Clinton Announces 2016 Candidacy – GOP to add Rubio to the Roster this week

Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy via social media this weekend in what the Washington Post dubbed: “A long awaited announcement”. Apparently, Clinton is going to strike a populist tone.

If there was a do-over and 2008 was the year, that would have been the time to forward Clinton as the candidate of choice (she was the popular candidate of choice, she was not the candidate of choice for the Super Delegates), unfortunately that did not happen. At that time, there was as choice between Clinton, McCain and Obama, it was a no-brainer for the women of America, both Independents, Democrats and yes, some Republicans’. Unfortunately that was not to be, we can’t turn back the clock, and despite best and worst intentions of the media – it may not be the best time for Clinton in 2016. Martin O’Malley is running as well, and he strikes a younger more attractive tone vis a vis the aura of Dynasty that hangs about Clintons Neck.

On the GOP side, polling suggests according to Bloomberg, that Rand Paul and Jeb Bush may have problems in the primary, although, Bush more than Paul, while other conservatives such as Ted Cruz will fare better. (Bloomberg). One might suggest that a robust primary, sans the attack ads at Paul (first) and second whoever does not fit the Beltway image of what is right for the nation, is what does the primary a disservice. Let the duke it out in the debates and the same should hold for the Democrats. Several news sources site that Rubio will announce this week – adding to a decidedly “youthful” cadre of candidates.

A note on those dark and menacing political ads – those should be pulled – one by Ron Paul, a candidate which this blogger finds more than worthy of support, is exactly the type of negative ad, dark, foreboding, that turns back on the candidate. Having watched so many good politicians go down in flames due to bad ads, the anti-Hillary ad is just that. Highlighting differences is fine in this opinion, helping the competition is not. Humble opinion notwithstanding, this general election primary is shaping up to be one of the most interesting - a lot of smart people are running, and there is nothing that the country needs more than a fresh face with a brain.

Rand Paul set to Announce 2016 Candidacy today – Lurking in the Shadows – “Swift Boat” Group (Beltway 501C who benefited Bush in Kerry Contest)

Rand Paul will announce his 2016 candidacy today, in Louisville, KY(WBALTV). Meanwhile, back in the shadows (sort of) is the GOP Hawks (so called) set to ruin Rand Paul’s big day, according to Bloomberg. The gist:

The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America, a 501(c)(4) group led by veteran Republican operative Rick Reed, will go live with its campaign against Paul on Tuesday, while the senator is in Louisville, Kentucky, announcing his presidential candidacy. The group will begin airing ads on broadcast TV, cable and the Web in several early primary states accusing Paul of being weak on Iran and tying him to the Barack Obama administration’s Iran policy….

The scale of the campaign is remarkable this early on in a primary fight, and reflects not only the depth of the hostility toward Paul’s worldview among many conservatives but also the prominence of national security in the 2016 cycle.

This is not the first major campaign Reed has influenced from the outside. He was the architect of the 2004 “Swiftboat Veterans for Truth” campaign that attacked John Kerry’s national-security record and credentials. His new campaign against Paul will be bigger than even that effort, he said. “Foreign policy has the potential to be as big in this campaign as it was in 2004 or even greater,” Reed said. “To me, given the state of the world, that’s a good thing.”

Tuesday’s ad will hit airwaves in states that are part of Paul’s rollout, including Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Reed said. The millions committed to the early effort ensure that Paul’s deviation from the Republican field on foreign policy will be among the top issues used to illustrate his alleged divergence from the Republican voting public.

(Bloombergview.com)

Not requiring much of a hint as to where this is coming from – one might see this as the standard GOP doing their standard Beltway GOP’s favorite sons (i.e. Bush Family) a favor in trying to oust a threatening candidate before they get off the ground – so to speak. In any event, it is reminiscent of the attacks made on other candidates in the past to clear the way for say – Mitt Romney. This group would better serve their country by holding their fire for the big game letting chips fall where they may.

