US Election: 2016

[CougarKing]

One GOP nominee hopeful is still fixated on Obama possibly being a Muslim, while another drops out.

BBC

US Republican hopeful Ben Carson: No Muslims as president
1 hour ago
From the section US & Canada

Ben Carson: "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation"

US Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson says he does not believe a Muslim should become president.

"I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that," he told NBC's Meet The Press.
The retired neurosurgeon has been running high in the polls.

It follows widespread condemnation of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump's failure to correct a supporter who said President Barack Obama was a Muslim.

(...SNIPPED)

CNN

Scott Walker drops out of 2016 presidential race
By Eric Bradner, John King, Dana Bash and Jeff Zele

(...SNIPPED)

 

[jollyjacktar]

So, no wall then?

 

[Rifleman62]

S.M.A.

One GOP nominee hopeful is still fixated on Obama possibly being a Muslim, while another drops out.

Nothing of the sort. Dr. Carson was stating that says Islam is not consistent with US constitution.

‘I would not advocate we put a Muslim in charge of this nation’. Obama is not even mentioned.

Read past the headlines and first paragraph.

 

[cupper]

S.M.A.
Nothing of the sort. Dr. Carson was stating that says Islam is not consistent with US constitution.

‘I would not advocate we put a Muslim in charge of this nation’. Obama is not even mentioned.

Read past the headlines and first paragraph.

He still botched it though, seeing as he has completely ignored the establishment clause.  :facepalm:

 

[Rifleman62]

Heard several Vets who are upset at the remarks as they knew or commanded Muslim US Army/Marines who were KIA. One remarked at the number buried in Arlington.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Nothing of the sort. Dr. Carson was stating that says Islam is not consistent with US constitution.

‘I would not advocate we put a Muslim in charge of this nation’. Obama is not even mentioned.

Indeed, he was asked if Islam is consistent with the Constitution when me made the remark, so Obama wasn't mentioned. 

Like Harper's "old-vs-new-stock" Canadian quote, though, it's one of those "lightning rod" quotes whose interpretation is in the ear of the beholder - lovers say, "nothing to see here," while haters say, "hey, it's another back-door Obama bash".

Heard several Vets who are upset at the remarks as they knew or commanded Muslim US Army/Marines who were KIA. One remarked at the number buried in Arlington.

Good points, and not surprising he'd have heard from them pretty quickly.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Is this ...

                 

                                                      ... the real state of the Clinton campaign?

 

[CougarKing]

Speaking of Clinton, she weighs in again on US policy towards Canada:

Canadian Press/Associated Press

Clinton announced another Canada policy this week, could affect millions: Pharma
By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
Sat, 26 Sep, 2015

WASHINGTON - Lost in the noise of her headline-grabbing coming-out against the Keystone XL pipeline, Hillary Clinton announced another Canada-U.S. policy this week that could affect millions of people.

She called for legalizing prescription-pill imports from Canada, becoming the second Democratic presidential candidate to adopt the position and effectively making it party policy in the 2016 election.

Millions of Americans who struggle with high drug prices have purchased cheaper medicine abroad since online pharmacies first opened two decades ago, with Canada pioneering that grey-market industry.
The issue has resurfaced politically as U.S. drug prices experience their biggest jump in years. One company was forced to back down last week amid news that a life-saving medicine had increased overnight from $13.50 to $750 per pill.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[cupper]

So…. She's calling for importation of drugs which quite possibly have been manufactured in the US and imported into Canada, only to be reimported back into the US at a cheaper price.

Nope, can't see how this could be a bad move for either US consumers or Canadians. None at all.  :facepalm:

When are these I D 10 T errors going to realize that the problem is with US manufacturers setting prices in the US to make up for the lower prices in other countries, added to unrealistic attempts to recoup development costs, and the need to meet shareholder demands for a premium return on investment.

All this is going to achieve is a drain on Canadian drug markets, causing shortages for Canadian consumers, without addressing the real problem, as was exhibited this week when some 30 something hedge fund managing douche bag figured he could jack up the price of a drug that has been on the market for 60 plus years and had no patent protection remaining, low volume and a must have for a small group of individuals in a captive market.

