Thursday, September 26, 2019
BloggeRhythms
Yesterday’s entry sought to memorialize a significant, if not terminal, step by the Democrat party toward it’s self-destruction. Although the entry described the circumstances involved in the party’s demise, it stopped short of presenting the reasons for its current case of dissociative panic. Thus, it seems that some explanations ought be helpful.
Mr. Goodwin touched on the subject yesterday, writing: “In short, Pelosi just changed everything. The next election is now about impeachment.” The purpose was to present only the circumstance, not necessarily the discussion of the underlying cause. However, while the cause is actually quite simple it goes beyond today’s Democrat panic and applies to many, if not the majority, of Republicans as well.
Because, what the POTUS has made crystal clear from the start is the tremendous chasm between politicking and real-world performance.
For today’s politicians, particularly those on the left, it matters not whether campaign promises can ever be fulfilled. The sound of the magnitude of the benefits overrides any and all practical realities. For those on the left, rarely if ever has a promise been kept. Nonetheless, an occasional fiasco such as Obamacare does take shape, providing evidence that politics and reality are generally diametrically opposed.
Trump, on the other hand comes from a world where if one’s promises go unfulfilled the loss is immediate, perhaps professionally terminal and most often quickly satisfied by an alternative provider. Therefore, Trump and most other typical business types don’t waste their time, or that of others, rambling on about pie in the sky. Presenting instead solutions that they can readily deliver.
And that’s where the left is stymied whereas for them, campaigning is comprised of out-promising one another without an iota of consideration or care of eventual fulfillment.
While establishing a different point yesterday, Rush once again provided the wherewithal for the premise as he said: “[The left] can take out any Republican they want any day they choose to. But they haven’t been able to even dent Trump. Now, they’ve been able to put roadblocks in the way of his agenda, but he still gets up every day and he’s still tweeting and he’s still taking on the media and he’s not affected by what they’re doing. Most Republicans cower in fear and resign and beg to be ignored, promise to never do it again. Trump just keeps hitting back. They are literally stymied by their failure to get rid of the guy.
“They can’t believe that he won. They can’t believe that Hillary lost. They can’t believe that Mueller didn’t find something. They can’t believe they couldn’t prove collusion. They can’t believe Kavanaugh got confirmed. They can’t believe the unemployment numbers are as good as they are. They can’t believe the economy is roaring the way it is. They can’t believe that everything they are proposing is bombing. They cannot believe they haven’t been able to take out Trump.”
Bringing us back to today’s observation. While the left, and most other politicians, deploy all their efforts in seeking the verbiage that will insure their opponents demise a business-oriented producer like Trump simply dwells on continued deliverance of customer satisfaction.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
BloggeRhythms
Yesterday, Michael Goodwin once again has taken blockbuster news and put it into rational perspective in his article @nypost.com titled: “Pelosi’s impeachment flip-flop changes everything.”
The article focuses on the facts in the case, explaining potential ramifications for both sides involved. Yet, it occurred to this writer that there may be another objective altogether for Pelosi’s actions. Because it seems quite possible that she may now see an opportunity to quell, control or perhaps even eliminate the disastrous far left segment of her party.
Mr. Goodwin believes that “Because of what (Pelosi) she said and did, if the House doesn’t go all the way, it will be a political disaster. Either failing to take a vote on articles of impeachment, or failing to get enough votes among her majority to pass any articles, would be seen as a political exoneration for Trump, likely leading to his re-election.”
Furthermore, according to Mr. Goodwin: “they could win the battle and lose the war,“ because “no matter what the House does, there is a next-to-zero chance the GOP controlled Senate would convict the president absent clear and convincing “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
“Pelosi knew all that since January, when she became Speaker, which is why she kept resisting the impeachers. But her surrender proved again that her party can’t quit 2016. Like generals fighting the last war, she and they are now committed to taking their sore-loser grievances to 2020 voters. Yet she did something else, too, something far more monumental: She effectively committed House Dems to impeaching President Trump.
“Pelosi may think she went
only halfway Tuesday and could eventually back down on impeachment if the
Ukraine issue fizzles, but that’s wishful thinking. Anything less than a public
flogging of Trump will not satisfy the far left of her own party, including the
150 or so House members who already demanded impeachment before the Ukraine
issue appeared.”
Thus, Mr. Goodwin now
believes: “In short, Pelosi just changed everything. The next election is now
about impeachment.”
“Trump admits he asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, over whether the then-vice president took any action to protect his son from a corruption probe.
“Hunter Biden was being paid $50,000 a month by an energy company that was at one time the focus of a corruption inquiry. Reports have said Biden used his VP position to demand that the inquiry be dropped and the prosecutor involved fired, or America would withhold aid.
