BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, it was mentioned here that many recent events, such as the Brexit vote in the UK, were serving to bolster Trump’s campaign, whereas he’s been on the right side (no pun intended) of most of those issues. In response, a long-time friend responded via email that he believed too much credit had been assessed in the public’s favor, as follows:

My friend's response: “This may sound elitist but I think you are giving a sizable majority of the American public too much credit. 

“(you need to be more of a Democrat) Most of the public does not care about or understand Hillary's transgressions. 

“For decades the Democrats  have resorted to labeling Republicans as Racist, Anti Gay, Anti Woman and on and on. Yet with hardly any evidence to support those claims the sheep buy into it because the press says its so. Trump realizes this. That is why he dumbs down his speeches- with little substance. So far it has worked. 

“Only an indictment of her will force them to notice.” 

The subject’s been brought up again today, whereas the response to my friend this morning seemed an appropriate summation of the current state of the Trump campaign. 

“What’s Trump’s bringing about is a coalition of all those who’ve been misled, harmed or taken advantage of by years of political self-serviance. The voter frustration crosses party lines, is huge in the numbers affected and has resulted in Trump’s amassing more votes to date than any candidate in political history. Including Reagan and Kennedy. That’s why he defeated 16 others in the primary’s. 

“So, while you may be absolutely correct in regard to historical voter performance, Trump’s approach has been to focus on the major issues in a way that traditional candidates either can’t or won’t. And it’s the economy, jobs, border security, foreign policy and particularly illegal immigrants and the Iranian deal that are the key hot buttons involved at present. 

“Compounding the problem for his competitors so far, is that they have no way to determine who Trump’s supporters are because they are so widespread and diverse. Which in its own way should be extremely difficult, if not impossible for Clinton to deal with. Because an unidentifiable voter base is virtually impossible to reach in mass numbers. Just ask the 16 other Republican’s that he’s already turned inside out.” 

Rush too, yesterday, opined on Brexit, comparing the event to earlier attempts to bring Britain more in line with Europe.   

Rush said: “Let's go back to 1990, October 30th, 1990. It's in London, in Parliament, Margaret Thatcher, during a debate on rejecting a move toward a more closely united Europe. Do you know what it was costing the UK every year to be a member of the European Union? It was something to the tune of $18 million a year. Had to pay 'em $18 million a year for privilege of membership in the European Union. 

Farther along, Rush said: ‘Here's Margaret Thatcher, two bites warning her nation about turning British power over to Europe. 

"THATCHER: The president of the commission, Mr. Delors, said at press conference the other day that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community. He wanted the commission to be the executive and he wanted the Council of Ministers to be the Senate. No. No. No. 

 

"RUSH: Very similar. Here's the next one. 

"THATCHER: Perhaps the Labor Party would give all those things up, easily. Perhaps they would agree to a single currency, to total abolition of the pound sterling. Perhaps being totally incompetent with monetary matters they'd be only too delighted to hand over the full responsibility as they did to the IMF, to a central bank. The fact is, they have no competence on money, no competence on the economy, so, yes, the right honorable gentleman would be glad to hand it all over. And what is the point? In trying to get elected to Parliament only to hand over your sterling and to hand over the powers of this house to Europe. 

And then, in his conclusion, Rush brought the comparison to the current U.S. into focus, as follows: 

“RUSH: We mentioned this quote of hers yesterday. What's the point of even having a British Parliament if you are gonna cede your own sovereignty to some gigantic European association, and especially if you're ceding it to a bunch of incompetents who don't know what they're doing. And that is patently obvious. They don't know what they're doing. They are guided by sleeves and emotion. Whatever is on their sleeve, the emotion on their sleeve, they're guided by it.” 

And, in its own way that’s what’s transpiring here at home. Trump has brought governmental incompetence and its ramifications to the forefront. Exposing self-serving politicians for what they are. Which is something other candidates can’t do themselves. Because they’re all part of the same fraternity, regardless of party affiliation. 

Thus, if he can keep that “outsider” image growing, he’ll keep attracting those that are fed up with government altogether, which is more than his current competition, or anyone else, will be able to overcome at the polls.  

And then, a Facebook friend posted this one: 

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

As mentioned her yesterday: “Documents obtained by The Associated Press as part of a lawsuit involving the Obama administration showed at least 75 meetings with longtime backers of her political efforts, the Clinton Foundation or other interests that were either not included on her official calendar or whose names were not disclosed.” 

In that regard, Julian Hattem @thehill.com, writes: “There were at least 114 nongovernmental officials who attended those meetings and meals with Clinton, the AP found. 

“On Friday, State Department spokesman John Kirby would not defend the discrepancies, citing both the AP's lawsuit and the passage of time. 

“Regardless of the ongoing litigation I am not in a position — nor should I be expected to — to speak of the scheduling habits of a previous secretary of State,” Kirby told reporters. “I’m not able to do that.” 

“It’s a case of ongoing litigation and I’m simply not able to discuss it further.” 

Therefore, it seems that quite subtly, the State Department has backed somewhat away from their usual knee-jerk response to immediately support Bill's wife, or downplay the questions asked by the press. 

Now, whether or not that indicates an eventual cutting of ties, or perhaps, the following of a change in orders from the White House obviously remains to be seen.  

However, if this is truly the beginning of an abandonment of Bill’s wife, the ongoing question needs asking again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?   

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios