BloggeRhythms

Pat Buchanan @wnd.com, wrote a brilliant piece today, explaining why Trump unleashed “the mightiest force of the 21st century: nationalism.” 

Founding the well-documented article, are three major issues Buchanan credits Trump alone as having forced the Republican party to unconditionally support. And while Buchanan's logic and analysis are certainly true, his conclusions suffer at the end. Because the primary election results to date present a different picture when they’re closely analyzed. 

Buchanan writes: “First among the issues on which Trump has triumphed – “We will build the wall – and Mexico will pay for it!” – is border security.

“Republican candidates who failed to parrot Trump on illegal immigration were among the first casualties. For that is where America is, and that is where the West is.” 

Next, Buchanan states: “If immigration is the first issue where Trump connected with the people, the second is trade. 

“Republicans are at last learning that trade deficits do matter, that free trade is not free. The cost comes in dead factories, lost jobs, dying towns and the rising rage of an abandoned Middle America whose country this is and whose wages have stagnated for decades. 

“Production comes before consumption. Who owns the orchard is more essential than who eats the apples. We have exported the economic independence Hamilton taught was indispensable to our political independence. We have forgotten what made us great. 

“China, Japan, Germany – the second, third and fourth largest economies on earth – all owe their prosperity to trade surpluses run for decades at the expense of the Americans.” 

And then, Buchanan gets to his last point: “A third casualty of Trumpism is the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus among liberal interventionists and neoconservatives. 

“Trump subjects U.S. commitments to a cost-benefit analysis, as seen from the standpoint of cold national interest. 

“What do we get from continuing to carry the largest load of the defense of a rich Europe, against a Russia with one-fourth of Europe’s population? 

“How does Vladimir Putin, leader of a nation that in the last century lost its European and world empires and a third of its landmass, threaten us? 

“Patriotism, preserving and protecting the unique character of our nation and people, economic nationalism, America First, staying out of other nation’s wars – these are as much the propellants of Trumpism as is the decline of the American working and middle class.” 

And then, Buchanan’s presentation turns somewhat shaky. Because, while his stating next that “Trump’s presence in the race has produced the largest turnout ever in the primaries of either party,” may be true, the next premise is not. Buchanan writes: “He has won the most votes, most delegates, most states. Wisconsin aside, he will likely come to Cleveland in that position.”

The fact of the matter is that Trump has averaged in the mid to low 30% range in almost all contests thus far. And in every primary to date, the other Republicans as a group have always won significant majorities over Trump. In fact, as of this morning, according to the Real Clear Politics average, in Wisconsin Trump stands at 34.5%, Cruz at 39.2% and Kasich at 20%. Which means that together, Cruz and Kasich appeal to 59.2% of voters, close to double Trump’s count. 

All of which takes the impact out of Buchanan’s closing point, a warning of things to come, as follows: “Whatever happens to Trump, the country has spoken. And if the establishment refuses to heed its voice, and returns to the policies the people have repudiated, it should take heed of John F. Kennedy’s warning: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

However, that "violent revolution" may not be the wisest of approaches to take. Because when the odds are 65-70% against you in your own party, as they are in Trump’s case, you just might want to rethink your probabilities of winning that battle. Could lead to some quality time to think in a hospital emergency room.

·

Then there was this from Rush today: "Today's program is dedicated to those of you who have promised never to listen to this program ever again. I just want to say hi."

 

Moving on to an item having no particular news value as a breaking story, Cal Thomas @FoxNews.com, delivered today one of the best critiques of the entire presidential candidate field seen to date, as follows: 

“On one side in this presidential contest we have a tired old warhorse, Hillary Clinton, whose chief qualifications for office appear to be her gender and a sense of entitlement after sticking with her adulterous husband. She has no real accomplishments to which she can point. The other Democratic candidate is an even older dinosaur who metaphorically wants to change America’s initials from USA to ATM, with free stuff for all, paid for by taxing “millionaires and billionaires.” Millennials, who apparently have no clue about economics, drink the red Kool-Aid like members of a cult. 

“On the Republican side there is Donald Trump. Polls show Trump has unified much of America like few other politicians. Unfortunately for him, most are unified in opposition. 

“There is Sen. Ted Cruz, who might save the GOP from Trump, but who needs to work on his own likeability. 

“Ohio Governor John Kasich remains in the race for reasons known only to himself. Kasich is proving the cynicism of baseball coach Leo Durocher’s line, “nice guys finish last.” 

“There must be a better way to nominate and elect a president. The Constitution provides little guidance. There is nothing in it about parties, conventions, or length of campaigns.” 

And, unfortunately for the rest of us, Mr. Thomas’s summation is right on the money. 

Then, a friend posted the following on Facebook this morning. However, I don’t know if the POTUS and his global-warming airheads saw it. 

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

Daniel Halper @weeklystandard.com, writes: “The Clinton campaign is telling supporters that the nomination is not locked up. And, the campaign is telling supporters, more cash donations are needed to beat Bernie Sanders. 

"Two quick updates," reads the email to supporters.

"First: We're down in almost every poll in Wisconsin -- tomorrow's primary is going to be a tough fight. 

"Second: The Sanders campaign raised over $43 million in March -- making that the third month in a row they've outraised us. 

"This nomination isn't locked up yet, and we've got to keep fighting for every vote if we want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. 

"If you have Hillary's back before Wisconsin and the next round of critical contests, chip in right now and we'll send you a free sticker." 

From the gist of the email sent, it seems Bill’s wife’s campaign may fear an Obama-like upset is brewing. Something they certainly didn’t expect. Nonetheless, if money’s as big a problem as they claim, why not simply “borrow” it from the family foundation’s billions? But, then again, that likely won’t work, because the foundation always keeps for the family 90% of what it extorts from others. 

Which brings up another question. If Bill’s wife isn’t elected POTUS, does the foundation return what it’s take from donors who thought they were buying future presidential preferential treatment? And what will the scene look like when major banks, huge Wall Street firms and scads of foreign nations find themselves having paid for favoritism that can’t and won’t be delivered? 

But, the Clinton’s are used to moving. From Arkansas to the White House and on to Manhattan, wherever fortune takes them. Which means that if Bill’s wife escapes the slammer, the next move may be to some deserted island where irate foundation donors won’t bother to chase them and simply take the write-off on their taxes. 

Raising the ongoing question once more: 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