BloggeRhythms

Yesterday, Utah GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz announced his bid to become the next House speaker, challenging Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. And, unless other candidate’s join the contest, the  House certainly ought to elect Chaffetz to the post, regardless.

 

That’s because McCarthy made a huge mistake in his making the Benghazi committee appear to be a political tool specifically designed to attack Bill Clinton’s wife. And by giving her that ammunition, he’ll likely never get out from under her continual use of his gaffe to her advantage, and ultimately, her defense in the matter.  

 

In that regard, Bill’s wife has already begun. In an interview today with the Today show’s Savannah Guthrie, Bill’s wife said: “This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan, political issue out of the deaths of four Americans. I would have never done that! And if I were president — and there were Republicans or Democrats who were thinking about that — I would have done everything to shut it down.”

 

Therefore, McCarthy’s made the kind of mistake you’d expect from Joe Biden, but not a  Republican Speaker of the House.

 

On another issue, an article by Reuter’s Michelle Conlin, via yahoo.com, seems to help justify what was written here yesterday regarding the unreliability of political polls at present.

 

Ms Conlin writes: “Carly Fiorina has emerged as the Republican candidate of the moment in conservative fundraising circles, drawing the notice of the billionaire Koch brothers and other wealthy donors who could instantly remake her shoestring presidential campaign.

 

“Fiorina's show-stealing performance in a Republican presidential debate last month, and her subsequent surge in the polls, has prompted industrialists Charles and David Koch to take a “serious look” at the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, according to three sources close to the brothers.”

 

While Ms Fiorina  has now moved to the short list of candidates the Kochs may support with their reported $1 billion war chest, Marco Rubio is also among those on the coveted list.

 

At the same time, “Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens hosted a packed luncheon at a posh Dallas venue for Fiorina in late September, while venture capitalist Tom Perkins is planning a fundraising gala in California in the next few months.

 

Perkins, who served on the HP  board during Fiorina's tenure, said: “My money is on her. I think she could be president.”

 

On the other hand, however, following an article about Ms Fiorina on Fox, reader c2323257 commented, “I wish I could take credit for this one, but: "If Carly Fiorina wants to shut down Planned Parenthood, she should just become its CEO."

 

And then, Adam Kredo @freebeacon.com, wrote about the current state of events in Iran, where: “A senior Iranian military leader warned this weekend that “all U.S. military bases in the Middle East are within the range of” Iran’s missiles and emphasized that the Islamic Republic will continue to break international bans on the construction of ballistic missiles.

 

“Much of this missile work, like the details of Iran’s advanced arsenal, remains secret, according to Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force.

 

“The threats of attack on the United States were issued as Iran unveiled new high-tech torpedoes and the formation of a joint war room along with Russia, Syria, and Iraq.”

 

Yet, for the POTUS and his administration, the push toward the nuclear deal keeps moving forward, which as frequently mentioned here, leads to the question of what his real goal is.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

As already mentioned above, and confirmed by an article by Colin Campbell @businessinsider.com, “Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unloaded on Congress' Benghazi investigation during a Monday morning interview on the "Today" show.

 

“A visibly angry Clinton tore into the Republican-led Select Committee on Benghazi when she was asked how she would react to hypothetical GOP leaders facing scrutiny over their own government email use.”

 

What’s most interesting about this article isn’t just the subject, but the substance of the comments that follow, where all 165 of those responding to then were negative toward Bill’s wife, which provides a story of its own.

 

It also leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Several interesting items today, providing insight into the Republican presidential campaign, gun-control and the rising popularity of Bernie Sanders.

 

Jeb Bush got some press for once, suggesting on Thursday that more regulation is not always the correct response to a crisis.

 

Finally using his experience to his advantage, Bush commented on gun control: “I don't think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I had this challenge as governor, because, look, stuff happens, there's always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something. And it's not necessarily the right thing to do."

 

Democrats stayed true to their style. Instead of addressing the issue directly, they attacked Bush's vernacular, saying that by remarking that “stuff happens” suggested he was dismissive or perhaps insensitive over the tragedy.

 

On Friday, Obama was also asked about Bush’s comment and responded, “I don't even think I have to react to that one.” And that’s probably because, by being perfunctory and dismissive himself, he avoided further questioning on the topic. 

 

However, he did add that, “I think the American people should hear that and make their own judgments, based on the fact that every couple of months, we have a mass shooting, and in terms of -- and they can decide whether they consider that ‘stuff happening.’”

