, what Mr. Goodwin’s really presenting is that Trump needs political and personal lobotomy's. Because all his campaign centers upon is his massive ego and, me-me-me bluster with no substance whatsoever. Take that away and you’ve got nothing but an empty suit. 

As far as his “lack of knowledge on foreign affairs” is concerned, how can he manage a “brain trust” if he himself knows nothing regarding what those highly informed individuals, steeped in international knowledge, would be talking about? They’d wind up running the nation’s foreign policy by and for themselves. 

And lastly, most of those in Congress are career politicians and Beltway insiders, a major target of Trump’s campaign. With their knowledge of how the system actually works, they’ll eat him alive. Much like they've done to Obama, forcing him to use his famous “pen” to legislate all by himself. Only to have Congress reverse his actions later, via floor votes or through the courts.   

And then, later on, Mr. Goodwin writes: “Trump said: “Look, I’m a unifier. I know people are going to find that a little bit hard to believe, but ­believe me, I am a unifier.” However, the reality indicates something else. Because, also according to Mr. Goodwin: “In late January, before voting started, Gallup found that [Trump] had a 60 percent unfavorable rating among all voters, the highest it has found among any major candidate going back to 1992. By contrast, Hillary Clinton’s highest negative has been 53 percent and in 2012, President Obama and Romney both maxed out at 48 percent.” 

So, perhaps Mr. Goodwin ought to read his own notes again and rethink his conclusions regarding Trump’s chances at an election win. Because while it might be true that victory’s possible, Trump would have to change himself into something more like Ronald Reagan than Bozo the clown in an ill-fitting, un-buttonable business suit. Long, hard row to hoe.

On another subject, a FB friend posted this today.  

 

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

This one’s noteworthy not only for what it contains, but also because of the author: The Editorial Board of the New York Post. 

The board member’s wrote: “What is up with Hillary Clinton’s compulsive lining of her own pockets? 

“It turns out she has her campaign paying her $250,000 a year. It’s not illegal — but most would-be presidents aren’t so venal. 

“And she truly doesn’t need the cash: Her net worth is $11 million to $52 million. 

“She’s no longer the cash-poor Arkansas first lady who in 1978 turned a $10,000 investment in cattle futures into a fast $100,000. Nor even the “dead broke” Hillary of 2001. 

“Not that that lasted long: The same year, she scored $8 million for her autobiography “Living History.” Then Bill landed his own $15 million book deal — followed by (in CNN’s count) $150 million in speaking fees for the power couple these last 15 years. 

“Don’t protest that most of those fees went to charity: That charity is the Clinton Foundation — which the family controls, which employs their key staff between campaigns and which covers the cost of their private-jet trips and other extravagances. 

“Which brings us to why we call her “pathological”: She keeps taking the money even though she can’t conceivably need it — and it’s bound to look horrible.” 

Thus, in questioning one simple premise, Bill’s wife’s obsession for money, the board-member’s cleverly remind readers of several other major flaws in the presidential candidate. The cattle futures scam. The fees extorted in anticipation of future payback should she be elected POTUS. The Clinton Foundation front for money-laundering. And the consistent misleading of the public via insistence that she and her family are among those exploited by the “rich.” All of them total fabrications for personal gain.

Raising the ongoing 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