Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 25, 2014, 03:27:55 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
79267 Posts in 2227 Topics by 1037 Members
Latest Member: DCoutinho
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2016 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 2209 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #50 on: January 14, 2014, 11:36:04 AM »

I am pretty excited about the run to Iowa and NH, for both parties. For real.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2014, 09:00:28 AM »

Crafty,

It seems most people in NJ agree with you.  The believe Christie.  Some people I spoke to think, "he couldn't be that dumb" to have known this.   I guess that is the new defense now.   Unless new information ties him to this he will now come even stronger.   The establishment will point to this as another credential on his resume for the RNC controlled run for 16:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/despite-bridgegate-christies-approval-new-jersey-still-59
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2014, 11:44:55 PM »

Maybe he is only flavor of the week, but the sudden media obsession is interesting.  This piece, aimed at liberals, mostly sets a tone of ripping him for not only being the anti-Hillary, he is the anti-Obama.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dem-thinks-he-can-win-the-anti-obama
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #53 on: January 16, 2014, 11:07:27 PM »

http://youngcons.com/glenn-beck-unveiled-his-top-4-choices-for-president-in-2016-do-you-agree/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #54 on: January 22, 2014, 12:18:28 PM »

The left MSM blitz/tsunami on girl power like the gay infatada before it is going to badger us like no tomorrow.  All in setup for their hero - Hillary.

To think they glamorize a filthy mouth like Sarah Silverman just further goes to show us how demeaned our culture has become:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/01/21/pbs-women-honors-sarah-silverman-dunham
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #55 on: January 23, 2014, 09:46:40 AM »

Nation’s Largest Liberal ‘Super PAC’ to Support Potential Clinton Presidential Run
The largest liberal “super PAC” in the country has begun raising money to elect Hillary Rodham Clinton president, formally aligning itself with Mrs. Clinton’s undeclared presidential ambitions more than two years away from the election.
The group, Priorities USA Action, which played a pivotal role in helping re-elect President Obama, also named new directors to steer the organization, appointments that will both cement the group’s pro-Clinton tilt and thrust veterans of Mr. Obama’s political and fund-raising operation into the center of the post-Obama Democratic Party.
The move marks perhaps the earliest-ever start to big-dollar fund-raising in support of a nonincumbent presidential candidate, providing a fund-raising portal for wealthy Clinton supporters eager to help her White House prospects — and to the legions of others eager to ingratiate themselves with Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/politics/biggest-liberal-super-pac-to-fund-possible-clinton-bid.html?emc=edit_na_20140123

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2014, 11:36:43 AM »

Crafty has suggested we keep Huckabee in mind.  I like this concept from Mike.  The RNC really has NO clue what they are doing.

https://news.yahoo.com/mike-huckabee-wants-republicans-to-fight-back-on--war-on-women--rhetoric-215125924.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2014, 10:53:46 AM »

I highly recommend this article, and especially for those thinking about not voting because of lousy, muddled choices.  Walker is winning (for Governor) in a state that has not gone Republican since 1984.  He won his state by 7.5% just before Obama won it 7%.  "What we found is, to win the center, which is the key to winning states like Wisconsin, you don't have to move to the center. That's the misnomer [in Washington] that suddenly you've got to change your core principles and move more to the center. It's just the opposite with voters who are independents or swing voters or undecided, persuadable voters. "They want leadership."

On whether Republicans need a woman on the 2016 ticket:  "Susana Martinez has done a wonderful job in a state that's clearly a blue state. Nikki Haley's doing a great job in South Carolina. Mary Fallin is doing a super job out there [in Oklahoma]. So I don't think you have to, but the beauty of any of those three names is that none of them would be token. They'd be three proven reformers and governors."

I think Walker would be a controversial VP pick.  Better at the top of the ticket.  He has moved recently from dark horse to contender for the Republican Presidential nominee.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/30/opinion/cupp-scott-walker-2016/index.html
A Republican with a message for 2016
By S.E. Cupp    Thu January 30, 2014

    S.E. Cupp: Republicans should give Scott Walker a serious look for 2016
    He says the candidate needs to build campaign around reform, not austerity
    Walker says Romney wrongly tried to win by focusing on what's wrong with incumbent
    Wisconsin governor says voters are looking for leaders who have a plan

(CNN) -- "The reason why Republicans I think sometimes get in trouble is ... they talk about cutting things. Too many people in our party talk about austerity and not about reform. There's a difference."

That was what Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker told me this past weekend when I sat down with him at a Washington hotel restaurant to discuss a broad range of topics, including the path forward for the GOP. Whether talking about entitlement reform, food stamps, unemployment benefits or social programs, his one word mantra? Emphasize "reform."

"The mistake I think we often make is," he continued, "if we're the party of no, and we're the party of austerity, the people of this country want more. The difference is, the left offers them more government, more benefits, more assistance. We should offer them more freedom, more opportunity, more prosperity."

Over the course of our interview, the word "reform" came up dozens of times -- in his assessment of Mitt Romney, his support for Chris Christie, his praise for Paul Ryan and his advice to Republican 2016 contenders. In fact, the advice was free-flowing all around. And why not?

Walker's frequently discussed in conservative circles as a 2016 contender himself, and after winning a bruising collective bargaining dispute and surviving a vicious recall effort in 2012, he's earned a reputation as a fighter -- and the political capital that comes along with it.

According to the most recent polling, 51% approve of his job as governor, in a blue state that hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1984.

"We are, like most Midwestern battleground states, very evenly divided among parties. I won with 7.5% of the vote in the recall election. A few months later, Barack Obama carried the state by about the same margin, about 7 points."

What he calls the "Walker/Obama" voter might sound like a creature out of political mythology, but he believes it's the key to a Republican winning in 2016.

"What we found is, to win the center, which is the key to winning states like Wisconsin, you don't have to move to the center. That's the misnomer [in Washington] that suddenly you've got to change your core principles and move more to the center. It's just the opposite with voters who are independents or swing voters or undecided, persuadable voters.

"They want leadership. We've shown that the same people who voted for me, there's a significant number of those middle-of-the-road voters who then turned around and voted for Obama." (President Obama is visiting Wisconsin on Thursday as part of his post-State of the Union tour.)

And even though he disagrees with almost all of Obama's policies, he believes Republicans could stand to take a page from his book.

"The one thing I'll give him his due on, he's a committed liberal. He's leading, he's got big, bold ideas, Obamacare being a prime example. I think that's bad policy, but at least I won't fault him for leading."
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says the Republican message should be \
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says the Republican message should be "reform."

After inheriting a $3.6 billion budget deficit in 2011, Walker now sits comfortably on a gross general fund balance of more than $1 billion, with $279 million in a rainy day fund. He's helped lower the unemployment rate to 6.2% from 7% in 2011, and this year he is proposing to give Wisconsinites $800 million back in income and property tax cuts and withholding changes. Personal income grew 4.4% over the past year.

"If you put more money back in the hands of the people, the hard-working taxpayers of your state, they will fuel the economy. If you put more and more of it in the hands of government, they'll take it in the opposite direction."

Despite his reputation among progressives as a union-busting "bully," who was often greeted by signs comparing him to Hitler during recall protests in Madison, Scott Walker is soft-spoken and unassuming.

In a crowded room, you might not notice the 47-year-old sitting governor, sipping hot tea as he was on Saturday. He's wonky and fluent with figures but speaks affably and quickly with a wide Wisconsin accent. "Get me going on the Packers or motorcycles and I can go all day," he says.

But when he believes a policy is deleterious, he doesn't labor to couch his rhetoric in polite Midwestern niceties.

On raising the minimum wage: "It is a cheap political stunt that may be well-intentioned by some, but it has an incredibly buzz saw type effect on the economy. And it's nothing more than a photo-op to pretend that people are doing something about creating jobs."

On Obamacare: "It's been a huge wet blanket that the federal government's thrown on employers who should otherwise be starting to hire more people."

On food stamps: "Last year, I proposed and have since done a program that says if you're an adult in my state without kids and you want to get food stamps, I'm not going to give you food stamps unless you're employed part time or enrolled in one of my employment training programs."
You can't win elections just by being against the other guy.
Scott Walker

It's this straight-forward, principled approach to economic issues that makes Walker a darling in many right-wing circles looking for a conservative candidate for 2016 whose vision is clear-eyed and concrete, unlike what some would say was Romney's confused message.

Walker readily admits Romney wasn't clear enough on his principles.

"I'm not telling tales here because I told him this for months. ... I think [Romney's] a good man, would have been a good president. But you can't win elections just by being against the other guy. You can't win elections with the premise that it's a referendum on your opposition.

"You've got to tell people why the country would be better under your leadership. Both my [recall] opponent and Mitt Romney said, 'My opponent's awful, he's a bad guy, you shouldn't vote for him.' The winners were the ones who actually told people where they were going."

But Walker also concedes there's a fine line between no-nonsense straight talk and the kind of undisciplined and undernuanced rhetoric that's gotten some other Republicans in trouble, especially when it comes to social issues.

Walker says he "obsesses" on fiscal issues because that's what voters elected him to do. He's principled and conservative on abortion and marriage, but hey says social issues simply aren't the centerpiece of his agenda. And he blames the media and Democrats for trying to make them the centerpiece of every Republican's agenda.

"The reason the left wants to talk about those other issues and obsess about those issues is because they can't cut it when it comes to the economy and fiscal issues. They want any sort of distraction to get off-topic, off-message to go on some tangent out there to have people be distracted from what the real issues are."

His advice to fellow conservatives is to talk less about social issues and, if forced to, "it's just a simple answer and move on."

"What I try to tell Republicans is, don't take the bait. Don't change your positions -- nobody in the center wants people to flip-flop just based on whatever they think conventional wisdom is at the time. They respect people who have deeply held convictions. But what they don't want is people going off on tangents on things that don't relate to what concerns them."

As for 2016, he not surprisingly prefers two governors on the Republican ticket. What might be surprising is the model for success he thinks Republicans can channel.
Why not send two proven reformers to Washington to shake things up and take on the establishment...
Scott Walker

"Kind of like Bill Clinton and Al Gore were a little unconventional in '92, but what they said that worked was, we're young, we're dynamic, we're the next generation and we're ready to go. And in this case why not send two proven reformers to Washington to shake things up and take on the establishment that Hillary Clinton's been a part of almost her entire adult life?"

One nongovernor he does like? He's partial to a young congressman from Janesville, Wisconsin.

"Paul Ryan to me is one of the few exceptions out there. I think here in D.C., he's someone that thinks like a governor. He pushes reform, he's bold and aggressive."

If Republicans looking to run in 2014 or 2016 need advice, they may want to listen to Walker, whose message of "reform" certainly has a nicer, smarter ring to it than "blame Obama." And they might want to obsess a little more over fiscal issues, despite the desire of the liberal media to make abortion and same-sex marriage a 24-hour news story.

Similarly, if voters are looking for a candidate in 2016 with proven executive experience, principled leadership and a simple mission to reform unruly and broken bureaucracy, they may just want to pay attention to Walker, too.

+++

Here is Walker on some other key issues that have been making news:

On whether Chris Christie should step down from heading the Republican Governors Association:

"No, I think in the end, he'll be fine. He's going to have his hands full in the next few months. But I talked to him the day that he had his press conference, what two hours almost? Everything that was reported there he had told me privately. So I don't hear a different message.

"And assuming, obviously a qualifier, but I have every reason to believe what he's telling me is accurate, assuming that continues, any of us, not just in a situation like this, but any of us who are pushing big, bold reform, are going to be under attack. I get attacked all the time. Other governors get attacked. I think Chris is perfectly capable of handling that."

On whether Republicans need a woman on the 2016 ticket:

"Susana Martinez has done a wonderful job in a state that's clearly a blue state. Nikki Haley's doing a great job in South Carolina. Mary Fallin is doing a super job out there [in Oklahoma]. So I don't think you have to, but the beauty of any of those three names is that none of them would be token. They'd be three proven reformers and governors."

On legalizing marijuana:

"From my standpoint, I still have concerns about making it legal. I understand from the libertarian standpoint, the argument out there. I still have concerns. I'm not, unlike the President, I still have difficulty visualizing marijuana and alcohol in the same vein.

"I've never experienced this, but I can't imagine people socially smoking the way people have a beer or two at a wedding reception. There's a huge difference out there. So in the end, I understand why people make that argument, but in our state, I don't think we're ready for that."

On an Obamacare alternative:

"The better answer to me is go the reverse direction, to a patient-centered concept, where it's market-driven and patients are the ones in charge and the tax incentives offered by states and the federal government don't discriminate between those who have employer-paid insurance or people who choose to buy it individually or choose to use it for things like health savings accounts.

"Make it the same tax incentive across the board. And in the end, you can make this about controlling cost by people making decisions based on their own health and wellness and not about the mechanical bureaucratic system and trying to reign in costs."

On raising the minimum wage:

"What it really is is dumping a so-called fresh idea off of the heap of 20 or 30 years of bad ideas of the past. And sometimes because a poll here shows people are for it a lot of politicians are afraid to take it on. I say, if you explain it to people it's not hard for people to get. It's not enough to just say 'No, I'm not for the minimum wage.'

"The better answer is to say we should be promoting pro-growth policies that make it easier for employers to not only create more jobs but grow income."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #58 on: February 03, 2014, 10:08:24 AM »

I do not favor Huckabee. I note that Glenn Beck doesn't like him either.

Jindal would be fine with me.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #59 on: February 03, 2014, 10:18:22 AM »

For the record, I don't "favor" Huckabee, merely that we put him on our radar screen.  I skim his show on FOX on Saturdays most weeks and FWIW since mentioning him here I have been rather underwhelmed.

Jindal handled the SOTU rebuttal for the Reps a few years ago and IMHO did a rather poor job-- this is my only observation of him in action.  Lots of interesting things in his record, but no national stature yet on national issues,  nor int'l.   Seems too young to me too.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2014, 09:09:07 AM »

"Don't think Hillary will try to have it both ways.  She will position herself as a champion to all these interest groups while trying to distance herself from the Brock as someone who is a champion for America."

I meant don't think Hillary will *not* try to have it both ways.  I can see her outrunning the stupid ass Republicans even now.  The repubs will be claiming her policies will be a threat to America.   She will be way ahead of them and play she is the champion of American not this globalization thing.  But a version of  American that plays into all the lefts identity politics thing where women of people of color sexual orientation, religion can have equal opportunity etc., etc.   

She will outrun the Republicans.  The repubs always play chess with the Clintons one step behind.  They will criticize them for something and the next day the Clintons have their media machine out in public twisting it all around to negate or neutralize the opposition.  And the adoring media allows them to do this.  And the Repubs just look stupid.

We right just doesn't have the wise political strategists the left does. 

I can already see the RNC failing to really prepare for this. 

Folks it is hopeless unless some unexpected event occurs to change the dynamic.

And Christie was never the answer.   We don't have one so far. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #61 on: February 05, 2014, 09:32:51 AM »

One major point on how Clintons always come away winning the media argument.  It is rather simple:

Their political people anticipate ahead of time the Repubs moves and have plans in place to rapidly hit the MSM willing airways to swipe away the "right's jump shot" before it even goes to a downward trajectory.

The right NEVER from what I have witnessed since following politics (at least since we were stuck with the Bushes) ever does the same.  The repubs are always flat footed, too late, and too little.  Always.  Only Reagan in my lifetime was able to control this.  Yet he made mistakes too.  Witness immigration.  The debt exploded under him too.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2014, 09:34:52 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2014, 10:25:30 AM »

I would focus our self-analysis on the courage of our convictions, vel non.  Again and again Reps (McCain, Romney, etc) flinch in front of race-baiting and class warfare.  In a very pleasant way (see Reagan, Dr. Ben Carson?) we need to forthrightly and aggressively assert what we are for.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2014, 07:37:58 PM »

"Again and again Reps (McCain, Romney, etc) flinch in front of race-baiting and class warfare."