 

[ModlrMike]

A few other significant flaws:

- Canadian pharmacies are required to only fill prescriptions from licensed providers, and US MDs do not count as such;
- it is a violation of College law for a Canadian MD to sign off on a prescription where they haven't seen the patient or taken a hand in their care.
- provincial Colleges of Pharmacists are making it much harder for internet pharmacies to operate from Canada.

These three restrictions will make it harder for any American who wants to access Canadian pharmaceuticals. So the US can allow the importation all it wants, it's up to us to allow the exportation.

 

[CougarKing]

Who will replace McCarthy?

Defense News

McCarthy Withdrawal Raises Wall Street Fears of Government Shutdown
By Andrew Clevenger 6:23 p.m. EDT October 8, 2015

WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s sudden withdrawal Thursday from the race for speaker rekindled Wall Street’s worries about a possible government shutdown.

Speaker of the House John Boehner’s announcement that he would step down at the end of October paved the way for a short term continuing resolution, or CR, that keeps the government funded through Dec. 11. As the second ranking House Republican, McCarthy, R-Calif., seemed poised to replace Boehner as speaker.

McCarthy’s announcement on Thursday scuttled any hopes of a smooth transition, and focused attention on two upcoming fiscal deadline: Nov. 4, when the government will reach the debt ceiling, and Dec. 11, when authorization for operational funding expires.

(...SINPPED)

 

[cupper]

Who will replace McCarthy?

Defense News

John Boehner will replace himself.

Issue is that 218 threshold. There isn't anyone (who ins't insane and is willing to stand for the position) who is going to garner enough votes from the Republican side to get to 218.

Paul Ryan's name is being bounced around and claims are being made that he could be acceptable to enough, but 1) he says he isn't interested, and 2) may not be willing to give the hardcore freedom caucus the assurances they are looking for that their needs will be provided for.

I think that what's really going to happen is that Boehner will keep putting the vote off until the finally come to an acceptable candidate, and that may drag on long enough that he may just decide to stay. The one caveat to that is that there isn't another more serious reason for Boenhe's decision to step down such as personal or family health concerns.

Whoever does take over has some serious fights ahead regarding the debt ceiling, budget, and trying to keep the party from shooting itself in the foot and blowing the upcoming election up.


More on the Ryan situation:

Freedom Caucus lies in wait for Paul Ryan
The group isn't sold on Ryan yet and is sticking by Rep. Webster's long-shot bid — for now.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/paul-ryan-house-freedom-caucus-214627

After leaving the House Republican Conference in a state of suspended upheaval, the rebellious group of conservative lawmakers that helped oust one speaker then short-circuited his would-be successor is intentionally laying low and deciding how to respond if Rep. Paul Ryan decides to run for speaker.

The short answer on Ryan so far from members of the House Freedom Caucus is that they’re not quite sold. So, the roughly 40 caucus members are standing by their endorsement of Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida for speaker — for now.
Story Continued Below

“We've endorsed Webster, and we plan on sticking with him through the House floor. If someone else gets in, we'll have to have a discussion as a group, but we've endorsed Webster,” said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.).

That’s because many conservatives disagree with the former vice presidential nominee's position on immigration and his role in the bipartisan Ryan-Murray budget deal.

House Freedom Caucus members continue to insist the decision on the next speaker is less about the person than how the House operates under a future regime. They want floor votes on more of their legislative proposals — even if they’re destined to fail— and less punishment for members who buck leadership.

From their perspective, the latest speaker election is yet another example of how Republican leaders aren’t playing fair. When McCarthy announced he wouldn’t run for speaker, Speaker John Boehner abruptly ended the meeting even though Webster and Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz were still contenders — yet another perceived slight to conservatives, members said.

Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, one of the founding members of the Freedom Caucus, argued that if Webster had been the one to bow out, the elections would have continued.

“I do think it’s a perfect example of the perception being that rules don’t apply the same way to everybody,” Mulvaney said. “If Daniel Webster had dropped out before that meeting, you could be dammed sure that election would have gone on.”
He added, “That’s not right. The rules have to be the same for everybody.”

During a closed-door meeting this week, Freedom Caucus leaders urged the 40-member group not to get distracted by the flurry of candidates who may enter the speaker’s race since Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy unexpectedly dropped out.

None of the most prominent members of the group, including its chairman, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, are preparing a run. They recognize there isn’t enough support to elect a hard-line member of the Republican Conference and that their best bet to influence the outcome is stopping a candidate they disapprove of from getting 218 votes on the House floor.

