Posts filed under ‘2016 Election’
Karl Rove’s group, American Crossroads, released this video this morning. Now come on Darrell Issa, look me in the eye and tell me this whole Benghazi witch hunt isn’t all about politics and the 2016 election.
For those who still think it’s too soon to be talking about 2016 … tough luck.
On Friday, C-SPAN will start branding events with likely presidential hopefuls as “Road to the White House 2016.” The series starts tomorrow with footage of speeches by Vice President Joe Biden and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in South Carolina, and will continue with other events later this month.
This is an unusually early start date for the series, which normally gets under way about two years ahead of Election Day. C-SPAN’s “Road to the White House 2012″ didn’t start until Aug. 3, 2010.
News organizations have been hyping the 2016 presidential contest since before the 2012 election, and not a day goes by where there isn’t some talk of politicians’ presidential ambitions. But now, with C-SPAN on board, I think it’s fair to say that the race is truly on.
Can you hear me screaming?
There’s this (note the last paragraph):
We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.
And there’s this:
I guess this is what Republicans mean when they say they’re “rebranding” their party: Continue to deny gays and lesbians equal rights but be nice about it:
“I know for a fact that as it relates to gay marriage and other social issues there is growing divergence of opinion on this. When we talk about it, we ought to talk about it with a different tone — and we ought to talk about it recognizing that there is more than one point of view, and we should talk about it in a way that is not judgmental.
If we can get to that point where people who have diverging points of view and express them in a civil way, the conservative coalition can stay intact.”
Never mind that people are being made second class citizens and being discriminated against. Supporting gay marriage because it could bring in big bucks is making Republicans think twice about their opposition to it.
WARNING: Revulsion alert:
Republican fundraisers say the changing views of gay marriage in their party could unlock big money from GOP donors in places like New York, California and Florida — where some Republicans have kept their checkbooks closed over what they saw as misplaced priorities, at best, or intolerance, at worst, at the highest ranks of the party.
Several Republicans pointed to Sen. Rob Portman’s switch in support of gay marriage as a watershed moment for the party. And more than two dozen high-profile GOP-ers asked the Supreme Court to back gay rights. And even Foster Friess, Rick Santorum’s top benefactor, has softened his stance on domestic partnership.
“Republicans’ intolerance to marriage equality has been detrimental to winning,” said Aaron McLear, a California Republican strategist. “Big donors understand that they don’t want to invest in campaigns focused on a losing issue, and I think certainly the fiscal issues for Republicans are much more marketable.”
Never mind human beings. It’s all about “fiscal issues” and being “marketable.”
Ugh. Gag me.
Even though it’s early, here’s my Tweet of the Day.
The operative word here is “fantasy.” Obamacare isn’t going to be repealed and Paul Ryan knows. But in order to maintain his street cred with the Tea Partiers, he’s got to play this game and throw them some red meat, even though he’s wasting everyone’s time doing it.
Republicans Were Against Medicare Cuts Before They Were For Them Before They Were Against Them Before They Were For Them
That title is no joke. Read on:
What Do You do When One Party is This Dishonest?
We’re still waiting for a full rollout of House Budget Chair Paul Ryan’s Republican budget, but there’s confirmation now that it will once again rely heavily on retaining the Medicare cuts passed in the Affordable Care Act (even as Ryan’s budget repeals the rest of the law).
[E]veryone is under-appreciating just how outrageous this is. For the second time in a row, Paul Ryan and the Republicans have run a national election campaign (the 2012 presidential election) in which the main theme was bashing the Democrats … for a policy which Republicans support — and indeed are making a key part of the most important policy blueprint that they will roll out this year.
This is no garden-variety flip-flop. It’s a fundamental decision to govern one way and campaign the exact opposite way.
This is one of those cases where it’s so audacious that reporters just don’t want to believe it.
I really can’t think of any comparably dishonest episode in recent American political history. To base not one but two campaigns on attacking the other party for a policy which, between elections, they support…it’s well beyond chutzpah. Oh, and that’s without even beginning to reckon with the fact that the House GOP’s larger Medicare plans call for much bigger long-term cuts than Obamacare made.
1) This wouldn’t happen if Republicans knew, for sure, without a doubt, that the media would report this kind of bait and switch clearly and repeatedly.
2) We’ve got to invent a new word. Outrageous, audacious, dishonest and chutzpah don’t describe what the Republicans are doing now, and have been doing for years. I guess the big takeway is that they’re willing to lie to the American people and tell them during campaigns they’ll do the exact opposite of what they intend to do if elected.
Way to corrode the democratic process guys.
This is the actual chyron on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC right now: “1,341 Days to Go. Decision 2016.”
Let me outta here!
Geezus. Seniors make up a fair number of those who still vote Republican but Jeb Bush is apparently trying to change that. Makes me wonder what happened to the Republican vow to “remake” their party after November. Guess that’s off the table now.
Jeb Bush Opposed to Florida Medicaid Expansion
(CNN) – Florida’s former governor Jeb Bush isn’t in alignment with the Sunshine State’s current Republican executive on the issue of accepting federal dollars to expand Medicaid coverage to more lower income residents.