“Put it this way: Would Hunter Biden have gotten that job if his father were not vice president? Ditto for a sweetheart investment deal Hunter Biden got from the Chinese government. On at least one occasion, he reportedly flew with his father on Air Force Two to China to seal a lucrative agreement there.
“That doesn’t pass the smell test and Biden could get knocked down and even out as events unfold.
“Count that possibility as another sign that, based on what we know, Pelosi is making a high-risk, low-reward bet.”
Which brings us back to this writer’s quite strong suspicion that Pelosi, a consummate, seasoned well-attuned politician might very well see the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. First by “assisting” in the hard-core left faction of her party’s being weakened, discredited and defanged once again by the POTUS as she simultaneously stands by as a hapless front-runner (Biden) self destructs.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, July 18, 2019
BloggeRhythms
Two articles referenced today should provide increased confidence among Trump supporters, or anyone at all who has concerns regarding the “power” of the mainstream media to influence voters. Because in reality the MSM’s leftist influence is rapidly waning.
Timothy Meads headlined a column on Monday at townhall.com/tipsheet: “Matt Drudge's 'Future' Is Now Realized, And That Has Legacy Media Enraged.”
Meads goes on to explain that: “In 1998, Drudge gave a speech before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. in which he mapped out a future. He dreamed of a national press free of editors and beholden not to corporate masters but driven by the ever industrial spirit of the American citizen reporter.“ Drudge went on: “...clearly there is a hunger for unedited information, absent corporate considerations."
“In short, Drudge accurately predicted that the Internet would not kill media, but would make consuming news more popular than ever. The world wide web would make it easy for the average person to become a reporter. It would, however, change where and how Americans consumed their information.”
Meads closes by writing: “Now (today), there are hundreds of thousands of people just like Drudge who want to report the news. To be clear, there are certain growing pains with this development -- fake viral news for instance. Some of the folks invited to the social media summit have actually promoted lies and falsehoods, but then again so have the traditional White House outlets represented by legacy media. Even in this case, internet transparency has increased the ability of the populace to call out viral fake news rather than depending on the mainstream media to admit their mistakes.”
In case two today, Drudge’s contention regarding the general population’s access to factual information, regardless of the MSM’s attempts at distortion favorable to their cause can be seen today in an article receiving almost no coverage on a national basis.
According to Alex Moe and Jane C. Timm at nbcnews.com/politics: “The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.
“The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment. All Republicans joined with 137 Democrats and the lone independent, Justin Amash, to table the resolution.”
Nancy Pelosi, said that she does not support the resolution, and that "We have six committees working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the president may have engaged in," she said at a news conference. "That is the serious path we’re on — not that Mr. Green is not serious, but we'll deal with that on the floor."
However, after providing considerable more verbiage regarding the possibility of future House action against the POTUS, writers Moe and Timm finally arrive at a far more probable conclusion as they write: “More than 80 members of the House have called for opening an impeachment inquiry, but some Democratic leaders have resisted, fearing that it would distract from the party's policy agenda, could rally Trump's base, isn't popular with the public and is doomed to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.
“A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that enthusiasm for impeachment may be waning: The July survey found 21 percent of registered voters say that there is enough evidence for Congress to begin impeachment hearings now. In June, 27 percent in the poll the same thing, a 6-point drop in one month — though that survey was of Americans, not registered voters.”
All of which seems to indicate clearly that despite the MSM’s efforts to apply what was once was considerable influence over voters, in the real world today the POTUS doesn’t actually have very much to worry about regarding his job performance nor future reelection.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Timothy Meads headlined a column on Monday at townhall.com/tipsheet: “Matt Drudge's 'Future' Is Now Realized, And That Has Legacy Media Enraged.”
Meads goes on to explain that: “In 1998, Drudge gave a speech before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. in which he mapped out a future. He dreamed of a national press free of editors and beholden not to corporate masters but driven by the ever industrial spirit of the American citizen reporter.“ Drudge went on: “...clearly there is a hunger for unedited information, absent corporate considerations."
“In short, Drudge accurately predicted that the Internet would not kill media, but would make consuming news more popular than ever. The world wide web would make it easy for the average person to become a reporter. It would, however, change where and how Americans consumed their information.”
Meads closes by writing: “Now (today), there are hundreds of thousands of people just like Drudge who want to report the news. To be clear, there are certain growing pains with this development -- fake viral news for instance. Some of the folks invited to the social media summit have actually promoted lies and falsehoods, but then again so have the traditional White House outlets represented by legacy media. Even in this case, internet transparency has increased the ability of the populace to call out viral fake news rather than depending on the mainstream media to admit their mistakes.”
In case two today, Drudge’s contention regarding the general population’s access to factual information, regardless of the MSM’s attempts at distortion favorable to their cause can be seen today in an article receiving almost no coverage on a national basis.