And, right now, it’s not clear they would rally behind Ryan.

Ryan’s office has repeatedly said he is not running for speaker, but the former vice presidential candidate is under intense pressure from Republican leaders to step forward, given that he is widely believed to be the only lawmaker who could comfortably amass 218 votes.

But conservatives strongly disagree with Ryan’s position on immigration and his role in crafting the bipartisan 2013 Ryan-Murray budget deal. He’s been criticized by the far right for being a staunch proponent of immigration reform and his work with Democrats to find a compromise to address the growing number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) called the situation “fluid.” He said Freedom Caucus members were staying focused on their crusade to get any speaker candidate to promise to overhaul how the House operates. They want proportional representation on the influential Steering and Policy Committee and greater say for committee members on who the conference elects as chairman of House panels.
The committee passed on backing McCarthy when the California Republican was still vying for speaker. Members said that was because McCarthy hadn’t yet convinced the Freedom Caucus he would follow through on promises to change House procedures.
“For us, we want a conference that empowers the rank and file ... this is a fluid situation,” Meadows said. “Nobody anticipated that we’d be where we are right now. I think the best thing to say is that we are behind [Webster] right now.”

The push from conservatives to return to regular order hasn’t eased since McCarthy bowed out from the race. They insist Ryan would be required to make the same pledges on empowering committees and ending punishments that any other candidate would.
And Webster said on Friday that he wouldn’t exit the race even if Ryan joins the fray.

“I want to show the Congress that this is the way we should be running our Congress,” Webster said on CNN. “We need to have a member, bottom-up process. All these things that are now being talked about as reform is something I started off with. Until there is a commitment to do that I’m going to stay in the race.”

 

[cupper]

Why no one in their right mind wants the job.

5 reasons nobody wants to be House speaker
Why only a fool, hero, caretaker (or some combination of all) would want the job Boehner dearly hopes to vacate by month’s end, but can’t.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/speaker-five-reasons-to-not-run-214587

Friends don’t let friends run for Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s abrupt and shocking (well, not that shocking) withdrawal from the race to succeed John Boehner has raised an existential question the ochre Ohioan himself always asked rebellious members: Who the hell would want this job?

We have our answer. Nobody with the slightest sense of political self-preservation or the scantest hope of having a future. McCarthy (looking ten years older than he did a week ago) used English words to explain his ‘later-for-you statement (“If we're going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to do that") but had he answered in song, it would have been “zip-a-dee-doo-dah!” Stunned members were said to be openly weeping in the cloakroom, but nary one of the tear-soaked super-majority was rushing to raise his hands shouting “Pick Me! Pick me!”

When asked if he was interested in the gig, Rep. Mac Thornberry, conservative from Texas cattle country, told reporters on the Hill, "I'd rather be a vegetarian.”

This is because the overstuffed 247-member House majority (brilliantly secured in perpetuity by Bush-era electoral gerrymandering) is, like New York in the 1970s or the Washington Nationals right now, essentially ungovernable.

Here are five reasons why only a fool, hero, caretaker (or some combination of all) would want the job Boehner dearly hopes to vacate by month’s end, but can’t.

1. Ted Cruz is running for president.

It’s been jokingly said that the Texas tea party god, who often crossed the rotunda to whip up ultra-conservatives against Boehner’s budget deals, is “Speaker Cruz.” He’s lashed Boehner as a sell-out and cheered the 2013 government shutdown, and even with his nemesis gone, Cruz is going to continue to barbecue the GOP “establishment” – i.e. anybody who has a job that requires them to compromise with the White House. And that’s basically the job description.

Moreover, bashing Congress is the mouth-breathing of political discourse, anyone can do it, and often does. At present, the overall Congressional approval rating is about 16 percent – and that’s pretty good, considering it touched high single digits in recent years. Donald Trump, who had no particular beef with McCarthy but is on good terms with Cruz, offered a don’t-let-the-door-hit-you tweet because, you know, why not? “Great, Kevin McCarthy drops out of SPEAKER race. We need a really smart and really tough person to take over this very important job!” he wrote before suggesting his daughter Ivanka take the job.

Presumably, he loves her too much to have been serious.

