BloggeRhythms

Today’s items reflect the circumstance that there are two very different perspectives of what’s transpiring within the new administration. One exists in the real world while the others a fiction created by the MSM to please it’s extremely unhappy readership. 

Having very little to find real fault with regarding the administration's first month in office, much is being made by the MSM of the new POTUS’s alleged relationship with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government. The intensity of criticism reaching the point where Mike Flynn resigned from his National Security Advisor position due to a presumed closeness with a hostile nation.    

However, while that MSM was fervently promoting a potential presidential weakness, the real truth was something else entirely. 

Paul Handley of AFP via yahoo.com, reports that although the POTUS “repeatedly pledged to reach "a deal" with Vladimir Putin while hinting at downgraded relations with NATO and the European Union, [he’s] yet to set a meeting with the Russian leader.” 

At the same time, VP Mike Pence “and top cabinet security and defense officials have gone to great lengths to reassure European leaders that Washington is not giving up on its allies.” 

Although the POTUS still holds out the idea of striking up an amicable relationship with Putin, his new national security advisor Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, is “a hawkish army veteran who sees Russia as the primary threat to US interests and global stability.” 

“And next week the Senate is expected to approve the appointment of Senator Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence, adding another Putin skeptic to the president's defense and national security team.” 

In response, Bruce Jones, vice president and director for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington said: “There has been a major shift. My sense is at least we've seen an evolution to an approach that is more sensitive to the threat Russia poses to Europe and the US." 

However, even the Brookings assessment sounds quite presumptive. That’s because if the POTUS believes close relationships make more sense than hostility, so long as U.S. ideals and interests are preserved and protected, that philosophy doesn’t make him complicit with Russia in any way, manner or form. 

Then, while foreign policy plans and strategies move quickly forward, FoxNews.com reports today about another campaign promise being immediately followed-up upon. 

Yesterday the administration made its first tangible step towards building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border.  

“Bloomberg reported that the administration issued a preliminary request for proposals to contractors. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said it plans to start awarding contracts by mid-April. 

“The agency said it will request bids on or around March 6 and that companies would have to submit "concept papers" to design and build prototypes by March 10. 

“The field of candidates will be narrowed by March 20, and finalists must submit offers with their proposed costs by March 24.” 

The progress to date is such that the president told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday that construction will start "very soon" and is "way, way, way ahead of schedule." 

While it’s still unclear how soon Congress would provide funding and how much, there is no doubt that the POTUS is once again consistent in doing his part to fulfill campaign promises.
And then, further evidence of MSM favoritism surfaced whereas although any and all possibility’s of Republican slips, flare-ups or problems are covered in minute detail, Democrats are protected from criticism unconditionally.

However, in the real world, the story is not only entirely different it’s the opposite completely. So much so that Fox News’ Chris Stirewalt headed his column yesterday: “How broken are Democrats?”

The case Stirewalt then makes is that from a practical viewpoint, it would be a pretty straightforward matter that Chuck Schumer, and therefore his party, would be far better off by finding “points on which Trump, no conservative, agrees with Democrats.” 

Areas include stimulus spending, labor policy and trade which could then be used to “jam the GOP.”  

Going further, Stirewalt writes: “If Schumer really wanted to be in Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s head, the Democrat would be paying multiple visits to his fellow New Yorker at the White House.”

Yet, that isn’t happening because Schumer knows his party’s base “doesn’t even consider Trump the legitimate president, just as some Republicans, including Trump, felt about Obama.”  

Stirewalt concludes by opining that: “If Perez wins this weekend, his task of leading a political party, not a resistance, will be daunting to say the least. It would be easier for him than it is for Schumer since the party isn’t concerned with policy so much as fundraising and organizing.”

And in that last sentence, Stirewalt defined the Democrat problem precisely whereas the party has no tangible platform whatsoever. Its entire strategy is to couple with the MSM in an attempt to destroy the POTUS and his agenda in any way, manner or form conceivable. 

However, by taking that road they’ve left themselves exposed to a fundamental factor that will likely prove insurmountable. Because its very hard, if not impossible, to sway satisfied users away from something that’s not only delivered as promised, but works the way its supposed to as well.

That's it for today folks. 

Adios