 

In that regard, the American people already do what he’s suggesting. Which is why membership in the NRA keeps growing, while politicians favoring gun control don’t get elected in most states.

 

Then, once again, readers comments expressed extremely valid points.

 

mesamax wrote: “When Cecil the lion was killed everyone blamed the dentist who shot him. The anti-gun crowd said that he aimed his gun at his target, and then killed his target.     Nobody blamed the gun.     They blamed the man.

 

When some nutcase, like the one in Oregon, kills people the anti-gun crowd says that he aimed his gun at his target, and then killed his target.      Nobody blamed the man,     They blamed the gun. 

 

So which is it?    The man or the gun? 

 

detroitguy added: “@mesamax You are expecting consistency when the objective is to use events to suit a predetermined political purpose.”

 

On another topic, the answer to the Trump phenomenon may lie in one of the most relevant articles regarding the value of presidential polls. The reason so many other Republicans still choose to stay in the race may be found here, as well.

 

Steven Yaccino, Robert Hutton and Margaret Talev @bloomberg.com, headlined their column today: “Flaws in Polling Data Exposed as U.S. Campaign Season Heats Up”

 

Presently, there’s a growing realization that a significant percentage of poll results are incorrect, and can no longer be relied upon. That’s because growing numbers of people don’t answer landlines today, while pollsters calling mobile devices is illegal. That means only certain groups of people still consistently answer ringing phones:  older citizens and the very young. As a result, pollsters are now forced to offset the lack of sufficient responders with computerized models that have been consistently wrong in recent years.  

 

According to the article’s authors: “The problem stems from a number of causes but begins with a fundamental shift in the public’s relationship with the telephone. For decades, the vast majority of people had landlines that they answered faithfully and, when asked to take part in surveys, mostly did so. Today, home landlines are dying and, when asked over mobile phones to answer questions, a big majority declines.” 

 

Charles Franklin, director of Marquette University’s survey operation, explained that: “Telemarketing, from a pollster’s point of view, poisoned the well. Then came answering machines and caller ID. Most of the time, you never get a human to pick up now."

 

Compounding the problem: “To save money, more polling is done using robocalls, Internet-based surveys, and other non-standard methods. Such alternatives may prove useful but they come with real risks. Robocalls, for example, are forbidden by law from dialing mobile phones. Online polling may oversample young people or Democratic Party voters. While such methods don’t necessarily produce inaccurate results, Franklin and others note, their newness makes it harder to predict reliability.” 

 

Much like the mistaken information amassed from computer models that present totally incorrect, slanted, results for calculating “global-warming,” as response rates have declined, the need to rely on risky mathematical maneuvers has increased. 

 

As a result: “To compensate for under-represented groups, like younger voters, some pollsters adjust their results to better reflect the population -- or their assessment of who will vote. Different firms have different models that factor in things like voter age, education, income, and historical election data to make up for the all the voters they couldn’t query.” 

 

That leads to the question: Are the polls correct? Hardly a new question, “doubts are intensifying after a series of high-profile misfires around the world in the past year. Polling in the U.K. in May suggested that Prime Minister David Cameron faced a serious risk of being ousted. His decisive victory led the British Polling Council to launch an inquiry. And in March, polls made it seem that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was at risk of losing his job. He won handily.”

 

In the U.S. in 2012, pollsters for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney didn’t believe minorities would turn out for the re-election as they had in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected. They were mistaken. Polls in the 2014 midterm elections that cost Democrats control of the Senate under-predicted how well Republicans would do. In most cases, polls did suggest thin Republican victories but in some states, including North Carolina and Alaska, the polling was flat-out wrong.”

 

Therefore, while there doesn’t seem to be an answer at present to determining valid voter preferences, polling’s unreliability certainly explains why so many candidates in both major parties are still hanging in there. Especially since basic logic dictates that front-runners like Trump and Bill Clinton’s wife, are likely unelectable regardless of what any poll indicates. 

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

 

Kristinn Taylor @thegatewaypundit.com, reports that: “Well over 20,000 people turned out for a campaign rally Saturday evening by independent socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who is running for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

 

"Locals reports state the crowd inside the Boston Convention Center was around 20,000 with several thousand in an overflow room and thousands more outside who couldn’t get in but hoped for an appearance by Sanders–a hope Sanders later fulfilled.”

 

At the same time, “In contrast, Sanders’ chief rival Hillary Clinton is having trouble filling community college gymnasiums, as evidenced from an appearance in Davie, Florida on Friday.”