2. The “catastrophic” 2013 government shutdown didn’t scare the tea party.

Boehner, who had a Midwestern plastic salesman’s love for a folksy maxim, was fond of saying that the tea party wing of his party would recede once they had “touched the stove” – by shutting down the government.

Nope. Cruz delivered his celebrated semi-filibuster against Obamacare, and his members scuttled attempts to cut a stopgap deal with the White House. After a 16-day shutdown, the two sides agreed to a short-term funding deal – with polls showing 8 in 10 Americans blamed Republicans for the disruption, with tea party support tanking nationally.

Democrats predicted the GOP would pay a steep price for their recklessness in the 2014 elections. Not only were the wrong, they were historically wrong: Midterms are, by their nature, base elections, so fired-up anti-Obama Republicans romped, picking up nine Senate seats and the majority. They added 13 new members in the allegedly disgraced House, achieving a commanding majority the likes of which hadn’t been seen since Hoover’s day. Instead of touching the stove – they tossed it at Boehner’s head. When Phillip Bump of the Washington Post analyzed the post-shutdown polling, he concluded “if there is a repeat of the government shutdown, how it affects 2016 -- if at all -- is probably impossible to predict.”

3. If you have any chance of winning, you're automatically the “establishment.”

McCarthy is safely in the red zone of any standard definition of “conservative” but to his party’s right wing, he might as well have been King Boehner II. The tea party, fresh off deposing the last speaker, was leery of anybody who followed the pre-ordained lines of succession – despite McCarthy’s reputation as glad-handing bridge builder willing to hear out their complaints. When Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz hopped in the race, he didn’t cite policy objections with McCarthy – or even any specific ideological breach -- but McCarthy’s connection to the prior regime. “You don’t just give an automatic promotion to the existing leadership team; that doesn’t signal change,” he told FOX News after his announcement. “I think they want a fresh face and a fresh new person who’s actually there at the leadership table in the speaker’s role.”

McCarthy didn’t do much to help his cause. His unfathomably ill-advised declaration that the House Benghazi committee existed for the purpose of degrading Hillary Clinton’s “poll” numbers might have been enough to kill his candidacy anyway. But other numbers actually doomed him. The ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus backed little-known Florida Rep. Daniel Webster; Combined with Chaffetz’s handful of backers, that put McCarthy below the 218 votes he needed to get the big job – and the laid-back Bakersfield native was disinclined to bargain for his future with a group of hard-core rebels who would have likely demanded major concessions to back someone they regarded as soft.

4. Paul Ryan doesn't want to be speaker -- yet.

The disciplined House Ways and Means chairman is regarded as his party's brains and conscience but he's not quite ready to be its sacrificial leadership lamb. Plus he delivered a passionate pep talk on behalf of his fallen friend McCarthy. The former 2012 vice-presidential candidate isn't much more conservative that McCarthy, but he's arguably the one Republican with the national stature to overcome the reflexive insurrection from the right. So far, no good. "While I am grateful for the encouragement I've received, I will not be a candidate," the Wisconsin Republican said in a statement on Thursday.

Why not? A Ryan pal offered this explanation to me: "Because he's not a f---ing moron." Translation: Ryan has a real future. No speaker has ever been elected president (Since James Polk in the 1840s, anyway) — and no speaker dragged into ugly budget crises by his strife-stricken party is ever, ever going to be.

That said, Ryan - a devout Catholic with an abiding sense of obligation to his party - would be hard-pressed to turn down the job if, say, 240 House members begged him on bended knee. Until Thursday it seemed unlikely, but my colleague Anna Palmer says Ryan has cancelled a couple of fundraisers over the next few days, so stay tuned.

5. Your best friend will be Nancy Pelosi.

The last speaker to really run the place is still a force to be reckoned with, and even with her shrunken cadre of 177 members – the minority leader is in control. Most (if not all) of Pelosi’s people stick with her on any critical vote, especially budget roll-calls, and Boehner has increasingly relied on her to ram through measures his right wing won’t support. That’s proven to be a useful partnership for all involved (Tea party members, ever worried about primary challengers on their right, get to say they fought the good fight but were betrayed).

But there’s a devastating long-term political cost to working closely with Pelosi on these deals – a reviled doyenne of San Francisco liberalism: Conservative activists and the Levin-Hannity-Rush-Coulter talk radio powerhouses will hammer you for being a Republican in Name Only… just like John Boehner.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Jeb Bush poses with a green screen and becomes an instant meme.

