Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 04, 2015, 12:57:34 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85155 Posts in 2266 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2016 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 18248 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #150 on: December 25, 2014, 12:12:20 AM »

Crafty:
"I'm sure we here have noticed the dust up between Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio over Baraq's move with Cuba.  IMHO the implications run deep and go to the point I have been making here on this forum about the absence of a guiding paradigm for US foreign policy for several years now.

The implications for the 2016 race of the Paul-Rubio dust up are deep.

Does not Paul come closer to the current mood than Rubio?  Does he not score a telling point when he accuses Rubio of backing Hillary's policies with regard to Libya, the MB in Egypt and so forth?  The implications here for a Paul-Hillary match-up are quite intriguing.  Do any of us here want to follow Hillary in foreign affairs?  I surely would not want my son serving her in harm's way-- how can I ask such of others as she empathizes with evil-doers, and, with Huma Abedin at her elbow, supports the MB?  Do any of us trust any of the people under consideration to effectively act in the Middle East?

Pair this with Paul's clarion call against the Orwellian State that is taking form as we watch and for a return to the Rule of Law and Freem Inds and Free Markets, and we may see many assumptions about political coalitions shatter."
------------------------------

Very odd dust up indeed.  Too bad to see otherwise allies bloodying each other.  Paul called Rubio an isolationist.  An odd bit of flippant humor applied to a pretty serious situation.  Rubio is anything but isolationist. 

I agree that the current mood is tempted to follow the Rand Paul / Barack Obama foreign policy (as Rubio called it) which is a mix of a little talk with doing mostly nothing.  People seem to know this is not working, and current mood doesn't mean that the right answer.  That is why we hopefully have leaders.  What is happening around the world?  Russia-Ukraine, Iran going nuclear, North Korea running the US, China doing an accelerated build on their Navy and passing us economically, Europe imploding to Islamists, and worst of all I think, Islamic State is consolidating its gains by exterminating all opposition.  Cuba is harmless to us?  I don't think so.  No, it is a communist dictatorship.  All tourist revenue goes to the regime, and from there to carry out oppression.  They are friend to all our enemies.  They are the third largest spying regime against the US.  They are still allies of powerful adversaries in a very dangerous world.

Maybe this will help clarify Rubio's view, a 14 minute interview with John Hinderaker yesterday:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/marco-rubio-on-cuba.php

Rubio is FOR the opening up to Cuba.  He is for linking it to them taking steps forward toward democratization.  The Castro brothers are old and will die.  There is going to be a transition.  We would like to see it go toward freedom and self determination.  Normalization is what they want.  It is our only policy lever.  Obama gave it away and got nothing in return for it.  Now he won't ever again hold that lever.  Rand Paul supports all that.  His reason is because that might open up freedom in Cuba?  But how?  The money goes to the regime.  Didn't every other country already do that and it didn't work?  Haven't we done that since 1972 with China.  But China has a transition process.  Cuba doesn't.

Rubio previously on Cuba and Venezuela:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_wKhXurFyI

A Cuban exile writes in the Washington Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/22/as-a-cuban-exile-i-feel-betrayed-by-president-obama/

Recent News:  Cuban Government Sinks Boat Carrying 32 Refugees, Including Children
The boat, said González, was carrying 32 people, including seven women and two children. One of the two children was her 8-year-old son.  Her husband is still missing.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article4711515.html
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/23/cuban-government-sinks-boat-carrying-32-refugees-including-children/
Did anyone see that story?

When Marco Rubio speaks passionately and in great detail about just how awful the Cuban regime is, is anyone saying that any of it is not true??

No.  We are just tired of taking a stand. 

Free trade is something you do with free people.  Enriching enemies of the United States with either money or technology was illegal when I was in the export business.  I fully support free trade but understand that caveat.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #151 on: December 25, 2014, 01:08:44 PM »

Doug:  Some excellent sources there-- please post them on the Cuba thread as well.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #152 on: December 26, 2014, 09:13:07 PM »

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-poll-jeb-bush-is-choice-of-conservatives-romney-is-establishment-pick/article/2557867?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Top%205%20PMI&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Top%205%20PMI%20-%2012/25/14&utm_medium=email
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 145


« Reply #153 on: January 05, 2015, 01:07:00 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLUE2Xe8N0

I posted it here, because to me, it should influence who we all vote for.
Logged

Singing in the rain...
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #154 on: January 05, 2015, 10:55:52 AM »

Two hours and forty minutes?

That is one helluva a time investment.  How about a decent outline of what it is saying to help determine whether one should watch?

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #155 on: January 07, 2015, 04:59:16 PM »

Chris Christy has taken a number of hits lately.  Today's news says that more people are leaving NJ than any other state.  Comments from our man on the scene?

http://articles.philly.com/2013-01-09/news/36239709_1_migration-study-michael-stoll-keystone-state
http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-fleeing-new-jersey-2014-1
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #156 on: January 08, 2015, 11:55:13 AM »

From Jeb Bush thread:
I am so sick of the republican structure pushing democrat-lite candidates. I will not vote for them again. I will worry about local issues and ignore the national goat rope.

If we want to compete with Rinos on the Republican side who are already charging forward, we will have to do that same work on our side too.  The establishment has donors and networks.  Where are ours?  Our side better get started, organize, choose a leader and raise money.  It is time to start naming names.  Too often we sit back and take defeat by default. 

To everyone, unless you want lousy choices handed to you later, pick a leader.  Go to Youtube, search their name, hear them speak.  Read the backgrounds, find their positions.  There are 17-20 Republican choices available:

Jeb Bush -  Too Rino?
Chris Christie -  Too Rino? or whatever else?
Mitt Romney - Too Rino, blew it last time, can't articulate certain things, and will never escape Romneycare.

Marco Rubio - Too young?  Too new?  (Looks good to me.)
Ben Carson -  No political experience? But raising grass roots money. (Worth a try?)
Ted Cruz - Too divisive?  (or just what is needed?)
Bobby Jindal - Not exciting?  (So what.)
Rand Paul - Wrong on foreign policy? 
Rick Perry - Blew it last time.  3 term governor of the largest, Republican-led state.
Rick Santorum - Unelectable.
Mike Pence -  Has both congressional and executive experience.  (The adult in the room?)
Scott Walker - Questionable national appeal?  (Or maybe just right.)

Carly Fiorina - Too Rino, no political experience.
Mike Huckabee - No.
Kelly Ayotte -  Too new, too Rino?
Susana Martinez - Not yet on the national stage.
Nikki Haley -   same?
Who did I miss -  ?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #157 on: January 08, 2015, 04:18:50 PM »




Jeb Bush -  Too Rino?

I'm hearing good things about his record in FL, let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Let's find out more.

Chris Christie -  Too Rino? or whatever else?

Ego maniac, half the streets in town are named after him "One Way".  Remember his speech nominating Romney at the convention?  It was all about himself.  Remember his betrayal of Romney by sucking up to Obama at Sandy Hook's aftermath?  Recent record in NJ is not too good, and lots of people are now leaving NY.  We know NOTHING of his instincts on foreign affairs.  Plus he could keel over with a heart attack.

Mitt Romney - Too Rino, blew it last time, can't articulate certain things, and will never escape Romneycare.

Fair enough, but I think the man has deepened from his reflections on his loss and what has happened since then.  He has earned a credibility and a respect that he did not have before due to his various prescient calls.

Marco Rubio - Too young?  Too new?  (Looks good to me.)

Good man in many ways, but too young, NO executive experience, good call for VP

Ben Carson -  No political experience? But raising grass roots money. (Worth a try?)

Ultimately his lack of ANY experience in ANY aspect of governance is a huge gap, but I hope he garners much attention in the early campaign.  He is a very good man with much to offer-- and a temperament that will resonate very well with many.  He should be the one leading the charge on Obamacare and should we win, should become Sec. of HHS.

Ted Cruz - Too divisive?  (or just what is needed?)

All intellect, his entire life has been the law.   Fg tone deaf to human emotion.  As a candidate he would be a disaster. 

Bobby Jindal - Not exciting?  (So what.)

How would he give women a reason to vote against Hillary?  No track record on foreign affairs.

Rand Paul - Wrong on foreign policy?

Well, he's wrong in some ways, and quite right in others.  Which candidate would you trust to be your son's commander in chief while serving in the middle east?  Guys, we need to remember that the country as a whole is quite distrustful AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO of our government's competence in this regard.   A decent case can be made for regrouping.  Rand truly stands for many superb things on the domestic front when it comes to economic and personal freedom and cutting the government.  He also appears to have a genuine feeling for redefining to which groups the Reps appeal.   Don't write him off yet.

Rick Perry - Blew it last time.  3 term governor of the largest, Republican-led state.

Will always be seen as a Dan Quayle.  That he is very good on Tenth Amendment issues is a very good thing, but that is FAR FAR FAR from being a campaign.

Rick Santorum - Unelectable.

Quite good on Obamacare but Libs already razz him for being the only candidate with a plank in his platform about anal sex.  He will always be portrayed as a sexual busybody. 

Mike Pence -  Has both congressional and executive experience.  (The adult in the room?)

Boring white guy.

Scott Walker - Questionable national appeal?  (Or maybe just right.)

Boring white guy.

Carly Fiorina - Too Rino, no political experience.

And ran a crummy campaign for Senate here in CA.  Run her against Hillary?  Pathetic.

Mike Huckabee - No.

There is much I like about the man and he has a good temperament, but too many doubts about his record in AK.  I'm willing to give a listen, but at the moment I don't think it will go much further than that.

Kelly Ayotte -  Too new, too Rino?

Seems like a decent Senator, but other than that , , , so what? 

Susana Martinez - Not yet on the national stage.

Exactly.

Nikki Haley -   same?

Yep.

Who did I miss -  ?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #158 on: January 08, 2015, 06:56:14 PM »

Thanks for the detailed response. 