According to Alex Moe and Jane C. Timm at nbcnews.com/politics: “The House voted on Wednesday to table a resolution from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, to impeach President Donald Trump over racist comments he made about four Democratic congresswomen of color, effectively killing the measure.
“The vote — 332 to 95, with one lawmaker voting "present" — marked the first time the Democratic-controlled chamber had weighed in on impeachment. All Republicans joined with 137 Democrats and the lone independent, Justin Amash, to table the resolution.”
Nancy Pelosi, said that she does not support the resolution, and that "We have six committees working on following the facts in terms of any abuse of power, obstruction of justice and the rest that the president may have engaged in," she said at a news conference. "That is the serious path we’re on — not that Mr. Green is not serious, but we'll deal with that on the floor."
However, after providing considerable more verbiage regarding the possibility of future House action against the POTUS, writers Moe and Timm finally arrive at a far more probable conclusion as they write: “More than 80 members of the House have called for opening an impeachment inquiry, but some Democratic leaders have resisted, fearing that it would distract from the party's policy agenda, could rally Trump's base, isn't popular with the public and is doomed to fail in the Republican-controlled Senate.
“A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that enthusiasm for impeachment may be waning: The July survey found 21 percent of registered voters say that there is enough evidence for Congress to begin impeachment hearings now. In June, 27 percent in the poll the same thing, a 6-point drop in one month — though that survey was of Americans, not registered voters.”
All of which seems to indicate clearly that despite the MSM’s efforts to apply what was once was considerable influence over voters, in the real world today the POTUS doesn’t actually have very much to worry about regarding his job performance nor future reelection.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
BloggeRhythms
Without much of great importance occurring in the news this morning, this entry was planned to be a refresher on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals published in 1971 by Random House.
According to Wikipedia the rules were originally intended to be employed by “a structured organization with a clearly defined goal that could take direct action against a common enemy.”
While the 13 “rules” were drawn from Mr. Alinsky’s personal experience as a community organizer, they've also been applied by national political figures. “The book was disseminated by the Tea Party conservative group FreedomWorks during Dick Armey's tenure as chairman. Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, and Barack Obama taught a course at the University of Chicago on how to organize communities using Saul Alinsky tactics.”
In addition to Clinton and Obama mentioned above, it now seems that Democrats in the House of Representatives are following along the same lines wherein just yesterday they apparently applied three of Alinsky’s 13 tactics.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
8 "Keep the pressure on."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
In that regard, Allan Smith, Alex Moe, Kasie Hunt and Leigh Ann Caldwell @nbcnews.com/politics headlined an article "House votes to condemn Trump 'racist comments,' with only four Republicans backing the measure."
“The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution on Tuesday night condemning President Donald Trump for his "racist comments" about four Democratic congresswomen of color.
“The resolution passed largely along party lines — 235 Democrats joined by only four Republican supported the measure — following hours of back-and-forth and gamesmanship between Republicans and Democrats, which included a GOP objection to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's remarks about Trump and whether she would be allowed to keep speaking on the floor.”
Pelosi said: "Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets. To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people. I urge a unanimous vote."
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., “asked Pelosi whether she would like to "rephrase her comment." House members are barred from making disparaging remarks about the president on the House floor, but the resolution was aimed at criticizing the president for comments directed at four congresswomen, who he said should "go back" where "they came" from.
“The proceedings were put on hold for over an hour as Collins' request was considered."
A short time later, “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland took the chair and announced that Pelosi's comments had been found "not in order." He then called a vote on whether the comments should be stricken from the record, and Democrats prevailed on a party-line vote, allowing Pelosi's remarks to stand after an almost two-hour delay.”
One of the four assenting Republicans, Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, used the opportunity to tweet: “There is no room in America for racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia and hate. I voted to condemn the President's tweets today but I hope that Speaker Pelosi also considers holding members of her own party accountable to the same degree to which she holds the President,"
Another representative, Justin Amash of Michigan, had announced his departure from the Republican Party earlier this month, also voted for the resolution.
Getting to the true crux of the matter, however, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “said in a news conference Tuesday morning that he did not believe Trump's tweets were racist.”
"I believe this is about ideology, this is about socialism versus freedom," McCarthy said, adding that the four congresswomen "talked more about impeachment than anything else" at a news conference Monday where they responded to the president.
"This is more from their base. It's about politics, and it's unfortunate," he said. "We should get back to the business of America."
And then we get to the real truth of what the POTUS actually said in his tweets
Trump tweeted Sunday that, instead of criticizing his government, the four congresswomen should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." Nowhere did he mention racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia or hate.