Asked by CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper about Rick Scott’s recent decision to accept the funds, which are included as part of President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care law, Bush said he had reservations about the Medicaid expansion, which will be totally funded by the federal government for the first three years. After that, federal funding will be phased down.
Jeb is going downright Tea Party on us. Heck. It worked for Romney so why not.
If I had the time I’d start a chart right now tracking Jeb Bush’s flip-flops as he surfaces in what looks like the beginning of a presidential run.
This would be Jeb yesterday:
Distancing himself from his former-president brother and Sen. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush appeared to reverse course Monday when he said undocumented immigrants should not be given a pathway to citizenship.
The former Florida governor’s comments came on the eve of the release of a new immigration-reform book he co-wrote called “Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution.”
“A grant of citizenship is an undeserving reward for conduct that we cannot afford to encourage,” Bush wrote in the book with co-author Clint Bolick, a conservative lawyer.
“Those who violated the law can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship,” they wrote.
Until Monday, Bush had one of the most liberal immigration positions for a conservative leader.
And this would be Jeb this morning on “Morning Joe:”
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) told MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Tuesday that he would support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants “if you can craft that in law where you can have a path to citizenship where there isn’t an incentive for people to come illegally” — a position that puts him at odds with his new book, out today from Simon & Schuster.
Not. A. Good. Start.
Not only that, are we ready for another Bush? Really?
About Marco Rubio delivering the Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, truer words were never spoken:
“The selection of Rubio to speak for his party marked the latest, and perhaps most overt, step in the GOP’s rehabilitation project since Election Day, an effort to repackage its identity without altering its policies.“
Those last four words are key: “…without altering its policies.”
I’m praying people won’t be fooled.
Just minutes ago he voted against the Violence Against Women Act:
Just hours ahead of stepping in front of the cameras to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address; Senator Marco Rubio voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
The VAWA passed the Senate, despite Rubio’s no vote, by a 78-22 margin. All 22 of those who voted against the reauthorization of the bill were men and included not only Rubio but also Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The original Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994, but expired in 2011 as Congress’ partisan divide grew. The bill seeks to help victims of domestic violence, stalking, and other crimes. The reauthorization added new protections for LGBT and Native American victims.
So there we have it. The stupid party is trying to reach out to Latinos via supposed wonder boy Marco Rubio but the problem is, all they’re doing is putting lipstick on a pig.
(If you want to read Time’s cover article about Rubio, here it is.)
You can put lipstick on a pig, but he’s still a pig.
Here is a full list of the 22 people (all men, all Republicans) who voted against the bill.
OMG, this is hilarious:
The junior senator from Florida is Latino [well, close enough -- he's of Cuban decent], young, articulate, and photogenic – and on Tuesday night, he will deliver the GOP response to President Obama’s State of the Union (SOTU) address. [Not that he has any special expertise. It's just that he's "Latino."]
In a first, he will give the speech in both English and Spanish.
I’m not kidding. The pandering we’re going to witness tonight is going to be over the top. Until ah, today I guess, Republicans were the English-only party. But — giant sucking sound — not anymore! Kissy kissy.
Marco Rubio (R-FL), the guy Time magazine says will be the Republican party’s “savoir,” voted in favor of violence against women on Monday:
Eight Senators on Monday voted not to consider the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that protects victims of domestic violence. The Senators who voted against moving to debate on the bill were: Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Tim Scott (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and James Risch (R-ID).
(Look at all those Rs who think violence against women is cool.)
Wonder Boy Rubio might have an Hispanic name but if he casts anti-women votes like this he could lose his “savior” status in-a-Florida-minute.
Not only that, his stand on climate change (not convinced it’s real) will haunt him too. It ain’t gonna be pretty when the sea rises, hurricanes increase and who know what happens as a result of that unreal pesky thing. Four years is a long time in that category.
Oh well. He’s cute, so he’s got that going for him.
I have a good friend who lives in Ohio and she says everything Governor John Kasich does is self-serving:
John Kasich’s Obamacare Flip Burns Conservatives
Conservative groups wanted to stop the march of Obamacare expansion at ground zero: the states.
But one of their best hopes just caved.
John Kasich, the fiercely conservative governor of Ohio, announced Monday that he’s going to expand Medicaid dramatically using federal money — a 180-degree turn from what conservative groups swore their allies in governors’ mansions would do when the Supreme Court gave them an out last year.
That leaves Kasich, who built his political identity arguing for smaller government, at odds with the same movement conservatives who propelled him to victory in Ohio and have eyed him for a presidential run in 2016.
“I think it’s definitely going to weaken him with the conservative base,” said Chris Littleton, the Ohio director for American Majority Action.
Yeah, it probably will “weaken him with the conservative base” — as in the 26%ers – but it will help with independents, moderates and who knows, maybe even some Democrats, so this move sure points toward him eying a run for prez.
Now it’ll be interested to see what the wackos do.
OMG. I just got off the phone with my 82-year-old aunt. We talked about a whole bunch of things, one of them was the Internet and computers and iPads. She said she “played” with her daughter’s iPad a few months ago but otherwise doesn’t use any computer or Internet technology and, as a matter of fact, she likes getting her news from a good old-fashioned newspaper, specifically the Palm Beach Post which she said is “really very good.”