The ad is said to be a typical scare and terrorize – heavy toned piece with accusations against the Kentucky Senator which are, at best a stretch(Politico) – in truth, those types of ads, turn people off, rather than on to the party at all – O’Malley and Clinton are hoping for their success in this endeavor, because it will not do the GOP, and any of their candidates a whit of good.

Paul, however, is at his best when shown this type of garbage, so anticipate the Senator to stand up to these GOP bullies.

Hilary Clinton Trump’s GOP Field in Bloomberg Politics Poll – Analysis

Bloomberg Politics commissioned a poll on 2016 Presidential match-up’s between multiple GOP contenders, the Vice President, Joe Biden and former Democrat Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the Poll, Clinton leads all potential GOP candidates by several points, and the strongest contender appears to be Joe Biden.(Bloomberg) The Pollster, Selzer & Co out of Des Moine Iowa conducted the poll based on 1001 individuals 18 years of age or older (poll PDF here), however gives no clue as to the demographic and political affiliation makeup of those polled, of those polled, 753 are likely voters. When looking at the grouping for favorability we find Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, and Joe Biden as choices. Polling strongest behind Clinton is Biden, followed by Romney, Christie, Rand Paul and Jeb Bush (tied), and then Ted Cruz. Of course, one must factor in that key element – Don’t know enough to form a decision, which those who score highest as unknown are: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, those who score highest are Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and then Mitt Romney. Further in the matchup with Clinton against the aforementioned GOP candidates only, those candidates group tightly, with Mitt Romney leading the field, and Jeb Bush and Rand Paul, tied for second. (Business week)

There are several questions regarding the poll, or more to the point, popularity and familiarity poll so early in the game with not one candidate announced that it is truly a non poll. Additionally, when Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden score highest in any group, one must trust that there is a larger percentage of Democrats and or Democrat leaning independents participating, than say GOP or GOP leaning independents.

What does surprise is the strength of Rand Paul in this non-poll, as he ties with Jeb Bush, in all instances, while having less name recognition with the sample. Not included are more likely to run Rick Perry and soon to be unemployed Governor of Maryland, O’Malley, nor the heavyweight progressive, Senator Elizabeth Warren. If one is playing fantasy politics one should have a full team.

Additionally, inserting “Hope the run’s”, rather than those who may have indicated they might run, is also a non-starter. (That would, of course, remove both Mitt Romney and Elizabeth Warren, who one suspects the later would have done screamingly well in this poll. Leading one to believe that this poll was produced by a big fan of Hillary Clinton, or to shore up the point that Hillary is a real threat to the GOP field (send your $$ now!).

Analysis: nothing to see here, move along folks.

2016 GOP Update – Rand Paul and Jeb Bush

Potential GOP Presidential Candidate for 2016, Rand Paul, has come under some fire for a statement he made regarding the fact that a New York City Cigarette Tax might be responsible for the death of Garner, who died while in a police chokehold – the reason, selling a single cigarette, which is against the law. The Opinion piece in the Journal Sentinel, suggest that the bombastic Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who went off the rails when Paul made this statement, apparently misunderstood Paul’s suggestion that the concept of a tax placed on cigarettes, with the law stating single cigarettes can’t be sold (due to loss of revenue), was ultimately a factor – the arrest would not have taken place if that particular tax law was not in place. (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel). Once might want to watch the feigned horror ensue from the left the further Paul gets into the 2016 arena. This is due to several factors, not least among them is his outreach to traditionally “owned by Democrats demographics groups”, the fact that he closes on the Top Democrat 2016 contender(s), and generally derails them due to his ability to take an issue both Democrats and republicans can agree on, and run with it.

Oh well. Also of note: Rand Paul’s interview with WHAS, where he note’s he may have made a mistake while in college, re: smoking marijuana. Paul has long championed lessened penalties on drug possession, for those who are either underage and or have such small amounts that it makes no sense to prosecute. That’s a liberty stance and once that is also fiscally conservative - savings from imprisonment and prosecution for a minor offence, while allowing the individual to become more fully a taxpayer without the burden of a criminal complaint. (WHAS).