Romney has learned a lot I'm sure.  I agree he earned credibility on calling some things right, that his economic plan would have worked and the people wish he had won last time in hindsight.  But some of the key part I think we need is not in him.  In a nutshell, he opposed Reagan, expanded government when he had the chance, and couldn't defend capitalism or his own work in the free enterprise system when pressed.  I will vote for him again if that's all there is, but he is not the leader that will change minds of millions or bring a new generation over to our side.  I will not forget that he choked and backed off when Candy Crowley (wrongfully) stepped into the debate.   Why was he making that (valid) accusation against the President of the United States in a scheduled debate if he was ready, willing and able to back it up?  He lacked the fire in the belly then and is likely to have even less now.  Speaking of Christy at the convention, what happened to Romney there?  They had a week of free media and gained nothing from it.  He mostly played defense.  He is a good man.  Too bad he didn't step up when he had the chance.

Rand Paul.  "Which candidate would you trust to be your son's commander in chief while serving in the middle east?"  - I would trust him to have the least casualties in foreign lands, but also to make us the least secure at home.  ISIS has captured strategic territory, revenue sources, weapons, and is breeding a new generation of terrorists through gender slavery and rape.  Time for us take a little breather?

Does boring white guy (Pence, Walker) mean ruled out because they are unelectable? 

I didn't know white male was a disqualifier. wink  And aren't they all boring to the general electorate when they talk about key issues, taxes, spending, entitlements, regulations, budgets, security, foreign entanglements, monetary policy, judiciary philosophy, etc.  That's why they turn to boxers, briefs and what's in your playlist.  For Obama, it was Greek columns and speeches full of nothingness.   If we don't choose Carson, Bachmann, Fiorina, or Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Ayotte, Haley... then might we have to get behind a boring white guy??

One other observation.  No names were added to the list (so far).  With almost all ruled out, we are down to very few good choices.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #159 on: January 08, 2015, 10:39:37 PM »

"and couldn't defend capitalism or his own work in the free enterprise system when pressed."

That is a zinger!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12341


« Reply #160 on: January 09, 2015, 08:07:56 AM »

Ted Cruz or bust.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #161 on: January 09, 2015, 10:06:46 AM »

I am quite glad he is in the Senate, but as a Presidential candidate he would suck and our next President will be Hillary.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #162 on: January 09, 2015, 11:50:09 AM »

GM: "Ted Cruz or bust."
Crafty: "as a Presidential candidate he would suck and our next President will be Hillary."

And I was hoping we would reach consensus by now.  smiley

My view on Cruz is in between these two.  He is a high risk choice, but maybe one worth taking.  Like Gingrich last time, he is one guy you wish was there on the stage when our candidate has no answer to lying liberalism.

Ted Cruz will be accused of shutting the government down.  17% of it for 16 days.  But, on the ticket and in the media, he can answer that.  He didn't shut it down, Barack Obama and Harry Reid did.  The Republican budget funded everything except the exact part they were sent there to stop. 

He will be accused of being the far, extreme right.  But is he also the guy that makes sense of those conservative positions to the persuadable?  Hillary, if she runs and is nominated, will be candidate of the status quo.  Cruz would be new guy on the stage arguing for change.  That said, I don't think he can win the nomination.

Waiting to hear from obj, ccp, and others!

We want someone a) who can win, and b) who can turn this country around.  If you can't win, you can't turn the country around.  If you win but govern Dem-lite and can't defend good policies, then you set the stage for failure, like last time.

One of these people, we hope and pray, is the next leader who can connect, persuade, move the debate and the people.  Who is that?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #163 on: January 09, 2015, 02:03:15 PM »

I lived in Florida while Jeb was governor.  However I don't follow politics a lot at the state level.  I don't recall any particular criticisms about him overall.   He is definitely an appeaser though.

I enjoyed going to a rally In Orlando when his brother W was running for President.   We got to see him and his brother and even more importantly Bo Derek.

Now I am in NJ.  Christy did take on the teachers unions which is no less of a big deal here as it is in Wisconsin with what Walker did.  Yet I don't see much else happening here in NJ that gives us much relief. 

We still are at the top of all lists for taxes in the nation.   Pension plans are still out of control.  The government employees unlike historically are now doing better than the majority of private sector workers.

I cannot say Christy's personality is not a problem.  He turns me off as well as my conservative Republican sister who as a teacher *was* very supportive of him (unlike all the other "let the rich pay for it crowd of Democrat teachers).   We don't like narcissists. 

I have a nephew who is chief of staff for Bobby Jindal.  I like him a lot.  He is a genius I here and always several thoughts ahead of everyone around him as well as a true type A workaholic.   And a genuine *nice" guy.  My sister had several personally guided tours at the Loiusianna "white house".

None of the candidates are ideal at this point in time for me personally as well as  haveinga great shot at appealing to the "masses".

There is a growing problem of entitlement mentality in the US as well Europe.  We all know this.

Perhaps it is good to have everyone jump in and let the best man (no woman yet) win.   

I am quite pessimistic that we will get one who is a great conservative with a great mouthpiece have a good shot to win a national election. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #164 on: January 10, 2015, 08:35:45 PM »

We must be talking big business which is absolutely booming near me.  Endless popular chain restaurants, Dunkin Donuts, Walmarts.   I don't know too many small business people who are thrilled.    The big businesses have the ability to pay people to figure out all the regulations, IT requirements, and lobby.    This is how it is occurring in health care.   Wall Street has taken over just as much as government.   

57% (who was surveyed I am not sure)  of businesses approve of CC:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/12/25/survey-says-new-jersey-business-is-big-on-governor-christie/

Yet most people otherwise give him a so so rating and most in the State do not even consider him a good candidate for President as per one survey.

For many of us his fanship of the NY Giants arch enemy Dallas Cowboys is enough to warrant removal from office.  Could anyone imagine Rick Perry saying his favorite team is the NY Giants?   I mean common really!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #165 on: January 11, 2015, 12:16:17 PM »

Great comments by ccp.  Jeb did a good job with Florida as Governor.  He had good circumstances, Republican legislature, Marco Rubio Speaker, no income tax etc.  He wasn't run by his father or big brother, was his own man.  He has a couple of issue problems to resolve if he wants conservative support and he doesn't seem to want to do that.

Like Walker,  Chris Christie stood up to unions.  Unlike Walker, he didn't turn the rest of the problems in the state around. Maybe couldn't have because it is a Dem state, but didn't.  NJ is not either his fault nor his accomplishment.  He has a medium record, upset a lot of R's with his 2012 Obama embrace, has a controversial personality and like most governors has no real record on foreign policy.

With Jeb and Mitt maybe in, Chris Christie is one more Rino to split the moderate-establishment wing vote, so we should hope all of those get in - and lose.    smiley
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #166 on: January 11, 2015, 08:31:59 PM »

"With Jeb and Mitt maybe in, Chris Christie is one more Rino to split the moderate-establishment wing vote, so we should hope all of those get in - and lose"

Pleasant thought.  Would be nice. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #167 on: January 13, 2015, 07:48:56 PM »

Paul Ryan is out.

Romney is in.  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30799373

Elizabeth Warren now says she will not run.  (Assuming Hillary is in.)

This is starting up early!

Stealing the photo from Crafty's post, how do we compete with the accomplishments, good looks and charisma of this woman?

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #168 on: January 16, 2015, 12:37:30 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-beat-bush-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #169 on: January 22, 2015, 07:13:28 AM »

Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush to Meet, Raising Speculation on Presidential Race
Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are scheduled to meet privately in Utah this week, raising the possibility that the two former governors will find a way to avoid competing presidential campaigns that would split the Republican establishment next year, two prominent party members said Wednesday night.
The meeting was planned before Mr. Romney’s surprise announcement two weeks ago to donors in New York that he was considering a third run at the White House.
Mr. Bush initiated the meeting, according to one of the party members familiar with the planning.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/politics/romney-and-jeb-bush-to-meet-raising-speculation-on-presidential-race.html?emc=edit_na_20150121

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #170 on: January 22, 2015, 09:29:23 AM »

I wouldn't necessarily believe a Wash Post ABC poll since the people running are most likely connected to the Clinton machine complex but she will come out of the gate with a huge lead and she will be shoved through like no tomorrow.   Her focus on the middle class is interesting as is the Republicans new finding that this is the golden key to power.

I've posted for years that no one was really addressing this especially the right.  Well now they are.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/01/in_2016_face-off_clinton_handily_defeats_christie.html?from_TBM_site=Lead
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12341


« Reply #171 on: January 26, 2015, 05:31:11 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/26/hillary-clintons-numbers-quietly-crumble/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #172 on: January 27, 2015, 10:25:58 AM »

Crafty, previously:  "She was distinctly unimpressive when she ran here in CA"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This speech was perhaps the biggest surprise in the recent event in Iowa - the contest to selected as Rubio's running mate.   wink

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/26/carly_fiorina_to_hillary_clinton_flying_is_an_activity_not_an_accomplishment.html

It is possible that she choked in her recent Senate race because she knew these views did not fit with that audience, the California electorate.  Still she only lost 52-42 in a far left state.

She makes very powerful and persuasive points about government getting too big.  For wherever her candidacy leads, it is a very positive thing for the process to have a sharp and experienced woman up on the stage making the conservative case.

She has met Putin, knows Netanyahu, understand cyber-warfare and the Chinese policy supporting theft of our technology.  She explained beautifully how big businesses can hire lawyers to deal with over-regulation while small businesses cannot.

And she didn't wear a pant suit.

Fiorina has degrees from Stanford and MIT.  Breast cancer survivor.  Worked as a secretary out of college, worked her way up at AT&T/Lucent.  She was named Fortune magazine's most powerful woman in business prior to being chosen CEO at HP.  She led the world's largest technology company 5 years through troubled times with mixed results.  

She was quite comfortable taking on Hillary Clinton directly.  Took a jab at the Putin reset button, said I'll tell you what difference it makes regarding Benghazi, and asserted that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 10:30:10 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #173 on: January 27, 2015, 11:25:41 AM »

"Doug's prediction looking better everyday"

Well she is clearly not the BS mouthpiece Bubba is yet I still say never underestimate the depravity of the Clinton machine.
The entire left will rally behind her and be quite happy to fill in for her personal and policy deficits with fanciful story lines galore.


