• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US Election: 2016

cupper said:
I see this ending in one of two ways:

1) Mitt quietly fades back into the smokey back rooms after a long discussion with GOP politicheskoe byuro about why he won't win a general election this time around

2) Mitt goes into the GOP clown show and runs maybe a moderately distant second to a "Fresh" "New" nominee.

Seems that Mitt took the first option, and perhaps may have been the best for both him and the party.

Not necessarily the best outcome for Jeb Bush however, as he will now be fully in the crosshairs of the far right, rather than having Romney drawing away some of the fire.

And it's somewhat telling how bad the split in the GOP is, when a hard conservative like Bush is being criticized by the right as being too soft because of his stance on immigration and Common Core.

But if he does make it through the clown show, he will have a big issue to address in the general election.

Jeb ‘Put Me Through Hell’

Michael Schiavo knows as well as anyone what Jeb Bush can do with executive power. He thinks you ought to know too.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730.html#.VM7yC0uRtM8

—Sitting recently on his brick back patio here, Michael Schiavo called Jeb Bush a vindictive, untrustworthy coward.
For years, the self-described “average Joe” felt harassed, targeted and tormented by the most important person in the state.
“It was a living hell,” he said, “and I blame him.”

Michael Schiavo was the husband of Terri Schiavo, the brain-dead woman from the Tampa Bay area who ended up at the center of one of the most contentious, drawn-out conflicts in the history of America’s culture wars. The fight over her death lasted almost a decade. It started as a private legal back-and-forth between her husband and her parents. Before it ended, it moved from circuit courts to district courts to state courts to federal courts, to the U.S. Supreme Court, from the state legislature in Tallahassee to Congress in Washington. The president got involved. So did the pope.

But it never would have become what it became if not for the dogged intervention of the governor of Florida at the time, the second son of the 41st president, the younger brother of the 43rd, the man who sits near the top of the extended early list of likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates. On sustained, concentrated display, seen in thousands of pages of court records and hundreds of emails he sent, was Jeb the converted Catholic, Jeb the pro-life conservative, Jeb the hands-on workaholic, Jeb the all-hours emailer—confident, competitive, powerful, obstinate Jeb. Longtime watchers of John Ellis Bush say what he did throughout the Terri Schiavo case demonstrates how he would operate in the Oval Office. They say it’s the Jebbest thing Jeb’s ever done.

The case showed he “will pursue whatever he thinks is right, virtually forever,” said Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida. “It’s a theme of Jeb’s governorship: He really pushed executive power to the limits.”

“If you want to understand Jeb Bush, he’s guided by principle over convenience,” said Dennis Baxley, a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives during Bush’s governorship and still. “He may be wrong about something, but he knows what he believes.”
And what he believed in this case, and what he did, said Miami's Dan Gelber, a Democratic member of the state House during Bush’s governorship, “probably was more defining than I suspect Jeb would like.”

For Michael Schiavo, though, the importance of the episode—Bush’s involvement from 2003 to 2005, and what it might mean now for his almost certain candidacy—is even more viscerally obvious.

Jeb Bush speaks to reporters during a news conference about Terri Schiavo on March 18, 2005. | AP Photo
“He should be ashamed,” he said. “And I think people really need to know what type of person he is. To bring as much pain as he did, to me and my family, that should be an issue.”

More at link.

Essentially Bush overstepped his authority under Florida's Constitution, and attempted to overrule court decisions at all levels which allowed the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tubes.

Would Bush do something similar as president? It's possible, but Gubernatorial prerogatives are different from those of President, and it would be difficult for him to ignore advice from his staff and councils. Especially when it could effect chances of reelection.
 
A new favourite emerges from key GOP circles:

Glenn Beck blog

Scott Walker is the runaway frontrunner in Drudge Report poll for GOP nominee

The campaign for 2016 has started to heat up, with many politicians starting to make moves signifying their interest or disinterest in taking the GOP nomination. Lots of focus over the past few weeks has been on Jeb Bush, but is that who conservatives really want to see in office? According to a new poll by The Drudge Report, the answer would be a resounding “NO”.

Instead, the clear frontrunner is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 46% of the vote.

Who else is in the lead?