Then on Tuesday morning, Trump further tweeted that the four congresswomen "have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician in the House or Senate" and asked why the House wasn't "voting to rebuke the filthy and hate laced things they have said?"
Later, at a Cabinet meeting in the White House, the POTUS was asked where he thought the congresswomen should go. "It's up to them," he said. "Go wherever they want, or they can stay, but they should love our country. They shouldn't hate our country."
Asked Monday whether he was concerned that his comments were being called racist, the president said, "It doesn't concern me, because many people agree with me."
While the POTUS’s conclusion is very likely correct, the Democrat opposition keeps its pressure on despite having nothing more than politically motivated attempts to employ the POTUS’s own words against him regardless of accuracy of the context.
Bringing us back to Saul Alinsky’s rules, this time referring to #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Which certainly seems to be the case for Democrats who have no real platform to offer voters except spending virtually all of their time finding fault with the POTUS as he keeps turning the nation around for the better.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
According to Wikipedia the rules were originally intended to be employed by “a structured organization with a clearly defined goal that could take direct action against a common enemy.”
While the 13 “rules” were drawn from Mr. Alinsky’s personal experience as a community organizer, they've also been applied by national political figures. “The book was disseminated by the Tea Party conservative group FreedomWorks during Dick Armey's tenure as chairman. Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Saul Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, and Barack Obama taught a course at the University of Chicago on how to organize communities using Saul Alinsky tactics.”
In addition to Clinton and Obama mentioned above, it now seems that Democrats in the House of Representatives are following along the same lines wherein just yesterday they apparently applied three of Alinsky’s 13 tactics.
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
8 "Keep the pressure on."
13. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
In that regard, Allan Smith, Alex Moe, Kasie Hunt and Leigh Ann Caldwell @nbcnews.com/politics headlined an article "House votes to condemn Trump 'racist comments,' with only four Republicans backing the measure."
“The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution on Tuesday night condemning President Donald Trump for his "racist comments" about four Democratic congresswomen of color.
“The resolution passed largely along party lines — 235 Democrats joined by only four Republican supported the measure — following hours of back-and-forth and gamesmanship between Republicans and Democrats, which included a GOP objection to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's remarks about Trump and whether she would be allowed to keep speaking on the floor.”
Pelosi said: "Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president's racist tweets. To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people. I urge a unanimous vote."
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., “asked Pelosi whether she would like to "rephrase her comment." House members are barred from making disparaging remarks about the president on the House floor, but the resolution was aimed at criticizing the president for comments directed at four congresswomen, who he said should "go back" where "they came" from.
“The proceedings were put on hold for over an hour as Collins' request was considered."
A short time later, “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland took the chair and announced that Pelosi's comments had been found "not in order." He then called a vote on whether the comments should be stricken from the record, and Democrats prevailed on a party-line vote, allowing Pelosi's remarks to stand after an almost two-hour delay.”
One of the four assenting Republicans, Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, used the opportunity to tweet: “There is no room in America for racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia and hate. I voted to condemn the President's tweets today but I hope that Speaker Pelosi also considers holding members of her own party accountable to the same degree to which she holds the President,"
Another representative, Justin Amash of Michigan, had announced his departure from the Republican Party earlier this month, also voted for the resolution.
Getting to the true crux of the matter, however, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “said in a news conference Tuesday morning that he did not believe Trump's tweets were racist.”
"I believe this is about ideology, this is about socialism versus freedom," McCarthy said, adding that the four congresswomen "talked more about impeachment than anything else" at a news conference Monday where they responded to the president.
"This is more from their base. It's about politics, and it's unfortunate," he said. "We should get back to the business of America."
And then we get to the real truth of what the POTUS actually said in his tweets
Trump tweeted Sunday that, instead of criticizing his government, the four congresswomen should "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." Nowhere did he mention racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia or hate.
Then on Tuesday morning, Trump further tweeted that the four congresswomen "have been spewing some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting things ever said by a politician in the House or Senate" and asked why the House wasn't "voting to rebuke the filthy and hate laced things they have said?"
Later, at a Cabinet meeting in the White House, the POTUS was asked where he thought the congresswomen should go. "It's up to them," he said. "Go wherever they want, or they can stay, but they should love our country. They shouldn't hate our country."
Asked Monday whether he was concerned that his comments were being called racist, the president said, "It doesn't concern me, because many people agree with me."
While the POTUS’s conclusion is very likely correct, the Democrat opposition keeps its pressure on despite having nothing more than politically motivated attempts to employ the POTUS’s own words against him regardless of accuracy of the context.
Bringing us back to Saul Alinsky’s rules, this time referring to #7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Which certainly seems to be the case for Democrats who have no real platform to offer voters except spending virtually all of their time finding fault with the POTUS as he keeps turning the nation around for the better.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)