So far no Republican clearly has what it takes at this time (IMHO).   I liked some of Bush's rant on Drudge but his take on illegals which is essentially to pardon 15 or 20 million of them and thus more will come till be have 75 million in the US (California whose population has exploded was reported to be well over 50% Latin - not all illegal of course but a substantial portion yes) does not sit well with me.  I don't care if the illegal is from Israel.  Go back to your country and apply through legal channels.

He has clearly done a mea culpa and seems to think we can win their hearts and minds over while the left stuffs stolen money into their pockets.   Good luck with that.

While I rather agree with Jindal's religious morality ideals I don't think that would be a big seller outside the Christian right.

Sure I like Rubio but I am not sure if he has already peaked.   Not sure.

Paul is out for me.  He is just not appealing.   Too analytical.

Walker I don't know if he has the charisma.

Romney we know has no charisma.

Christi's policies are suspect and I just don't really like him personally.

We will see.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #174 on: January 27, 2015, 04:06:37 PM »

ccp:  "Sure I like Rubio but I am not sure if he has already peaked.   Not sure."

Look at the skill he exhibits in his first sentence in the Megan Kelly interview on broken families that Crafty posted (Rubio thread):

"So let's be clear from the beginning, there are courageous single parents out there that are raising their children in less than ideal settings, and they're doing a great job and those kids are going to succeed.  But statistically speaking..., (we know, that children that are raised in a home with two parents do better)."  

This is without notes, teleprompters or handlers as far as I can tell.  His is prepared and knows what he wants to say.  He presents core conservative ideas and principles in a non-threatening way, intelligently and intuitively, and with passion!  Compare that with Romney 2012 (or whoever).  When Romney was caught in his 47% comment, he couldn't find the words to defuse that in days that followed, while Rubio has defused potentially similar criticisms of single families in his prefacing remark.

Any one of them might implode at anytime, but he has already gone out there and exposed himself on all the key issues, and always seems ready for the reaction he gets from his detractors.

Immigration is supposedly the one thing he can't overcome, except that:  he sees both sides of the issue, he truly favors a secure border, he has already tried engaging up close and personal with the duplicitous left on this and failed.  He is less threatening to independent voters who have a friends or relatives living "in the shadows" than the rest of would be, and he is more likely to get a good outcome on immigration than a perfectly conservative position that would not win in a general election.

You don't think he would look good, look sharp, hold his ground standing next to Hillary and offer a better alternative, a better future that people in the middle and non-political can relate to?  Appeal to young voters, women voters, Hispanics, even gain ground with blacks?  Without losing ground with the base, conservatives, whites and males?  I do.

The Rubio agenda reads something like the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom where we now rank out of the top ten, behind New Zealand, Estonia and Mauritius, among others.  I ought to be a no-brainer to support moving up on this list - in the direction of restoring our freedoms, but most can't or won't articulate that.

It is the Governors who have the executive experience.  But they will be tripped up when they can't name the leaders of India, China, Japan and the UK, etc.  Hillary is loving the idea of telling us about her last dinner with each of them (while Bill was at the camp for old timers and underage nubiles).  Mike Pence has both congressional and executive experience.  But will he create this kind of excitement?  Do people want to hear about the business successes in Indiana (Orville Redenbacher is what he came up with)?  Probably not.  They want to hear about the shining city on the hill and visualize their families doing well there.  Otherwise they will take whoever offers them the biggest safety net.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2015, 04:26:25 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #175 on: January 27, 2015, 04:06:54 PM »

I am pretty excited about the run to Iowa and NH, for both parties. For real.

Bigdog, You are missed here!  Your thoughts on the current scene?  Let me know if you wold like to meet up at an Iowa political event.  
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12341


« Reply #176 on: January 27, 2015, 04:09:53 PM »

I could go for Rubio as vp. Cruz/Rubio could work.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #177 on: January 27, 2015, 05:03:39 PM »

Reflect upon this:

Hillary's running mate will be Bill Clinton.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12341


« Reply #178 on: January 27, 2015, 05:06:28 PM »

http://io9.com/80-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-cont-1680277802?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Why bother?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #179 on: January 28, 2015, 12:19:38 AM »


Yes, and the dangers mentioned of di-hydrogen monoxide.  People immersed in it are dying, yet no one will ban it.  http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
« Last Edit: January 28, 2015, 02:08:12 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #180 on: January 30, 2015, 09:29:20 AM »

from another forum:

"I'm all-in for Rand Paul and think he's got what it takes to win the general vs. Hillary in a LANDSLIDE. He actually is better than Hillary on a lot of issues that matter to people on the left and independents with issues like war policy, drug policy, privacy, etc... but yet he's still awesomely pro-gun, pro-life, small government. But most importantly we're headed into major financial trouble with our debt/deficits and I think he's the best person to correctly articulate how out of control our spending is across the board and how corrupt our government is, and apply the correct remedies. Who is talking about the Federal Reserve bank and monetary policy right now? Only him. Rand is like the best parts of his dad, minus the crazy parts. I'm going to support Rand 100% during Primary season and encourage you all to take a hard look at him."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #181 on: January 30, 2015, 10:31:01 AM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/31/us/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-election.html?emc=edit_na_20150130&nlid=49641193&_r=0
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #182 on: January 30, 2015, 11:52:19 AM »

Yes, Romney is out.  Now I like him again, a politician listening to his constituents!

ccp who lives in NJ nailed it on Chris Christie.  His ratio of popularity to name recognition is lousy.  (Same with Palin.)  See the 538 site.  He lacks the story of a turnaround in his state compared with his potential contenders, Walker, Kasich, Jindal, Jeb, Rick Perry, etc.  I don't think many people even want to hear about a good story of a turnaround in a different state.

Huck is aiming only at southerners, having some fun with the process, and not running to win.

Nice post below by a Rand Paul supporter: "he's got what it takes to win the general vs. Hillary in a LANDSLIDE. He actually is better than Hillary on a lot of issues that matter to people on the left and independents with issues like war policy, drug policy, privacy, etc... but yet he's still awesomely pro-gun, pro-life, small government."

But that doesn't make any sense.  Hillary will win the liberal vote unless she is challenged from the left.  What part of the fact they don't want small government, pro-life, pro-gun does he not understand?  He may win over some people previously non-political, but not a liberal.  This will be a landslide only if one contender falls on his or her face, not because we (or they) are that good.

Rand's problem is that his foreign policy views do not fit the timing of accelerating threats around the globe.  He will run a good, grass roots race but not win the nomination.

Pundits and professional journalists are calling Rubio's book tour "well-timed".  Rubio allegedly getting early donor support:  http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-donors-marco-rubio-2016-114673.html  The book is also well-named, American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone.  I also like the name of Jeb's campaign, Right to Rise.  Same theme: let's expand upward mobility.

I heard Krauthammer clarify his bet on Marco Rubio.  The question, he said, was how would he bet $100 if he was in Vegas today.  He went the highest on Rubio because of having the best chance of winning relative to his longshot odds, not because of having the highest likelihood of winning.

Ruthless assessment by Jay Cost in the Weekly Standard today of the Democratic field.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democratic-bench-shockingly-weak_830664.html
The Democrats appear institutionally incapable of offering more than one person worthy of consideration.
 
Hillary is reportedly delaying her launch to July while hired aides work on a message for her.  Good grief.  That gives me a little more time to save up for the nice dinner I will owe ccp.

More dropouts expected as potential candidates see how hard this is.  Donors don't give up money easily and delegates don't commit support easily.  Some like Santorum won't care and will fight anyway.  Many surprises to come.  I'm still waiting to hear from Hickenlooper!  Warren is in the moment Hillary admits she isn't.  Besides me, Obama, Warren and Clinton may already know that.  See Wash Post:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/30/what-if-hillary-doesnt-run/




Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #183 on: January 30, 2015, 12:20:42 PM »

75 minutes if you can find the video.  I plan to read this fairly long transcript:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-freedom-partners-forum-ted-cruz-rand-paul/story?id=28491534&singlePage=true

Rand Paul supports Obama's approach on Iran. 
Marco Rubio says the threat of a nuclear Iran is so great that no option should be off the table.  (Read at the link to find out Ted Cruz' views...)

In a straw poll of attendees, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida came out ahead of four other would-be GOP presidential candidates who had been invited.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-donors-marco-rubio-2016-114673.html#ixzz3QKX74q2T
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #184 on: January 30, 2015, 02:04:15 PM »

Thanks for the URL of the transcript Doug.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #185 on: January 31, 2015, 01:43:29 AM »

Thanks for the URL of the transcript Doug.
Again, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-freedom-partners-forum-ted-cruz-rand-paul/story?id=28491534&singlePage=true

You're welcome.  Sorry I don't have the video link.  Transcripts from voice recognition make some errors so it took some effort to go through it. 

The discussion was mostly on economic policy, then drifted into some foreign policy.  On the economic side the debate was the 'mainstream' questioner versus the three of them.  Each had a turn saying they disagreed with the false premise of the question.  The contest between the three I think was to see who could express our principles best.

I selectively cut and pasted some here, shortened and chopped.  The full transcript is much longer.
------------------------
Jonathon Karl, ABC:  7 million new jobs, oil prices down... why should voters ever trust Republicans again

Ted Cruz:  The top 1% earn a higher share of our income nationally than any year since 1928. The simple truth is with big government those with resources are doing well.  We have today the lowest labor force participation since 1978. Ninety-two million Americans aren't working. And you wanna talk about what's making life hard for working men and women, wage stagnation. Median wages today are equal to what they were in 1996, for 20 years.

Rand Paul: the reason I would say the economy's getting better is despite the president and despite the president's policies. One of the things that has led the resurgence is oil and gas boom. The oil and gas boom's being done on private land, not public land. We're not allowed to drill on public land. This president should take no credit for any kind of recovery we have.

Marco Rubio:  One of the significant reasons why the unemployment rate has gotten lower is 'cause less people are looking for work. ... this is not a cyclical downturn that we went through simply. It is a massive structural change in the very nature of the economy. ... we are increasingly less globally competitive for investment and for innovation because of taxes, because of regulation. And quite frankly, because of anti-business rhetoric from Washington. ... There are better jobs that could potentially take their place. But they're either not being created in this country because of tax policy, regulatory policy, the national debt, Obamacare, or too many of our people don't have the 21st century skills they need for that. ... wage stagnation is happening at a time when the cost of everything is going up dramatically.

Karl: ...increasing gap between rich and poor, is it the job of government to try to lessen that gap?

Cruz:  We should be fighting for the little guy who has dreams and hopes and desires.  ...   in the last six years that income mobility has gotten harder and harder for people to achieve.

Rubio:   income inequality is a symptom of a bigger problem. Opportunity inequality. ... we have safety net programs that don't cure poverty. ... if you are a major corporation or a very wealthy multi-national company you might not like big government but you can afford to deal with it.  If you're trying to start a business out of the spare bedroom of your home, you can't do any of that.

Rand Paul:  income inequality, Interestingly, worse in states led by Democrats, in cities led by Democrats and in countries led by Democrats. ...   if you're an ordinary person in our country and you're trying to save to get ahead you put your money in the bank and it gets zero.  It's because of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rate low. Why do we keep it low? Because we have this massive debt that we've gotta pay off with new money, with cheap money. And so it's all intertwined. And it's-- income inequality is indirectly, if not directly, related to big government.

Cruz:  government has two important levers to facilitate job creation and create an environment where the private sector can create jobs. And those two levers are tax reform and regulatory reform. And every single time in our history that we have simplified taxes, reduced the burden, reduced the compliance cost, simplified regulation so that small businesses which create two-thirds of all new jobs can do that. We've seen an economic boom, we've seen people climb out of poverty into prosperity. That was true in the 1920s, it was true in the 1960s, it was true in the 1980s. We know how to fix this.

Paul:  government has a role and a safety net but it needs to be transitory and it needs to be a step towards a job. ...  We have to have government for certain things that the private world can't do. But we should minimize what government does, maximize the productive sector. And you'll get more jobs created.

Minimum Wage

Cruz:  I gave a floor speech on the Senate floor with three simple charts, $10.10, the proposed Obama minimum wage. And then the next chart Marco just referenced was $0.00 which is the real Obama minimum wage because when you have the lowest labor force participation since 1978 to the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs under the Obama economy that's their minimum wage.  And then let me tell you the third number I had up there was $46.98. $46.98 is the average hourly wage of an oil and gas worker in North Dakota. And what I wanna see is an awful lot more people making $40 and $50 and $60 an hour and an awful lot less people making zero dollars a week. ...let me give you an example of this increase to $10.10 that Obama was urging. The Congressional budget office estimated up to one million people would lose their jobs. And the people who would lose their jobs are low-income,

PAUL: The minimum wage is only harmful when it's above the market wage. Okay, so when it's above the market wage it causes unemployment.

RUBIO: I'm not calling to repeal the minimum wage. I'm not saying to get rid of it as a practical matter. I think it is what it is and we don't-- that's a disruption that we don't need with all so many other disruptions happening.   ...all this focus that the president has on the minimum wage is a cure-all for the, you know, the problems being faced by working Americans is not only a waste of time, I think it shows how un-serious he really is about dealing with the challenges of our time.

Karl:  Paul Ryan had put out this plan as you all know to address the issue of poverty. And what he has proposed is an expansion of the earned income tax credit financed by closing tax loopholes. And he has specifically mentioned-- closing, you know, ending tax benefits to the oil and gas industry. And using the revenue saved there, estimates are $4 billion to $7 billion a year-- to pay for an expansion of the earned income tax credit.  do you agree with that principle of expanding federal spending on anti-poverty programs but doing them Ryan would say in a smarter way using it by closing some tax loopholes.

PAUL: When you look at the earned income tax credit, it has about a 25% fraud rate. We're looking at $20 billion to $30 billion. ... If you want to help people who are of lower wage income, working class folks, I think the better way, rather than giving something that's refundable is to give them a deducting against their social security tax so they're working and you get the deduction for work.

I'm for 100% expensing in the first year of everything you spend on your business because then you spend more and you'd buy more and your business would grow.

Rubio:  I've worked with, for example, scholars at American Enterprise Institute on a concept called wage enhancement.  It would replace the earned income tax credit instead with something called a wage enhancement, people between $15,000 and $40,000 a year... And here's why that's better. First it's tied to your paycheck as opposed to simply your tax return. As Rand just alluded to a moment ago there was significant amount of fraud in the earned income tax credit program because people will file on the return, claim that they are supporting children, some of which sometimes don't even live in the United States, some of which are not their children, they're nephews and nieces and cousins.And there is significant fraud in the EITC program. A wage enhancement would be directly tied to what you're making.  it's the same funds but you're delivering it through a different mechanism tied directly to work.

CRUZ: [Tax Reform] Yes, even revenue neutral. Though I'll tell you the fixation on revenue neutral is somewhat misguided in Washington because at least up 'till now they've used static scoring instead of dynamic scoring. So they don't look at the growth effects.

But the benefits of tax reform, if you're number one, simplifying the tax code, you reduce the compliance that cost the hundreds of billions of dollars of deadweight loss that is lost every year in tax compliance. Number two, if you do that, if you broaden the base and lower the rates, the top marginal rate is what affects the next marginal action.

But number three, look, the biggest value of tax reform is it disempowers politicians.

Cruz:  Since World War II our economy has averaged 3.3% growth.  There were only two four-year periods where growth was less than 1%, 1979 to 1982, coming out of Jimmy Carter, and 2008 to 2012. You want to turn around the deficits and debt. Let's get back to historic levels of 3%, 4%, 5% growth. That's how you turn around the deficit and debt.

Defense budget

Rubio:  every time you cut research and development in the military are eliminated options for a future commander in chief in the battlefield. We can never lose the technological edge.

Cuba

Cruz:  my aunt, my father's kid sister, was thrown in jail and tortured by Castro's goons. The human rights abuses there--it is a cruel, horrible, totalitarian regime.

When Soviet Union collapsed Venezuela stepped in as the benefactor keeping the Castros in power. right now oil prices have collapsed, Venezuela's economy is in free-fall. And at the exact moment when Cuba is reeling, this administration steps in with an economic lifeline.

In Cuba every foreign investment goes through the government, every foreign currency goes directly to the government. They pay the Cubans in pesos which means this will result in billions of dollars more for the Castro regime.   this deal will keep the Castros in power and it makes it less likely that when Fidel and Raul die they will move to a free society.

Iran: 

Rubio:  let me just add this on Iran, I think there's a distinction between Russia and Iran, The Soviet Union was terrible. It was a communist government. But it was a traditional nation state that made decisions on the cost benefit analysis of the nation state. Iran is run by radical Shia cleric who doesn't view himself as the leader of Iran. He views himself as the leader of global Islam. And he views it as his obligation to bring the whole world under the flag of Islam.

Paul:  ... try the diplomatic option as long as we can.

Cruz:  I think the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability is the single greatest national security threat facing the United States today I believe we are repeating the mistakes of the Clinton administration in the 1990s with respect to North Korea.

when you have religious leaders who glorify death or suicide, ordinary cost benefit doesn't work. Cost benefit prevents a lot of people from wrapping dynamite around their chest and walking into a mall. But the problem is if Iran ever acquired nuclear weapons I think the odds are unacceptably high that it would use those nuclear weapons

Paul:  Are you ready to send ground troops in Iran? Are you ready to bomb 'em? Are you ready to send 100,000 troops? Are you ready to send them into Iraq? Do you want 'em in Syria? Do you want 'em in Libya?

Rubio:  let me tell you about negotiations, it is a tactic that Iran is using and here's why, in 2003 the world told Iran, "You cannot have any enrichment capability." Then it became, "Okay, you can enrich but only up to 20%."

Then it became, "Okay, you can enrich over 20% but you have to ship it overseas." Now it's, "Okay, you can enrich it 20% but you can only use it to a research reactor." At this pace in five years we're gonna build the bomb for them. I mean, that's the direction this is going. They use negotiations as a tactic. And they are trying to buy as much time as possible to acquire the capability of being able to build a weapon. And once they do, they don't even have to build a weapon. They just have to prove that they have a delivery system, which they're continuing to develop, unabated and untouched by the sanctions, a weapon design that they can easily buy from multiple people around the world and the last is the enrichment capability. And if you can enrich at 3%, you can enrich at weapon grade. It's the same equipment, it just takes a little longer.

JONATHAN KARL: But Senator Paul, ask the question, so what do you want, you wanna bomb Iran?

RUBIO: I think there's a risk of a nuclear Iran is so high that nothing should ever be off the table.

Cruz:  ... Either they will cease or we will stop them.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #186 on: February 02, 2015, 10:05:31 PM »

Without much supporting evidence, this CNN contributor says the Romney exit benefits Rubio. 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/30/opinion/navarrette-rubio-rising/index.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #187 on: February 04, 2015, 08:05:29 AM »

Doesn't look like he can count on the Indian vote.  This is the second negative article on Jindal written by an Indian.  I think around 80% of Indians like most other Asians are Democrats.   Not like Obama who can count on the Black vote no matter what.


****Health-Care Reform
Jindal Shows How Not to Replace Obamacare

Ramesh Ponnuru
comments icon435 time iconFeb 3, 2015 12:35 PM EST
By  Ramesh Ponnuru   

It's no secret that Republicans are divided both about how to replace Obamacare and about the urgency of coming up with an alternative plan. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has just escalated that internal debate -- and shown why his side should lose it.

None of the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates has thought more about the Affordable Care Act than Jindal, and none of the others has come up with a plan as detailed as his. Jindal's key provision is to eliminate the tax break for employer-provided health coverage and instead offer a deduction with which people could buy insurance in the individual market.