Paul has suggested that he will make the final decision to move forward with a campaign in the late spring of this year, however, it appears that he Senator has already laid the groundwork for a campaign.

Meanwhile, the other Bush, Jeb made the odd statement that one must be prepared to lose the primary in order to win the general election – the Washington Post analyses his statement, which is not in the least odd. Presumably, the former Governor, hamstrung due to Dynasty and non-conservative ideals regarding immigration and the loathed common core education, suggests that being true to oneself and holding one’s convictions is far more important that actually winning the primary.That said, looking back at the 2012 cycle, one notes that most if not all of the candidates who ran, regardless of which side of the political fence they sat, did just that. The exceptions were those that won the contest, by changing positions to be more moderate in tone. Thus appealing to the right, middle and or left as the case may be. Lovely sentiment, however, one wonders which bushel the man has been under, considering his family ties and close proximity to many a national race.

The National GOP on Collision Course for 2016 – The Return of the “Safe” Candidate

Here we go again, the National GOP is pushing such notables as Chris Christie, the Governor of New Jersey (Moderate-Left), and former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush, of the Bush dynasty, as candidates for the 2016 GOP Presidential Contest. Apparently, Mitt Romney finally got it across that he was not interested in running a third time (given the state of the nation, he’s a smart man.)

So what about those that have a fairly well established ground game? Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul, perhaps the most viable candidate the GOP has had since Ronald Reagan (they despised him as well), is making inroads across the nation in demographics previously “belonging” to Democrats, doing everything right.

Therefore the flunkies (i.e. moderate party cow-tow’s) are starting to surface. Moderate Illinois Adam Kinzinger has suggested that Paul would be dangerous to the GOP “given his cuts to the military budget”. He much prefers the likes of Bush, Christie and Ryan. That said, since the budget comes from the House and not the Senate, it is a stretch of the imagination that the Senator would have much impact on the budget – unless he actually won the nomination and then the general election. It’s fear mongering to the base. (Daily Caller)

Of course, the weekend would not be complete without the emergence of yet another Bush presidential run accordoing to the Miami Herald, George P Bush, son of one Jeb Bush suggests his father is ready to run in 2016.(Miami Herald) in the nick of time to save the GOP from the likes of say, a Rand Paul, and lose the General election in spades – once again.

It would be one thing to the casual observer or a devout Republican, if the party let chips fall where they might – oh, let anyone who has the courage to run in the primary do so unhindered by the specter of the national GOP suggesting they should be immediately replaced by their preferred candidate, and then should that individual not make the primary cut, so be it. That would be a fair contest.

In the age of a nuclear Democrat Party, as well as a National GOP is it no wonder individuals are opting out of the parties, and choosing “no affiliation”? Continuing to represent the Progressive ideals of elitism and proving the same by continuing to push forward candidate’s who are in that imagined upper class (Clinton, Bush, Romney), will lead more quickly to the emergence of a third party – the non-party.

Perhaps having no candidate but making choices based on whoever the main parties are pushing. It is what it is, but it does not mean the citizens have to appreciate a party that puts itself above the founder’s intent. Put either one of the GOP picks up against a Democrat Pick, and the White House is lost to the GOP once again.

The Most Interesting – Rand Paul – Dr. vs. GOP and DNC Machine – What this means for 2016

According to Dan Pfeiffer, the top communications adviser to President Obama, Rand Paul is the Republican he finds the most “interesting”. This is due to his outreach to demographics currently believed to be “owned” by Democrats, and his stance on issues that would attract them. However, Pfeiffer went on to suggest that Paul does not have the organization heft. (BuzzFeed)

Buzzfeed is a left of center (for the most part) blogger platform, social media company, so articles written are more in the vein of “the top 15 this or that”. The audience is younger, which is what is playing to Paul’s favor. As to organizational heft, that’s to be determined, it is early in the game.