So I decided to mosey on over to the Palm Beach Post’s website to check it out and lo and behold, look what I found, a poll asking this question:
Is Hillary Clinton really ill?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was unavailable to testify before congressional hearings into the attack on the U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, because she suffered a concussion in a fall.
Some critics of the Obama administration, however, expressed skepticism. U.S. Rep. Allen West, for one, said he thought she was suffering from the “Benghazi Flu.”
Initial investigations of the Benghazi attacks, in which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died, have been very critical of high-level State Department officials, several of whom have resigned or been reassigned.
However, official reports have not traced the blame up to Mrs. Clinton’s level.
Critics expressing doubt as to whether Mrs. Clinton really was ill have said they think she is trying to duck in-depth questioning about State Department failures.
What do you think? Is Hillary Clinton really ill? Take our poll.Your takeIs Hillary Clinton really ill?YesNo
This would be Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post on December 18:
Unable to deny something serious
might be is going on, this is the Post‘s headline tonight, December 30:
I can almost hear Murdoch’s GOP jumping up and down about this. Hillary Clinton for prez in 2016 is their worst nightmare. I know they’re hoping that, well, you know.
Hey, if you can’t get people to vote for you because of your ideas, you have to get creative:
Republican campaign consultant Scott Tranter [a former Romney campaign adviser] appeared on a panel Monday hosted by the Pew Center on the States to discuss the long lines and voter ID controversies that plagued the 2012 election. In his comments, Tranter seemed to imply that he believed these issues were helpful to Republicans and should be pursued for that reason.
“A lot of us are campaign officials — or campaign professionals — and we want to do everything we can to help our side. Sometimes we think that’s voter ID, sometimes we think that’s longer lines — whatever it may be,” Tranter said with a laugh.
Tranter “seemed to imply?” I don’t think he “implied” at all. It seems pretty clear to me he thinks voter ID laws and long lines “help our side.” Why else would Republicans all across the country be focusing on making sure we have both?
For more and to see a video of Tranter making these remarks, go here.
This, from Politico:
Paul Ryan took an unmistakable shot Tuesday at Mitt Romney’s assertion that 47 percent of Americans would never vote Republican because they are too dependent on government.
“Both parties tend to divide Americans into ‘our voters’ and ‘their voters,’” the Wisconsin congressman told hundreds of well-to-do conservatives at an awards dinner in a Washington ballroom. “Republicans must steer far clear of that trap. We must speak to the aspirations and anxieties of every American. I believe we can turn on the engines of upward mobility so that no one is left out from the promise of America.”
How many chances are Americans willing to give the Bushes and what makes them think they deserve another one (much less another two) insofar as they’ve fu*ked up everything they’ve touched?
Oh, wait! There’s a brown one among them:
Republicans Pin Their Hopes on a Third George Bush
It has been less than a month since Mitt Romney was forced to abandon his 1,118-word victory speech, but already the Grand Old Party has begun the search for its great new hope, with many Republican heads turning in the direction of Texas and the name Bush… George Bush.
This isn’t a flashback. Nephew and grandson of ex-Presidents George W and George H W respectively, the young GOP dynast in question is George P Bush, the son of former Florida Governor (and potential presidential runner) Jeb Bush.
Even as talk turns to his father’s ambitions for 2016, 36-year old George’s decision to file preliminary paperwork to run for office in Texas in 2014 has whetted the appetite of more than a few Republican strategists. The Lone Star State was, after all, his uncle George W’s springboard to the White House.
Meanwhile, attention is also turning to George’s father, who is being touted as a potential Republican nominee for the 2016 White House polls. Jeb Bush is said to be taking stock of his finances and place within the party, according to The New York Times, as he contemplates a run for the highest office in the land.
So, Republicans hope Jeb will be prez in 2016 and his son will succeed him in 2020 or 2024?
I’m exhausted thinking about it. Seems to me we’ve tried the Bush thing and it hasn’t worked out all that well.
Dan Senor, a former “aide” to the Romney campaign, was on Morning Joe this morning and he said something that struck me for its clarity: “I’m no longer professionally spinning for Mitt Romney.”
We all know that most of the talking heads on television are “professionally spinning” for someone or something but they aren’t usually identified as such, which I think we should change. Next campaign season (as if they ever end), if someone from a particular campaign is on TV, let’s get real and have the chyron at the bottom of the screen read, “Dan Senor: Professional spinner for so-and-so’s campaign.”
Uh oh. Marco Rubio, the GOP’s hope to save its standing with Hispanics, is involved in Petraeusgate. Yikes:
Just think…the 2016 presidential campaign starts in two weeks!
Oh gawd, say it ain’t so already:
Actually, if Republicans think Walker is a potential 2016 presidential candidate, that means they haven’t learned one single thing from this year’s campaign. Fox and Limbaugh might love him, but Walker comes of as (and is) an arrogant, 1%-loving, cold-hearted gashole like Mitt, so maybe this is a good thing.