The great flaw in Jindal's plan is that it would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. Deductions are more valuable to those in high tax brackets, and they wouldn't provide much help for the lower-income people whom Obamacare allowed to enroll in Medicaid. Many of the people now covered under Obamacare's exchanges would also lose their coverage. And some of those now covered by their employers would find their plans threatened as younger and healthier employees used the new deduction to leave those plans for the individual market.

In a new op-ed, Jindal suggests that his plan has some advantages over other Republican alternatives. His target, though he doesn't name it, is a proposal outlined last year by Senators Richard Burr, Tom Coburn, and Orrin Hatch. That proposal would enable many more people to get coverage than Jindal's plan would, because it would offer tax credits instead of deductions. And it would leave most people in employer-provided coverage safe because people could use the credit to buy individual coverage only if they didn't have access to an employer plan.

Jindal identifies two defects in the higher-coverage plan, which he calls "Obamacare Lite." It would be more costly than his proposal. The way he puts it is that it would repeal only some of Obamacare's taxes instead of all of them. And it would discourage work. The credits shrink with income, so people wouldn't reap the full rewards for working longer or getting raises.

He's right about the potential effects on work, which suggests that the senators' plan should be modified: The credit should stay the same size regardless of income. If that adjustment were made, the plan would also be a bigger tax cut and thus Jindal's other concern would be addressed.

Jindal suggests that an upcoming Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell, is a reason for Republicans to put forward their own health-care plan, and he's also right about that. The court may well rule that Obamacare's subsidies for millions of people's health-insurance plans are illegal. That decision, as Jindal says, could cause "disruption."

But replacing Obamacare with Jindal's plan wouldn't do much to ameliorate that disruption, because the deduction wouldn't be an adequate replacement for the vanished subsidies. It would even increase the disruption because of its treatment of employer-provided coverage. A response based on the senators' plan would do much more to solve the problem.

Jindal is right to say that the Supreme Court case raises the stakes for Republicans trying to devise a replacement for Obamacare. It also highlights the unsuitability of his proposed solution.

To contact the author on this story:
  Ramesh Ponnuru   at rponnuru@bloomberg.net
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #188 on: February 09, 2015, 08:03:54 PM »

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/david-brock-resigns-priorities-usa-action-115028.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #189 on: February 10, 2015, 10:56:00 AM »


Who could have seen Democrat infighting coming?  This early, lol!

This could go under media issues.  They collectively support or can turn on politicians when they feel like it and turn events. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-may-look-inevitable-but-some-iowa-democrats-are-ready-for-warren/2015/02/09/1f0063fe-b083-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html

Democrats suffering from Clinton fatigue say they’re ready for Warren

“I’m utterly tired, tired of the Clintons and the whole establishment,” said Carol Brannon, 71, a retired nurse.

Anne Kinzel, 57, a former health-care lawyer, nodded sympathetically.

“The hacks think Hillary is entitled to be president,” Kinzel said. “I think she is one of those people who has lost the sense of why they are in politics.”

...there is unease among progressives about her largely uncontested ascent.

(Maybe if they subscribed to the forum, they would others who agree with them, and alternative solutions.  Now back to liberal drivel...)

Seeking an alternative to the juggernaut, this restless Sunday gathering at the Ames public library and others like it are popping up around the country — all part of an effort to draft populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) into the race...

Eight years after Obama first drew enormous crowds in Iowa on his way to the White House, these Democrats feel disappointed by his presidency and what they described as his lackluster attempts to champion economic populism.

In Warren, they sense they’ve found a fighter and a refreshing departure from the way Obama and Clinton have addressed the rising gap between the rich and poor.


(Wouldn't that be great for the gap between rich and poor, to hire a multi-millionaire professor who lied to get that position, was elected once in the most liberal state, derides all economic success, whines about unfairness, did nothing positive to earn her wealth, and will either continue or accelerate the same failed policies.  Truly Refreshing - if you are an Iowa Democrat who just watched your liberal icon Tom Harkin's Senate seat go to the pork castration party.)
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #190 on: February 10, 2015, 11:04:13 AM »

Doug,

Before we get jubilant over the Crats who are "tired" of Clinton remember it is because she is not publicly liberal enough!  When the time comes for the Hill to go up against the Repubs they will all rally 'round her.

These people are not suddenly becoming Tea Party or Republicans or Independents.  They are hard core Crats. 

Hillary will almost surely be their candidate.  (I am not sure I want anyone else than her because anyone else will only be worse.)

Far more likely her than Bush is ours (GOD forbid!!!)
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #191 on: February 10, 2015, 02:52:42 PM »

ccp:  "Before we get jubilant over the Crats who are "tired" of Clinton remember it is because she is not publicly liberal enough!  When the time comes for the Hill to go up against the Repubs they will all rally 'round her.  These people are not suddenly becoming Tea Party or Republicans or Independents.  They are hard core Crats."    - Very true!  I was partly pointing out what morons they are, just having handed their asses to them in the Senate race.  And Barone pointing out that they didn't choose policies that work for the electorate when they did govern.

"Hillary will almost surely be their candidate."   - Also true.   sad   I should have have held out for big odds and dollar menu payoffs on our bet!

I am not sure I want anyone else than her because anyone else will only be worse.

  - This is right also.  Rush was on the today.  She is not at all unbeatable and we don't need them to pick another slippery newcomer for us to try to pin down with no record.
--------------------------

Bringing this forward, Hillary, "I remember landing under sniper fire", "ran with our heads down".  "That was just sleep deprivation, or something."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c

Funny thing is that the CBS reporter exposing her falsehood is Cheryl Attkisson! 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4375


« Reply #192 on: February 10, 2015, 07:20:33 PM »

" I should have have held out for big odds and dollar menu payoffs on our bet!"

Well, if she wins I won't have an appetite for more than bread and water mixed with lots of Maalox and Compazine.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #193 on: February 11, 2015, 10:52:53 AM »

An interesting look back at mistakes by category of failed candidacies of the past that no doubt applies today.  He touches on Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty, Bill Bradley, Wesley Clark, Rudy Giuliani, and Hillary Clinton 2008.  Getting in too late, quitting too soon, not willing to fight, wrong strategies, and other errors.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-not-to-run-for-president-20150206
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #194 on: February 13, 2015, 11:04:00 PM »

Don't rule out Mike Pence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-pence-paradox/2015/02/11/e80788f8-b147-11e4-827f-93f454140e2b_story.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #195 on: February 16, 2015, 06:02:50 PM »

In reverse order—from least likely to most likely-- starting with Donald Trump, you'll never guess how this ends.   wink  "The case for ***** is simple: He is the most talented communicator in politics today. He is a visceral conservative who makes the case for limited government and American greatness better than anyone in the Republican field—better than anyone, anywhere.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/stephen-f.-hayes
A Herd of Elephants
Handicapping the 2016 GOP field
FEB 23, 2015, VOL. 20, NO. 23 • BY STEPHEN F. HAYES

It’s still two years before the next president takes the oath of office, but the contest that will determine who raises his right hand that day started in earnest last month for Republicans, with a grassroots gathering in Iowa and a meeting of high-dollar donors in California.

With that, it’s time for my highly anticipated ranking of the Republican primary field. Okay, okay—that might be a stretch. These are probably unanticipated rankings. But with the Iowa caucuses less than a year away Republicans across the country are already abuzz about the possibilities. The assessments below are based on dozens of conversations with grassroots conservatives in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina; with Republican officeholders at virtually every level of government; with national Republican strategists, fund-raisers, and operatives; with advisers and consultants to the emerging campaigns; and in several cases with the candidates themselves.

So in reverse order—from least likely to most likely—here’s a look at the prospective GOP nominees.

Donald Trump. Trump seems convinced that there is a groundswell of support for a Trump White House. And he seems confident, well, about pretty much everything. “Over the years I’ve participated in many battles and have really almost come out very, very victorious every single time,” he once said. “I’ve beaten many people and companies, and I’ve won many wars. I have fairly but intelligently earned many billions of dollars, which in a sense was both a scorecard and acknowledgment of my abilities.” Clown show.

Paul Ryan. The Wisconsin congressman and 2012 vice presidential nominee has taken himself out of the race. He still has a better chance of being the nominee than Donald Trump.

George Pataki/Bob Ehrlich. Former Maryland governor Bob Ehrlich lost to Martin O’Malley by 14 points in 2010, a very favorable year. Any thought that Maryland was simply unwinnable for a Republican was invalidated in 2014, when a relatively unknown GOP activist named Larry Hogan defeated heavily favored Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown 51-47. It’s unclear what George Pataki, another former governor, could possibly be thinking.

Lindsey Graham/John Bolton. If Lindsey Graham decides to run, he will do so largely to ensure that a hawkish, internationalist approach to national security issues remains part of the debate. The same is true for John Bolton. They are different kinds of hawks. Bolton is harder-edged and less taken with democracy promotion than Graham, a more eager soft-power interventionist. They differ on other issues, too (interrogation, immigration, and gay marriage, to name a few). Neither man will be the nominee, but if either one appears in debates next fall, his presence will be sure to boost the foreign policy content of the proceedings.

Carly Fiorina. The former Hewlett-Packard executive in 2010 lost her bid to serve as senator from California, an unfriendly state to Republicans even in a good year for the party. She’s highly intelligent and has a lot of money but little chance of catching a wave. This feels like a play to make sure (a) Republicans have a smart woman in the debates, and (b) Fiorina is considered for a top position in a future GOP administration.

Rick Santorum. The 2012 Iowa caucuses went to Santorum for two reasons: His social conservatism was attractive to like-minded voters, particularly in the northwest part of the state, and he wasn’t Mitt Romney. Santorum is still not Mitt Romney, but with several viable candidates in the field this time, that won’t take him nearly as far as it did in 2012. As a champion of social conservatism, Santorum will be competing with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee for the same political space. If Santorum couldn’t win the nomination in 2012 with a very weak field, it’s hard to see how he wins in 2016.

