Rand Paul pulls Away in Polling – Tops GOP Charts – Hillary Trumps Lackluster Dem Field.

Forbesreporting on the last Zogby Poll, shows Rand Paul (R-KY), pulling away from the establishment candidates (Bush, Christie) by a larger margin than previously seen. Paul received 20%, while the next 2016 potentials placed at 13%. (Forbes)

Obviously it is far too early to place any bets on who might or might not have the nomination, or even be running for the nomination until after the 2014 mid-terms, that said, what stunned Forbes in their analysis of the poll data was the fact that Paul topped the charts with less “name” recognition than the other “establishment” candidates. It is not surprising given the amount of press Paul has gendered and his popularity across multiple demographics.

On the Democrat side, Clinton buries the competition, which doesn’t say much given the lackluster bunch of Democrats that are being put forth. Name recognition may be the albatross in the next two election cycles, which leaves the door wide open at this point.

An interesting tidbit: the signers of the Declaration of Independence were a rather youthful group – given that Franklin at 73 was the oldest, Washington at 43, and Jefferson a 33 were what may be considered middle age, and the youngest was 26. Occupations also varied, from ministers, to lawyers. The document suggested that the individual was a representative of the people, rather than of the government. There was an abhorrence of all things monarchial – go figure – dynasties were considered to be less than desirable.(Archives.gov)

ABC Previews Campaign 2016 – the GOP – and the one Democrat – Hillary Clinton

ABC News had current 2016 previews of candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination – from Governor Rick Perry the checklist includes his pro’s and con’s – the con – in brief, he was accused of withholding funding for a state rep (who happened to be a Democrat, who was prosecuted for drunk driving. That’s the con, seriously.

The Ron Paul 2016 “checklist”, does much the same, with Paul’s biggest con – not being high father –and oh – maybe plagiarism . Seriously.

The main page of ABC News – offers Hillary Clinton as the absolute candidate - the timetable for Hillary is 8 years in the making and is a tad on the hopeful side, considering no mention of Elizabeth Warren.

In the pro’s and con’s of having someone fresh, interesting and of course, with a fairly clean slate (see con’s under GOP), then either Perry or Paul would suffice. What is interesting is the few that offer Clinton may not run at all, and the rise of “buzz” regarding Elizabeth Warren.

The only way that the GOP can lose both the Senate and the White House in the next two elections would be to follow the status quo and the “good old boy” network that has haunted the last two Presidential campaigns. It’s going to get interesting, once someone or two actually announce, and that will be in late 2014 early 2015.

Examiner Asks “What If Elizabeth Warren Runs in 2016” – Not if – when.

There’s an interesting article in the Washington Examiner this morning regarding a potential run by MA short-term Senator – Elizabeth Warren The article asks what if Warren ran for office in 2016 and goes on to name some of the individuals who are helping Warren today. Read the article as it is a key to the who’s who of Progressive Politics backing or supporting Warren, and then recall one Jr. Senator from Illinois – Barack Obama. It does not take a brain surgeon to connect these dots.

Suffice it to say, as she recently rolled out her book tour in Massachusetts that certain staff also worked on the 2008 Clinton campaign. One understands that all is fair in Politics, however, there are far too many indications this early on, that Warren is the left’s next “ism”. On the one hand, she may surprise them as she appears to be an equal opportunity independent. On the other hand, she has a slight history of exaggerating circumstances for personal gain, i.e. claiming minority status to achieve a job, and borrowing a few recipes to finish a cookbook (If one is not from Massachusetts, search archives of the Herald (Boston), or Google to find articles on the aforementioned.)

She bears watching for two reasons, the first is obvious, can the nation afford one less than experienced Professor running the nation and the second, and she is savvy and appears to be able to fill any roll with enough prep time. The power brokers in Chicago know she has the time, and a growing following of progressives. (Just see Huffington Post for starters and search Warren.)

Therefore, looking at the basics, one might conclude that Warren will be a candidate in 2016, despite the hype about Hillary Clinton, who will most likely be teaching at – Harvard.

Examiner Article at www.washingtonexaminer.com/what-if-elizabeth-warren-runs-for-president-in-2016

Rand Paul Goes West – to Berkeley – Greeted with Standing O – Dares to Cross Lines!

Rand Paul Speaks at Berkeley - image LA Times

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) went to Berkeley and, as the San Jose Mercury News headlined: “found support”…”of all places”! It is not without some humor and irony that the headline reads – “of all places”, simply due to the fact that Republican’s don’t generally stump and fundraise in the California Bay Area. San Francisco, the home of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), is not the area one would anticipate any Republican to dare to tread – why bother, really the entire state is lost, along with Massachusetts. However, Paul is not your run of the mill, standard Republican, as he leans more Libertarians, which is an appealing prospect to a wide-range of voters – from the left to the right, men and women, young and old. Not only did he receive a warm welcome at UC Berkeley, he also received a standing ovation – which, knock one over with a feather!” (Daily Caller).

Outside of a very few articles on the success of the visit, most of the “Mainstream” media are treading carefully on coverage – The New York Times article on the Berkeley visit “Rand Paul, Warning About Spying, Faults Obama” doesn’t really speak to the oddity nor the implications of what Paul has accomplished., rather about a small portion of the speech he made to the students (who then applauded and stood).

The real implications are that a Libertarian, albeit, Republican is gaining more traction than any other candidate at the moment, given the articles rather than the polls, and the schematics of who will and will not vote in a mid-term or general election. The implications are, to this mind, that there is real change in the wind, not a slogan, nor a hypothetical, but a change in the hearts and minds of a populace who are tired of the same “party” lines, and are seeking a breath of fresh air. This air comes with a penchant for piece, individual liberty and common sense as far as social and fiscal issues are concerned, and are tied, hook, line and sinker to the Constitution.

This makes Rand Paul the frontrunner across the political spectrum and one should bet the house there is a proverbial “target” on the man, as he is upsetting the general party (and that is literally and figuratively) that is Washington D.C. entrenched politico’s and their sycophants.

One might see more venom develop from both the RNC and the DNC as they fight to maintain the status quo –a losing battle with the Libertarian minded Paul. For one, he is not shy about speaking out and correcting the press, which is a plus, and second, he does not come across as the politician, more like the family doctor/college professor/guy who eats snickers on the run who has a message which is on point.

Not since casting a vote for Anderson (Libertarian leaning Republican) in the 1980 election, has the prospect of an opportunity to cast one for another in 2016 been more appealing. Anderson did not even make a dent in the bucket – running against Reagan and Carter, however, it was the first time one can recall seeing a national third party candidate, period…or a decent choice between two behemoths, when one does not particularly embrace either “grand party”. Therefore, to have one Libertarian leaning Republican run under the banner of the “grand party”, with a cadre of like minded Constitutionalist (be they Tea Party or Libertarian) growing in the same party, would be historical and personally exciting. It has been centuries since either party truly rebranded as a national party that would allow for a crossover of opposition party members, as well as those who are more independent minded, and Paul, in this time and in this place is the one to carry that water - reminiscent of Washington, George. What more can one nation ask for?

President Say’s “Sorry” you’re Losing Your Health Insurance – People See Foot in Mouth – Media Reacts -2016 Begins in Ernest

Last night the President on NBC News told the American People that he was sorry they were losing their health insurance, but not to worry, he was sure they would just love the new plans that had better coverage and cost less. This prompted TIME to write Another Stunning Reversal in President Obama’s Talking Points on Obama Care":

For the second time in as many months, President Barack Obama has dramatically changed his communications strategy for coping with the troubled rollout of his signature legislation. In an interview Thursday with NBC‘s Chuck Todd, the President apologized for the fact that some people in the individual insurance market had found their health plans canceled under the new law, in violation of Obama’s promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” “Even though it’s a small percentage of folks who may be disadvantaged, you know, it means a lot to them,” Obama said Thursday. “And it’s scary to them. And I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me.” He also hinted that he would support efforts, possibly through legislation, to address the problem.

(TIME)

Stunning to say the least – is TIME’s coverage of the President’s latest about face. He’s the “Boy who’s cried wolf” and if the public isn’t buying it anymore, the news media wants to keep some of its sagging rankings so they are (sort of) jumping on the public bandwagon.

Rasmussen was polling last evening on the overall Approval of Obama, and the line-up they perceive for 2016 – paired as potential protagonists in this latest installment of “we are just guessing at who might want to clean up the biggest mess in U.S. History”: Hillary Clinton and Chris Christie – they did not offer “None of the Above. One might conclude with results not yet posted, that Christie trumps. Of course, calling blue states for that match-up is somewhat of a no-brainer, they should have paired Cruz or Paul with Elizabeth Warren. Those results would have been a real understanding of the depth of rejection by the people of the “party lines”.

As a reminder: Ted Cruz will be on the Jay Leno program tonight. It will interest to see the Senator from Texas interact in a setting that is more entertaining in nature. Additionally, one does not get invited to the Today Show or Letterman’s attempt at an evening talk show, without being tagged as a potential – star of some nature. It’s at this time when those who might be running for President get the call to go on-air in a more casual setting. Therefore, this is of import to Cruz in two ways: Cruz will be able to once again, say “I told you so, not without a bit of explanation, thereby educating more people about Obama care than say – CSpan. Two, he is afforded the opportunity to show America he’s not the crazy person they might think he is – reaching the low-information voters who are sick and tired of the two party system. The outcome, insignificant as it may seem, may speak volumes about Cruz’s “stock”.

A Hillary Clinton Presidency – No So Fast to Gaze Into the Crystal Ball of the Presidency of the U.S. 2016

There’s an article in the Huffington Post today that was a bit on the interesting side - Although the piece, written by Sean McElwee, suggests it is one which brings a “Case Against Clinton 2016”, it is more of a rehash of her critics, and then a resounding conclusion that suggests there is no other candidate for President and, yes, Virginia, the Democrats will win the White House in 2016. There are also a few, perhaps to believe that a John McCain run for the Presidency may occur(Washington Post), however, even those without a crystal ball find it a bit ridiculous at this point to announce either Clinton or McCain as one a “done-deal” and the other even a remote possibility.

Hillary Clinton in 2008 was the strongest available candidate – at the time. This was comparing her to both Barack Obama (experience, and look where that has led), and McCain (who was, and remains, somewhat clueless when it comes to foreign policy, and or making decisions that would benefit everyone, not just the GOP inside D.C.) If it was Clinton vs. McCain, to this mind, it would have been a run, not a walk to the polling booth to choose the first woman President. There were several reasons, none of which had to do with gender, or the fact that as a Libertarian/Conservative, the natural reasoning would be to align oneself with whichever body the GOP put up for the job. Clinton had a record to stand on in the Senate, one which was her own – she was on the fiscally conservative voting side, took care of the Veteran’s and was a bit hawkish but in a protect the homeland vein – cautiously casting votes, rather than being brash – or casting a political vote. She had a darn good plan for the health care system, which would have been much more reasonable than either Romney Care or its derivative, Obama Care. (That can be said with a little authority living in Massachusetts.)

That said, there have been divisions in both political parties – in 2008 one saw the real rise of the Progressive Democrat, whereby a solid candidate for the blue-collar American Worker, Clinton, was cast aside for the ideologue, who looked great on camera, but continues to lack substance – a second coming of Jimmy Carter, which, through no fault of his own, apparently is in over his proverbial head. These particular brand of Democrats (not the New Deal democrats that are referred to in the McElwee piece) is deeply entrenched in the party, and will hold sway over elections until diminished – there is something in the word Progressive – move forward – that sounds right to the “uninformed” voters who are more than likely generational party members. Therefore, Clinton would have a rough primary against an inflated, mao-Barbie in the form of one Junior Senator from MA, Elizabeth Warren. Although polling near dead last at this moment, Ms. Warren one can predict will rise like a Phoenix, similarly to the President.

The GOP is now in the same predicament that the DNC appears to have itself – instead of Progressives (which to some conservatives appear to reside inside the GOP, as well as the DNC), there is the Tea Party – that much maligned group of agitators who are just too darn tied to the Constitution. They did not disappear after 2010, despite the harassment by a certain branch of the government), they fared poorly to some in the 2012 election, but to be fair, they did not have a dog in that hunt, neither did rank and file conservatives, or evangelicals. If one wants to think hard and long about why Romney failed so miserably when all the stars were aligned just perfectly – then think about the evangelicals who would not vote for someone whose religion was anathema (despite reports to the contrary) – that’s 10,000,000 votes (a conservative estimate). Add to that the Tea Party members of conscious who could not vote for someone who had been the harbinger of Obama Care – add another 2,000,000 or more voters who either skipped the Presidential choices on the ballot and/or just stayed home.

Therefore, one has to have a balance – a Constitutionalist who would appeal to the rank and file GOP (those generational party voters will go along to get along), conservatives, tea party libertarians, and yes, the evangelical right wing. Without all of those forces aligned, the GOP will lose another election, even if, as one might suspect, the candidate would be another “first” who would, indeed, lack experience.

To say at this point, that the nation would go one way or the other is ludicrous. There will be characters of interest, no doubt, and the usual suspects will occur from both parties, but one might suspect that a stronger candidate will prevail. The question remains, which candidate in 2016 will appeal to all facets of their particular party brand. Perhaps one can afford a few million voters –staying at home, or voting with caution by avoiding the top of the ticket, but to the candidate that has the majority of his or her base in their back pocket, as well as cross over and generational party voters, that individual will walk into the White House – in a landslide. It will be the one candidate that does not tow the Party line, nor willingly invest themselves in the Washington party –one suspect that this time around, it will be the real hand-shaker, with some intellect that may rule the day. As to which candidate will capture the hearts of the voting public, that remains to be seen.

Ted Cruz 2016- Why WaPost’s Cillizza Suggests He’s Not Concerned – Why Both Right and Left Beat Up On Ted Cruz

There’s an interesting piece in the Washington Post, written by Chris Cillizza, who suggests that Cruz is simply not worried about 2016 now, as he’s building his credibility with the base, in order to win the primary-what comes after the primary will take care of itself - which is possibly the most common sense column I’ve seen this particular columnist.

The fact are rather simple when it comes to times of opportunity, with a President whose falling poll numbers will make it difficult to take on the campaign trail in support of those eager Democrat primary participants, while policies of the administration have floundered, to the point where Democrats are concerned and the Right-Wing is livid – Cruz, the lonely voice at the Top of the Hill (along with other Libertarian minded Republican’s who are also Tea Party Supported, has had his hat handed to him by screaming Senators from the Republican side, as well as the Congressional Rep, King from NY, who’s on every talk show he can find, eviscerating Cruz.

Interesting, is it not? Or common sense in a very Reagan way – not that Cruz and Reagan have all that much in common, oh some things, but…overall it’s time to stop comparing to Reagan and looking for the next Reagan and start looking for the right candidate.

The right candidate can draw the base, talk common sense to the regular guy and be who he is, regardless of whether major political party heads like him or not. It’s a populace stance – most often taken by the libertarian minded, or the independent minded.

What makes it interesting, more than anything is that in the past, there have been winners of Straw polls on both sides, that basically don’t amount to a hill of beans, however, Cruz’s popularity at the unforgiving values voter summit, where he won the straw poll (Time) speaks volumes.

The summit is sponsored by The Family Research Council, which is a division of Focus on the Family. Not for nothing, there is an influential wing of the Republican – or Independent Parties, that is the Evangelical Church and its leaders who have an immense amount of influence over upwards of twenty million voters. If they do not get out and vote for a particular candidate that candidate loses the election.

The Tea Party, love or loath, also has a rather large base and it can be unforgiving at the same time. If one does not get the total support of said Tea Party, one can just about hang it up.

Did John McCain have the wholehearted support of both? Did Mitt Romney? –That’s the big questions – if 25 million voters (and that’s a conservative estimate) stayed out of Presidential contests in the last 3 elections, (or a percent of them), what possibly occurred?

What would occur if a candidate had the wholehearted support of both – as well as those “low information voters” who pull a lever for the Party?

That’s what the Insiders know; especially those Republican’s shouting the loudest.

There’s a reason that Ted Cruz is not worried, not worried in the least. There’s also the point that he might not really care a whit about anything but doing what is Constitutionally correct, with this particular Senator from Texas, that’s a tough call.

2016 Polling - Democrats Shopping – Republicans Trend Constitutionalist

Most likely not to be reelected or elected according to current polling Clinton, McCain, Reid - Image from AP photo's

Of course it’s too early to start awarding any single “contestant” for the 2016 Presidential Race, but early speculation always fuels the news, and polling suggests trends in the rank and file of political parties as to which way the winds might be blowing – which, of course, are always subject to change. As of this past week two polls emerged – one Republican and one Democrat and Republican. One the Republican Side Public Policy Polling came out of the gate with the newest, high profile “potential” candidates, and the results were: Ted Cruz at 20%, Rand Paul at 17%, Chris Christie at 13%, “11% for Jeb Bush, 10% each for Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, 4% for Bobby Jindal, and 3% each for Rick Santorum and Scott Walker.” – The pollster noted that Ted Cruz had gained 8% over a previous poll, additionally, on questions of trust, he was the most trusted of the politicians, including Senator Mitch McConnell, and, of course, John McCain was obviously not trusted at all. This particular poll, offered a 734 pool of likely Republican Voters, the majority, 39%, of whom considered themselves “very conservative’, with the next largest group 37% considering themselves as “somewhat conservative” – suggesting that the polling was in sync with any political parties makeup (the balance of those polled, were moderate, liberal or somewhat liberal).

Looking at the poll the trend is obviously toward “new faces” – not so much those who ran in 2012 – or were considered “potentially to run” in 2012. Specifically of interest was the poor showing of Rick Santorum. The reasoning is generally that the GOP has a history of picking the individual who did not make it in the prior election cycle, and boosting that person over other newer entrants. Examples: John McCain, who’s only rival in the run for President multiple times, was Congressman Ron Paul – however, McCain was given the nod over much better candidates in 2008, while Mitt Romney (perhaps a decent man but a horrible candidate for the GOP) was given the nod in 2012. The conventional wisdom of those in GOP think tanks has been and continues to be that any candidate they propose will eventually bring round the base – as well as those independents and a few democrats. This strategy did not work very well in 2008, nor in 2012. It was also, true, that there was not a strong contender in the bunch in both political seasons.

What this poll initially tells the political junkie and those that hope to keep their jobs in DC is simple – the fiscal conservative, Libertarians, tend to do better with the base now, rather than a political heavyweight that has lived and breath D.C.

Interestingly enough, a new poll from the The Des Moines Register Poll, on Political Ideology suggests the same results as that of Public Policy Polling on the GOP side – that Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians will be the major players in 2016,

On the other side of the aisle – the Democrat polling found similar results Alhtough Hillary Clinton leads by 41%, the numbers are split on the type of figure they would like to see as a constant – 49 percent suggest someone not of Washington, while 48% would choose “Washington Experience

Therefore, to a lesser degree, but at least to an extent, the GOP rank and file and the DNC rank and file are both trending anti-Washington Experience, the Republican’s to a great degree.

As times marches forward, towards 2014 and 2015, the polls may change slightly, the faces certainly will change, but the underlying trends, pending a reversal of positions on both sides on listening to Constituents, the strong candidates will be – new faces. One might even go so far as to suggest more Libertarian minded positions – or at least those who would compromise – the key.

Although the media is beating their breasts over Ted Cruz, and maligning him to the umpth degree, what is making Cruz so popular with the base is his lack of regard for DC and his desire to help the people, he also is known to praise both Democrats and Republicans (with the exception of those in the McCain mold), similar to his Democrat Counterpart - Tom Udall, of New Mexico, who stood with Rand Paul, on common ground with ideology on the use of Drones on US Citizens.

This is what the nation is seeking – those who might not tow the party line, rather step of from under the shadow of Harry Reid and Company – As Majority Leader in the Senate, Reid, and his counterpart Boehner are truly the most powerful individuals in the nation. Reid more so as the House can pass all the bills it desires, and Reid has the power to move them forwarder in the Senate, or not. He uses that power without a thought to compromise, and has done so consistently throughout his tenure.

One might think that Cruz is perfect for Presidential contests, however, there is another position to which he may be better suited – Majority Leader of the Senate – one is under the impression the august body of the Senate would return to debate rather than the stalemate that has existed since the Daschle regime was ousted and the Reid Regime took control.

Regardless of who sits in the Oval office, all of that person’s power rests in the hands of the two aforementioned positions in the Congresses. Therefore, the real races will be those for reelection of the Senate and the Congress – and those will be the races worth watching. It will determine who fares well in the 2016 presidential race, should the old guard be ousted for new constitutionally, and progressive faces, then one should not be surprised.

2016 – Hillary Clinton and the Path to the White House, Paved with Dreams of PAC’s and Impossibilities

1st term Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren - What are the Odds? - image from fanpop.com

In the hoopla leading up to 2008, Hillary Clinton was seen as the predominant front-runner for the Presidency - one could hear only accolades from the left, and derision from the right regarding the former First Lady – New York State Senator. The theme was “inevitable” – until one Barack Obama came out of the blue, and the Democrats found they had a division in their party – those centric Democrats who felt comfortable with the Hillary Clinton, and those Progressive Democrats who wanted more spreading of the wealth, so to speak. The rest, as they say, is history.

Fast forward eight years, and the season of Presidential candidates is once again, beginning. According to the logic of Washington politics within the major parties, the nod, or nomination, normally goes to one of the political class who was an “also-ran” – as if that individual had to wait a turn to become the top candidate. The Republican’s featured John McCain, who ran against George W. Bush, in the 2000 campaign, as the top dog in the 2008 campaign, and in 2012, Mitt Romney (who ran in 2008), got “his turn”. The Democrats varied from this theme in 2008, but, again, there were the growing divisions in the party as to the Progressives and the Moderates (which in the grander scheme of things are more modern-day Republicans.)

Today, Hillary Clinton is target number one, the anointed predecessor to President Obama, the war of words is on – from the right, and the left. The right (or the RNC) is complaining, loudly and in video, about two major networks who are making “Hillary Clinton films”, prior to the 2016 elections (Bloomberg), and the New York Times ran a surprising piece regarding “unease at Clinton Foundation or Finances and Ambitions” delving into the mix of politics and philanthropy. What one has yet to hear, but should any day, is the obvious fashion critique of the not-yet announced candidate Clinton.

Howe ever, it may be fair to point out that the schematics of both parties have changed radically over the past ten years, and it is in no way a given that Hillary Clinton will be the candidate of choice. It is a better bet that someone who is more in the line of the Occupy Wall Street ideology will emerge as the token woman – thinks new MA Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

On the right, the also rans from 2012 should be the focus, as the Republican Party is less likely to break the mold, rather preferring to go down in flames rather than accept what might be considered a strong candidate. In Iowa, one finds Rand Paul, and the second place 2012 primary opponent, Rick Santorum. Santorum is more in the mold of the standard Republican, although he does go right of center with his Catholicism, and would, under no circumstances make for a solid national candidate. Yet, there is a nagging persistence, looking at the field that also includes Rick Perry, (another candidate that, love him or hate him, will not fly out of Texas), and God forbid, New Gingrich – there’s little to write home about. There has also been speculation that a Bush, as in Jeb, may enter the fray – back to the political dynasty that would have, decades ago, been acceptable.

Not unlike the split within the Democrat Party, there is also a split between the Republican standard GOP and those fiscal conservatives, either Tea Party or Libertarian that have risen prominently in the past few years. Ted Cruz comes to mind, which may be why the sudden interest in his eligibility to run for President in the first place (See Ted Cruz Speculation on 2016). One might wonder why that all matters, when in the grander scheme of things, Hillary Clinton is the anointed one?

Not having the proverbial crystal ball, one might be safer suggesting that the individuals who will run, may include the aforementioned, yet, there are those who are sitting quietly with advisors, and financiers, contemplating the logistics of a run for the U.S. Presidency, and those on the right and the left have no idea of who “they” might be.

The biggest question one should be asking – who in their right mind would want the job in the first place? The national debt is out of control, foreign policy is a minefield, and the ratio of those on the dole versus those who are employed is somewhat blurred. The entire nation needs a “revival”, fiscally, educationally, and yes, morally – (as in how much waste and fraud can what is left of the working class be acceptable?) – Who’s up to the task of fixing the nation? That’s the first question; the second question is who are the major parties going to allow to be President. – That’s the question that has yet to be answered.

Listening to a pundit suggest that the White House is the key to all power, one might suggest that control of the Senate and the Congress would be more important, where there is more of an opportunity to employ a real public servant, one with no dynastic ties, or family who profits from K-Street.

As to Hillary the odds are tenuous at best.

See, Huffington Post - Elizabeth Warren Vs. Hillary Clinton

2016 – Speculation Taking Shape, Polling has begun, Clinton, Rubio, Christie, Ryan, Bush III

One might think Senator Paul has made a decision - rather people (and businesses selling cups, stickers, etc.) are hopeful - image from the Jeenyus Corner

It goes without saying that the political arena, not unlike Professional Wrestling, is a sport that draws in a segment of the population that is always seeking the “next best”, yet generally winds up rooting for the “lesser of two evils” team. With each election cycle there is hope, and then, those hopes are dashed, no matter who the candidate may be – and no matter which side of the political fence one sits upon.

2016 is starting to look eerily similar to those past elections, yet, dollars to doughnuts the actual contenders are those that are not yet in the spotlight – hopefully.

Quinnipiac Polling got the ball rolling with a hypothetical match-up between Hillary Clinton and ”top 2016 GOP Presidential Picks”, Chris Christie, Mark Rubio and Paul Ryan. In this poll, Clinton bests all three by double digits. (CP Poll) Of course, that poll was conducted prior to Rand Paul’s magnificent stand in the Senate, or prior to the Bush dynasty rolling out former FL Governor, Jeb Bush as a potential.

One should understand that although it appears the spot “belongs” to Hillary Clinton, considering her own party ditched her popular vote for the more progressive and younger Barack Obama, that said, all will depend on the mood of the nation by the time 2016 rolls around. In addition, it also greatly depends on the GOP and those who would pick a McCain or a Romney rather than someone who would actually energize the base as well as appeal to individuals on both sides of the aisle. Additionally someone who would honestly treat the media, as the media is going to treat them and be prepared to go head to head, not only with the group of GOP hopefuls, but the Press and the crazies from both parties.

It is with a heavy heart, that as a feminist would felt that 2008 was a no-brainer, with an adept Clinton leading the field of lightweights and the inexperienced (from both tickets) one fears that that ship has sailed. Although she had pulled away from the Obama Administration early enough, there is that connection, her health (which can be used by her competitors, her opposition and the media) and the dark side of her party, who would choose another half-term Senator, a woman, rather than allow Clinton her “due”. Unfortunately, one cannot just vote for “any” woman, no matter how “pretty” a picture that woman might make (or grandmotherly, take your pick) – It is confidence and quality - and the fact that historically there was a three decade gap between the first woman to grace a major party presidential ticket (Democrats, Ferarro), and the last to do so (Republican’s Palin).

The polling turns: A Recent McClatchy-Marist Poll shows a general downturn in popularity (both personal and job performance) for the President, as well a general dislike to both parties in Congress – although the Democrats fare slightly better, their numbers are not much to crow about. The Republicans’ find themselves on the right side of the budget cuts, but by a mere 2 points, compared to the President, in other words there exists a general distrust for both parties.

Enter Rand Paul – Dr. Filibuster, and the son of Ron Paul, the perennial Libertarian – GOP candidate who has, what one might think a small following, but it is a significantly motivated following. Rand Paul, unlike his father is getting press that puts him in contention. He is to be admired as a principled servant of the people and his Libertarian streak is what causes groups as diverse as Code Pink and the hard right to applaud his efforts.

There are those who already speculate that he is running in 2016 - That he will be a major player, the Washington Post, for one, and the UK’s Guardian suggests Paul’s odds are better than most at this time.

Then again, Jeb Bush is out there, and although he may be extremely capable – imagine the yawn, a Bush-Clinton match-up might be?

Should the good Doctor decide to run, (at the moment he is bolstering his 2016 Senate Campaign), it would be all bets off – but again – it is far too early to tell. One things is certain, what the nation needs is someone who is not wedded to either major political party – one that is capable of pushing aside the leadership and their status quo of divisive politics, to lead both the right and the left – similar to, but not Ronald Reagan, (the litmus test must go) rather a new breed of servant that would lead with the intent to put the people over the political machine.

Sen. Rand Paul, A week post Filibuster, Editorials, right, left and center, overall applauding, speculating from the New York Times to Anchorage – what unites us?

In a world of the 24/7 news cycle, generally what happened yesterday is old news – or perhaps, if “interesting enough” at least a 2 day event – there is the rare exception indeed when one man, one event, can hold the attention span of the American Public for nearly a week. That man, Senator Rand Paul, (R-KY), has done so with his 13 hour Filibuster and the toxic response of Republican Leadership, specifically John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who both dismissed and attacked Paul. It was to their discredit, as Paul had certainly struck a nerve regarding civil liberties that spanned parties’ lines, had the attention of the world, and was, for all intents and purposes, genuine. It was not the usual rhetoric one finds droning on in the hallowed halls of Congress – pun intended.

For many, it was the first time in a lifetime one saw members of both parties standing united on an issue, and using the protocol of the Senate to make a stand. For others, they will not be able to miss the event, as the news cycle is continuing to either support or dismiss the Senator and his actions. There are also those, on both sides who see 2016 and Paul Rand as a potential candidate – from Libertarian Conservatives as a hopeful and from the left – the seeds are being sown now, preemptively.

In a piece from the New York Times, editorial columnist Ross Douthat opines “But where Huntsman and Paul the elder mostly failed, Rand Paul has been enjoying remarkable success. The Kentucky senator’s recent ascent to prominence, which achieved escape velocity with last week’s 13-hour filibuster delaying the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead the C.I.A., hasn’t just made the younger Paul one of the most talked-about politicians in Washington today. It has offered the first real sign that the Republican Party might someday escape the shadow of the Iraq war and enter the post-post-9/11 era.”

The editorial focuses on the specifics of the filibuster and its overall content, including a glimpse away from civil liberties and into foreign policy. The articles closes:

“Paul, by contrast, has actually challenged that consensus in a substantive and constructive way. And far from being excommunicated for it, he’s been rewarded with greater prominence and increased conservative support.

For those with ears, let them hear.”

This editorial was picked up today by a variety of newspapers, including the Rutland Herald.

A Dallas Morning News Op-ed suggests that McCain, Graham, and their ilk, get out of the way of the younger, more civil liberty minded Paul, noting that they are content to get along, rather than to do the job for which they were sent. The piece is biting in its criticism of the two senior Senators, and gracious to Sen. Paul.

The Anchorage Daily News picked up the Senator’s rebuttal to those on the right, first published days before, “Our Rights are Precious” (That’s why I filibustered)

From AntiWar Blogs to the Richmond Register There is positive chatter regarding Paul’s defense of liberty.

Then one begins to see the telltale signs of a threat to the status quo and any possible political aspirations that the Senator may have (yet has not so much as mentioned): From the very nature of his parentage (specifically his father, Ron Paul), to the Filibuster itself one finds such articles as the examiners: Rand Paul’s Filibuster will Hurt Him Against Hillary in 2016 it is apparent that the man who would do the job he was elected to do – it seen as a threat.

What, in reality, is at issue, is the fact that the Senator from Kentucky brought attention to the process of government, he stood his ground, and in an old-fashioned, yet so new to so many who had no idea that watching C-Span might not be akin to watching paint dry – became vested in the message of protecting civil liberties. In the following days, those who are from the right and the left of politics, seemed to agree on two points: one, that those who may argue consistently, found this one man agreeable, and two, the old guard, as it is referred to in so many pieces, were rankled, weather it was due to being upstaged, or more to the point, Paul shook up the building and brought attention to that august body – perhaps more will be tuning in.

In speaking of a run in 2016, it is not unusual for many a straw to be grasped upon this early in the game (although in reality, the game began in January of this year), as the old guard drags out Jeb Bush, and one see’s the signs that some of the players from 2008 and 2012 are on short and long-lists as potentials. One might suspect that, given the response Paul has received, both at home and abroad, either the man himself or his equivalent (should one be found) would upend the entire field – on both sides of the aisle. The American public has had it with those who would divide, and are yearning for someone who, not only campaigns on uniting, but has actually done something to prove that he has that ability. To boot, Paul never wavered from his core beliefs this past week, and should he stay in that frame (with no indication he would not), then he would be a sane choice for the American People. He also communicated clearly, without pause for 13 hours, something that has been lacking in the “Shining City on the Hill” – That is what united us. Of course, at this point, one has no clue as to who the major players in Washington will chose to either win or lose the Presidency in 2016. That said, someone who has the ability to drive a news cycle, and communicate clearly across party ideology – is indeed someone one might want to keep an eye on.

Suggest reading the entire article by Ross Douthat in the Times, noted above for perspective.