BloggeRhythms

Whereas Trump is purportedly a successful business man, now trying his hand at politics, a thought came to mind about a business basic not widely known, but extremely valuable to understand. The thought was stimulated by an article appearing @dailywire.com, Tuesday, but first, some background.  

My own career, spanning considerable time, primarily involved financing equipment used by businesses. Now, naturally, the most significant aspect of arranging transactions was the financial condition of the customer. Because, above all else, the funds involved had to be paid back.

In that regard, most agreements spanned several years, three and five year terms being most popular, depending on the equipment type and its longevity in operation. Meaning that, aside from the customer’s current financial condition, it was important to determine the probability of those customer’s continuing to meet their financial obligations in the future. Which is where other aspects of customers behavior came into play, much of it requiring lender’s judgments and experienced analysis of what to expect over time.

In that regard, above and beyond financial results that could be read on paper, those working directly with prospective clients had to be able to "sense" those patterns, tendencies and procedures that indicated a “management style,” air of competency, and general performance in fulfilling responsibilities, financial or otherwise. All of which contribute to business success, or unfortunately, failure as well.         

Which is what today’s point is all about. Because, when arranging funding, visiting clients locations and meeting members of the organization is critical. Personally observing how those fulfilling various functions perform, getting a sense of their competency, demeanor and professional knowledge indicate not only their individual qualities, but also demonstrate clearly how top management’s operate their businesses. 

Thus, those prospective clients having well informed, knowledgeable, experienced staffs and personnel generally reflect a top management that demands and maintains high-caliber, professional performance throughout. And most often, the driving force behind exemplary performance of personnel derives from the one at the very top, passed on to those around him or her. 

And, of course, the reverse is true, too. Poorly run, mistake ridden operations most often are the result of weak, unaware, uncaring or unskilled management throughout, starting from the chief executive and filtering down throughout. 

Which brings us to the article mentioned at the start today.

On Tuesday, April 12th, Michael Cantrell quoted from dailywire.com: “So much for “having the best people,” right?

“Real estate mogul Donald Trump continues to show an embarrassing amount of incompetence with his campaign organization, as evident by the email blast they sent out for delegates in Washington state over the weekend. 

“The Trump team sent out the email encouraging supporters to sign up and become delegates in Washington state. The problem is, they sent the email to Washington… D.C. If that weren’t humiliating enough, the Trump campaign sent out the email two days after the deadline to sign up.” 

Therefore, following up on the theme above, about organizational performance reflecting the one at the top, perhaps the fundamental campaign mistakes reflect far larger managerial incapability. Which may very well have contributed to failed casino’s, airlines, clothing lines and wineries among others. 

However, similar to long-term financial arrangements, only time will tell the actual end results. 

And then, this was posted by a Facebook friend yesterday 

 

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

Judge Andrew Napolitano @FoxNews.com, continues to carry on a seemingly dedicated individual crusade to establish his case that Bill’s wife is surely guilty of espionage, or other suspect behavior, due to her mishandling national secrets for personal reasons.   

Today, the Judge analyzed the POTUS’s recent Wallace interview, and Obama’s effort to minimize the classification of secrets into the statutory categories of “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret” by snarkily commenting that “there’s classified and then there’s classified.” 

In making his case that the POTUS has been far stricter before, in cases far less threatening to the nation, the Judge wrote: “Obama has interpreted that duty so as to permit his Department of Justice to prosecute for espionage both a sailor when he took a selfie inside a nuclear submarine and sent it to his girlfriend and a Marine lieutenant who correctly warned his superiors about an al-Qaida operative masquerading as an Afghan cop in an American encampment but mistakenly used his Gmail account to send the emergency warning.” 

What’s most interesting about the article, however, is his expectation of what will eventually result. Because he reduces the matter to practical reality, regardless of what the POTUS may suggest, infer, or desire. 

From the Judge's learned perspective: “The evidence of Clinton’s failure to safeguard state secrets is overwhelming because of the regularity of its occurrence. The evidence is well-grounded, as some of the secrets were too grave for the FBI to review and all came from her own server. And the evidence is sufficient to indict and to convict because it was obtained legally and shows a four-year pattern of regular, consistent, systematic violation of the laws requiring safeguarding. 

“Obama’s suggestion that some secrets were not really secret is also irrelevant, because Clinton, like the president, swore to recognize secrets and to keep them secret, no matter her opinion of them.” 

And thus, the Judge concludes: “The FBI knows this and is taking it far more seriously than the president or Clinton.” 

There may be others, too, who for the same or different reasons than the Judge are looking in another direction for their votes. 

Daniel Halper @weeklystandard.com reports: “Bernie Sanders had a massive crowd tonight in New York City. The campaign for the 74-year-old socialist from Vermont claims 27,000 came out tonight for the event.”

In comparison, while statistic's on his wife’s personal drawing appeal is hard to find, there are some numbers on Bill himself.  

On January 20, Olaf Ekberg @ theamericanmirror.com, wrote: “Bill Clinton is like the aging rocker who has gone from playing baseball stadiums to barely filling night clubs. 

“Only about 100 people turned out to see Clinton in Salem, New Hampshire Wednesday as he campaigned for his wife.” 

Then, more recently, according to an article on redstate.com on March 9th: “Bill Clinton bailed on a scheduled campaign stop in St. Louis yesterday. He blamed the weather but the real reason was a crowd so tiny it could have fit in Donald Trump’s hands. 

“The Hillary Clinton campaign said it was bad weather that kept Bill from addressing a small crowd in Kansas City on Tuesday. 

“Only about 300 people turned out to see the former president — in a metropolitan area that boasts some 2.34 million people.” 

PS: Just found an article @pittsburgh.cbslocal.com saying: “Hillary Clinton was in town last week for a rally at Carnegie Mellon University. A crowd of about 1,500 packed the gymnasium where she spoke.” 

Which makes one wonder, just where all the delegates she’s landed have come from. Because, as the news reports keep confirming, the vast majority of Democrats can’t seem to stand anyone in the Clinton family altogether.  

Raising the ongoing question again: 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