2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

If the Republicans get a baby senator in office, sure. Like for like, right?

No "ifs".  Let's see what even the greatest leader the GOP can produce can accomplish with a Congress that is only interested in seeing the President fail.

But then that's not a fair comparison.

So you think the Republican stance has been based on their objection to Obama's experience?

That is just laughable as excuses go.

No, not at all. I only meant that someone with limited experience, and thus not many strong political connections, will easily be obstructed.

[garbon]

Yeah but the thing is (even if one dislikes Hillary), I don't honestly see how someone could still be an Obama supporter.

[garbon]

He may have been sabotaged, but aside from further deepening the partisan hatreds what's the actual effect been?

America's got a robust looking recovery, universal healthcare policy, is heading into a surplus and is, for the most part, disentangled from her ground wars in the Mid East. That may be sabotage, and it may be mediocrity. But looking back to 2008 or 2010 or even 2012 I think most Americans would take that.

I don't know if I'd be that bold. '08 sure but...here's what Gallup has to say on historical trends on satisfaction with regards to how US is heading.

The last time a majority of Americans were satisfied with the direction of the country was more than a decade ago, a 55% reading in January 2004. Further, satisfaction has not topped 40% since July 2005, amid a struggling economy, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and declining confidence in government. This period also saw satisfaction sink to an all-time low of 7% in October 2008, shortly after the financial crisis hit.

While satisfaction is higher today than back then, it has only exceeded 30% for two brief stretches since 2008 -- from May through August 2009 shortly after President Barack Obama took office, and in November 2012 when he was re-elected to a second term.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah but the thing is (even if one dislikes Hillary), I don't honestly see how someone could still be an Obama supporter.

As he now appears to be dressing in clothes Gerald Ford left behind I renounce my Obama-support:

[Eddie Teach]

That suit does look a bit loose, but not loose enough to have been worn by Ford.

[Tonitrus]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/social-media-explodes-president-obamas-tan-suit/story?id=25166551

[Razgovory]

No, not at all. I only meant that someone with limited experience, and thus not many strong political connections, will easily be obstructed.

And if a more experienced politician proves to be as easily obstructed?

[garbon]

Then you might have something.

[CountDeMoney]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/social-media-explodes-president-obamas-tan-suit/story?id=25166551

Guess a brutha can't wear summer colors anymore.  Somebody notify Banana Republic, we're recalling our ambassador.

[derspiess]

As he now appears to be dressing in clothes Gerald Ford left behind I renounce my Obama-support:

I was thinking Truman, though he's lacking the hat.

[jimmy olsen]

It's beginning already!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-returns-to-iowa-with-redemption-in-sight-for-2016/

Hillary Clinton returns to Iowa with redemption in sight

Presumably hungry for firmer footing this go around, Hillary Clinton on Sunday returns to Iowa for her first public appearance since the Hawkeye State dished out what she's described as an "excruciating" third-place finish in the first-in-the-nation presidential voting state's 2008 caucuses.

The former secretary of state will headline the 37th and last-ever Harkin Steak Fry, a longtime draw for the top names in politics and a bastion for any Democrat eyeing a White House run. Hosted every year by retiring Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the event has seen heavyweights from John Kerry to Al Gore, and is credited largely with boosting the celebrity of then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2006.

With more than 5,000 people expected to attend, Harkin's final hurrah will mark the largest turnout since Clinton's only other visit to the steak fry in 2007. Former President Bill Clinton, who will accompany her to rural Indianola and is also slated to make remarks, has notched three prior steak fry appearances.

Harkin has stressed that the narrative this year will be effectively laser-focused on November's congressional midterms, which stand to yield a majority shift in the Senate. In the spotlight will likely be Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley, who's locked in a nail-biter race with Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst.

Still, the chance to show her face in the critical primary state comes at an opportune moment for Clinton, who recently said she'll announce early next year whether she intends on mounting a reprise presidential bid.

Fueled in no small part by Clinton's stubborn cageyness, speculation about her future plans have been flying wildly for months. Harkin told the Associated Press on Friday he has no intention of whetting the chatter: "I don't want to be in a position of piling it on," he said. "This is a decision she has to make. She knows how much I care about her and Bill."

The event's atmosphere will almost certainly insist otherwise. "Ready for Hillary," the powerhouse super PAC that's amassed an impressive legion of deep-pocketed Democrats to help assemble the scaffolding of a potential Clinton run, has for weeks been rallying attention to the steak fry, wooing Iowans with the prospect of free swag and offering to shuttle in college students from around the state.

Though general consensus nods to the overall diminished pull of the caucuses, they've also been known to dispense a boon to a lilting campaign, most recently to Rick Santorum, whose strong finish in Iowa rocketed his campaign to top-tier status.

And without question, Clinton has something to prove there.

Her shaky presence in Iowa during her 2008 run devolved into a crippling stain on her campaign when it was leaked to the media that her team was seriously considering pulling out of the caucuses entirely to focus on other primary states. She was disciplined in turn with a shocking upset by Mr. Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., which ultimately dismantled her frontrunner status.

Now as she arrives again atop the list of Democratic contenders, Republican leaders emphasize, it's no fresh start.

"Obviously the visit is going to be a little bit awkward for Hillary Clinton," Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told reporters on a conference call Friday. "She lost [the 2008 caucuses] because... she's one of the most out-of-touch politicians in America. And she had a very difficult time connecting with people in the Hawkeye State.

"...Her strategy was to skip, and build up an air of inevitability," he went on. "She appears to be repeating that strategy."

On the same call, Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann agreed his party is "very anxious" to hear her "explanation" for snubbing Iowa six years ago.

Describing Iowa voters as keen for a candidate who can "sit across from you in your living room" and discuss the issues, Kaufmann surmised: "Quite frankly I don't think Mrs. Clinton fits that particular bill." He added that he doesn't foresee some kind of "born-again experience" in 2016 "in terms of her ability to interact with the common person and the common Iowan."

Priebus and Kaufmann trumpeted poll numbers out this week that showed 43 percent of registered voters harboring a positive view of Clinton - a sharp drop from her approval rating of 59 percent in February 2009, when she had just been named secretary of state. Still, the same poll they referenced boasted Clinton as being more positively viewed than most Republicans weighing presidential runs, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

Clinton laid out her deliberation process during an event last week in Mexico City: "I think the most important question anybody should ask who's thinking about it is not whether you're going to run or whether you're going to win; it is what's your vision for the country and can you lead us there?" she said.

"I will have to be convinced that I have a very clear vision with an agenda of what I think needs to be done, and that I have the experience and know-how to lead," she continued, "not just those who agree with me, but those who disagree with me, to try to achieve those goals."

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-won-t-rand-paul-admit-he-s-changed-his-mind-005506434.html

Why won't Rand Paul admit he's changed his mind?

The Kentucky senator insists he's consistent, even when it's obvious he's not

Back in Washington after a long break last week, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul was stepping off the escalator in the Capitol basement on his way to lunch, when a reporter approached him with a straightforward question.

Why, asked Weekly Standard writer John McCormack, did Paul change his position about launching a U.S. military strike against the Islamic State, a terrorist group that has seized territory in Iraq and Syria and beheaded two American journalists?

"You were still uncertain about bombing back in August. Now you support it," McCormack said. "What in your mind has changed?"

Instead of explaining why he recently came out in support of launching a military assault on the group — with authority from Congress — despite his warning earlier this summer against getting involved, Paul replied that nothing had changed.

"I still have exactly the same policy," Paul said. "And that is that intervention militarily should be through an act of Congress."

Well sure, Paul has always believed that Congress should have a say in military action abroad. But that wasn't McCormack's question. Instead of answering the question posed to him, which was a routine request to articulate if he thinks new circumstances call for a different response, Paul claimed perfect consistency.