2. Ted Cruz 13%

3. Rand Paul 12%

4. Ben Carson 9%

(...SNIPPED)

Though at least one source disagrees:

Forbes

Rand Paul Leads the GOP Pack for 2016 -- And Not By a Little

A new Zogby Analytics poll of likely Republican primary voters in 2016 shows Rand Paul starting to build a lead over better known – and more establishment – GOP figures. The poll of 282 likely and eligible voters in GOP presidential primaries was conducted June 27-29 and has a margin-of-sampling error of +/-6 percentage points.

In the poll, the junior Senator from Kentucky polls 20%, followed by “Establishment” candidates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush with 13% each. In fourth place is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker with 8%, then Florida Senator Marco Rubio 7%, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindahl 4%, and New Mexico Governor Suzanna Martinez, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley all with 1% each.

This is the first time a GOP candidate has reached 20% in a crowded field and the first time a Zogby poll has shown someone emerging a bit from the pack. Obviously it is too early to predict outcomes or draw lasting conclusion but here are some points to consider:

(...SNIPPED)
 
Apparently the GOP talking point du jour is Vaccinations - We Love 'em!

GOP 2016ers: We love vaccines!
As Rand Paul causes a stir, his potential presidential rivals praise vaccinations.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-2016-vaccines-114890.html?hp=t1_r

A slew of Republicans eyeing the White House rushed to praise the virtues of vaccination on Tuesday — distancing themselves from Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who had appeared to question their safety as health officials across the country move to contain an outbreak of measles.

It was yet another case where Paul, an ophthalmologist by training who insisted Tuesday that he’d been misunderstood, has found himself isolated on a subject within the likely GOP presidential field. But it also showed that vaccines, like a number of other scientific issues, could prove a delicate topic for Republicans who must cater to a conservative base that is suspicious of anything that smacks of a government demand.

A review of statements this week by 11 potential GOP 2016ers, including several issued directly to POLITICO, found that only one — retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson — has gone so far as to say certain vaccines should be required regardless of individual liberties. Others — such as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich — expressed their personal support for vaccinations through spokesmen, but didn’t say anything about mandating them.

And some, like Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, praised vaccines but deferred to the states on setting the rules. “Now, most states also include an exception clause for good faith, religious convictions,” Cruz said. “And that’s an appropriate judgment for a state to make at a public health level.”

The measles outbreak is believed to be fueled in large part by a growing number of parents, many in liberal-leaning communities, who have opted against vaccinating their children. In an interview on Sunday, President Barack Obama said the science surrounding vaccines was “indisputable” and urged parents to get their children properly vaccinated.

Soon afterward, Republicans began to weigh in, and some stumbled.

Asked Monday in England about the matter, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie noted that his kids had been vaccinated but added, “I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

Christie’s answer prompted a backlash, and his office quickly issued a statement saying, “with a disease like measles, there is no question kids should be vaccinated. At the same time, different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate.”

The New Jersey governor’s calls for “balance” drew criticism from those who noted that last fall he had forced a nurse who had returned from treating Ebola patients in West Africa into a quarantine, despite the advice of public health officials who said she posed no risk. The nurse herself blasted Christie again on Tuesday over vaccines.

Paul, meanwhile, came out strongly in favor of parental choice in media appearances Monday, saying that while he was not anti-vaccine, he had clashed with doctors on when to administer them to his children. He also said that had had “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” and that “for the most part vaccines should be voluntary.”

By Tuesday, Paul was insisting his comments on vaccines had been misconstrued: “I did not say vaccines caused disorders, just that they were temporally related — I did not allege causation,” he said, though he did not say if he believed any vaccines should be required.

Paul, claimed Monday that vaccines can cause 'profound mental disorders.' Paul, in an often contentious interview with CNBC, argued that parents should have a choice whether to vaccinate their children. 'I've heard of many tragic cases of walking talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,' Paul said.

The libertarian-leaning senator has taken several positions that have put him at odds with most of the emerging GOP field in recent months. For instance, he has been supportive of the Obama administration’s decision move towards normalization of relations with Cuba. He also has gone further than most in arguing for decriminalization of pot and has supported exhausting diplomatic options for dealing with Iran and its nuclear program.

Paul's initial comments on vaccinations led Carson, a favorite of the tea party, to express disbelief. | Getty
His initial comments on vaccinations led Carson, a favorite of the tea party, to express disbelief on Fox News Radio “I think he was misunderstood,” Carson said of Paul. “… He wouldn’t, I can’t imagine, advocate that people who are living amongst others in our society would simply allow disease to spread because they have a philosophical disagreement.”