Jeb really memes it

 

[CougarKing]

Anyone want to prepare a tally sheet on how many gaffes Biden might say tomorrow?

CNN

CNN releases Democratic debate podium order

By Eugene Scott, CNN
Updated 1:31 PM ET, Mon October 12, 2015

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton will be center stage on Tuesday night for the Democratic presidential candidates' first debate, according to the podium order released by CNN, which is hosting the event.

The position of the five candidates on the stage at the CNN Facebook Democratic Debate in Las Vegas is based on polls since Aug. 1 and was announced on CNN's "State of the Union."

On either side of Clinton, the highest-polling candidate, are Bernie Sanders (to Clinton's right) and Martin O'Malley (to her left). Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee, the fourth- and fifth-placing candidates, bookend the stage.

Should Vice President Biden decide to enter the race and take part in the debate, there would be a podium placed on the stage for him as well.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[cupper]

Anyone want to prepare a tally sheet on how many gaffes Biden might say tomorrow?

CNN

Actually Biden does well in the prepared questions competition. It's his informal wear competition that needs improvement. And forget the swimsuit competition.

Remember this is the man that went up against some pretty stiff opposition in the 2008 VP debates and held his own against a well prepared and polished Sarah Palin. (yeah, even I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that)

Seriously though, IF Biden shows up, he does well in the debate format.

One interesting comment I heard over the weekend, if he were to get in the race, his best option for pulling it all off is to state that he would only come in for one term, to focus on getting the gridlock on Congress and DC resolved and moving the political side of the country back to a functioning entity.

 

[cupper]

....that's exactly what I have been saying. I mentioned the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the fact that legislative bodies are acting on behalf of Wall Street.  Read my posts again, we are in agreement. The crisis of capitalism that I am referring to stems from these developments. The system is no longer working for the majority, the balance of power has swung sharply towards capital.

I think you're getting confused by the language Thucydides used, specifically "crisis of regulation."  He is suggesting that regulation IS the problem and that's what led to the 2008 crash.

A little more on how there is debate as to whether the repeal of Glass-Steagall was responsible for the collapse, or if it would have prevented the collapse if it was left in place. Again. it reiterates the "crisis of regulation" in that regulating the banks wasn't the problem, it was relation and enforcement when applied to the securities industry.

Fact Check: Did Glass-Steagall Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis

Taking on Wall Street makes for good politics in the Democratic Party. And several of the candidates at Tuesday night's debate had tough words about big banks. That was particularly true of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Although he didn't say so directly, O'Malley suggested several times that consolidation in the banking business was a big factor in the 2008 financial crash and that the U.S. economy remains vulnerable because of it.

His solution: Bring back Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that barred commercial banks from engaging in investment banking that was scaled back in the Clinton administration. We decided to look at O'Malley's claim about the risks of bank consolidation.

The Claim:

"[T]he big banks — I mean, once we repealed Glass-Steagall back in the late 1999s, the big banks, the six of them, went from controlling, what, the equivalent of 15 percent of our GDP to now 65 percent of our GDP."

The Big Question:

How much bigger have the largest banks gotten, what did Glass-Steagall have to do with it and, most important, did the scaling back of Glass-Steagall lead to the 2008 financial collapse?

The Broader Context:

Despite what O'Malley and many other people believe, Glass-Steagall was not technically repealed in 1999, but it was effectively neutered. Legislation was passed that year that allowed bank holding companies to engage in previously forbidden commercial activities, such as insurance and investment banking.

The change in the law opened the floodgates for giant mergers, such as the $33 billion deal between J.P. Morgan and Chase Manhattan in September of 2000. During the darkest days of the financial crisis, Bank of America acquired two troubled financial companies — Countrywide Financial Services and Merrill Lynch, deals that wouldn't have been possible before 1999.

The Long Answer:

The biggest banks are a lot bigger than they once were, mostly because of mergers and acquisitions. What's not in dispute is that changes to Glass-Steagall allowed the biggest banks to grow bigger, which has raised new concerns about risks to the financial system.

At issue is the "too big to fail" problem: Will the federal government once again be forced to come to the aid of federally insured megabanks that have taken outsize risks with their money?