So do the Bush's, so do the Boehner's, etc.

"I would focus our self-analysis on the courage of our convictions, vel non.  Again and again Reps (McCain, Romney, etc) flinch in front of race-baiting and class warfare.  In a very pleasant way (see Reagan, Dr. Ben Carson?) we need to forthrightly and aggressively assert what we are for."

The Clintons will pretend they are for the same convictions.  Remember "the era of big government is over?"

We have to explain why "they are wrong" why and how "they deceive us" and why "our way is better".

And We have to explain why we are not favoring the wealthy.  The wealthy don't deserve loopholes anymore then those at the bottom deserve a free ride.

Ideology alone will not trump cold hard cash when people are struggling.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2014, 08:57:08 PM »

The America of Carter was a desperate place too, yet Reagan spoke of opportunity, growth, and how to get there.  It worked.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #65 on: February 05, 2014, 09:32:15 PM »

We only had 3 million illegals now there are probably more than five times that.

"The America of Carter was a desperate place too, yet Reagan spoke of opportunity, growth, and how to get there."

Don't kid yourself.  The Clintons will use the same lines. 

So did and does the Brock.  And he won twice.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #66 on: February 05, 2014, 11:39:43 PM »

Ummm , , , no.   Reagan spoke quite differently from them.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #67 on: February 06, 2014, 11:59:00 AM »

A Time for Choosing

Given as a stump speech, at speaking engagements, and on a memorable night in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. This version is from that broadcast.

1964

I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.

It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
Reagan as Governor

This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....

We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2014, 07:55:39 PM »

I just don't get it.  Do these ex military types really believe this?  Or are they anticipating big pay offs joining the Clinton industrial complex?  There is so much money to be made through supporting her me thinks.


****Ex-Gen. David Petraeus says Hillary Clinton would ‘make a tremendous President’

The former commander and CIA Director made the laudatory comments in the new book, ‘HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton,’ to be released Tuesday.
Comments (16)
By Adam Edelman  / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sunday, February 9, 2014, 4:31 PM.

Former Gen. David Petraeus shakes hands with then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2008. The two grew close, a new book alleges, during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State.


Former Gen. David Petraeus shakes hands with then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2008. The two grew close, a new book alleges, during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State.

Former Army Gen. David Petraeus , who has traditionally stayed away from political endorsements, appears to be eager to support a Hillary Clinton candidacy, a new book alleges.

“She’d make a tremendous President,” the former commander and CIA director reportedly says in the new book “ HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton,” by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes.

RELATED: PETRAEUS TRIED TO DOWNGRADE WAR HERO’S AWARD

“Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times,” Petraeus adds.

Former CIA director and retired four-star general David Petraeus has typically stayed away from praising or bashing political candidates and office-holders.
Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Former CIA director and retired four-star general David Petraeus has typically stayed away from praising or bashing political candidates and office-holders.

The comments mark an interesting departure for Petraeus, who, when it comes to politics, has typically remained quiet.

The book, to be released Tuesday, alleges that the unlikely pair forged a friendship while Clinton was Secretary of State.

According to excerpts of “HRC,” obtained by ABC News, Clinton, soon after taking office, invited Petraeus to her Washington home to drink wine and discuss Middle East issues. The night was so enjoyable that she invited him over again the next night to continue their chat****


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ex-gen-david-petraeus-hillary-clinton-tremendous-president-article-1.1607801#ixzz2sscBwnCL
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #69 on: February 10, 2014, 09:49:42 AM »

WTF?!?   cry cry cry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #70 on: February 10, 2014, 10:34:50 AM »

WTF?!?   cry cry cry

Is she attracted to adulterers, lol.  Very strange bedfellows, so to speak.  Hillary is a known commodity, so this tells us more about Gen. Petraeus.  What exactly, I don't know.  He was a brilliant tactician, but also walked into a pretty stupid personal scandal and lost his job and career over it.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-deemed-petraeus-affair-part-criminal-intel-probe/story?id=17696177  Perhaps they did become friends as she tried to make up for her other friends running "General Betray Us" ads. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CckxcVZpO  Perhaps she would be a stronger President on military matters and foreign affairs than Barack Obama.  She voted for the Iraq war for example.  (In 2016, will America be looking for a hawk or a dove?)

There are zero degrees of separation between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the domestic and economic issues.  They served in the Senate Majority together,starting at 4.6% unemployment as they worked to take this economy down.  

Tell me something, General, where was Hillary Clinton when the 3am phone call came in?  And where were you?!

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/112890-benghazi-cover-continues-smoking-gun-former-cia-director-morrell-editing-talking-points/
Hillary Campaign Adviser Lied About CIA's Role Editing Benghazi Talking Points

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cia-libya_n_2062131.html
The Journal's report placed the blame for many of the missteps in Benghazi specifically on CIA director David Petraeus
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 11:06:25 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2014, 09:28:43 PM »

Being frontrunner too early may be bad luck and lousy timing (Pres. Giuliani?) but I take note that my own favorite , Marco Rubio, is only a point out of first place in the latest poll:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
Huckabee 13, Christie 13, Rubio 12, Ryan 9, Rand Paul 9, Jeb Bush 8, Walker 7, Cruz 5. 
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2104


« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2014, 08:44:43 AM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-bobby-jindal-waves-war-flag/2014/02/25/4ee4a9ce-9e5d-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

From the article:

Of course he’s running for president in 2016. He hasn’t said so, but he clearly is. His actions speak far louder than his words. Given this obvious fact, Jindal can’t start too soon demonstrating his older, wiser, more experienced persona. He has to be aggressive to convince the Republican base that he’s a stand-up guy willing to jump in the ring with Apollo Creed. Okay, so maybe with Dannel Malloy.

This isn’t such an easy sell for the slightly built Rhodes scholar who became the nation’s youngest governor. And though Jindal is a Catholic convert — and he speaks with the natural lilt of his birth state of Louisiana — he is not visually “one of us” in the way some Republicans have demonstrated they’re most comfortable. To the birther sensibility, if President Obama was born in Kenya, then Jindal could be from Punjab. In fact, he was conceived there but born in Baton Rouge.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2014, 09:14:29 AM »

"he is not visually “one of us” in the way some Republicans have demonstrated they’re most comfortable."

Conservatives and Republicans are thrilled to draw leadership (and rank and file) from other than older white males.  They gave Herman Cain a good, close look.  They liked having Bachmann on the stage, and they like Rubio's authentic, fluent Spanish.  Mia Love was the star of the last convention.  Asian Americans are anther group conservatives need to start reaching.  This will come down to merit, experience, positions on issues and ability to communicate a clear message - to all.

Bobby Jindal has the smarts and experience to be a great President.  He will win the nomination if he is seen as the best at conveying the message and getting things done.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #74 on: February 26, 2014, 09:18:47 AM »

"he is not visually “one of us” in the way some Republicans have demonstrated they’re most comfortable. To the birther sensibility, if President Obama was born in Kenya, then Jindal could be from Punjab. In fact, he was conceived there but born in Baton Rouge."

So how could he have been elected governor of a Southern Republican state if so many are uncomfortable with him?

The usual left wing media hit job.

And what is that racist comment about brownies?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 09:52:13 AM by ccp » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #75 on: February 26, 2014, 10:11:21 AM »

"The usual left wing media hit job."

The Washington Post author is Kathleen Parker, somewhat conservative and 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner for Commentary.  She does however work for the Post.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3796


« Reply #76 on: February 26, 2014, 08:24:34 PM »

Doug, thanks.  Maybe I misread the article of have misunderstood Parker and

I have not made political persuasion a study but I always saw her as leftist:

http://www.conservativehq.com/node/14524
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #77 on: February 27, 2014, 09:33:12 AM »

Doug, thanks.  Maybe I misread the article of have misunderstood Parker and
I have not made political persuasion a study but I always saw her as leftist:
http://www.conservativehq.com/node/14524

Maybe she is a faux-conservative, along the lines of David Brooks.  The line of hers you identified was leftist.

"he is not visually “one of us” in the way some Republicans have demonstrated they’re most comfortable.

Not just leftist but bad journalism.  Where is the supporting evidence to make such a bold claim?  They give out those Pulitzers  like they are just Nobels.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11506


« Reply #78 on: February 27, 2014, 04:58:24 PM »

Heh. America's credit rating isn't the only thing downgraded the last five years.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #79 on: April 10, 2014, 05:50:50 PM »

The name (Gov) Mike Pence comes up again:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/JebBush-HillaryClinton-BillKristol/2014/04/08/id/564309/

Gov. Scott Walker attended Marquette Univ. 4 years, did not graduate.  He is looking at finishing now through correspondence, 'not for political reasons':  http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/getting-a-degree-would-encourage-others-scott-walker-says-b99244173z1-254559581.html

Jeb Bush not really running, just clearing a path for Marco Rubio...
http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/the-importance-of-jeb-bush

'Reason' asks, Can Bobby Jindal's Health Plan Get the Republican Party on Track?
The Louisiana governor's proposal could be a turning point for the party.
Jindal’s plan was a challenge to his fellow Republicans to take health policy more seriously, to reckon with the tradeoffs it requires, and to begin the process of unifying around an alternative. It was a declaration, of sorts, that Republicans and the right could—and should—be wonky and policy focused too.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/08/can-bobby-jindal-change-the-republican-p
« Last Edit: April 10, 2014, 05:53:30 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #80 on: April 10, 2014, 07:45:57 PM »

I could swear I saw Huckabee's name appear at the top of a poll cited on FOX the other day , , ,
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #81 on: April 11, 2014, 10:12:31 AM »

I could swear I saw Huckabee's name appear at the top of a poll cited on FOX the other day , , ,

I think that was for Iowa.

Adding to my previous: Huckabee is thinking of running.  Hillary is thinking about running.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 29669


« Reply #82 on: April 15, 2014, 12:12:34 PM »

Rand Paul for President
Because what the GOP needs is a humbling landslide defeat.
By Bret Stephens


April 14, 2014 7:03 p.m. ET

Republicans, let's get it over with. Fast forward to the finish line. Avoid the long and winding primary road. It can only weaken the nominee. And we know who he—yes, he—has to be.

Not Jeb Bush, who plainly is unsuited to be president. He is insufficiently hostile to Mexicans. He holds heretical views on the Common Core, which, as we well know, is the defining issue of our time. And he's a Bush. Another installment of a political dynasty just isn't going to fly with the American people, who want some fresh blood in their politics.

Unless the dynasty is named Clinton. Or Kennedy. Or Nunn. Or Carter. Or, come to think of it, Paul. In that case, dynasties are just fine, thank you.

Chris Christie is also unfit to be president. His aides caused a traffic jam in the service of a petty political vendetta. The New Jersey governor may not have known about it, but it doesn't matter because the mere taint of scandal makes him unfit to be the Republican nominee, much less the president.


Unlike, say, the impeached former president. In 1999 Bill Clinton was cited for contempt of court by a federal judge. In 2001 he had his law license suspended for five years by the Arkansas Supreme Court. His post-presidential charitable work, the New York Times NYT +2.06% reported last year, is "a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest." A "taint of scandal," perhaps? In Bill's case, it's more like eau de cologne, irresistible to the ladies.

No, what we need as the Republican nominee in 2016 is a man of more glaring disqualifications. Someone so nakedly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of sane Americans that only the GOP could think of nominating him.

This man is Rand Paul, the junior senator from a state with eight electoral votes. The man who, as of this writing, has three years worth of experience in elected office. Barack Obama had more political experience when he ran for president. That's worked out well.

Mr. Paul was in New Hampshire last weekend, speaking to conservative activists at the Freedom Summit, emphasizing the need for Republicans to do a better job of reaching out to Hispanics and African-Americans.

It's a fine message. Or rather, it would be a fine message if it weren't for Mr. Paul's long political association with Jack Hunter, aka the "Southern Avenger," a former radio shock jock who co-wrote Mr. Paul's 2011 book "The Tea Party Goes to Washington." On April 14, 2004—the 139th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's assassination—Mr. Hunter wrote a column titled " John Wilkes Booth Was Right." He also lamented that "whites are not afforded the same right to celebrate their own cultural identity" as blacks and Hispanics.

Mr. Hunter remained a member of Mr. Paul's staff until last July, when the Washington Free Beacon broke the story. Afterward, Mr. Hunter recanted his views and pleaded amnesia. As for Mr. Paul, he defended his former aide, saying he had merely been "stupid," that he had been "unfairly treated by the media," and that "he got along fine with everybody in the office, treated everyone fairly, regardless of race or religion."

So can we now, um, switch the subject?

Yes, we can. Let's move on to a YouTube video of Mr. Paul in April 2009, offering his insights to a college group on foreign policy. Channeling Dwight Eisenhower, the future senator warned "we need to be so fearful of companies that get so big that they can actually be directing policy."

"When the Iraq war started, Halliburton got a billion-dollar no-bid contract. Some of the stuff has been so shoddy and so sloppy that our soldiers are over there dying in the shower from electrocution."

Then he gets to his real point: Dick Cheney, who opposed driving all the way to Baghdad when he was defense secretary in the first Bush administration, later went to work for Halliburton. "Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good thing to go into Iraq."

Mr. Paul's conclusion: "9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq."

Cui bono—to whose benefit? It's the signature question of every conspiracy theorist with an unhinged mind. C heney. Halliburton. Big Oil. The military-industrial complex. Neocons. 9/11. Soldiers electrocuted in the shower. It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

If Mr. Paul wants to accuse the former vice president of engineering a war in Iraq so he could shovel some profits over to his past employer, he should come out and say so explicitly. Ideally at the next Heritage Action powwow. Let's not mince words. This man wants to be the Republican nominee for president.

And so he should be. Because maybe what the GOP needs is another humbling landslide defeat. When moderation on a subject like immigration is ideologically disqualifying, but bark-at-the-moon lunacy about Halliburton is not, then the party has worse problems than merely its choice of nominee.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #83 on: April 15, 2014, 02:04:42 PM »

I wonder what any Rand Paul supporters here think of the specific points made by Stephens, such as this one:

Dick Cheney, who opposed driving all the way to Baghdad when he was defense secretary in the first Bush administration, later went to work for Halliburton. "Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good thing to go into Iraq."  Mr. Paul's conclusion: "9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq."

Let's dissect that a little.  The circumstances for not going into Baghdad a decade earlier were different - a misleading and empty comparison. The reasons to want to go into Iraq prior to 9/11/01 were lengthy including the violation of all agreements made in the original ceasefire, supporting terrorists - yes, nuclear inspection refusals and shooting daily at American aircraft.  To focus on the Halliburton profit take is to join and validate the shameful left, in my view.  The Ron Paul view , and Rand Paul too if he embraces it, is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place enforcing those agreements, leaving him/them again with only the strange bedfellows of the far-left.

Let's accept that we all have different views on foreign policy.  People including Bill Krystal (and Crafty) heavily faulted Rumsfeld and Bush for staying too long with a failed strategy in Iraq.  But that is VERY different from the statement above which attacks the motive of the American - Republican Vice President, not just the strategy of the people who disagree with him, even on his own team.

Besides rejecting the winning concept of peace through strength, needlessly attacking your own side below the belt is not exactly Reaganesque.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 03:02:11 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5541


« Reply #84 on: April 15, 2014, 03:17:13 PM »

Gov. Scott Walker up by 16 with 59% job approval in yellow state Wisconsin.

https://www.snc.edu/sri/docs/2014/201404frequencies.pdf
Wisconsin Public Radio / Wisconsin Survey

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 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!