But Carson’s own earlier statement that “we should not allow [disease] to return by foregoing safe immunization programs, for philosophical, religious or other reasons when we have the means to eradicate them,” has been the strongest repudiation yet of the idea that people should be able to opt out of government-mandated vaccinations. Even Obama declined to outright say vaccines should be mandatory.

For the most part on Tuesday, others in the GOP rushed to issue statements that praised vaccines and strongly urged parents not to opt against them.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said he would not send his children to a school that did not require vaccination and condemned anti-vaccination “fear-mongering.” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill that “absolutely, all children in America should be vaccinated”

In a statement, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry touted his record raising the rate of vaccination in the state. (In 2011, as he ran for the Republican presidential nomination, Perry disavowed a state program he oversaw that angered conservatives by requiring children to receive HPV vaccination. A Perry spokesman did not respond to questions about the circumstances in which vaccination ought to be mandatory.)

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, endorsed the right of states to empower schools to keep out children who have not been vaccinated but said the federal government should not mandate vaccination. She also added that not all vaccinations should be required. “There’s a big difference between an immunization for measles and HPV,” she noted.

In a statement, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence encouraged families to vaccinate their children and cited state law that requires vaccination. Representatives for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
 
This more or less confirms my suspicions that revalations about Benghazi, the use of "private" email accounts to conduct government business, foreign donations to the Clinton foundation during her tenure as SecState, lack of visible accomplishments as SecState etc. etc. is simply not going to stop or even slow down the Clinton Machine. (Some of Bill's contacts and conduct durig this time period are also rather questionable, and of course looking at things like their speaking fees makes them come across as grasping, venal people)

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/03/04/clinton-political-machine/?print=1

Tammany Hall Redux: The Clinton Political Machine
Posted By Ed Driscoll On March 4, 2015 @ 2:27 pm In Liberal Fascism,The Making of the President | 3 Comments

“I would argue, the Clinton operation counts as a machine — not just as a metaphor or allegory, but as a bona fide, contemporary update of the old 19th-century operation,” Jay Cost writes at the Weekly Standard:

A lot of people were wondering what public business she was conducting on a private account. What I wanted to know was: what private business did she not want to conduct on a public account? If given three guesses, I’d say: politics, politics, politics.

There’s a historical parallel here with the Cameron Machine of Pennsylvania, which formed in the 1870s and lasted, in one form or another, until the 1920s. Simon Cameron was Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of War, but was basically fired in 1862 for facilitating graft. Yet he was a political maestro who had grown wealthy by trading on his governmental stature, and he was able to buy his way back into politics. In 1867, he defeated popular wartime governor Andrew Curtin for a Senate seat. This was back when senators were chosen by state legislatures, so Cameron won by persuading or buying off members of the Pennsylvania house and senate. He eventually became a powerhouse during the Ulysses Grant Administration — with control over Pennsylvania patronage, veto authority over executive officers, and a huge, loyal following (the Cincinnati Times estimated at one point that hundreds of people in Washington owed their position to him). He even prevailed upon Grant to name his son, J. Donald, secretary of war, even though Don had no experience to speak of.

Much of this is reminiscent of the Clintons — the initial fall from grace, the careful management of political contacts, the accumulation of wealth via political channels, the carefully run political shop, and especially the nepotism. And also, the cheesy scandals that embarrassed Simon Cameron but never brought him down. Cameron was caught up in a scandal trying to defraud the Winnebago tribe, and later on the House censured him for bilking the War Department — but it barely ever slowed him down. Sound familiar?

So, ultimately the question is: how is a machine liked this stopped? Unfortunately, the only thing that brought down Cameron, Inc. was the Great Depression. It survived the outlawing of the spoils system, the direct election of senators, and even the entirety of the progressive movement against the machines. It even survived the Camerons themselves. That is how powerful it was.

But a machine is only as strong as its component parts, which brings us to our exit quote: “If your lying liar pants on fire source worked with me at a federal agency as you and they contend, did you ask them to provide even a single email exchange with my using that account?”

It’s likely not a good idea at all for someone affiliated with the Clintons to reference pants; it’s poor salesmanship, to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca.