Ben Carson. The accomplished neurosurgeon is wildly popular with the conservative grassroots. As Fred Barnes reported in these pages, Carson’s book outsold Hillary Clinton’s Hard Choices by nearly 100,000 copies. He talks to voters like a normal person and emphasizes a kind of everyday common sense that is in short supply in Washington. But his main asset may also prove to be his main liability. A little political incorrectness can be refreshing, but only a little. Carson has said that living in the United States under Barack Obama is “very much like Nazi Germany.” No, it’s not. But when he was asked whether he stood by his assessment, Carson wouldn’t back down.

Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor consistently polls near the top of potential Republican candidates. He’s well known and has an easygoing, aw-shucks personality that makes him appealing. Huckabee showed in 2008 that he can be a very effective debater, and he is one of most entertaining and engaging speakers in politics today.

If he runs, Huckabee will emphasize middle-class economics. So will everyone else in the race, of course, but it’s a theme Huckabee has been hitting for years—the divide between “Wall Street and Main Street.” In an NBC News debate in October 2007, a full year before the economic crisis, Huckabee chastised his fellow Republicans for happy-talk about the economy under George W. Bush.

Voters are “going to hear Republicans on this stage talk about how great the economy is, and, frankly, when they hear that, they’re going to probably reach for the dial. I want to make sure people understand that for many people on this stage, the economy’s doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans it’s not doing so well. The people who handle the bags and make the beds at our hotels and serve the food, many of them are having to work two jobs, and that’s barely paying the rent.”

Huckabee doesn’t speak for long without dropping a corny cliché. “Voters want inspiration, not just information,” he told me last March. A successful candidate is someone who “plans your work and works your plan.” The problem with Mitt Romney in 2012: “Nobody cares how much you know unless they know how much you care.”

If he sounds a bit like someone hawking natural remedies for diabetes or who wants to warn you about “Seven Things That Activate Alzheimer’s in Your Brain,” it’s because he’s doing just that. Although he left his Fox News show to explore a presidential run, Huckabee is still sending out spammy emails to his political list to raise money. And, as Andrew Ferguson wrote in these pages last week, “Huckabee seems to want to cement his image in the public mind not as a successful governor of an unsuccessful state but as a preacher and a talk show host. It is a deadly combination.”

Bobby Jindal. The Louisiana governor has a well-deserved reputation as a policy wonk and an equally well-deserved reputation as an eager and ambitious politician who is relentlessly on message. Among the main questions for Jindal: Can he make Republican primary voters want to have the proverbial beer with him or will they mostly look to him as a guy who gives a great PowerPoint presentation on the complexities of Medicaid funding mechanisms? He’s surrounded himself with a first-rate team. If they can’t manufacture a Jindal surge, no one can.

Rand Paul. Rand Paul is probably the best organized candidate in the Republican field. He has a vast network of eager employees and volunteers in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada—the first four contests next year. He has quietly secured endorsements from more than a dozen Republicans in Congress, and he is aggressively pressuring others to commit to him now. His events draw large crowds that often look more like a campus diversity rally than a typical county Republican chicken dinner. He deserves—and receives—credit for his outreach to groups that seldom vote Republican. Media coverage of Paul as a prospective candidate is often filled with praise for this outreach, and so are Paul’s own speeches.

Time recently put Paul on its cover and declared him “the most interesting man in politics.” That alone is probably enough to get him generally positive media coverage. And the fact that many of his arguments reinforce media stereotypes of Republicans—that they’re arrogant in the conduct of foreign policy, that they’re closed-minded about minorities, that they’re priggish about morality—ensures that such favorable coverage will likely continue.

But as Paul learned recently with the dust-up over his comments on vaccines (he suggested a link between vaccines and “profound mental disorders”)—and might have learned a while back amid controversy over comments about the 1964 Civil Rights Act—thinking out loud as a presidential candidate is very different from debating with college buddies between bong hits. In both cases, Paul was forced to issue clarifications in which he claimed not to have said what he had plainly said. Beyond that, some of the very things that win Paul praise from the media put him at odds with Republican primary voters. Shortly before Russia began its annexation of Crimea, Paul scolded hawks for failing to show enough “respect” to Vladimir Putin. He has supported Obama policy on Iran and Cuba, and when he criticizes the president on national security, he usually does so from the left.

But Paul’s biggest problem may be that he’s not yet a very good candidate. In late January, he appeared onstage at a Koch brothers seminar in California alongside Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The format of the panel discussion, moderated by Jonathan Karl of ABC News, allowed candidates to respond to one another and to give longer answers than a typical TV interview or debate. Paul bombed. His answers—sometimes short and snide, sometimes long and incoherent—were met with widespread disapproval from the audience. And the response to a speech he gave was even worse. Paul wandered around the stage in jeans and blazer as he spoke about—well, it was hard to tell.

Paul inherits many of his father’s backers and, with his determined effort to appear less crazy than his father, will expand on that base of support. In a contest with the number of candidates potentially reaching double digits, Paul will be a player. And his combination of fundraising ability and vanity ensures that he’ll probably remain in the field for a long time.

The biggest question: Will he consider an independent bid for the White House when he loses the Republican nomination?

Chris Christie. It wasn’t too long ago that Chris Christie was considered a top candidate—maybe the frontrunner—for the 2016 nomination. In November 2013, with Republicans still smarting from the Obama reelection, Christie was reelected in blue New Jersey with more than 60 percent of the vote, winning every county but Essex and Hudson. Executives at the major news networks liked Christie, who seemed to take as much joy in poking Republicans in the eye as he did Democrats. He famously hugged Barack Obama shortly before the 2012 elections and then, in the fight over emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy, repeatedly blasted Republicans in Washington for their spending concerns. He didn’t necessarily love journalists but he seemed to thrive on the attention they lavished on him. It wasn’t hard to imagine Christie running for the Republican nomination on the McCain model, winning praise from the media for taking on Republicans even as he asked Republicans for their support.

But the so-called Bridgegate controversy ended that. The mainstream media treated the story as if it were a national scandal, with regular updates on network newscasts and morning shows and saturation-coverage in national newspapers. (For an instructive look at media priorities, compare the excessive national media coverage of Christie’s “Bridgegate” and the negligible coverage of the Obama administration’s IRS scandal.) While the coverage overplayed Christie’s culpability, it nonetheless did real damage to one of his main selling points: electability. Christie is now better known than most of his rivals and thought of less favorably than all of them.

It’s hard enough for a strong conservative to get a second look in a Republican primary (ask Rick Perry), but it’ll be even harder for the man perceived as the most moderate in the field. Ask a group of conservative activists about him and among the first things you’ll hear is complaints about “the hug.” That’s usually followed by a litany of policy complaints, including Christie’s decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. It’s not just that Christie expanded Medicaid, but that he did so not long after scolding Washington politicians, including Republicans, for being afraid to tackle big problems. In that speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Christie portrayed himself as a brave truthteller, willing to talk about reforming entitlements when others won’t. “If we’re not honest about these things,” he thundered, “we’re on the path to ruin.” Medicaid in particular, he said, is “not only bankrupting the federal government, it’s bankrupting every state government.”

Still, Christie remains popular with some donors, and his style could be very effective in debates, especially if he’s willing to be the guy who launches the toughest attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

John Kasich. On paper, Ohio governor John Kasich is a first-tier candidate. He’s got a strong record as a budget hawk in a time of record deficits. He has D.C. experience but he’s not “of Washington.” He’s well known to Fox News viewers from his days hosting a popular weekend show. He can claim that he straightened out Ohio’s finances and brightened its economic outlook. And, crucially, he decisively won reelection last year in what is arguably the most important presidential swing state, with nearly double the votes of his Democrat opponent. And yet Kasich will be something of a long shot if he runs.

Why? On key issues for many GOP primary voters, he’s on the unpopular side: He favors citizenship for undocumented immigrants, Common Core, and he is a passionate defender of Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. Rhetorically, his self-assurance can slip into cockiness. His default stance often seems to be defensiveness. He answers even routine questions as if he’s being attacked. As a consequence, Kasich comes across as “holier than thou.”

Kasich justified his decision to expand Medicaid under Obamacare by suggesting that those with a different approach are un-Christian. “When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor.” Suggesting that morality is gauged by a willingness to spend other people’s money is a perfect way to anger conservatives, and he’s done so regularly. It’s compassionate conservatism with an added layer of condescension. When asked about Kasich’s claim, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, who did not expand Medicaid, had a sharp response. “My reading of the Bible finds plenty of reminders that it’s better to teach someone to fish than to give them fish if they’re able. .  .  . Caring for the poor isn’t the same as taking money from the federal government to lock more people into Medicaid.”

Walker himself may present the biggest obstacle to Kasich. If Republican primary voters want a reform-minded governor from the Midwest, Walker is likely to be the first choice.

Rick Perry. Rick Perry’s biggest challenge in 2016 is Rick Perry in 2012. Perry charged into that race as a successful governor who would present the biggest challenge to Mitt Romney. He left it amidst stories of harsh infighting between his top advisers and as a punchline for late-night comedians. The mere mention of Perry’s name at a gathering of Republicans today elicits laughter and shouts of “oops.” It’s hard to recover from that.

But Perry is trying and making some headway. Ask grassroots conservatives in Iowa and New Hampshire which potential candidate has worked hardest over the last year to build relationships and set himself up for the contest next year and you hear Perry’s name as often as any other. He is a good retail politician and a strong fundraiser. Good enough to replace the memories of 2012? That’s the question.

Mike Pence. Like John Kasich, Pence left a position of prominence among Republicans in the House of Representatives for the governor’s mansion of his home state. But unlike Kasich, Pence didn’t replace a Democrat. He took the job from popular and successful Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. So Pence didn’t have the clean-up job that Kasich (or Walker) had upon taking office. Pence’s charge was to build on the reforms Daniels had implemented, and he’s done that, moving quickly to cut taxes and expand school choice.

Pence is a movement conservative and a talented communicator. He’s an old-school, Reagan-style conservative—hawkish on national security, unwavering on issues of importance to social conservatives, and a consistent economic conservative. If he runs, he will have an opportunity to appeal to grassroots conservatives without scaring establishment and big-money Republicans.