Paul has made a curious habit of doing this, even when the facts show that his views, and, more critically, the way he is willing to speak about them, have shifted.

Over the summer, the first-term Kentucky lawmaker has offered a conflicting set of explanations of his core policy positions, reviving attention to evasions and denials that date back to his entry onto the political scene. From questions about the Civil Rights Act to his positions on foreign aid and military intervention, Paul has changed the way he describes his positions — and, in some cases, changed his mind completely — while simultaneously denying he's done so.

Taking a new position is not, in itself, devastating for a politician: Elected officials change their minds all the time, often with good reason and in response to changing circumstances. And they can escape charges of flip-flopping if they provide a sound reason for the shift.

President Barack Obama has "evolved," has he called it, on several topics, including the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage. Mitt Romney convincingly made the case to social conservatives that his views on abortion had changed over time to become more conservative, saying that he had been "wrong."

But instances like these, in which the politician survives his transition to a new outlook, are overshadowed by the many others in which candidates have been severely damaged by charges of revising their positions. The danger, as John Kerry learned the hard way during the 2004 presidential contest, is that early criticism and being labeled as a flip-flopper has a way of morphing into a defining framework through which everything else a politician says is viewed. Once the narrative is set, it's hard to reverse it.

More than a year before the presidential primary voting begins, Paul has already reached a point where he is at risk of falling into Kerry territory, launching a campaign amid a drumbeat of criticism about his changes of heart. Worse, over the summer he's exhibited an increasingly visible habit of lashing out at those who point out his changes in position, leading critics to start raising questions about his temperament.

Democrats, knowing that he's considering a presidential run, are sharpening their knives and launching into an effort to frame the narrative on Paul early. Citing his shifts on seven different topics, the Democratic National Committee slammed Paul in a press release Friday proclaiming "Rand Paul is making us dizzy." Democratic Party operatives are building an archive of videos and news clippings that they plan to release drip by drip over the next two years, in an effort to devastate Paul's ambitions and raise questions about his truthfulness and personality.

Already, they have plenty to work with.

Civil rights

Paul's difficulty in defending and sticking to the most unpopular of his libertarian opinions — beliefs that helped him build a devoted base — dates back to the early years of his political career, during his initial run for the Senate in Kentucky just four years ago.

In April 2010, Paul sat down for a taped interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, where a member of the paper's editorial board asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that made it illegal for private businesses to turn away customers based on the color of their skin.

"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," Paul said.

However, its provision governing private businesses rankled with him: "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners — I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant — but, at the same time, I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that's most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind."

Paul suggested that the First Amendment was the appropriate model for civil rights law — providing, as it does, maximum protection to offensive speech — rather than regulation of the private sector. "In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior," he said, "but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people."

A few weeks after the Courier-Journal published the exchange, Paul went on MSNBC for a follow-up interview with host Rachel Maddow. Should the federal government allow private businesses to withhold service to black customers, she asked?

"I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form," Paul said. "I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. ... But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it."

He continued: "Had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the Civil Rights Act, and I think that's a valid point and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about, do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well?"

Paul was referring to Title II of the Act, which made it illegal for private businesses that provide "public accommodation" to discriminate based on race.

Two days later, faced with unrelenting criticism of his questioning of a central part of the Civil Rights Act, Paul appeared to give up on the idea of engaging in long-winded discussions about the law and the importance of preserving the freedom to act in an offensive and racist manner.

"I would have voted yes," Paul concisely told CNN's Wolf Blitzer when asked if he would have supported the Civil Rights Act. He didn't say much more than that.

Paul, of course, went on to survive the firestorm over his comments and won the Senate seat later that year. He received about 13 percent of the black vote in Kentucky, according to exit polls.

Fast-forward four years to July 2014, when Paul returned to MSNBC for a joint interview with New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker on "The Cycle." The hosts of the show dredged up his old comments about civil rights, and Paul didn't take kindly to the line of questioning.