Update: A video reminder that Clinton Inc. is a multinational machine:

Article printed from Ed Driscoll: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/03/04/clinton-political-machine/
 
Americans are looking at the state of the world, and this might make the "narrative" far less attractive for putative candidate HR Clinton. After all, she was the Secretary of State for much of the period in question, and so issues like Russia, China and ISIS can and should be laid at her feet:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/war-gains-popular-support-patents-and-other-matters/

War Gains Popular Support; Patents; and other matters.
  By Jerry Pournelle | Mar 11, 2015 - 10:20 pm | Updated: March 11, 2015 - 10:20 pm | View
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
Chaos Manor View, Wednesday, March 11, 2015

National-Security Worries Rise as a Test for 2016

By a stunning 62%-30%, Americans now support sending U.S. troops to fight Islamic State.

By

William A. Galston

March 10, 2015 7:11 p.m. ET

Events overseas are upending long-settled expectations about the 2016 presidential campaign.

In the two years after Barack Obama’s re-election, both political parties assumed that the 2016 election would hinge almost exclusively on the economy. As unemployment gradually subsided as a public issue, other economic concerns—such as stagnant wages, low labor-force-participation rates and declining social mobility—came to the fore. Potential presidential candidates in both parties jostled for field position as champions of opportunity for the middle class.

These issues will still be pivotal next year. But the Islamic State militants’ rise, the Russian threat to the peace of Europe and the Iranian challenge to stability in the Middle East have sparked increasing public worries about America’s security. Defense and foreign policy will not be as dominant in 2016 as they were in 2004, but they will be far more important than in 2008 and 2012.


The accumulating evidence from high-quality public-opinion research is hard to ignore. A Quinnipiac University survey released March 4 found that terrorism now trails only the economy as a top public priority: 67% of the American people regard Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, as a “major threat” to U.S. security. The public is not satisfied with the Obama administration’s response to this threat. Only 39% approve of the president’s handling of terrorism (down from 52% a year ago), while 54% disapprove. When it comes to ISIS, the public’s view is even more negative, with only 35% approving.

These sentiments translate into support for much more assertive policies. The Quinnipiac survey found that by a stunning 62% to 30%, the American people now support sending U.S. ground forces to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Those in favor include majorities of Democrats and independents as well as Republicans, women as well as men, and young adults as well as seniors. This result underscores a late-February CBS poll, which found 57% of Americans favoring the use of ground forces, up 18 percentage points since last September.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-galston-national-security-worries-rise-as-a-test-for-2016-1426029096

ISIS has declared war on the United States, and for that matter on much of the civilized word including both Shiite and Sunni Muslim States; they are literally an enemy of all except the lands they control. I opposed going into Iraq: Saddam was a brutal tyrant and sons were worse, but they were no threat to the United States on a global scale. Mostly it was a territorial dispute in Arabia, and not our vital interest; and even if it were, once regime change was effected, we should have been done. Democracy in the Middle East is no American goal, and likely to lead to enmity.

ISIS – The Caliphate – is another matter. Just now a division of US troops with the aid of the Warthog force could abolish the Caliphate in a year. We build a base in Kurdish “Iraq”, where we would have an acceptable status of forces agreement. And we liberate Kurdish Iraq and turn it over to the Kurds; then we ask Baghdad if they want a status of forces agreement now. If they insist on their previous nonsense, we continue the war, but operate out of what in effect will be Kurdistan. The Caliphate must go; it would take about a year, and cost a lot less than the previous war. We might even make a profit.
 
Although maybe not as much in play during a national election, lots of local elections may ride on this issue. It could become national as well if there is a call for the Federal Government to "do something" about the estimated $2-4 trillion in unfunded pension and benefit liabilities for "Blue State" government employees.

The hard alternatives don't even end with the outcomes this articel talks about. Current and future pensioners might be forced to take massive "haircuts" as the pension funds run out of money and city and State governments need to declare bankruptcy (like Detroit or innumerable Califirnia cities, pensioners maybe only getting 40 cents on the dollar, if they are lucky), or worse yet, end up with nothing at all as the funds go bankrupt.