The early betting was that Pence would seek the chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association. When he didn’t, many Washington Republicans took his decision as a sign that he would run. Sources with ties to three rival campaigns say they expect Pence will pass on the race. Pence won’t make a decision until after the state’s legislative session adjourns in April.

Ted Cruz. The junior senator from Texas doesn’t have many friends in Washington. He’s hated by Democrats and loathed by many Republicans, too. These are reasons to believe he will outperform expectations as a presidential candidate. In just two years, Cruz has managed to position himself as the loudest and most unrelenting opponent of the Washington political establishment. The conventional wisdom is that this inability to play well with others makes his presidential ambitions almost delusional. In reality, Cruz is in a pretty good place, with approval of Congress at 16 percent and faith in public institutions lower than post-Watergate lows.

Cruz will be the most conservative candidate in the field. He knows what he believes and why he believes it. And he’s smart. His challenge will be to show that his antagonism is directed at Washington and not a character trait. He will need to be smart without seeming pleased by his own intelligence. He’ll need to talk to voters without appearing to lecture them—and he’ll need to do a lot of listening.

Cruz gave a solid speech at the recent GOP gathering in Iowa. But several attendees complained that he blew in like a political celebrity, with an outsized entourage and little time to spend with voters. In some cases, the same voters who nodded in approval with Cruz’s call for a new order in Washington were shaking their heads at his unapproachability in Des Moines.

Still, few names generate more enthusiasm among the conservative grassroots than Ted Cruz. That’s a huge advantage if he can capitalize on it.

Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush has made clear that he will run an unorthodox campaign, deploying social media in innovative ways. He is making public volumes of email from his tenure as Florida governor. He is telling people that his campaign will reimagine the traditional roles of advisers and staff—even of the candidate himself. And he has said that he wants to win in the primaries by running as a general election candidate.

Bush’s early entry and aggressive pitch to contributors (he’s asking for big bucks and often a pledge of donor exclusivity) were intended to scare off or intimidate would-be challengers. There’s no doubt it played a major role in Mitt Romney’s decision not to run, despite his eagerness to mount a third bid. And Bush certainly impressed the shapers of conventional wisdom in the political media—who immediately bestowed upon him the designation “frontrunner.” Bush may end up the nominee, but he’s far from the shoo-in that money Republicans (and the reporters who listen to them) seem to believe.

Many movement conservatives are hostile to the idea of another Bush in the White House. They still remember George H. W. Bush’s broken “no new taxes” pledge and the orgy of spending that ended George W. Bush’s administration (the culmination of years of profligacy). They blame the last Bush administration for giving us the Obama administration. They focus on the two issues where Jeb Bush is at odds with the party base—immigration and Common Core—and they talk about Jeb as if he will fill the Mitt Romney/establishment moderate slot in the 2016 Republican primary.

Some of this is unfair. Jeb is the most conservative of the three Bushes. As Florida governor, he pushed aggressively for conservative reforms and wasn’t afraid to challenge moderate Republicans in the legislature and the business community. He calls himself a conservative because he regards himself as a conservative, not because consultants tell him it’s what voters want to hear, and he usually describes his conservatism without unnecessary qualifiers like “compassionate” or “severe.”

The skepticism between Jeb Bush and the GOP base is mutual. If conservatives are wary of a Bush candidacy, it’s at least in part because he has made them so. Conservatives focus on Bush’s views on Common Core and immigration because Bush focuses on them. There’s no doubt he pushes as hard as he does because he believes deeply that he’s right. But after emphasizing issues on which he differs from many Republicans, Bush shouldn’t be surprised that many Republicans regard him as something of a renegade.

The challenge for Bush is not primarily that he has these differences with the GOP base, it’s that he sometimes talks about these differences in a tone that suggests those who disagree are either backward or bigoted. During an RNC fundraiser in Ohio last summer, Bush participated in a discussion with contributors. One donor asked Bush about the Common Core “curriculum.” According to several sources in the room, Bush angrily chastised the questioner for his failure to understand the issue and noted that Common Core isn’t a curriculum but a set of standards. His tone was harsh enough that it caused more than one attendee to conclude that Bush wasn’t running for president.

Bush has said that it’s important for a candidate to be willing to “lose the primary to win the general without violating your principles”—a comment that many took as a declaration that he will not pander to conservatives in order to win the Republican nomination. There’s a delicate balance between refusing to pander (positive) and showing disdain for the base (counterproductive).

In February 2014, as he was touring a schoolhouse near Miami, Bush was asked whether he would run for president. Among the most important questions he would have to answer, Bush said, was: “Can I do this joyfully?”

For the final two: It’s a coin toss. If I were betting on the likely GOP nominee today, I’d put the same amount on Walker and Rubio (with a chunk on Jeb, too).

Scott Walker. If Scott Walker’s early success has surprised some Washington-based political reporters, it didn’t surprise many in the conservative grassroots or those familiar with his political career in Wisconsin. The question was never whether Walker would be a first-tier candidate, it was how quickly he would become one and whether he could remain there once he did. With Walker at or near the top of polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, we have an answer to the first question, and the answer to the second may well determine whether Walker is the nominee.

Walker’s case is a simple one: I fight on behalf of conservative principles and I win. This is true electorally and substantively. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the 47-year-old governor has run in more elections than any other candidate in the field, and he’s won more than any other candidate in the field.

Walker served in the state assembly before he was rather improbably elected Milwaukee county executive in 2002. Milwaukee is a heavily Democratic county, but Walker ran as the man who would clean up after a worse-than-Hollywood pension scandal that featured, among other things, officeholders secretly voting themselves huge raises in the middle of the night. As county executive, Walker implemented a series of cost-cutting measures designed to bring the local government to heel. Democrats and their backers in the public sector unions fought Walker’s every move. He was reelected anyway.

Walker gained national prominence in 2011, his first year as governor, during the fight over his budget reforms and the subsequent attempt by unions and Democrats to recall him. His reforms passed, and he wiped out a $3.6 billion biennial deficit. The 2012 recall failed, and last year Walker was elected to a second term as governor. Immediately after his recall victory, Walker publicly urged Mitt Romney to change strategy, from his cautious attempt to win a referendum on Barack Obama to a bold, reform-minded insurgent’s campaign to change the country. Romney largely rejected Walker’s advice. But Walker, who received a four-minute standing ovation at the 2012 Republican convention before he started his speech, was clearly onto something.

Walker has moved quickly to start his presidential bid. He put in place an experienced team to run his exploring-in-name-only effort, including former RNC political director Rick Wiley and veteran GOP strategist Ed Goeas. Last week, Wiley supervised the opening of an Iowa office for Walker’s presidential PAC. Goeas, meanwhile, quietly started making the rounds on Capitol Hill, seeking to open lines of communication between conservatives in Congress and Walker. “I was just doing due diligence,” Goeas told The Weekly Standard.

Walker will run a positive campaign, sticking closely to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment forbidding attacks on fellow Republicans. In part, that’s because Walker has had good relationships with several other competitors. He consulted Jeb Bush regularly for advice on politics and governance and developed a friendship with Chris Christie. (Walker’s wife, Tonette, a sharp political observer in her own right, became friends with Christie’s wife, Mary Pat.)

Walker faces two main challenges: maintaining support from conservatives as he details his views on issues and presenting himself as a steady hand on foreign policy and national security matters. Republican primary voters know Walker primarily for his fight against the unions. On other issues, voters assume Walker will be with them. He’s a full-spectrum conservative, so in most instances these voters will be right. But the details will matter. Walker opted not to mount a big fight on gay marriage, disappointing some evangelicals. He’s for a middle path on immigration reform, something that won’t satisfy either hardcore restrictionists or open-borders libertarians.

On national security, Walker faces the dilemma of any governor running for president. He spends his days and nights focused on Wisconsin-specific domestic policy issues and consequently won’t know the details of, say, the make-up of ISIS or tensions with Russia in the same way that a senator on the Intelligence Committee might. He’s studying—Walker met recently with Henry Kissinger and George Shultz and will be seeing General Jack Keane for briefings in March—but he’s got a state to run.

Walker’s instincts are hawkish. In a recent interview on ABC’s This Week, Martha Raddatz pushed Walker on the proper U.S. response to ISIS. When he said it has to be more “aggressive,” she pushed back, asking how he could say that a campaign of some 2,000 airstrikes wasn’t aggressive. Walker didn’t back down, but he didn’t dispute her very questionable claim. (The United States and its allies conducted 10,000 airstrikes in Kosovo over just 78 days, so, no, 2,000 over six months isn’t actually an “aggressive” campaign.) Walker said that America would have to consider ground troops in Syria if ISIS continued to develop as a threat. It is not only a defensible answer; it’s the right one. But Walker was short on details, and reporters will soon begin to demand them.

Marco Rubio. The conventional wisdom about a Rubio for president campaign has swung wildly over the past two months. In the weeks after the 2014 midterms, commentators mused about a Rubio bid as if it were a sure thing. But when Jeb Bush made clear that he was likely to run, the peddlers of conventional wisdom were sure Rubio wouldn’t challenge his mentor. Last week, Rubio hired well-regarded New Hampshire political strategist Jim Merrill, and the commentariat quickly concluded that he was in. Interviewed by Hugh Hewitt, Rubio said: “I wouldn’t be running against Jeb Bush. If I ran, I would run because I believe I’m the right person for the right time in our country’s history.” The reality is that very few people know if Rubio will run, but unless something changes his thinking, he is far more likely to run than not. His wife is supportive, his team is prepared, and a decision is imminent.

As for Walker, the case for Rubio is simple: He is the most talented communicator in politics today. He is a visceral conservative who makes the case for limited government and American greatness better than anyone in the Republican field—better than anyone, anywhere. And he has used his short time in Congress to make himself a leading Republican voice on national security and foreign policy, serving on both the Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees.