Since 2008, regulatory changes in the U.S. and abroad have supposedly mitigated that danger. The Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill contains complicated provisions that would allow regulators to step in and take over failing banks, if necessary.

But there's plenty of skepticism that the changes have gone far enough.

Some critics, such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, have long seen the changes to Glass-Steagall as a major factor in the 2008 crash. By bringing "investment and commercial banks together, the investment bank culture came out on top," Stiglitz wrote in 2009. "There was a demand for the kind of high returns that could be obtained only through high leverage and big risk-taking."

But others, like former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, have said the focus on Glass-Steagall is misguided. They argue other factors were more important in causing the 2008 crisis, such as bad mortgage underwriting, poor work by the ratings agencies and a securitization market gone crazy. All of that would have happened no matter the size of the big banks.

In fact, some of the financial institutions that fared the worst, such as Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, weren't part of large bank holding companies at all.

"I have often posed the following question to critics who claim that repealing Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the financial crisis: What bad practices would have been prevented if Glass-Steagall was still on the books?" wrote former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder. "I've yet to hear a good answer."

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona teamed up to sponsor a bill that would bring back Glass-Steagall-type restrictions.

It was never allowed to come up for a vote.

The Short Answer:

The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis.

Sources:

Hearing before the Joint Economic Committee, "Financial Regulatory Reform: Protecting Taxpayers and the Economy," Nov 19, 2009

Stiglitz, Joseph, "Capitalist Fools," Vanity Fair, January 2009

Blinder, Alan, "It's Broke, Let's Fix It: Rethinking Financial Regulation," Prepared for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Oct. 23, 2009

Sens. Warren, McCain, Cantwell and King, "We Need to Rein In 'Too Big To Fail' Banks," U.S. Senate documents, July 17, 2014

Phone interview with Karen Shaw Petrou, Federal Financial Analytics

 

[a_majoor]

Sadly, this messaging works just as well in Canada:

 

[CougarKing]

One assessment on the debate from last Tuesday:

Diplomat

First Democratic Presidential Debate: Parsing Policy, Projecting Persona
Robust exchange on domestic issues, U.S. foreign policy vision absent.
By Mercy A. Kuo and Angelica O. Tang
October 15, 2015

Parsing policy positions dominated the kick-off debate of the U.S. democratic presidential candidates in Las Vegas, Nevada. The first of six presidential debates officially sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee introduced underdog candidates – Lincoln Chafee, Martin O’Malley and Jim Webb – on the national stage. Though the three gave respectable performances, their presence mainly served to sharpen the dynamics between presumptive frontrunner Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s most consequential rival based on current poll standings. If Vice President Joe Biden were to enter the race, his candidacy could invigorate the democratic pool with a high-profile, heavyweight contender to Clinton in terms of electability. As a footnote, Lawrence Lessig did not qualify for the debate based on the 1 percent polling threshold.

Going into the debate, candidates had to project presidential persona and define their progressive agenda positions on climate change, income inequality, illegal immigration, jobs, guns, middle class wages, race, college affordability, the Patriot Act, Edward Snowden, and regulating Wall Street. This first round was heavy on domestic policy, and light on foreign policy strategies, with substantive discussion on Asia virtually absent. Although Clinton and Webb touted their national security experience, and the others responded to questions on Russia, Syria, Iran and Libya, none articulated a compelling U.S. foreign policy vision. All democratic candidates would be well-served in future debate rounds to elaborate on their respective foreign policy approaches, and particularly what the U.S. rebalance to Asia would look like under their leadership.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

Just the tip of the iceberg when one takes into the account all the foreign contributions to both parties?

Shanghaiist

Husband of Hong Kong cosmetics tycoon bankrolls Jeb Bush super PAC to the tune of $500,000

Documents disclosed by Jeb Bush supporting super PAC Right to Rise in August have made public the fact that the presidential candidate received a total of $500,000 in contributions from the husband of a prominent Hong Kong cosmetics mogul.

Cheng Ming Ming, 68, is the founder of a successful beauty-school and skin-care company. Photographs of her with Bill Clinton, Xi Jinping and Peng Liyuan line the halls of the company's Hong Kong headquarters. She appears to have very nice skin.

Earlier this week, Reuters revealed that Cheng Ming Ming's husband Chen Shu Te, 82, was on the list of donors to Right to Rise.

(...SNIPPED)