 

In this case, regardless of Sander’s audience attraction combined with the sinking popularity of Bill’s wife, it’s highly doubtful an avowed socialist can win a national presidential election. Which means the ongoing question has to be asked again: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

It seems there are particular subjects the major media wishes to avoid. Or, on the other hand, perhaps even leading commentators haven’t grasped the underlying rationale for the administration's give-away nuclear deal with Iran.

 

Yesterday, on foxnews.com, commentator Charles Krauthammer said that “when it comes to Syria, Obama is “acting like a faculty club liberal living in a fantasy world,” reacting to the president’s Friday afternoon news conference where Syria was a dominant topic.”

 

Krauthammer then opined that Vladimir Putin, “is the luckiest Russian ever to have drawn an opponent like Obama.” Adding that: The Russian president is “taking advantage” of Obama’s  response to the deteriorating situation in Syria, and will continue to do that for the next 16 months.” 

 

However, it was two readers who added their comments, explaining precisely what the POTUS’s true intentions are, as follows:

 

Reader sonar001 wrote: “Doesn't anyone understand?  Obama isn't incompetent.  This is exactly what he wants to happen and this is what he supports.  He wants to destroy Israel and supporting Iran is a mechanism toward that end.  Russia is another cog in the works toward the destruction of Israel.

 

Another, goldclaw added: “I think you nailed it!”

 

And both readers are precisely correct.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Colleen McCain Nelson and Peter Nicholas @wsj.com, note that: ”Some Hillary Clinton donors are defecting to Joe Biden, resisting entreaties from the Democratic front-runner’s campaign to stand by her despite slipping poll numbers."

 

While a few fundraisers have gone public on the subject, others have quietly signaled their intentions to the Draft Biden 2016 super PAC working to prod the vice president into the race for the White House.

 

For example: Bill Bartmann, founder and chief executive of CFS2 Inc., and onetime donor to a Clinton super PAC, said, “Instead of being ready for Hillary, we’re waiting for Joe.”

 

At the same time: “Noam Scheiber and Amy Chozick, @nytimes.com, titled their article yesterday: “Firefighters’ Union Backs Away From Endorsement of Hillary Clinton.”

 

The text says: “The International Association of Fire Fighters, one of the country’s more politically powerful unions, has abandoned its initial plans to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, according to union sources.”

 

In a telephone call, the union’s general president, Mr. Harold A. Schaitberger, told Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, that the executive board and rank-and-file members, according to a recent poll, did not support a Clinton endorsement.

 

Roy (Sandy) L. McGhee III,  an I.A.F.F. board member who represents Texas and Oklahoma explained that: “Secretary Clinton doesn’t sell well here. I think the Republican attack machine, the media machine, has made sure of that. The vice president will do better. He’s popular among firefighters.”

 

Yet, while story’s such as those above continue to appear in the media, other negative factors may be even worse for Bill’s wife. Because the POTUS himself may be now be beginning to hint that his own support is directed at someone else.  

 

Daniel Halper @weeklystandard.com/blogs notes that: “President Barack Obama talked about Hillary Clinton's recent disagreements with his Syria policy by saying "there's a difference between running for president and being president."

 

Obama covered his tail following the cheap shot by adding a left-hand bail-out, saying: "Hillary Clinton is not half-baked in terms of her approach to these problems--she was obviously my secretary of state," said Obama. "But I also think that there's a difference between running for president and being president."

 

All of which leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Even for one who works with words all day, it’s difficult to describe how bad things are going for the POTUS and his administration at present.

 

As an example, the middle of the following paragraph, taken from an article by Matthew Lee @myway.com, illustrates the quandary at the White House.

 

Mr. Lee writes: “Administration officials have alternately welcomed a Russian role, provided it is limited to fighting the Islamic State and al-Qaida affiliates, and denounced it as a tool to rescue Assad or a cynical attempt to boost Moscow's own military presence in the Mediterranean. U.S. officials acknowledge they really don't know what Russia's intentions are. But what is clear is that the Russians have inserted themselves into a conflict the U.S. would have preferred they stay out of.”

 

Thus, as far as foreign policy’s concerned, the summation is that after six years in office and all the time spent with Putin, the POTUS and those around him, “really don't know what Russia's intentions are.” 

 

On another subject, George E. Condon Jr. @.nationaljournal.com, wrote about Thursday's mass murder at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. The column is headed: “Facing Long Odds, an Angered Obama Vows Another Try on Gun Regulation.”