And before *we* start getting puffed up about how well we are doing, Canada has a $500 billion + unfunded liability of its own for Federal pensions owed to civil servants, the RCMP and the CF, and there is no clear understanding of if or how much of a similar situation exists for the various provinces and municipalities:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/03/17/a-nasty-end-to-the-blue-model/

A Nasty End to the Blue Model

The pension crisis has become a major threat to public safety. The WSJ profiles serious trouble brewing in Memphis, where state efforts to manage the pension problem has prompted police officers and firefighters to skip work—or quit altogether. Memphis has decided to phase out defined benefit plans and move to a 401k system, and employees aren’t happy:

Memphis is particularly notable because workers have moved beyond rhetoric and into action. More than 250 police and firefighters have quit and new recruits are proving difficult to attract, after Memphis opted to end its traditional defined-benefit pension and cycle a portion of retirement benefits for many current employees next year into a 401(k)-style account […]

Longtime workers have often been spared from some of the most drastic cuts as government officials took the easier path of cutting benefits for workers yet to be hired or suspending retiree cost-of-living bumps. But state and local governments that face pressure to act more aggressively are increasingly shifting more responsibility to current employees.

If large chunks of a city’s police force and firefighters quit and replacements can’t be found, that’s very bad news for the city’s residents. Especially in deeply indebted, poorer cities, potential consequences include slower responses to fires, and, with fewer cops on the street, more crime. Some signs indicate that the pension crisis could get worse and if it does we’re likely to see more cities follow Memphis’ lead in spreading cuts to cops and firefighters. That would be a particularly nasty way for the pension crisis to end: a more sustainable budget but seriously imperiled public safety.

Here we have a case of the blue model’s chickens coming home to roost. In the choice between financial collapse and underpopulated police and firefighter corps, there is no attractive option. But irresponsible pension systems have forced this dilemma on cities. One way or another, residents are in for a rough ride.
 
How can he run since he was born in Canada?  ???  Even if he gave up his Canadian citizenship, the US Constitution only allows natural-born citizens to run.

Associated Press

AP Source: Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz to launch presidential campaign on Monday
The Canadian Press

By Steve Peoples, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Texas Sen. Ted Cruz will announce Monday his plans to run for president, becoming the first high-profile Republican formally to enter the 2016 presidential contest.

Cruz has hinted openly at his intentions to seek the White House for months, and his intention to jump into the race was confirmed by a strategist for the first-term Republican senator, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity so as not to preclude the formal announcement.

While Cruz is the first Republican to declare his candidacy, he is sure to be followed by several big names in the GOP, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and two Senate colleagues, Kentucky's Rand Paul and Florida's Marco Rubio.

(...SNIPPED)
 
The constitution states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen. That's it. Natural born is not defined in the constitution and is legally treated as those entitled to US citizenship at birth. Cruz was born to American parents while they were working in Canada. He was entitled to US citizenship the moment he was born. It doesn't matter that he wasn't physically born in the US.  Its the same way in which John McCain could run for President and could have held that office IF he was successful in the election even though he was born in Panama. 
 
Schindler's Lift said:
The constitution states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen. That's it. Natural born is not defined in the constitution and is legally treated as those entitled to US citizenship at birth. Cruz was born to American parents while they were working in Canada. He was entitled to US citizenship the moment he was born. It doesn't matter that he wasn't physically born in the US.  Its the same way in which John McCain could run for President and could have held that office IF he was successful in the election even though he was born in Panama.

The McCain example is a little fuzzy, in that he was born on a US Military facility in the Canal Zone which was under US control at the time. Although it was never really questioned, McCain was generally given a pass the whole issue because of the circumstances of where the birth took place. The fact that his parents were American citizens made any argument against validity of a birth in a US facility, in US controlled territory moot.
 
Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father isn't reason to be suspicious of another...
 
cupper said:
The McCain example is a little fuzzy, in that he was born on a US Military facility in the Canal Zone which was under US control at the time. Although it was never really questioned, McCain was generally given a pass the whole issue because of the circumstances of where the birth took place. The fact that his parents were American citizens made any argument against validity of a birth in a US facility, in US controlled territory moot.

Actually in 1936, the year McCain was born, the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory.  It wasn't legally changed to US territory until a year later.  As a result some Courts considered him to be a born a US citizen owing to the change in status of the Canal Zone the next year however other Courts held he was born Panamanian.
 
Congress passed a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain as a natural-born citizen.  This was already afforded to him, as people born in the zone were retroactively granted the status, but it was to remove any doubt as to what kind of citizen he was so that it wouldn't be an issue in his presidential run.
 
dapaterson said:
Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father isn't reason to be suspicious of another...

