BloggeRhythms

Headline news about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, regards the apparent decision between Cruz and Kasich to coordinate in the remaining primary’s in order to block Trump’s reaching the needed delegate count before the convention in Cleveland.

Whether the strategy succeeds or not, obviously remains to be seen. However, what’s most interesting this morning is the reaction of readers to a story @nytimes.com by Matt Flegenheimer and Jonathan Martin about the two Republicans working together. 

The majority of those proffering comments center on the candidates extraordinary team approach seeming somehow unfair, perhaps even underhanded. Many going so far as to suggest refusing to vote at all, so that the party suffers from the collusion attempt.

However, what these readers seem to overlook is the concern of those believing themselves to be “conservatives,”  or at the very least true Republicans, that an outsider is brazenly inserting himself into their political milieu. What’s more, by most measures, that intruder not only doesn’t share long-held party values, but is more a Democrat at heart as proven by long-standing historical voting records.

So, when “fairness” is the subject in question, perhaps those so upset with the Cruz/Kasich present reaction to Trump ought to consider that, except for his home state of New York, Trump has averaged roughly 35% of the vote in all other contests run to date. Which means that Cruz/Kasich/Rubio have attained 65% consistently when combined.

Thus, permitting this outsider opportunist to take advantage of multiple opponents splitting what would ordinarily be sufficient votes for outright wins would be against the wishes of 2/3rds of Republican voters. Which means that not only are Cruz/Kasich doing what’s needed to counter a self-serving intruder, they’re finally using their remaining strengths to keep what’s left of their party together.  

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

Two items today, both presenting glaring vulnerabilities should Bill’s wife become the Democrat presidential candidate. 

First is an attached clip from FoxNews.com’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, who has a seemingly obsessive desire to see Bill’s wife whisked away in handcuffs by the FBI: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4861718678001/napolitano-indictment-or-not-hillary-faces-catastrophe

Next is an article, also from FoxNews.com/politics, this past Friday addressing Bill’s wife closeness to banks, businesses and groups having paid her for speaking engagements. Naturally leading to their expectation of quid pro quo, should she return to the White House, as follows:  

“It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall. 

“The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.” 

Bill’s wife made 94 paid appearances over two years, leaving her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or being influenced in favor of speech sponsor's interests.

In that regard: “The AP review identified at least 60 firms and organizations that sponsored Clinton's speeches and lobbied the U.S. government at some point since the start of the Obama administration. Over the same period, at least 30 also profited from government contracts. Twenty-two groups lobbied the State Department during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. They include familiar Wall Street financial houses such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., corporate giants like General Electric Co. and Verizon Communications Inc., and lesser-known entities such as the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries and the Global Business Travel Association.” 

Lawrence Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission, said: “Clinton's two-year speaking tour, which took place after she resigned as secretary of state, puts her in the position of having to disavow that money is an influence on her while at the same time backing campaign reform based on the influence on money. It ends up creating the appearance of influence." 

Thus, with Judge Napolitano on one side, dedicated to seeking justice for misbehavior's in office, while Trump on the other promises a no-holds-barred campaign of relentless exposure of Bill’s wife’s myriad flaws, her road ahead may turn into a quite unpleasant journey for her. 

Leading to 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