 

Mr. Condon writes: “He has tried be­fore to change gun laws and didn’t deny that he may fail in this latest bid to pass laws mak­ing mass shoot­ings less likely. But he made clear that this is a fight he is eager to wage in his re­main­ing 15 months in of­fice. It is a battle he enters with his eyes open, already an­ti­cip­at­ing the press re­leases, the calls for more cit­izens to be armed, the cri­ti­cism that he is some­how politi­ciz­ing something that should be kept out of polit­ics.”

 

In this case, instead of constantly battling against the NRA and gun owners nationwide, perhaps the POTUS should simply lead by example for once. All he has to do to demonstrate how much better off the nation would be without weapons, is give up his secret service protection and bodyguards. By leaving himself unarmed and unprotected in the same way he wants everyone else to be, it’s a certainty all gun owners would follow his example immediately.

 

Another depressing item concerns the stagnant U.S. economy, in which Susan Jones @cnsnews.com, explains that: “A record 94,610,000 Americans were not in the American labor force last month -- an increase of 579,000 from August -- and the labor force participation rate reached its lowest point in 38 years, with 62.4 percent of the U.S. population either holding a job or actively seeking one.”

 

However, there was more bad news to come whereas: “The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from a gain of 245,000 jobs to a gain of 223,000 jobs; and the change for August was revised from a gain of 173,000 jobs to a gain of only 136,000. With these revisions, employment gains in July and August combined were 59,000 less than previously reported.”

 

Thus, what’s reflected here is how the administration continually manipulates statistics, in order to present a much rosier picture than the actual results. Further manipulated by changing long–standing measurement formulas. Because although “the reported unemployment rate remained at 5.1 percent, where it was in August,” those leaving the job market after four weeks are no longer counted at all.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Peggy Noonan @wsj.com, wrote about comments made by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, presumed successor to Speaker John Boehner, putting McCarthy in negative light as she offered the following quote:

 

“What you’re gonna see is a conservative speaker that takes a conservative Congress that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee, what are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.”

 

In Ms. Noonan’s eyes, McCarthy’s motives regarding the Benghazi investigation were patently political, as demonstrated by her next paragraph in which she opined: “Oh dear. Many of us actually thought the Benghazi investigations were driven by a desire to get the facts of a tragedy in which four people died and the administration’s response veered from misleading to dishonest. Instead they’re driven by a merely partisan agenda?”

 

However, if you carefully read what McCarty said, he indeed confirmed that the investigation was instituted to determine the facts regarding Benghazi, while what was uncovered regarding Bill Clinton’s wife was part of the result.

 

So, what we have here is simply a politician doing a very poor job in trying to explain two separate occurrences, investigating Benghazi and then discovering Clinton’s role as a result, but doing a miserable presentation of what actually happened.

 

As far as Bill’s wife is concerned, she “responded with her own special brand of faux-sadness, telling Al Sharpton that Mr. McCarthy’s statement “dishonors” those who died. She’ll be throwing that in Republicans’ faces when she testifies Oct. 22.”

 

And this is another case where a response has nothing to do at all with the circumstances. Because, not only weren’t “those who died” dishonored, they weren’t even mentioned at all. Thus, this isn’t even double-talk, it’s flat out inconsequential gibberish that leads to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this?

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Although reading and digesting significant news every day, it’s still hard to fathom how far the nation has sunk in only seven years. A dedicated enemy couldn’t come close to the level of damage done to the nation’s economy by the current administration from within. 

 

However, while true unemployment still hovers around 10% and the nation's active workforce is at it's lowest since the 1970’s, foreign policy’s even worse because it apparently no longer exists at all. 

 

In a new development that Vladimir Putin wouldn’t have dreamt of attempting under any prior American POTUS, Russia’s begun an offensive in Syria in what’s being called a “threshold moment” that history will long record. The open aggression is likely to lead to Russia’s becoming the dominant force in the Middle-East, which along with Iran and Syria will establish a foothold never thought possible over the past fifty years. 

 

To put the situation in perspective, as reported @newsweek.com's Elliott Abrams on 9/22/15: “[Benjamin] Netanyahu may have thought that Russia was no worry, given simple geography and the fact that American foreign policy and military strength had kept the Russians out of the Middle East for a half century. But then along came Barack Obama, and now the Russians have made a major move in Syria. 

