There are a lot of people beating their breasts over Ted Cruz use of NY Values spinning it to pretend it means something other than ultra liberalism to those people I have a question.

If New York is not Ultra Liberal why did Ultra Liberal Hillary Clinton choose that state to run for the Senate in vs say Kentucky or Montana or Indiana?

Take your time.

 

I think Ted set a trap for Donald Trump and he walked right into it and while he won the sound bite it’s going to cost him in a lot of primaries down the road.

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2016 is $22,000 That’s $62 a day

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

Today’s alarmist top story at Drudge:

By month’s end, Wal-Mart will close 259 stores, of which 154 are in the U.S. (emphasis added),

Of the closures announced Friday, 154 locations will be in the U.S., including the company’s 102 smallest-format stores called Wal-Mart Express, which were opened as a test in 2011.Wal-Mart Express marked the retailer’s first entry into the convenience store arena. The stores are about 12,000 square feet and sell essentials like toothpaste. But the concept never caught on as the stores served the same purpose as Wal-Mart’s larger Neighborhood Markets: fill-in trips and prescription pickups.

Also covered in the closures are 23 Neighborhood Markets, 12 supercenters, seven stores in Puerto Rico, six discount stores and four Sam’s Clubs.

Wal-Mart will now focus in the U.S. on supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, the e-commerce business and pickup services for shoppers.

Some may call it creative destruction,

Creative destruction refers to the incessant product and process innovation mechanism by which new production units replace outdated ones. It was coined by Joseph Schumpeter (1942), who considered it ‘the essential fact about capitalism’.

Schumpeter derived the idea from Karl Marx, and the concept was brought up to exhaustion during the dotcom bubble, but Wal-Mart is not engaging in creative destruction. It is simply keeping its current business viable. The Wal-Mart Express experiment failed, and it makes no sense to extend it.

Despite Drudge’s highly alarmist “RETAIL COLLAPSE” headline, Wal-Mart is doing the right thing: by responding to market conditions, closing non-profitable stores, and focusing on the more viable “supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, the e-commerce business and pickup services for shoppers” trend, it can remain in business.

What about the people laid off? The Wal-Mart press release explains,

In total, approximately 16,000 associates will be impacted by the decision, about 10,000 of them in the U.S. More than 95 percent of the closed stores in the U.S. are within 10 miles on average of another Walmart, and the hope is that these associates will be placed in nearby locations. Where that isn’t possible, the company will provide 60 days of pay and, if eligible, severance, as well as resume and interview skills training. Whether with Walmart or elsewhere, the company’s objective is to help all associates find their next job opportunity.

Keep in mind also that (emphasis added),

Even as Walmart plans to close hundreds of locations, it also intends to open more than 300 stores in the next year, including 50 to 60 supercenters in the United States and 85 to 95 Neighborhood Markets. The stores that are to be shuttered are ones that the retailer says account for less than 1 percent of global revenue.

In brief: close 259 stores, open 300.

I realize that, when it comes to headlines, “when it bleeds, it leads.” But calling this Wal-Mart story a “RETAIL COLLAPSE” would put Chicken Little to shame.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

I had to laugh when I saw this piece at the Hill where John Podesta was so worried about this answer to a Town Hall question by Bernie Sanders:

“But I hope he’s not thinking about going there, because, again, I think what Trump has done to go in the gutter is reprehensible,” the Clinton campaign chairman added.

Sanders fielded a question late Friday at a town hall in Iowa about Bill Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

“Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. What Bill Clinton did, I think we can all acknowledge was totally, totally, totally disgraceful and unacceptable. But I am running against Hillary Clinton. I am not running against Bill Clinton,” Sanders told the questioner, according to The Washington Post.

Podesta’s warnings to Sanders are laughable as he has as much chance of costing Bernie his seat in VT as I have of being named Secretary of Time Travel in a Ted Cruz administration but more importantly it combined with these little Riffs on Morning Joe crystallizes the problem for a certain group of Democrats and media folks of a particular age.

During the Clinton impeachment hearings Democrat pols and the media that serves them knew what Bill Clinton was and what he had done, they had a choice:  They could back him up, despite the facts OR they could pressure him to resign and be replaced by Al Gore.

They choose the former.

Perhaps because the rest of their caucus couldn’t stand the scrutiny (think Ted Kennedy).  Perhaps because they thought it would lead to a GOP victory a la 1976 or perhaps they decided they didn’t want to risk emboldening a GOP that had only just won the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

But whatever the reason they not only stuck with Bill Clinton  defending him en masse but for 15 years afterwards proceeded to pretend that nothing had happened acting as if, at worst Bill Clinton was the victim of a partisan witch hunt.

Thanks to Donald Trump and Bill Cosby that position is no longer tenable so plan B has become to acknowledge that what Bill Clinton did was wrong (How many times can Harold Ford say “I’m not defending” ) while maintaining that bringing it up in the context of Hillary is beyond the pale.

In other words: talking about what Bill Clinton did to women is,  in his and people like Donna Brazile’s eyes,  far worse than what he actually did to women.

This reaction is of course completely understandable because if one does not have this reaction it begs the question that nobody in the MSM wants to ask or be asked:

If what Bill Clinton did to women was “disgraceful” and “unacceptable” then why did the media elites and Democrat pols not only defend him at the time but spend that last 15 years treating the ex president as if he had never done a wrong thing?

I submit and suggest that people from Podesta, to Andrea Mitchell to Harold Ford and many others all know the answer to that question, which is why they can’t bear to have it asked.