BloggeRhythms

According to Rush yesterday, Ted Cruz got the best endorsement he could ever get. Rush said: “He could not have gotten a better endorsement than he got out of John Boehner speaking to the Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper at Stanford.  Can you imagine, here's John Boehner out there calling Ted Cruz "Lucifer," the biggest SOB he ever had to work with?”

Rush analyzed Boehner’s assault on Cruz this way: “Here's John Boehner, the former Speaker of the House, who had to work with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama, and he says that Ted Cruz was the worst he ever had to work with?  Isn't that a little bizarre?  Especially since they both claim, both Boehner and Cruz, to be conservatives.”  

Supporting Cruz wholeheartedly, Rush said: “The guy will fight back against the people that [a caller] thinks are creating the vast majority of problems in the country.  And here comes Boehner right on cue comparing Cruz to Lucifer.  So Cruz can run around and say, "If anybody doubts that I am anti-establishment now, if anybody has any question over who the real outsider in this campaign is, just take a look at what Boehner said. 

“And then Cruz said (paraphrasing), "I don't remember ever working with the guy.  I mean, I'm over there in the Senate, what would I have to do with the Speaker of the House?  I don't remember working in a face-to-face, direct fashion with Boehner."   

Now, certainly, despite Rush’s not so subtle endorsement of Cruz, at this point no one knows how voters will react. And if that reaction turns out negative, it’s then quite possible that the two presidential finalists very well may wind up to be Sanders and Kasich.  

Because there’s a very good chance that the nation’s legal system will eliminate both of the present front-runners. On one hand, the courts may find Trump guilty of fraud regarding his failed university, while the FBI arrests Bill Clinton’s wife for her illegal use of emails as secretary of state. 

As a practical matter, however, whoever becomes the Democrat candidate may not matter at all. Because, as reported by Jim Hoft @thegatewaypundit.com: “The rate of real economic growth is the single greatest determinate of both America’s strength as a nation and the well-being of the American people.” 

And since the economy is generally voter’s major concern, some devastating news was delivered yesterday when “the Commerce Department announced that the US economy expanded at the slowest pace in two years. GDP growth rose at an anemic 0.5% rate after a paltry 1.4% fourth quarter advance.” 

“According to Louis Woodhill, if the economy continues to perform below 2.67% GDP growth rate this year, President Barack Obama will leave office with the fourth worst economic record in US history. 

“Assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of 1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%) 

By comparison, under Ronald Reagan annual real GDP growth was 3.5% while “Obama will be lucky to average a 1.55% GDP growth rate.” 

Obama will also be the only U.S. president in history who did not deliver a single year of 3.0%+ economic growth. 

“House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price noted the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is forecasting the economy will continue to “underperform” in the years ahead if current fiscal policies are maintained. 

“The failed economic policies and regulatory oppression of the Obama administration have contributed to a weakened economy that continues to frustrate the efforts of American families, workers and businesses to make ends meet,” the Georgia Republican said. “This will make it harder for Americans to get ahead.” 

Therefore, despite all the efforts of positive spin by the very left-leaning major media, the odds are that whoever the Republican presidential candidate turns out to be, the win will be by a landslide. Because most voters realize they and the nation simply cannot survive economically under another anti-growth socialist, regardless of who that leftist might be. 

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

Yesterday, Amy Chozick and Ashley Parker @nytimes.com, wrote about Trump’s willingness to ignore political correctness when campaigning. Up to and including verbal assaults on Bill Clinton’s wife's highly questionable credentials to date, as follows: 

“This week alone, he accused her of playing the “woman’s card” to get where she is, saying, “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.” He questioned her “strength” and “stamina,” and he mocked her for “shouting.” Also this year, he attacked Mrs. Clinton as the enabling political spouse of a president who Mr. Trump said had abused women.”   

In response, “Mrs. Clinton’s advisers say they are confident that such comments will galvanize Democrats — and infuriate nearly any woman who has ever had to work harder than a man.” 

Yet, logic suggests that those advisers response makes no real sense whatsoever. Whereas everything Trump has stated happens to be the truth. And, in fact, nowhere did he even question her “hard work.”   

What he did say was that if “she were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.” And that’s because, other than being female, she has no other claims to her name. Her health problems are frequent and often reported on in the news, along with “shouting” that she’s famous for. And finally, her husband’s abuse of women is not only public record, but patently undeniable. Including his lying to congress about it and being impeached and disbarred. 

Thus, if Bill’s wife’s handlers believe that their constituents are gullible enough to revolt against a few personal slights at present, what will they do when the “real” campaign starts. Because that will include constant factual repetition illustrating a long history of highly questionable personal activity, supported by no real accomplishment whatsoever. And that won’t be helped by supporters “galvanizing.“ Whereas merely joining together in protest can’t undo thirty years of documented illegality and incompetence. 

     

Farther along in the article, it’s mentioned that, “even some Republican political operatives fiercely opposed to Mr. Trump say he is pursuing what could be a sound strategy by turning Mrs. Clinton’s chance to make history against her while deflecting scrutiny of his own weakness among female voters. 

“By taking gender head-on, Trump refuses to cede women voters and so-called women’s issues to Hillary just because she is a woman,” said Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster who heads a “super PAC” supporting Senator Ted Cruz.” 

And then, although she’s a Cruz supporter, Ms Conway provided Trump, perhaps inadvertently, with additional potential ammunition by saying: “Trump could sully Mrs. Clinton’s record of advocacy on issues like pay inequity by saying she has accomplished too little on them. “Next he’ll say, ‘Ladies: She shares your gender and nothing else,’” Ms. Conway said. “It takes you years to earn what Wall Street paid her for a single 25-minute speech that wasn’t even that interesting.” 

All of which confirms that Bill’s wife is by no means at the same level of strength that was assumed not all that long ago. And she certainly has extreme areas of vulnerability to be exploited by opponents in the future. Naturally 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