 

“The American reaction—thus far, one phone conversation by John Kerry and one by Ashton Carter—will not have deterred Putin, so Netanyahu on September 21 flew to Moscow to talk with the Russians.” 

 

Which all leads to a truly incredible course of events. Because, in their wildest dreams who would ever imagine that an Israeli head of state would call on a soviet president because he was unsure that his nation would get needed security assistance from the United States of America?

 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

 

As details of the email scandal unfold, there are news story's of every type and stripe across the media. Today, however, one stood out because it was quite brief, yet made a very significant point.

Shoshanna Weissmann writes @weeklystandard.com, that: “In a newly released Hillary Clinton email, Clinton jokes that the Chinese must have hacked her email. "Even weirder--I just checked and I do have your state but not your gmail--so how did that happen. Must be the Chinese!"

“To make matters even more hilarious, over the past few months, numerous questions have been raised about the security of her email system. As RB Pundit notes on Twitter, "Hillary Clinton joking about Chinese possibly hacking into email. Which they probably did." 

 

The most important point illustrated by the email above is that it clearly refutes the denials and excuses put forth for the last few months. Because it’s now obvious that Bill’s wife not only knew what she was doing all along, but certainly understood the risks involved and that she should not be doing it at all.  

As far as the emails themselves are concerned, the dozens in the latest release contain information now deemed classified by the State Department. Of the nearly 3,900 new emails, more than 200 have a ‘B1’ marking, meaning they contain classified information. Additionally, more than 100 were marked as ‘B5’ classification, which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch and are exempt from disclosure to Congress and the public.

What may turn out to be even more important though are two indicators of coming problems.

Fox News Chris Stirewalt notes that: “Top Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett ever-so-gently backed the bus over Hillary Clinton when asked at a think-tank chin wag whether the administration provided Clinton with instructions on email hygiene. “Yes, there were. Yeah, absolutely. … [T]here was guidance given that government business should be done on government emails, and that if you did use a private email, it should be turned over.”

Comments like Jarrett’s seem to be resonating with the public, which can be seen in other indicators of Bill’s wife’s favorability slippage, as follows also according to Fox. 

 

“Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders shows a surge in money in this quarter. Sanders’ camp reports totals exceeding $26 million, with around $25 million in ‘cash on hand,’ according to the NYT.

 

“Hardest hit was Hillary Clinton. Her campaign raised $28 million this fundraising quarter, a major drop from the record $47.5 million of last quarter. Her campaign explained to USA Today that donors aren’t as active in August with everyone taking the last of summer vacations.” 

 

For comparison purposes, what’s bound to be even more worrisome for Clinton is the news that Sanders has passed the 1 million donor mark in online donations; that’s faster than then-Obama in 2008, not reaching that number until the middle of primary season. 

 

All of which leads once again to the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

 

That’s it for today folks. 

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

While the story of top automaker Volkswagen’s problems continue to emerge, the cause of the company’s woes indicate that the situation may be only the tip of a worldwide iceberg for countless other manufacturers and other types of products. 

That’s because the issue stems from a business not being able to meet governement requirements far too stringent, costly, or both, which eventually caused them to either cheat or risk losing billions in sales.

As far as the details go, Andreas Cremer @reuters.com writes that; “Volkswagen said previously about 11 million vehicles were fitted with software capable of cheating emissions tests, including 5 million at its VW brand, 2.1 million at luxury brand Audi, 1.2 million at Skoda and 1.8 million light commercial vehicles.”

The company’s new chief executive, Matthias Mueller, said VW will tell customers they’ll need to have diesel vehicles with illegal software refitted, which some analysts have said could cost more than $6.5 billion. The company said last week it would set aside 6.5 billion euros ($7.3 billion) to help cover the cost of the crisis.

VW's 10.1 million vehicle sales for the year ranked second behind Toyota’s 10.23 million sold in 2014. Thus, for VW, the 11 million affected auto’s equate to more than last year’s total sales.

At the same time, each day brings additional news of how significantly the lowering price of oil is harming Russia, Iran, Middle-East cartels and even hostile South American nations. Which means that, if the U.S. did all it could to keep increasing production, open the Keystone pipeline, and sell oil at continually decreasing prices, within a reasonably short time major enemies would be substantially curtailed, if not economically crippled completely.  

However, not only won’t those in the totally misguided administration apply every day common sense to the nation's advantage, for political purposes they'll  sit back and watch as enemy’s gain in financial strength and major international manufacturer’s face collapse. All based on environmental projections that haven’t been correct for the past eighteen years, and surely won’t be for at least the next 10 years due to planetary cooling caused by the Polar Vortex.   