"Have I ever had a philosophical discussion about all aspects of it? Yeah, and I learned my lesson: To come on MSNBC and have a philosophical discussion, the liberals will come out of the woodwork and they will go crazy and say you're against the Civil Rights Act and that you're some terrible racist," Paul said.

"I've been attacked by half a dozen people on your network trying to say I'm opposed to the Civil Rights Act and somehow now I've changed. So I'm not really willing to engage with people who are misrepresenting my viewpoint on this. I have never been against the Civil Rights Act."

Later that night, Paul voiced frustration at MSNBC during a speech at the Young Americans for Liberty conference in Arlington, Va., calling the network's hosts "partisan cranks and hacks" and accusing them of making up "lousy lies" about his positions. He refused to go back on the network until it apologized.

The network did not apologize, but responded with a segment on "The Rachel Maddow Show" that re-aired the statements he made in 2010. Maddow raised questions about Paul's "temperament" in how he responded to a reporter who brought up his remarks.

"Rather than explaining that he's evolved, that he's changed his mind, he no longer has those objections to the Civil Rights Act, he's now insisting that those 2010 interviews never happened, and he never admitted to having those views and he certainly never had those views," Maddow said.

Aid to Israel

The very next week, while Paul was in Nebraska campaigning for Republican Senate candidate Ben Sasse, Yahoo News asked him if he still believed that the United States should stop offering federal aid to Israel, a position he held and defended when he first became a senator in 2011.

Again Paul insisted that he had never held his earlier position, arguing that his proposal to cut all foreign aid was being mischaracterized.

Yet early in his Senate tenure, Paul proposed a budget plan that would have cut foreign aid, including assistance to Israel. In an interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl at the time, he explained it thusly: "I'm not singling out Israel. I support Israel. I want to be known as a friend of Israel, but not with money you don't have. ... I think they're an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world. Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don't think so."

When Yahoo News asked Paul if he still believed the things he had proposed four years ago, he denied he'd made the proposal.

"I haven't really proposed that in the past," he said.

When Yahoo News tried to point to interviews and videos showing that he, in fact, had held that position, Paul got snippy.

"You can mistake my position, but then I'll answer the question," Paul said. "That has not been a position — a legislative position — we have introduced to phase out or get rid of Israel's aid. That's the answer to that question. Israel has always been a strong ally of ours and I appreciate that. I voted just this week to give money — more money — to the Iron Dome, so don't mischaracterize my position on Israel."

Other news outlets quickly picked up the story and pointed out that yes, Paul had in fact supported a plan that would have resulted in the termination of aid to Israel. But Paul remained firm in his denial that his 2011 approach, if adopted by his peers in the Senate, would have cut off all aid to Israel.

The Islamic State and military action in Syria

No subject has caused more consternation for Paul in his public life than foreign policy, specifically when it comes to the question of the use of force against other nations and the terrorist group the Islamic State. Paul has asserted himself a believer in restraint on military matters, a position that has led hawks to accuse him of being an "isolationist," a clunky term that he feels fails to describe his views on the subject.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published on June 19 under the subhead, "There's no good case for U.S. military intervention now," Paul argued against using U.S. military might to combat IS in Iraq and urging caution in using airstrikes in the region. " ... While we may not completely rule out airstrikes, there are many questions that need to be addressed first. What would airstrikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran's air force? What's in this for Iran? Why should we choose a side, and if we do, who are we really helping?"

Paul took criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for this position. Texas Gov. Rick Perry accused Paul of holding a view that would increase the threat of terrorism, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum called Paul's policies "wrong for America's security and prosperity." A spokesman from the Democratic National Committee said Paul "blames America for all the problems in the world."

With the American public outraged by video showing the beheading of the American journalist James Foley, Paul sought on Sept. 4 to rebrand on the question of the Islamic State, or IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL, in a Time magazine op-ed entitled, "I Am Not an Isolationist." In it, the senator called for using lethal force against the IS, with congressional approval, and promised he would have hit them harder even than the president has.