You're not supposed to point these things out. ;D
 
Transcript of the speech Ted Cruz gave to announce his candidacy. I see he is staking out some pretty clear positions and is positioned to capture much of the support of the TEA Party movement. Of course, Senator Cruz will be facing a fairly strong slate in the primaries (much of the conservative side of the Republican Party is quite enamoured of Governor Walker, for example), so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. (reading some of the comments is quite instructive, especially as you get a preview of the Democrat/MSM/Academia counter narrative).

US politics being what it is, Cruz could be using this to play for a large role in any future administration and raise his profile enormously in the Senate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-ted-cruzs-speech-at-liberty-university/2015/03/23/41c4011a-d168-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html

 
dapaterson said:
Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father and not born in the U.S. isn't reason to be suspicious of another...
FTFY  ;)
 
milnews.ca said:

Of course, since he was still Canadian when they were born, his daughters are Canadian as well. And if he rejects the idea of kids getting citizenship from their parents when they are born abroad, he's got a bit of a problem...
 
Thucydides said:
(reading some of the comments is quite instructive, especially as you get a preview of the Democrat/MSM/Academia counter narrative).

dapaterson said:
Of course, since he was still Canadian when they were born, his daughters are Canadian as well. And if he rejects the idea of kids getting citizenship from their parents when they are born abroad, he's got a bit of a problem...


Quote from: dapaterson on March 22, 2015, 12:54:08
Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father and not born in the U.S. isn't reason to be suspicious of another...

FTFY 

Didn't take too long to get off the "X". But the ammount of commentary here pales in comparison to the almost absurd level of attack already underway in the US. My particular favorite was "Ted Cruz just laid out the most anti-woman agenda yet,", which was published so fast I could believe that it was written months ago with some "fill in the blanks" spots for whoever announced first.
 
Meh!  I'll enjoy his impression of a lawn dart when it comes.
 
Finally, another sign of the coming spring. Nationals home opener was announced yesterday, and they play the NY Mets on April 6th.
(Oh, and the Republican clown show started.) ;D

It was interesting that Cruz made his announcement at Liberty University. Running to the extreme right, and pandering to the Evangelical vote. Who could have predicted that? ::) Even if he took the all Evangelical vote, they only make up 36% of the Republican base. And year after year the polls show that the center is turned off by those who pander to the Christian Right.

Cruz has a money problem though, starting way behind the undeclared field and needs to raise beaucoup de bucks going into Iowa. He then needs to pull off nothing less than victory in in Iowa to ensure that his campaign will be able to continue on.

There is a strong school of though that Cruz is declaring so he can stay relevant and will try and push the campaign narrative as far as he can before inevitably bowing out. Positioning himself for greater influence, or even a leadership position in the party? Maybe. Last thing that he wants to happen though is to be declared irrelevant, and end up as an also ran. He's pretty much lost the support of the GOP Leadership.
 
cupper said:
Finally, another sign of the coming spring. Nationals home opener was announced yesterday, and they play the NY Mets on April 6th.
(Oh, and the Republican clown show started.) ;D

It was interesting that Cruz made his announcement at Liberty University. Running to the extreme right, and pandering to the Evangelical vote. Who could have predicted that? ::) Even if he took the all Evangelical vote, they only make up 36% of the Republican base. And year after year the polls show that the center is turned off by those who pander to the Christian Right.

Cruz has a money problem though, starting way behind the undeclared field and needs to raise beaucoup de bucks going into Iowa. He then needs to pull off nothing less than victory in in Iowa to ensure that his campaign will be able to continue on.

There is a strong school of though that Cruz is declaring so he can stay relevant and will try and push the campaign narrative as far as he can before inevitably bowing out. Positioning himself for greater influence, or even a leadership position in the party? Maybe. Last thing that he wants to happen though is to be declared irrelevant, and end up as an also ran. He's pretty much lost the support of the GOP Leadership.

It's interesting that you call this the Republican Clown Show.  I ask you what is worse the Republican clown show where one candidate declares his intentions, one who had the cajones to voice his opinion against unmitigated stupidity of both Democratic and Republican parties or the ongoing corruption and obfuscation of the primary candidate of the Democratic party?
 
Back
Top