At the Koch Forum where Rand Paul bombed, Rubio stood out. On the panel discussion with Paul and Cruz, Rubio was, at turns, funny and thoughtful. His quick wit elicited laughter from the audience several times over the 90-minute conversation. The second half of the discussion focused on national security, and Rubio took the opportunity to demonstrate his fluency on the subject matter, offering detailed analyses of the country’s problems and solutions that made clear he’d spent a considerable amount of time on them.

Rubio’s best moment came the following day, however, when he addressed the group about the promise of America. Rubio spoke for 30 minutes without notes and captivated the crowd with stories of his grandfather and his parents. Rubio’s speeches often convey a sense of humility and wonder that he’s risen to a place where he might influence the direction of the American experiment in self-governance. Rubio manages to tell convincingly the kinds of only-in-America stories that might come off as hackneyed and manipulative from other politicians. Maybe that’s because they’re often personal for him. Maybe he’s just a better story-teller than most. Whatever the explanation, Rubio can drown skepticism about America’s future with reminders about the country’s past and, in the process, give goosebumps to a cynic.

When I sat in on Rubio’s debate-prep sessions for a profile I wrote in 2010, I was blown away by his ability to think on his feet. Rubio routinely came up with memorable one-liners that other candidates would pay consultants thousands of dollars to imagine. He wasn’t as conversant on foreign policy back then, but he spoke with great authority on the issues that he had worked on at the state level.

Because of their youth, their speaking ability, and their similar career paths, Rubio frequently draws comparisons to Obama. If this was once a compliment, that’s no longer the case. Team Rubio pushes back hard against the parallels. Obama was a nonentity in the Illinois state senate, they argue, avoiding controversial issues by voting present and devoting considerable time to boosting his future prospects. Rubio, by contrast, held leadership posts for eight of his eight and a half years in the legislature, including stints as majority whip and majority leader before becoming speaker of the Florida house at the age of 35. He spent his time advancing the agenda of the legislature’s Republicans and Governor Jeb Bush.

Like Bush, Rubio was a proponent of comprehensive immigration reform and worked toward a solution as part of the Gang of Eight in the Senate. Rubio said at the time that he thought it better to participate in those negotiations and attempt to shape the outcome than to sit it out and risk a bad law. It’s an issue that has made a segment of the Republican base suspicious of his conservative bona fides.

Another potential obstacle for Rubio is his friendship with former Rep. David Rivera. Rubio and Rivera co-owned a house in Tallahassee while they served in the legislature and have been friends for years. Rivera is a shady figure whose fundraising and campaign practices have gotten him in legal trouble over the years. If Rubio runs, his opponents will doubtless seek to highlight their friendship and link Rubio with Rivera’s misdeeds.

The conventional wisdom suggests Rubio will have trouble raising money with Jeb Bush in the race. Perhaps. But Rubio won the straw poll of attendees at the Koch seminar in January, and he’s been a strong fundraiser over his time in the Senate.

The 2016 GOP field has strengths and weaknesses, good candidates and bad ones. And maybe Donald Trump. The recent history of presidential contests suggests Republicans will have a hard time winning the White House. The demography-is-destiny crowd will tell you it’ll be nearly impossible.

But Barack Obama’s attempt to make big government popular again has resulted instead in greater skepticism of government. And if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she’ll have to answer a very difficult question: What does the party of government do when fewer and fewer people believe in government?

And how will Clinton explain her role in an administration that saw American overreach as a greater threat than radical Islam or Russian aggression or Iranian nuclear weapons? The world is a mess, and it’s abundantly clear that so-called smart power has left America weaker and at greater risk than at any time in recent memory. That’s not just the view of Republicans or administration critics, but of top administration officials themselves. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says the “world is exploding all over.” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says: “Looking back over my more than half a century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe.”

These issues will matter. And so will the candidates who discuss them. I like Republican chances.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2015, 04:45:18 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #196 on: February 16, 2015, 07:20:40 PM »

A thoughtful piece Doug.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32612


« Reply #197 on: February 18, 2015, 06:15:27 PM »


GOP's Electoral Cliff
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 17, 2015
The 3.9 percentage point margin by which President Obama defeated Mitt Romney in 2012 clouds the challenge the Republicans face in 2016. Unless they are able to improve their standing by 5 to 6 points in the key electoral states, they cannot win.

Romney got 206 electoral votes (carrying his closest state, North Carolina, by only 2.2 points). To add to this total, much less to bring it up to the 270 needed to win, Republicans must carry a number of states where they lost by 5 or more points in 2012.

Here are the closest states that went for Obama in 2012:

• Florida: 29 votes; margin 0.9 points

• Ohio: 18 votes; margin 1.9 points

• Virginia: 13 votes; margin 3.0 points

• Colorado: 9 votes; margin 4.7 points

• Pennsylvania: 20 votes; margin 5.2 points

• Iowa: 6 votes; margin 5.6 points

• New Hampshire: 4 votes; margin 5.8 points

• Nevada: 6 votes; margin 6.6 points

• Wisconsin: 10 votes; margin 6.7 points

Note how sharply Obama's margins increase as we scroll down the list to marginal states he carried in 2012. Taking Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado, combined with the ones Romney carried, would suffice to reach a majority. A tall order, indeed.

If the 2016 Republican candidate were merely to close the gap in the popular vote -- and this were reflected in the swing states -- he would still lose, getting only 268 of the 270 he needs to win. He has to do better to win. If the vote in swing states reflected the overall national vote, the GOP nominee in 2016 would need to win by 2 points in order to eke out a bare electoral majority. A George W. Bush 2000 performance would not cut it (Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore by 0.5 percentage points). Even the 2004 margin by which Bush defeated John Kerry, 2.4 points, would prove only barely adequate, representing a 5.4-point swing.

The results of 2014 give Republicans hope as they contemplate the electoral map. They carried Iowa, Colorado, Florida, Ohio and came very close in Virginia. So scaling the electoral mountain is quite possible for a Republican.

In this context, we Republicans must look for a candidate who brings an electoral vote edge with him. In a sense, the criterion that normally governs the selection of a vice president must now intrude into our choice for president.

Jeb Bush brings with him obvious strength in Florida, where he served as a popular governor for two terms. Similarly, Sen. Marco Rubio would have an edge in that state. But any Republican has got to win Florida to have a chance, and just winning Florida would leave him far behind nationally.

Similarly, John Kasich's edge in Ohio simply helps a Republican win a state he has to carry but that would still leave him shy of the 270 he needed (assuming he carried both Florida and Ohio).

Only Scott Walker of Wisconsin appears to offer the chance for a decisive shift in the electoral vote. Having won election twice and survived a statewide recall vote, his ability to carry a state Romney lost is pretty well established. Were Walker able to carry Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin, he would need only seven more electoral votes to win, which he could pick up in Virginia or Colorado.

Viewed another way, a Hispanic Republican candidate would give the party a much better shot at Colorado's nine votes and Nevada's six, in addition, of course, to Florida's 29.

But without Wisconsin or Hispanic candidate, the electoral challenge is daunting, indeed.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #198 on: February 19, 2015, 10:57:43 AM »

In 2016, we aren't going to be running the 2012 election scenario again.  1) Obama's amazing hold on the black vote and historic turnout of same is over.  2) Obama's claim of foreign policy success is over.  3) Obama's power of incumbency is over, and most certainly a negative for Hillary or whoever.  4) Romney's inability to land a punch (see Candy Crowley debate), his inability to defend the free enterprise system, and his inability to bring out millions of conservative voters will also (hopefully) not be on the ballot.  5) The Republican nominee will most likely not be someone he can be easily painted as a fat cat who doesn't care about people like me.  

2016 will not be the year of the resume.  Republicans are going to run (I predict) a vision of freedom and the American Dream against the decaying stagnation of big government statism.  If not the candidate I've pointed out, then someone else who can do that as well or better.

There are factors offsetting the demographic gains that Democrats are allegedly winning with the increasing numbers of "non-whites" in "swing states".  The electorate is getting older. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/the-most-valuable-voters-of-2016-20150218)  Dems are losing even more white voters. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/the-most-valuable-voters-of-2016-20150218)  Dem and leftist economics failed its core constituents.  Working class wages are stagnant.  Facts are stubborn things.  So-called blue collar workers are turning Republican.  (http://www.npr.org/2015/01/02/374511123/democrats-problem-white-working-class-voters) Minorities are unemployed and underemployed, and income disparity, their main economic argument, widened under their watch.  With Obama off the ballot, their share of black voters and the phenomenal turnout drops substantially.  (See 2010, 2014:  http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2014/11/where_did_all_the_black_voters_go_on_election_day.html)  The presumed Dem candidate has no idea how to embrace Obama's personal  political victories and retain his voters while rejecting the failures of his policies, which by the way were identical to her policies.  (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/peas-in-a-pod/)

The idea that a state like Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada or New Hampshire could not swing the other way with the right candidate and the right message might be disputed by people like Jodi Ernst, Scott Walker, Cory Gardner, Brian Sandoval and Kelly Ayotte.  In a wave election, Republicans take all of these with decent margins, just as Obama did in 2008.  Govern well and you hold the Presidency through to 2025.  Easy or automatic?  No.  Possible?  Yes.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2015, 11:44:39 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6326


« Reply #199 on: March 02, 2015, 01:16:26 PM »

All other things equal, I like the background preference to have a two term governor be President and have sufficient public sector executive experience coming into he first day.  Yet I don't put that above getting it right on policy and possessing the ability to connect, communicate, persuade people and lead.

The problem with Barack Obama is not his relatively young age nor is it his lack of executive experience.  His biggest problem is that he is headed in the wrong direction.

Truman didn't have a college degree and Lincoln didn't have executive experience.  Healthcare.gov didn't crash because of Obama's short tenure in the Senate.  His programs are failing because they are wrongheaded, IMHO.  This is not a competence election coming up.  We are not looking for who can best manage our giant status quo of bureaucracy.  This is a change-of-direction election.  We are looking for who has the best vision and detailed plans to turn this around and who can connect, change minds and lead people to get it down.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!