"[W]hile my predisposition is to less intervention, I do support intervention when our vital interests are threatened," Paul wrote. "If I had been in President Obama's shoes, I would have acted more decisively and strongly against ISIS. I would have called Congress back into session — even during recess. This is what President Obama should have done. He should have been prepared with a strategic vision, a plan for victory and extricating ourselves. He should have asked for authorization for military action and would have, no doubt, received it."

Paul's critics accused him of contradicting his earlier op-ed.

Even some leading libertarians, who thought they knew Paul's views, responded with confusion at his latest stated position on IS.

"For a nanosecond, I thought we might see a presidential contest between Dove Rand and Hawk Hillary. Obviously I was wrong," Sheldon Richman, vice president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, told Reason magazine, the leading American libertarian journal. "Why did anyone think Rand Paul was a libertarian?"

Reason's editor-in-chief, Matt Welch, expressed frustration with Paul's handling of foreign policy questions and accused him of being "almost maddeningly slippery" when addressing the topic. His colleague, Reason senior editor Jacob Sullum, was also skeptical: "The sudden evaporation of Paul's doubts reeks of political desperation."

Meanwhile, public opinion has shifted toward supporting military action against IS, with more Americans declaring that they are in favor of airstrikes following the beheadings of Foley and another American journalist, Steven Sotloff.

All of which culminated in McCormack's still unanswered query in the Capitol basement on Wednesday: What changed?

It is a question — like the others — that Paul will have to answer if he runs for president.

[garbon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/14/us-usa-politics-sanders-idUSKBN0H90Q420140914

Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Bernie Sanders, one of the Senate's leading liberals, said on Sunday he is thinking about running for U.S. president in 2016 as either a Democrat or an independent in a move that could complicate Hillary Clinton's path to the White House.

Sanders, an independent from Vermont, could pose a challenge from the left to Clinton, widely seen as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. She has not officially said she is a candidate but has acted very much like one.

"I think anybody who speaks to the needs of the working class and the middle class of this country and shows the courage to take on the billionaire class, I think that candidate will do pretty well," Sanders told the NBC program "Meet the Press," giving a possible preview of his message in the 2016 campaign.

Sanders is serving his second six-year term in the Senate. He has cultivated a following among some American liberals, especially on economic issues like the growing income disparity between rich and poor and corporate greed. He is a self-described socialist who caucuses with Democrats in the Senate.

"I am thinking about running for president," Sanders said, adding that he must decide whether to run as an independent or wade into the fight for the Democratic nomination.

Sanders is testing the waters in Iowa, a state that holds an important early contest in the nomination process.

"One of the reasons I'm going to Iowa is to get a sense of how people feel about it," he said of his candidacy. "Look, the truth is (there is) profound anger at both political parties, more and more people are becoming independent. The negative is: how do you set up a 50-state infrastructure as an independent?"

Sanders said he has "a lot of respect" for Clinton, but said, "The issue is not Hillary."

With Clinton mindful of the need to appeal to moderates in any general election battle against a Republican in 2016, a Sanders candidacy could force her to the left in the Democratic primaries to head off his challenge.

Conversely, if he runs in the general election as an independent, he could siphon away from her votes from liberals that she could need to beat any Republican nominee.

American liberals have expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama on a range of issues, most recently on his decision to postpone any executive action on immigration even as Republican leaders in the House of Representatives block action on a bipartisan Senate-passed plan.

Sanders said that he has "a lot of disagreements" with Obama, adding: "I think he has not tapped the anger and the frustration that the American people feel on many, many issues."

[CountDeMoney]

Run, Bernie, run!  Havent had to say that since '93. 


I just want Jim Webb to deliver us from evil, amen.

[derspiess]

I'll throw a few bucks Bernie's way if he runs.