On another matter, Chris Stirewalt comes across as a pretty bright guy, and his daily column  @foxnews.com, usually contains some accurate and timely information. However today he wrote a paragraph that makes little sense at all. As follows:

Chris wrote: “No doubt (Rand) Paul has been hurt by the merciless taunts of Donald Trump, but frontrunners in 2008 and 2012 did the same to Paul’s dad and it didn’t seem to hurt him with core voters. It may have even helped him by calling attention.”

So, which point applies here? Because careful reading implies that taunting by front-running candidates is very harmful, except for when it helps.

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.  

 

According to WashEx via Chris Stirewalt: “Clinton Foundation officials courted a Russian billionaire to join a 2012 meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, seeking the advice of State Department staff about the invitation. The well-connected charity wanted to invite Viktor Vekselberg, founder of major Russian conglomerate Renova Group, to attend the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York City that year. Amitabh Desai, the foundation’s director of foreign policy, asked a top aide to Hillary Clinton if the State Department would be troubled by the invitation, according to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

“Vekselberg, a close friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been involved in multiple corruption investigations spawned from his far-reaching commercial activities in oil, aluminum and investments. Renova Group has donated as much as $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.”

So, here we have another case of Clinton coordinated extortion. Something that seems to arise on  a daily basis. In fact, it’s become so routine it’s becoming quite boring and therefore, has to be watched even closer. Because, if familiarity with the subject inures voters into becoming comfortable and complacent with that kind of behavior, it’s possible that some of them might even vote for Bill’s wife anyway.

Which leads to the continuing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios

BloggeRhythms

On a slow news day, came across an article @latimes.com by Joe Trippi. He’s the Democratic strategist and media consultant who ran Howard Dean's campaign for president and was a media advisor to Gov. Jerry Brown in 2010.

Mr. Trippi writes: “The pundits have it wrong. Unless or until Biden decides to run, Clinton doesn't face much of a challenge. And if Biden does run, Clinton is still going to be very tough to beat.”

While Mr. Trippi’s words denote confidence in his favorite presidential candidate, they’re remindful of someone mentioned here before in similar instances: Baghdad Bob, Sadam Hussein’s  Information Minister in Iraq.

Asked about America’s possible military action in Iraq, Bob said: “By God, I think this is rather very unlikely. This is merely a prattle. The fact is that as soon as they reach Baghdad gates, we will besiege them and slaughter them....Wherever they go they will find themselves encircled."

On another occasion he exclaimed: “There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"

And soon after that, he was picked up bodily by two U.S. soldiers and carried off his own live TV stage while still loudly proclaiming that Saddam’s forces were winning the war.

So, I guess it’s all a matter of how one interprets the facts of any given situation. 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.

According to Theodore Schleifer @cnn.com, “Former President Bill Clinton blamed Republicans who hope to undercut his wife’s presidential chances and a voracious political news media uninterested in substance for the furor surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of a private email account and server while she was secretary of state.

“I have never seen so much expended on so little,” Mr. Clinton said in a taped interview with Fareed Zakaria that is scheduled to be shown Sunday on CNN. The network released excerpts on Saturday afternoon. “

What’s most remarkable, however, is the approach the former president took, treating the gross mishandling of secure information regarding the nation’s State Department as if it was just a simple lapse of judgment.

Attempting to brush the issue off, Bill said: “She said she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion. And she’d like to give the election back to the American people. I think it will be all right. But it’s obvious what happened.”

Try as he may, though, voters apparently don’t agree with the former president as exhibited in a new Fox News poll showing: “Some 38 percent of voters view Clinton favorably, down from 45 percent in May.  The downward shift comes from the fact that half of women now rate her negatively.  Positive views among Democrats are also down since May (-11 points.)

“Overall, a record high 56 percent of voters now have an unfavorable opinion of Clinton.” 

 

While none of the people tested -- not the president, not the vice president and not the 2016 contenders -- garner positive ratings from at least 50 percent of the electorate, Vice President Joe Biden comes closest.  His favorability stands at 49 percent, up from 43 percent in March.

What’s also interesting is that the defense presented on his wife’s conduct in office came from a former president who was impeached for lying under oath to Congress. Which is like believing Obama’s promise that under his health care tax, you could your doctor if you wanted.

It also raises the daily question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you reading this? 

That’s it for today folks.

Adios