BloggeRhythms

Results from the recent elections are now being carefully analyzed. Studies show that voter negativity regarding the incumbent president, and his entire party, arose from not only dissatisfaction with policy and performance, but was also a rejection of smugly delivered arrogance and heavy-handedness. 

 

In that regard, an article by Patrick Howley, in the The Daily Caller via Fox News.com displays a degree of assumed intellectual superiority that’s almost unbelievable. 

 

“ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting ObamaCare passed, and that it was written in such a way as to take advantage of "the stupidity of the American voter."

 

Gruber’s an MIT professor who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during ObamaCare’s design. He made clear that the individual mandate -which was only upheld by the Supreme Court because it was a tax- was not actually a tax.

 

Gruber said specifically, “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

 

Therefore, by acknowledging that, if “you made explicit [that] healthy people pay in and sick people get money,” it would not have passed, Gruber’s conceding that as a law, the bill would never have even gotten through Congress. Which means that by pushing the legislation as a tax, the administration took the incredibly overbearing position that their judgment and beliefs held precedent over those of elected representatives and the general public itself.

 

Which leads to the question today for Mr. Gruber, which is: Now that the election’s over and the Democrat party’s gone down in the biggest landslide in recent American history, how’s your divine wisdom working out for you and your cronies now?

 

Along the same lines, Ruby Cramer writes in buzzfeed.com about the cost of having the Clinton’s campaign for Democrat candidates.

 

At present, $699,000 is “the first comprehensive estimate that establishes the scope of the costs associated with using the Clintons as surrogates. By the time the rest of the filings come in, the number will likely exceed $1 million.”

 

Although the Clintons “couldn’t have paid for their own flights,“ because “legally, candidates are required to pay for surrogate travel or report the costs as an in-kind contribution,” those same candidates willingly invited the Clinton's to come, costing those candidates dearly.

 

Which leads to the very same question to the candidates that got drubbed as the one regarding Mr. Gruber above: “Now that the election’s over and the Democrat party’s gone down in the biggest landslide in recent American history, how’s your divine wisdom working out for you and your cronies now?”

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

While not a major Rick Perry fan, he certainly deserves credit for his recent observation regarding basic qualifications required for serving as POTUS. 

 

Adelle Nazarian of breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014 titled an article today: ‘'Rick Perry: America's Next President Will Not Be a Senator.”

 

Ms Nazarian then writes about Governor Perry’s speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of Reagan's famous "A Time For Choosing" speech. Where, “Among his scalding criticisms of Obama, Perry explained the president's failings as due to his background as a U.S. senator – something that happens to apply to several of his would-be challengers for the GOP presidential nomination.”

 

Then the governor went on to sum up in one short paragraph, the singularly most important point about the need for practical experience and administrative competence required by the greatest managerial task in the world today, as follows:

 

"If you're in the Senate or if you're in the House, you can give a speech and then go home. Governors can't. We have to govern," Perry said, adding, "And the president of the United States, historically, has had to operate that way, too; the ones that were successful. And one of the reasons why this President is not successful is because he's never had that experience."

 

What’s most profound regarding the governor's comments is that they aren’t just words and thoughts delivered in a politically motivated speech. Instead they simply reflect the truth which is clearly verified by the current condition of the United States.

 

Many reader’s comments followed the article, two of which reflected the thoughts and conclusions of a host of very intelligent and well-informed readers on both sides of the argument.

 

BigR2 wrote: “Ted Cruz took on the UN and won. A murderous Mexican Illegal was to be freed and returned to Mexico. It went all the way to the UN and the UN caved. A big man in almost any book.”

 

bubba_shawn2 replied, “So what. Look, I admire Senator Cruz. But he is no leader and has no leadership experience. Giving great speeches is not enough accomplishment - period!”

 

And that pretty much sums it up.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Today, Republicans have further reasons to anticipate continuing success on retaining, or increasing, future electoral victories. Because it seems Democrat leaders are going to help them considerably.  

 

Fox News.com reports that, “Democrats are planning an extensive review of what went wrong in the 2014 and 2010 elections, hoping to find ways to translate success in presidential campaigns into future midterm contests.”

 

Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz,  who leads the Democratic National Committee said, "It's apparent that there are increasingly two separate electorates: a midterm electorate and a presidential electorate. We win one and we don't seem to be able to win the other. That is a fundamental dynamic that we have to change."

 

She then continued, "Our party has a problem. We know we're right on the issues. The American people believe in the causes we're fighting for. But the electoral success we have when our presidential nominee is able to make a case to the country as a whole, doesn't translate in other elections. That's why we lost in 2010, and it's why we lost on Tuesday."

 

Therefore, after losing a Congressional election in a landslide, along with several governorships, primarily because her own Democrat base refused to go the polls because they’re fed up with the party’s performance and platform, Ms Schultz still thinks their leadership’s correct on the issues. Which means that stubbornness and arrogance outweigh simple logic and common sense.

 

Additionally, it might do her well to consider the fact that had the incumbent president been on a ballot himself, the Deemocrat losses in votes would likely have been far worse. 

 

Consequently, as written at the start today, thanks to Ms Schultz and her committee members, Republicans nationwide are having their electioneering jobs made far easier, whereas their Democrat rivals are evidently devoted to beating themselves at the polls in the future.

 

On a similar subject, it might do Ms Schultz well to suggest that someone in the White House get Secretary of State, John Kerry, a muzzle.     

 

According to theblaze.com/blog/2014, “Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday said the U.S. and China must work together to address a range of global security concerns, and put climate change at the top of his list, above other issues such as nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

 

“As China pursues interests well beyond the Asia Pacific, there is both opportunity and necessity to coordinate our efforts to address global security concerns,” he said in a speech in Washington before an international trip that would take him to Beijing.

 

“Our shared efforts to respond to the global threat of climate change are a perfect example,” he said. Kerry said the United Nations’ recent report on climate change should be a “wake up call to everybody.”

 

“The science could not be clearer,” he said. “Our planet is warming and it is warming due to our actions.”

 

Now, at the same time that the Secretary was making his plea to the Chinese, elevating global-warming to a threat status higher than either “nuclear proliferation and terrorism,” an AccuWeather.com article appeared with the title: “Arctic Blast via Polar Vortex to Chill 42 US States.”

 

The text explained that, “As the polar vortex gets displaced to the south, the door will open for arctic air to plunge over the most of the United States as the new week progresses.”

 

Senior Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski said, ”The polar vortex is a large pocket of very cold air, typically the coldest air in the Northern Hemisphere, which sits over the polar region. Occasionally, this pocket of very cold air can get dislodged farther south than normal, leading to cold outbreaks in Canada and the U.S."

 

Consequently, while the Secretary purported his grave climate concerns, Mother Nature, as usual, had other ideas. And in this particular case, the polar vortex shift has been anticipated because it has occurred many times throughout history.

 

In that regard, “Meteorologist Matt Noyes tweeted that the polar vortex itself has been around for more than a billion years.

 

So, while it’s very apparent that the current administration isn’t very good at practically everything it attempts, from managing the US economy, to handling foreign affairs, to overseeing health care or controlling Illegal immigration, it appears they’ve really taken on another issue where they have no practical knowledge or shred of competence. 

 

Because all one has to do is pick up the Farmer’s Almanac, or open a window, to learn that the globe is about to face one of the coldest winters in recorded history.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Observing the results of Tuesday’s elections, what’s beginning to take hold are the turnabouts that took place. Many of which will have huge future significance.

 

Yesterday, Friday, Rush provided his perspective on a subject covered here on the day before. The incumbent president’s apparent disregard for the rejection of his policy’s evidenced by the Republican landslide wins across the country.

 

Rush specifically addressed a Peggy Noonan piece in the Wall Street Journal in which she wrote: "It is confounding -- not surprising but stunning, unhelpful and ill-judged -- that the president is instead going for antagonism, combat and fruitless friction."

 

Rush responded: “What she is reacting to here is Obama not understanding that he got skunked in this election. She doesn't understand why Obama is going to continue to antagonize, why he wants to stay combative, and why he wants to cause this fruitless friction. She's wondering why can't Obama understand that he lost, take the meaning that he lost and start working with the Republicans to make a wonderful, beautiful Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood country.”

 

Then Rush explained the incumbent’s reaction this way: “He's an angry man. He's not cool. He's not calm. He's not collected. He's a narcissist. He's a community organizer, and what do they do? They agitate. By definition, that's all they do. He's not gonna slink away. He's not gonna admit defeat. Did you hear what he said in the press conference? "I'm gonna listen to the two-thirds that didn't vote." Hey, Mr. President, the two-thirds that didn't vote are the ones that walked out on you in all of your campaign appearances the last two weeks before the election. (imitating Obama) "I don't care. I'm gonna focus on the two-thirds that didn't vote. Those people are so disenfranchised, so upset, that's what I'm gonna do."

 

And in that explanation, Rush underlined my point made Wednesday, which was that those who stayed home certainly did vote. Although they didn’t go to the polls, they certainly understood what their absence was going to cost in lost support for Democrat candidates at every level, which in turn, was a direct refutation of the incumbent’s philosophies, beliefs and positions.

 

Further evidence of the incumbent’s actions proving that he hasn’t risen above the level of community organizer, certainly not becoming in any way a mature, competent, leader and/or statesman, is found in an item from pjmedia.com/tatler/2014 via Drudge, as follows:

 

Over a year ago, “On October 17, 2013, President Obama said: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”

 

However, “Obama’s threat to carry out a unilateral amnesty for millions of illegal aliens threatens the system that he claimed to defend just over a year ago. And he is well aware of that.”

 

Therefore, what the incumbent’s current actions demonstrate is that all the verbiage and rhetoric delivered almost daily for the past six years has no real value. Whereas he rarely, if ever, stays true to his word. But the most significant aspect of Tuesday’s election results is that now the majority of voters, even those of his own state, county and party, is unequivocally aware of his professional immaturity, anger and narcism, proving it with either their votes or refusal to go to the polls in support of him.

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

Among the many surprises arising from Tuesday’s election results, a few directly illustrate that the administration’s manipulation of data and alteration of facts not only didn’t help them a bit, but came back to harm them considerably at the polls.

 

When they needed clear information for their own benefit and use, to determine how and what to do to increase their chances of election wins, it seems they too were mislead by the data gathered whereas in many cases it was totally false or completely inaccurate.

 

In that regard, yesterday Stephen Moore, Chief Economist at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative research and educational institute (aka “think tank”) appeared in an interview on the Fox Business Channel.

 

His comments drew interest because while talking about the status of US employment, which appears to be steadily growing, he interrupted his own answer to note that he could no longer trust the reported figures. Since the administration had changed the criteria in the calculation,  long-term unemployed were no longer included in the results.

 

Mr. Moore went on to state that since his job is to provide his own organization, as well as those relying on it, with accurate information he now has to use other means and additional formulations to try and determine the truth.

 

His perspective made perfect sense, because in gathering information for the daily entry’s made here, very similar steps are taken. On the subject of unemployment alone, on numerous occasions the points been made that while the administration sought to present a far better picture than the reality, those without jobs or had their hours slashed weren’t fooled and, obviously, made sure that they voted Republican.

 

But in the end, as ought to have been expected had Democrats used their heads, they painted a picture that was so far from the truth about how good things were that they made the fatal mistake of believing their own BS.

 

And therefore, along with the incumbent president, they paid for it with the biggest Congressional losses in a midterm election ever recorded. Which they may not even be able to recover from if they don’t come up with a presidential candidate better than the recycled Bill Clinton’s wife.

 

Because, in her case it wasn't doctored polls or misrepresentation of facts and statistics that were foisted on the voting public. The actual election results show that every candidate supported or endorsed by, or having anything at all to do with either Clinton at all were soundly defeated across the nation, including Arkansas.    

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

In a lackluster meeting with the press yesterday afternoon, the incumbent president offered his explanation of the Republican landslide giving them absolute control of Congress. The problem. he said, was that most of the usually reliable Democrat base chose not to vote. Therefore, to him, it wasn’t really a meaningful win because only a third of qualified voters participated, nullifying the importance of the results.

 

While his delivery of his opinion seemed quite glib and the vote results of little interest to him, he disregarded the implications clearly made by the elections outcome which are directly in conflict with his verbiage.

 

Although Democrats invested millions of dollars in an expansive effort to persuade young and nonwhite voters, who do not usually participate in midterm elections, to head to the polls they still didn’t show up in sufficient numbers. There’s no question turnout among core Democratic groups was lower in 2014 than it was in 2012 or even 2010. Furthermore, Democrats also lost in states where turnout surpassed 2010, “according to an Upshot analysis of preliminary returns and voter turnout data.”

 

And that brings me to today’s point, which is that the decision not to vote is an expression of preference too. Because, when these same Democrats were inspired by the incumbent’s words, promises and rhetoric, they arrived at the polls in droves. They swept him into office twice, delivering the Senate too both times.

 

However, things have changed in those same voters minds, whereas most of the promises made to them haven’t really materialized as presented. And therefore, not only didn’t disappointed Democrats flock to the polls, they stayed home holding their noses. Yet they clearly understood that by doing that, the despised Republicans were getting a boost toward the record wins they accomplished.

 

A couple of other items turned out to be quite interesting as well. It’s estimated that California hedge fund titan Tom Steyer’s invested $74-million of his own, trying to persuade voters to select global-warming advocates in congressional elections. However, not only didn’t the money help, one of the first agenda item’s for new Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell is approval for completing the Keystone XL pipeline.   

 

Outgoing Majority Leader, Harry Reid, got some very bad blowback too. Because he changed the rules that allowed the minority party to require 60 votes to confirm nominees in order to make it harder for Republicans. But now that they have control, the rules would help them put ‘committed constitutionalists’ on the bench if the White House changes hands in 2016.

 

That’s why Art Carney on the old Jackie Gleason show, when playing Ed Norton who worked in a city sewer, always said that you should always be nice to the people you meet on the way down, because they’re same one’s you’ll meet on the way up.

 

That's it for today folks.

 

Adios

BloggeRhythms

As one who’s expected and been writing about the eventuality of the outcome for four years now, there’s no need for a long dissertation on yesterday's election results. The votes have now been counted for the most part, with two major conclusions vividly obvious.

 

The final tallies show that the mid-term election was indeed a referendum on the incumbent president whose policies, platforms and ideology were clearly and resoundingly rejected. Republicans now have a Senate majority of seven seats, which may grow to nine after runoffs are conducted next month.

 

As far as the House is concerned, Republicans attained the highest number of seats since World War ll, another conformation of almost total dissatisfaction in the nation of the current administration’s beliefs and performance.

 

In attempts to defend the Democrat party itself, many of the faithful are already working diligently, placing blame for their losses on the incumbent’s shoulders only. Saying that the vote wasn’t about their overall performance, but instead a show of rejection only of POTUS. However, that premise isn’t accurate either, because a slew of gubernatorial contests went to Republican candidates too.

 

Not only do Republicans now have 31 governorships in total, they won in states won overwhelmingly by Democrats in 2012, including the strongholds in Maryland and Massachusetts along with the incumbent’s own adopted state of Illinois.

 

Furthermore, in addition to the resounding humiliation of the numerous Democrat defeats for the present, Bill Clinton and his wife were soundly rejected as well. Not only was every state lost where one or the other, or both, campaigned for contestants, in Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton was elected Senator while Republicans now have every congressional seat in the state for the first time in 141 years.

 

So, it’s now up to the Republican winners to prove they’re worthy of the contests won. But, if they can actually deliver on even half of their goals, such as full employment, true economic recovery, energy independence, undoing the health care tax, curtailing illegal immigration and establishing border security, the presidency becomes far more plausible, perhaps even probable in 2016. 

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios