Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 23, 2014, 01:27:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82574 Posts in 2250 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* 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 Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 5111 times)
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« 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: 4090


« 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: 5956


« 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: 31263


« 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: 4090


« 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: 31263


« 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: 4090


« 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: 5956


« 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: 5956


« 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: 31263


« 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: 4090


« 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: 4090


« 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: 31263


« 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: 4090


« 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: 31263


« 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: 4090


« 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: 31263


« 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: 31263


« 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: 4090


« 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: 31263


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

WTF?!?   cry cry cry
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5956


« 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: 5956


« 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: 2165


« 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: 5956


« 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: 4090


« 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: 5956


« 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: 4090


« 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: 5956


« 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: 12042


« 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: 5956


« 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: 31263


« 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: 5956


« 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: 31263


« 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: 5956


« 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: 5956


« 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
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4090


« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2014, 08:01:16 PM »

AP Interview: Santorum undecided in 2016 bid

Associated Press
By PHILIP ELLIOTT 6 hours ago
 
Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., poses for a portrait in his publishers office Wednesday, April 23, 2014 in Washington, before an interview about his recently released book titled "Blue Color Conservative." The once and perhaps future presidential candidate has lots of policy ideas for fellow Republicans seeking public office. He's just not sure he’ll be one of those hopefuls ever again. "Yeah, I don’t know if I can do this. It’s just tough," Santorum said about another White House run. In the interview, Santorum said the GOP will struggle to win races unless candidates came up with policies that help working Americans. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The once and perhaps future presidential candidate Rick Santorum has lots of policy ideas for fellow Republicans seeking public office.

He's just not sure he'll be one of those hopefuls ever again.

"Yeah, I don't know if I can do this. It's just tough," Santorum said about another White House run.

The former Pennsylvania senator tells The Associated Press in an interview that he isn't ruling out a 2016 candidacy.

But, he says, there are plenty of reasons why he wouldn't do it.

He is enjoying a second career as a movie studio executive. His daughter's health remains a concern.

And, Santorum writes in a new book, he can help shape his party's future from offstage.

In the interview, Santorum said the GOP will struggle to win races unless candidates came up with policies that help working Americans.

Victories will be tough, he said, unless elected officials stop being obstructionists.

Santorum said the libertarian streak running through his party distorts the definition of freedom, and that politicians wrongly look to President Ronald Reagan's policies to address today's challenges.

Then there's Santorum's slap at Republicans who demonize social welfare programs.

"Do Republicans really care less about the person at the bottom of the ladder than Democrats do? To be painfully honest, I would have to say in some ways 'yes,'" Santorum writes in his book, "Blue Collar Conservatives: Recommitting to an America That Works."

The tough talk raises questions about Santorum's viability in what could be a crowded 2016 primary field.

Also, he's not rushing to camp out in early nominating Iowa or New Hampshire again.

"A while. A year at least, probably," he said of his timeline to decide on a 2016 bid.

Santorum ran an upstart campaign in 2012, surviving long enough to be Mitt Romney's last remaining rival. He struggled to raise money or support among establishment-minded Republicans, but his socially conservative profile drew enough backing for Santorum to pick up victories in 11 states.

Even in victory, his disorganized campaign cost him, including failing to qualify for the ballot in Virginia.

"We cannot run the campaign we ran last time if we run this time," Santorum said.

How Republicans win is the focus of Santorum's latest book, to be released Monday.

Santorum offers ideas on energy, education, the economy and health care. It comes across as part think tank policy paper, part campaign playbook and part communications advice on how to connect with working-class voters.

For instance, Republicans should not focus exclusively on business leaders and "job creators" and should speak to employees, Santorum said.

Anxiety among those voters remains high, and Republicans have for too long talked to the top earners and not the workers.

"A rising tide lifts all boats — unless your boat has a hole in it. A lot of Americans, we've got holes in our boats," Santorum said. "Millions and millions of Americans (are) out there who want good lives but have holes in their boats. ... They just see the water level going up and their boat sinking."

That's why, he argues, candidates need to put forward policies to help those voters.

"I'm looking at 2014 and I'm thinking the Republican Party is heading toward No-ville, which is 'we're against this, we're against that, we're against this.' We're not painting a positive vision for America," Santorum said in the interview.

After the 2012 campaign, he signed on as CEO of EchoLight Studies, which produces movies rooted in faith and family.

"I saw an opportunity to do something in the space where we need to have movies that have a faith message in them that are better than the movies that have been done," Santorum said.

At home, 5-year-old daughter Bella keeps Santorum busy. She has a genetic disorder, Trisomy 18, which causes brain, heart and internal organ developmental abnormalities. Almost all children die within the first year of life.

Bella turns 6 in May and the senator is at work on a book about his daughter. Her difficult nights have sometimes kept Santorum at her bedside.

Santorum said family issues would drive his decision to run or not, and Bella would be a key factor.

His other six other children, Santorum said, are "all very open to dad doing this again."

But Santorum isn't rushing into anything. A primary might feature the libertarian wing of the party, led in part by two prominent tea partyers, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas.

"There's a strain within the Republican Party now that smacks of the no-government conservatism," Santorum said. "That wasn't Ronald Regan. It wasn't Teddy Roosevelt. It wasn't Abraham Lincoln. It wasn't any Republican that I'm aware of. It wasn't Calvin Coolidge. And yet there seems to be this creation of this strain of conservatism that has no basis in conservatism."

Santorum said Republicans should respect Reagan, but he doubted the former president would offer the same policies today that he did during the 1970s and 1980s.

Santorum also includes plenty of incendiary rhetoric in his book that he acknowledges could haunt him should he run again.

In addition to the sentence about Republicans and social safety nets, Santorum writes that poor voters "took their lie about sex without consequences as gospel" and calls climate change a "hyped-up crisis."

___

Follow Philip Elliott on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/philip_elliott
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5956


« Reply #86 on: April 28, 2014, 11:23:11 AM »

Fox News Sunday, meet Gov. Mike Pence R-Indiana.  10 minutes with Chris Wallace.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/04/27/gov_mike_pence_on_gun_control__ukraine.html

As Joe Biden might say, he is clean, bright and articulate!
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 557


« Reply #87 on: April 30, 2014, 06:30:20 AM »

Hillary Clinton’s Problem Isn’t Age, It’s Experience

Posted By Daniel Greenfield On April 30, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

The problem with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy isn’t that she would take office at the age of 69. An older and more mature president is not a bad thing. It’s how little she has done in that time.

After 2008, when Hillary was beaten by an even more inexperienced candidate, most people forgot just how little experience she has holding elected office.

Hillary Clinton only won one political office and she did so in her fifties. Despite winning two elections, her Senate career only covered the period from January 2001 to January 2009.

It’s more time than Obama spent in the Senate, but that’s not saying much.

JFK was considered young and inexperienced after spending 14 years in Congress. Hillary Clinton isn’t young, but her experience in elected office at the age of 69 will be less than his was at the age of 44.

Hillary’s supporters will argue that she has plenty of experience in public life. Unfortunately it’s the wrong kind of experience.

Like Elizabeth Warren, a slightly younger and more left-wing Hillary clone, she spent a good deal of time in the corrupt intersection between leftist non-profits, corporate boards and politically connected legal positions. The bad lessons those posts taught her are evident from Whitewater and HillaryCare.

Hillary Clinton embodies the corrupt culture of Washington D.C. whose cronyism and nepotism she has far too much experience with as the other half of a power couple notorious for personal and political corruption.

When they left, Bill and Hillary trailed illegal pardons and stolen property behind them.  As recently as 2008, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote, “The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.”

Back in 2001, he had suggested that the Clintons might one day be “led away in handcuffs”.

That’s Hillary Clinton’s real experience and it’s not policy experience or foreign policy experience. It’s the politics of political corruption. Hillary Clinton’s track record doesn’t consist of policy achievements. It’s in the people she knows and owes favors to, the legion of corrupt associates of Clintonworld and the millionaires and billionaires who fund her unscrupulous political ambitions with their dirty money.

If Hillary’s last name were still Rodham, no one would have even proposed her for Senate. There is absolutely nothing in her record or her ideas that recommends her for higher office.

Not only is she inexperienced and inept, despite her many makeovers she is a colorless figure with the speaking style and fashion sense of a college registrar, and a bureaucrat’s cagey instinct for pre-emptive cover-ups that only make her look more suspicious even when she didn’t actually do anything wrong.

Hillary Clinton did nothing of note either as Senator or Secretary of State. The reason why her time in the Senate is remembered on the left for her Iraq War vote and her time as Secretary of State is remembered on the right for Benghazi is that there isn’t anything else to remember her for.

The high points of her national career are negative; terminated from Watergate after unethical behavior, a failure on government health care as First Lady, an Iraq War vote that she spent five years lying about and the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi as Secretary of State.

And a track record of trying to blame her decisions on everyone else.

Despite voting for the Iraq War, Hillary blamed Bush for a “rush to war” and for “triggering” the conflict. Few on the left have forgotten that she had even more positions on the Iraq War than John Kerry and that her positions changed completely based on what was going on in America and Iraq at the time.

When it came to Benghazi, other people took the fall for a horrifying failure that she claimed to be accepting responsibility for, while her own pet committee shifted the blame onto others.

Hillary Clinton accused Obama of being unready for a 3 A.M. phone call, but does anyone believe that she would take a 3 A.M. phone call and make a quick decision in a crisis? Is there anything in her track record in the Senate or as Secretary of State that suggests that she is bold and decisive?

Anything at all?

Hillary Clinton carefully avoided a track record. In the Senate, she invariably went with the least controversial position on every issue until she began overcompensating on Iraq to win back the left.

In the Senate, she was for a ban on flag burning, Cap and Trade, nuclear power, for Israel, for  Palestine, for abortion, against abortion, for harsh criminal penalties, against harsh criminal penalties, for No Child Left Behind, against No Child Left Behind, for gay marriage, against gay marriage, for medical marijuana and against medical marijuana.

If the polls opposed gay marriage, she was against it. If the polls supported it, she was for it. The same went for everything else.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton staked out a bold position in favor of visiting other countries and shaking hands with their leaders.

This is not a woman who takes 3 A.M. phone calls. Not without polling them first and issuing a non-definitive statement in the vaguest possible language that she can’t be held accountable for in any way.

This isn’t a record that speaks of experience. It’s the record of a woman working hard to avoid ever having an experience, a position or a conscience.

JFK came into the White House having seen combat and having come close to dying many times. He had spent almost a decade and a half in Congress and taken positions on important issues.

Hillary Clinton may be almost 70 at that same point, but without a fraction of his experience, and she has tried to make up for it with childish lies like claiming to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia, claiming to have negotiated open borders for refugees in Kosovo and  claiming to have been instrumental in the Irish peace process.

It’s no wonder that the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in Watergate said of her, “She was a liar.”

Hillary’s experience is as imaginary as her work bringing peace to Northern Ireland. The issue isn’t her age; it’s her lack of principles and her lack of courage. Hillary Clinton compensates for a mediocre career of political cronyism with ridiculous lies in an act of neurotic insecurity.

Hillary Clinton isn’t too old to be president. She’s too adolescent, untried and immature. She has made too few decisions that matter, taken too few risks and even less responsibility and lives an imaginary Walter Mitty life of death-defying adventures that only exist in her mind and her press releases.

Hillary isn’t just incompetent, corrupt or a liar. Like too many of her peers, she’s a 66-year-old child.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4090


« Reply #88 on: May 04, 2014, 07:09:23 AM »

Sorry Doug.  As much as I wish you are right I beg to differ......

"And Geffen, who gave Obama his first big Hollywood fund-raiser in 2008 and broke with the Clintons because he felt they lied “with such ease, it’s troubling,” now says he will “absolutely” support Hillary in 2016, calling her “an extraordinary, smart, accomplished woman.”

This country is so screwed.  Barring an unforeseen event or events the Republican party which by the way also does NOT represent me, but is closer to my values, has NO chance of defeating this *machine*.  The machine is far greater than the Clintons themselves.  It truly is remarkable how all Crats consistently fall into line when needed.  Just remarkable.
Any semblance of honesty or ethics is right out the window.  Lock step Jack footed boots; in lock step, and marching forward:

****Maureen Dowd

42 and 45 Overpower 44
MAY 3, 2014

Maureen Dowd  
WASHINGTON — THE First Family is all over the news, discussing the management of the economy, income inequality, raising the minimum wage, the vicissitudes of press coverage and the benefits of healthy eating.

Everywhere you look, the Clintons rule.

Bill popped up on the front page of The Times giving a speech at his alma mater, Georgetown University, in which he defended his economic policies and chastised the press for its tendency to create a “storyline” that doesn’t match reality. (Sort of like the storyline the Clintons created about Monica Lewinsky being a delusional stalker.)

Hillary’s Apache dance with the press is detailed in the new issue of Politico Magazine, a piece that got a lot more buzz than the news the White House was excited about on Friday: a sharp drop in the unemployment rate.

Chelsea is serenely smiling from the cover of Fast Company for a story on how “the product of two of the most powerful brands in the world” is “carving out her own identity — by joining the family business,” as vice chair in charge of shaping up the tangled finances of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Her impending baby is being treated with enormous fanfare and exhaustive political analysis, like America’s answer to Britain’s bonny Prince George.

Obamaworld was even paranoid that Hillaryland would hijack the B-list festivities associated with the annual White House Correspondents Dinner this weekend.

The former and future Democratic regime is clearly itching to get back in the saddle and relieve a president who is stalled on every front, and who never really got any joy from working the joystick of power or appreciated the value of the carrot-stick approach that helped Lincoln and L.B.J. bend history.

Both President Obama and Hillary have recently referred to leadership as a relay race. And if a fatigued and fed-up Obama looks ready to pass the baton early, the ravenous and relentless Clintons look ready to grab it — and maybe give him a few whacks over the head with it.

Obama’s reign has become increasingly bloodless, and while the Clintons are not new blood, they do convey more vitality than the formerly electrifying politician in the White House.

Things have now reached the point where it feels as though 42 and 45 have already taken over the reins of Washington power from 44, who is fading Snapchat-fast.

The Clintons now have Obama, as one top Democrat said, “totally at their mercy” because they “take the oxygen out of the room.”

Hillary’s stock is so high — almost as high as her speaking fees — that in The Daily Beast, Tina Brown urged the front-runner to skip the campaign and simply go straight to becoming “post-President.”

Just to make the Clintons feel completely at home as they ramp up to the restoration, there is even a congressional investigation spurred by the vast right-wing conspiracy.

House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday that he would call a vote to set up a select committee to look into the Benghazi debacle, and whether Congress was misled by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama administration.

As Slate’s Dave Weigel tweeted, “The nice thing about having a Benghazi select committee is you can roll it over into the Hillary presidency.”

Many of those who aroused the Clintons’ opprobrium and well-known taste for vengeance by supporting the rookie Barack Obama in 2008 thought they were headed to a fresh era in politics, moving past the gnarly braiding of the personal and political that led to chaos in the Clinton era.

But the Clinton machine, once described by David Geffen as “very unpleasant and unattractive and effective,” has a Rasputin resilience. And now those who broke away are in the awkward position of having to make nice with the woman they helped vanquish.

Samantha Power recently said that she regretted calling Hillary a “monster” and offered her new view: “She just brings such rigor and conviction to everything she touches.”

Claire McCaskill, who endorsed Obama in 2008 and said she didn’t want her daughter near Bill Clinton and confided to a friend that she was nervous to be alone in an elevator with Hillary, announced in June that she is “Ready for Hillary.”

Caroline Kennedy, whose endorsement in 2008 comparing Obama to her father was pivotal, told NBC’s Chuck Todd: “I would like to see her run if that’s what she wants to do. I think she would be great.”

The will take a 42 and 45 anytime over a 41, 43 and 45.
There's just enough time for Barry to resign, make Joe president and show Bill and Hill he door.
 
Geffen might note the Clinton's still lie at ease, but next to Obama, they sound like saints. Come to think of it, Richard Nixon was a saint...
 
 And Geffen, who gave Obama his first big Hollywood fund-raiser in 2008 and broke with the Clintons because he felt they lied “with such ease, it’s troubling,” now says he will “absolutely” support Hillary in 2016, calling her “an extraordinary, smart, accomplished woman.”

Elizabeth Warren, who criticized Hillary in a 2003 book for an unprincipled stand on a bankruptcy bill, siding with the big banks she needed to bankroll her political career, lets Hillary off the hook in her new book.

Leon Panetta, who served as chief of staff for Bill Clinton and secretary of defense for Obama, told The Times that Obama had not yet defined America’s 21st-century role in the world.

“Hopefully, he’ll do it,” Panetta said, “and certainly, she would.”

The president who dreamed of being “transformative” seems bummed, and that’s bumming out Americans.

But when you talk about batting singles, you’re just asking to be overshadowed by the next big draft pick. If you’re playing small ball and you’re articulating your diminished expectations, it’s only natural that someone is going to fill the void.

Some Obama aides get irritated when Hillary distances herself from Obama and when her advisers paint her as tougher than Obama, someone who wouldn’t be afraid to drop the hammer and sickle on Vladimir Putin.

And some in Obamaworld think she could have skipped her $200,000-plus speeches to Goldman Sachs and helped the stumbling president make his push on health care, given that the push was focused on moms and kids, an area of interest for the woman who would be the first woman president.
Continue reading the main story  239Comments
But they were hoisted on their own petard. It was the lone-cat President Obama who ignored the usual practice in politics — dancin’ with those who brung ya and dismantling your bitter rival’s machine — and encouraged the view of Hillary as the presumptive nominee over his unfailingly loyal vice president, Joe Biden. Three of his key political advisers — Jim Messina, Jeremy Bird and Mitch Stewart — have gone to super PACs supporting Hillary.

David Plouffe, the president’s former top political adviser, said Hillary could call him for advice and told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that “there’s very little oxygen” for another Democrat to challenge her.

As Obama has learned, to his dismay, there’s now very little oxygen for him, too.
 
A version of this op-ed appears in print on May 4, 2014, on page SR1 of the New York edition with the headline: 42 and 45 Overpower 44. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe  
« Last Edit: May 04, 2014, 08:51:05 AM by ccp » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12042


« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2014, 12:23:33 PM »

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5956


« Reply #90 on: May 12, 2014, 12:38:42 PM »

One potential matchup for 2016 is Marco Rubio vs. Hillary Clinton.  Compare the passion is Rubio's recent Senate rant against tyranny with Hillary Clinton's record of refusing to name Boko Haram terrorist, and saying - still - of Benghazi: What difference, at this point, does it make?
--------------------------------

JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS: How big a problem is this going to be for Hillary Clinton? How much of this can be used against her?

RUBIO: Well, I'm sure she's going to go around bragging about her time in the State Department. She's also going to have to be held accountable for its failures, whether it's the failed reset with Russia, or the failure in Benghazi that actually cost lives...

KARL: So what grade do you give her as secretary of state?

RUBIO: I don't think she has a passing grade. In fact, if you look at...

KARL: You think she's an F?

RUBIO: Yes. Because if you look at the diplomacy that was pursued in her time in the State Department, it has failed everywhere in the world. So here's what I would say, if she is going to run on her record as secretary of state, she is also going to have to answer for its massive failures.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/11/rubio_i_am_ready_to_be_president_hillary_gets_an_f_as_secretary_of_state.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5956


« Reply #91 on: May 29, 2014, 09:06:10 AM »

I predicted the opposite.  Jay Cost knows more than me and has excellent analysis here.  I will stick with my prediction.

Jay Cost:  "None of this is to claim that Clinton is an objectively strong candidate. She manifestly is not..."

Note that he is only predicting the Dem nomination.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/frontrunner_793500.html?nopager=1

The Frontrunner
Hillary’s Democratic challengers are likely to fall short.
JUN 2, 2014, VOL. 19, NO. 36 • BY JAY COST

Hillary Clinton is back in the news, facing questions about her health and lingering doubts about what exactly happened in the aftermath of the Benghazi terror attack. Meanwhile, some Democrats—Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont most notable among them—have been making noises about challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination. In light of the fact that Clinton was the overwhelming frontrunner at this point in the 2008 cycle, such events cannot be overlooked. It’s a fair question to ask: Is Clinton really as strong as she appears for the 2016 Democratic nod?


GARY LOCKE

In a word: yes. While she’s unlikely to go unchallenged, the landscape favors her overwhelmingly.

The rules of the two parties’ nominations systems are virtually identical, but since their coalitions are different, the dramas play out differently. On the Republican side, voters tend to be demographically similar, and the main question is ideological, with candidates squaring off over economic, foreign, and cultural issues. On the Democratic side, there are substantial demographic differences, and the interplay of race, gender, and socioeconomic status has often been determinative.

So to get an early read on the 2016 Democratic battle, one can start by looking at the groups that make up the Democratic party. Who are they, and whom might they support? First, the party has a substantial and growing minority population. Barack Obama’s coalition in 2012 was 45 percent nonwhite, compared to 35 percent in 2008 and 27 percent for Bill Clinton in 1996. Within the nonwhite population, Latino and African-American voters have been known to back different candidates.

Then there is the socially upscale, usually white liberal vote: university professors, government and nonprofit workers, college students, and so on, who are very interested in causes like abortion and environmentalism.

Next, there are a class of voters whom we might call the “Robert Rubin Democrats.” Well-heeled, culturally and economically influential, their votes do not matter as much as their checkbooks.

Finally, there is the so-called white working class. Socioeconomically downscale whites have been trending Republican since the 1960s, but this bloc remains important in Democratic presidential politics, especially in the Ohio River Valley.

In the 2008 battle with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton won Latinos and the white working class overwhelmingly. She lost black voters overwhelmingly and liberal whites by a good margin. She split the unions and the Robert Rubin Democrats. Importantly, her coalition was probably large enough to win, had she run a better campaign. Obama’s victory among pledged delegates was a scant 127 out of a total of 3,424. His entire margin of victory rested upon his superior organization of low-turnout caucus states like Idaho and Maine, where Clinton’s potential coalition was probably stronger. So, assuming that Team Clinton learns the rules of its own party this time around, a would-be challenger will actually have to build a bigger coalition than Obama’s.

Moreover, recent polling on the race has indicated that African Americans are inclined to support Clinton in 2016. Furthermore, the moneyed party donors look pretty well unanimous. For instance, Hollywood bigshot David Geffen supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008, but this time around looks set to go with Clinton.

So where do the potential Clinton challengers stand in relation to the Democratic electorate? Can any of them hope to cobble together a coalition that can challenge Clinton’s? Let’s take each in turn.

A Beltway fixture for more than 40 years, Vice President Joe Biden lacks much of an electoral bond with any Democratic constituency group. He could poach some of Clinton’s white working-class vote and raise some cash from Wall Street, but it is hard to see him breaking through.

Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont could both play effectively to upscale white liberals; as a woman, Warren might attract some of the voters Clinton would otherwise win for identity-based reasons. Still, both would scare the bejesus out of Wall Street, where Democrats go to subsidize their anti-Wall Street demagoguery. And it is hard to see how either would have appeal for minority voters.

Former senator Jim Webb of Virginia and former governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana might attract the white working class, but the power of Bill Clinton to appeal to these voters cannot be overestimated. It is hard, too, to see how they would win over minority voters or raise substantial sums from wealthy Democrats.

What about Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York? He might raise substantial money, but who in the Clinton coalition would bolt for him? Ditto Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland.

That leaves two primary concerns for Team Clinton. The first is Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. As an African American, he would be a threat to Clinton with the black vote, which would virtually guarantee a real race. And he might be able to raise substantial money; it is no coincidence that in the last 26 years, Massachusetts has supplied 3 of the 10 nonincumbent major party nominees.

The other concern for Team Clinton would be an interactive effect amongst these candidates. Suppose, for instance, that Schweitzer, Patrick, and Warren all attracted significant support from their electoral bases, at Clinton’s expense. That scenario might be chaotic, and thus jeopardize Clinton’s path to the nomination. This would not be unprecedented in Democratic politics; something similar happened in 1976, 1988, and 1992, although in none of those instances was a candidate as strong a frontrunner as Clinton will probably be.

In the end, Clinton’s greatest advantage might be the continued political weakness of Obama. History is not on the side of the Democrats as they try to win the White House for a third consecutive term. A party has only done so once in the postwar era—in 1988, when Ronald Reagan’s job approval was in the mid-50s by Election Day. Currently, Obama’s is mired in the mid-40s. Yet Clinton has a personal reputation that might transcend Obama’s unpopularity, and she polls extremely well at the moment. So long as that continues, risk-averse Democrats of all demographic stripes might be inclined to put aside their internecine battle to prevent a Republican victory, something they all equally oppose.

None of this is to claim that Clinton is an objectively strong candidate. She manifestly is not; otherwise she would be president right now. But objectivity does not matter when you are battling for the nomination. Everything is relative to where your party stands in the public mind and where you stand in relation to the other candidates seeking nomination. Right now, both of these factors conspire to make Hillary Clinton the odds-on favorite for 2016.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4090


« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2014, 10:25:03 AM »

"It won't be Hillary"

Doug,

I propose a bet.  I think it will be Hillary.

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31263


« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2014, 10:27:35 AM »

Just to be perfectly clear, are we talking the nomination or the presidency here?
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 557


« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2014, 10:42:00 AM »

If Trey Gowdy is allowed to do his job effectively as chairman of this select committee on Benghazi, Hillary will be destroyed as a potential candidate.  We can only hope.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2014, 09:03:11 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-2016-presidential-candidate-we-need/2014/05/23/77d599ae-e202-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html?wprss=rss_george-will

From the article:

So, sensible voters might embrace someone who announced his 2016 candidacy this way:

“I am ambling — running suggests unseemly ardor — for president. It is axiomatic that anyone who nowadays will do what is necessary in order to become president thereby reveals character traits, including delusions of adequacy and obsessive compulsive disorder, that should disqualify him or her from proximity to powers concentrated in the executive branch. Therefore, my campaign will initially consist of driving around the Obnoxiously Entitled Four — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — trying to interest their 3.8 percent of America’s population in a minimalist president.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4090


« Reply #96 on: May 30, 2014, 06:18:15 AM »

"Just to be perfectly clear, are we talking the nomination or the presidency here?"

I meant the Democratic nomination.

As for the Presidency, at this point there is no one on the right who appears to have what it will take to beat her. 

And the Republicans party as a whole is wandering in the wilderness.   I fear we will have another Dole, McCain, or Romneyesque like underwhelming candidate.

Compare the Republican party hodgepodge patchwork to the Democrat/Clinton machine.

She will win big the women vote.  Don't believe that then think Black vote and Obama.  No matter how bad Obama is the Blacks are married to him.  Same for the gals and Hillary.  Especially most younger women and definitely ***all*** single mothers.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5956


« Reply #97 on: June 16, 2014, 07:51:09 PM »

My favorite political reporter, Eliana Johnson, covering Scott Walker's visit with donors:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380452/scott-walker-gets-ready-eliana-johnson

JUNE 16, 2014 4:00 AM
Scott Walker Gets Ready
The Wisconsin governor meets donors — in Chris Christie’s territory.
By Eliana Johnson

Scott Walker is already thinking about how to defeat Hillary Clinton. “You gotta move it from a personality race, because if it’s a personality race, you got a third Clinton term,” the Wisconsin governor told a lunchtime crowd of about 30 last Tuesday assembled at the Lakewood, N.J., home of Rich Roberts, one of his biggest financial backers. “The only way we win that election is to transform her personality to Washington versus the rest of us. Senator Clinton is all about Washington, everything about her is all about Washington.”

Walker is up for reelection in November — his third time on the ballot in four years, he likes to point out — but it is almost certainly his presidential ambitions that brought him to the Orthodox Jewish enclave of Lakewood, where he toured the town’s yeshiva and lunched with Roberts and his friends. Roberts has always donated to Republicans, but after selling his pharmaceutical company for $800 million in 2012, he began pouring a lot more money into the coffers of GOPers, including Walker, Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Senator Rand Paul (Ky.), and former Florida congressman Allen West.

With Walker at his side, Roberts recounted receiving threatening e-mails after donating $50,000 to ward off Walker’s recall from the governorship. “With three days to go until the election, now I’m receiving all these threats, so what am I going to do? I wired him another $50,000,” Roberts said to laughter and applause.
As Walker shook hands, posed for pictures, and spoke to the group gathered in Roberts’s dining room and an adjoining room — men and women separated by a wall, as is sometimes customary among Orthodox Jews — the broad outlines of a campaign platform were clear. In a 20-minute speech and a question-and-answer session that followed, he touted his expansion of school vouchers to religious institutions, cited his victory on tort reform, and recounted staring down Wisconsin’s public-sector unions and the protesters who stormed the state on their behalf.

You could see him taking subtle shots at his potential rivals. The governor took a swipe at his friend Chris Christie on Christie’s home turf, touting his own success reducing property taxes in Wisconsin after a decade of steady increases. New Jersey’s astronomical property taxes are notorious, and Christie, who has a full-blown budget crisis on his hands right now, has done little to address the problem.

On foreign policy, Walker positioned himself firmly in the establishment camp, dismissing arguments that Republican voters want to see the United States reduce its engagement with the world. “I don’t believe that,” he said. Without naming him specifically, he rejected the idea that Kentucky senator Rand Paul has captured the hearts and minds of Republican voters on matters of foreign policy. “I believe fundamentally the reason why many young voters are suspect about foreign policy and the wars and many things like that is that they just haven’t been properly administered,” he said.

Walker also threw some elbows at Washington Republicans, criticizing them for harping on issues like the debt and the deficit without offering a positive vision for the future. “We have to be optimistic,” he said. He pointed to a particular senator who “constantly talks about how horrible the debt is.” Walker said that, while he shares the sentiment, the issue has limited popular appeal. At times, he said that listening to the senator harping on it makes him “want to slit my wrists because I’m just like, ‘My God, this is so awful, I cannot believe this.’”

The Obama administration, of course, came in for the harshest judgments. Walker accused the president of relying on his “​political shop”​ to make decisions of national and global import. He cited the release of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five high-profile Taliban prisoners: “I think what happened with the exchange — remember that movie years ago, Wag the Dog?” He fears, he said, that Obama’s political advisers — trying to cope with the political flak over the ongoing scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs — jumped at the opportunity to make the exchange happen, without clearing the decision with the secretaries of state and defense, who would have put the brakes on such a deal.

As Walker was garnering applause from the lunch crowd, the aides he had in tow were getting less positive feedback. Though operating on friendly turf, they acted skittish, guarded, and unfriendly. An event organizer complained that the governor’s team was dismissive and difficult to deal with, and that she found it nearly impossible to get Walker on the phone with his host.

Since Walker rose to national prominence when he faced down the unions in 2011, Republican donors have admired his steeliness, his calm, and his quiet resolve. But they have privately wondered whether he has the star power and political judgment necessary to succeed on the presidential level. This event offered a small sample size, but maybe the donors also need to wonder about his team. After all, Walker was less than 40 miles from Trenton, where the man who just six months ago seemed to have an inside track for front-runner status in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination had his fortunes reversed by his own aides.

Walker brought a national message to this gathering at a top donor’s home, an indication of the seriousness of his presidential ambitions.​ For the time being, Hillary Clinton is sucking up all the media oxygen. For three days last week, the Drudge Report featured a photograph of a pregnant Chelsea Clinton in leather pants over a headline about the $600,000 salary she earned at NBC News. The low-key Wisconsin governor is a stark contrast to that flashiness, and he is hoping a wholesome Midwesterner becomes Hillary Clinton’s worst political nightmare.

— Eliana Johnson is a political reporter for National Review Online.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5956


« Reply #98 on: June 20, 2014, 11:02:52 AM »

Prosecutors: Gov. Walker part of criminal scheme
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/prosecutors-gov-walker-part-of-criminal-scheme/2014/06/19/6b8de66c-f7db-11e3-8118-eae4d5b48c7d_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboPN_p

Debunked:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/the-latest-scott-walker-smear-debunked.php

POSTED ON JUNE 19, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER
THE LATEST SCOTT WALKER SMEAR, DEBUNKED
Democrats are giddy over the unsealing of “secret” documents that charge Scott Walker’s recall campaign with illegal coordination with outside conservative groups. To name just a few: USA Today: “Prosecutors: Wis. Gov. Scott Walker in criminal scheme.” Associated Press: “Prosecutors: Gov. Walker part of criminal scheme.” Washington Post: “How the State of Wisconsin alleges Scott Walker aides violated the law, in 1 chart.”

If you didn’t know better, you might think this is a big story, highly damaging to one of America’s most successful governors. In fact, the current frenzy merely demonstrates the laziness and bias of reporters who don’t understand the events they write about.

Here is what is going on: a group of partisan local prosecutors launched a never-ending “John Doe investigation” into essentially every conservative group in the state of Wisconsin. The “investigation” is a scandal, a naked effort to shut down conservative speech. Federal Judge Rudolph Randa described how the investigation proceeded in an Order dated May 6, 2014:

Early in the morning of October 3, 2013, armed officers raided the homes of R.J. Johnson, WCFG advisor Deborah Jordahl, and several other targets across the state. ECF No. 5-15, O‘Keefe Declaration, ¶ 46. Sheriff deputy vehicles used bright floodlights to illuminate the targets‘ homes. Deputies executed the search warrants, seizing business papers, computer equipment, phones, and other devices, while their targets were restrained under police supervision and denied the ability to contact their attorneys. Among the materials seized were many of the Club‘s records that were in the possession of Ms. Jordahl and Mr. Johnson. The warrants indicate that they were executed at the request of GAB investigator Dean Nickel.

On the same day, the Club‘s accountants and directors, including O‘Keefe, received subpoenas demanding that they turn over more or less all of the Club‘s records from March 1, 2009 to the present. The subpoenas indicated that their recipients were subject to a Secrecy Order, and that their contents and existence could not be disclosed other than to counsel, under penalty of perjury. The subpoenas’ list of advocacy groups indicates that all or nearly all right-of-center groups and individuals in Wisconsin who engaged in issue advocacy from 2010 to the present are targets of the investigation.

The case in which Judge Randa ruled was brought by the Club For Growth and Eric O’Keefe. Plaintiffs alleged that the purported investigation was in reality an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights, intended to deter the expression of conservative speech. Judge Randa agreed. In his May 6 Order, he found that the partisan “investigation” had no legal basis:

The defendants are pursuing criminal charges through a secret John Doe investigation against the plaintiffs for exercising issue advocacy speech rights that on their face are not subject to the regulations or statutes the defendants seek to enforce. This legitimate exercise of O‘Keefe‘s rights as an individual, and WCFG‘s rights as a 501(c)(4) corporation, to speak on the issues has been characterized by the defendants as political activity covered by Chapter 11 of the Wisconsin Statutes, rendering the plaintiffs a subcommittee of the Friends of Scott Walker and requiring that money spent on such speech be reported as an in-kind campaign contribution. This interpretation is simply wrong.

Judge Randa analyzed the law as it relates to campaign finance. He noted that the conservative groups denied any coordination, and their denials appear to be well-founded. But, in any event, their activities were constitutionally protected and cannot be the basis of a criminal investigation:

It is undisputed that O‘Keefe and the Club engage in issue advocacy, not express advocacy or its functional equivalent. Since § 11.01(16)’s definition of “political purposes” must be confined to express advocacy, the plaintiffs cannot be and are not subject to Wisconsin‘s campaign finance laws by virtue of their expenditures on issue advocacy.

However, the defendants argue that issue advocacy does not create a free-speech “safe harbor” when expenditures are coordinated between a candidate and a third-party organization. Barland at 155 (citing Fed. Election Comm’n v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431, 465 (2001)); see also Republican Party of N.M. v. King, 741 F.3d 1089, 1103 (10th Cir. 2013). O‘Keefe and the Club maintain that they did not coordinate any aspect of their communications with Governor Walker, Friends of Scott Walker, or any other candidate or campaign, and the record seems to validate that assertion. However, the Court need not make that type of factual finding because — once again — the phrase “political purposes” under Wisconsin law means express advocacy and coordination of expenditures for issue advocacy with a political candidate does not change the character of the speech. Coordination does not add the threat of quid pro quo corruption that accompanies express advocacy speech and in turn express advocacy money. Issue advocacy money, like express advocacy money, does not go directly to a political candidate or political committee for the purpose of supporting his or her candidacy. Issue advocacy money goes to the issue advocacy organization to provide issue advocacy speech. A candidate‘s coordination with and approval of issue advocacy speech, along with the fact that the speech may benefit his or her campaign because the position taken on the issues coincides with his or her own, does not rise to the level of “favors for cash.” Logic instructs that there is no room for a quid pro quo arrangement when the views of the candidate and the issue advocacy organization coincide.

Judge Randa concluded that the Club For Growth was likely to prevail on the merits, and he issued an order directing the partisan prosecutors to cease their unconstitutional investigation:

Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the defendants’ investigation violates their rights under the First Amendment, such that the investigation was commenced and conducted “without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 126 n.6 (1975); see also Collins v. Kendall Cnty., Ill., 807 F.2d 95, 101 (7th Cir. 1986); Wilson v. Thompson, 593 F.2d 1375, 1387 n.22 (5th Cir. 1979).

Judge Randa’s conclusion is politely phrased, but understand what he is saying: the partisan prosecutors are so obviously wrong on the law that they could not have had a reasonable expectation of convicting anyone of anything. Their so-called investigation was in fact mere harassment, intended to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by conservatives.

The next stage involved procedural maneuvering that I won’t try to explain. The prosecutor defendants appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and argued that Judge Randa lacked jurisdiction to order them to terminate their faux investigation. The Court of Appeals issued an order to the effect that Judge Randa would need to make a finding that the defendants’ appeal was frivolous in order to retain jurisdiction. That resulted in another Order, dated May 8, 2014, in which Judge Randa described the discredited prosecutors’ appeal as “the height of frivolousness.” He continued:

To be clear, the Court is absolutely convinced that the defendants’ attempt to appeal this issue is a frivolous effort to deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to enter an injunction.

An appellate judge has now ordered certain pleadings in the case to be unsealed, an order to which the Club For Growth did not object. The hysterical accusations against Scott Walker that the Associated Press, the Washington Post and others are now gleefully celebrating are simply the unfounded assertions that the prosecutors made in a failed effort to justify their partisan investigation. They are precisely the allegations that have been resoundingly rejected by the federal judge who has presided over the case and who has found the defendants’ investigation to be a naked violation of the conservative groups’ constitutional rights.

So the reporters who are now trumpeting the discredited prosecutors’ assertions either have no understanding of the case, or they are part of the partisan witch hunt that gave rise to the unconstitutional investigation in the first place.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 557


« Reply #99 on: June 20, 2014, 11:18:22 AM »

The fact that the Republican Party leadership is NOT trumpeting Scott Walker's spectacular success story re: Wisconsin's budget speaks volumes.  The Republican leadership is interested only in the status quo in Washington.  Walker's success ought to be shouted from the mountaintops at every opportunity by every nationally-prominent Republican as a model of the success of conservative fiscal policy.

It isn't being done.  Not by Paul Ryan - John Boehner - Cantor (good riddance) - and certainly not by the new majority leader Kevin McCarthy, who is nothing more than another disgusting sycophant for Boehner.  It' not only the left that wants to destroy Walker and his reputation - it's his own party.  Smaller government is fundamentally opposed by the leadership of both parties now.  It threatens their personal interests.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2014, 02:19:49 PM by objectivist1 » Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 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!