Although the rank and file members of the establishment GOP in DC have their hearts set on a standard Republican, a Mitt Romney, a Jeb Bush or yes, even a Chris Christie, it is not without a bit of angst on the part of those who would like to see a real change, that they are pushing the aforementioned. The simple truth is not one of them could actually win the Presidency. Breaking it down, Romney is a lousy candidate, nice guy, but he has baggage. It was not so much that he could not have won in 2012 – in fact, Mickey Mouse could have won in 2012, if, and this is the stickler – the 20 million evangelicals would have voted for someone in a religion they believe to be a cult. Simple reasoning suggests that were Romney to run again, the same religious fervor attached to voting, would once again rear its ugly head, and the Democrats could run say,. Biden, and lo and behold, we’d have a Biden Presidency. Bush has the name problem, part of a dynasty and one which there has not been enough time for the blind hatred towards his brother to elapse. Additionally, there is an anti-dynasty push through all demographics, therefore, not acceptable. Chris Christie, no explanation necessary.

What does that leave? Younger, qualified candidate that can attract not only the religious right base, but the independents as well as Democrats (some, not all), which is why this is going to be an extremely interesting race in 2016. If one understands that the vitriol pouring out against anyone who is not one of the Washington three (Romney, Christie, Bush), in the press, is due to the fact that populism is not in their favor, therefore they smear. The problem with this tired tactic is that while they retain their Washington lifestyle, Rome burns. Therefore, the man to beat, in this sense, would be Paul given the fact that there is grudging admiration on the left, and sheer hatred from the “standard right”. Of course that same may apply to Rick Perry and Ted Cruz, and other’s not yet known. This will be a determining factor in the sway of the entire nation towards a more constitutionally grounded government. Sometimes one just wants to throw the whole lot of them in a room, and suggest perhaps, just perhaps, they should let the process go its own way, and let the people actually decide, rather than their fully lined pockets. The aforementioned goes to both sides of the aisle.

Rand Paul Op-Ed NY Times on Drone Use – Now Leads Hillary in Yet Another State Poll

Rand Paul, the Senator from Kentucky, wrote a piece in the New York Times entitled “Show Us the Drone Memo’s – in response to the nomination of David J. Barron, to the 1st Circuit. It was Paul’s usual pointed style, and the 100 comments with an op-ed piece are rather interesting, as it appears that Senator Paul is able to draw approval for his viewpoints from both sides – of course, depending on the issue. That said, petty partisanship aside, there are no other candidates from either major Party that can do the same. Paul’s receiving hits from within his own Party – specifically the Rick Santorum side – Santorum, who ran a second in the 2012, anyone but Mitt Romney, Republican primary, thinks a second and successful run at the gold ring is possible – yet, he is mistaken. Should he actually succeed in getting to Iowa and NH, where a close finish is necessary – he will face stiff opposition from the GOP – where he might find say, Jeb Bush, (i.e. the next Mitt Romney) in the pack of players.

Those supporters, it should be said, of any GOP candidate, specifically one who is tied to social issues, tend not to support any candidacy of anyone but the individual who they prefer.

Which, Jeb Bush would have a hard time, on several fronts, should the GOP foist yet another anointed one on the party itself and those who tend to vote Republican.

Consider that Paul is leading the so called pack, in a best of show against Hillary Clinton in the latest state of the state battleground polling (People’s Punditry). The entire poll results are here at Rockefeller.dartmouth.edu in PDF. Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas separates in 2nd by a hair, yet, Bush and the balance are in the back of the pack. There are far too many unsures, yet, this early trend in Paul’s approach to winning polls (both straw and pollster) are surely interesting and point to someone who can run and, at this point, best the current Democrat leader – or the sole Democrat leader. One would think that if they pushed a few other names, Biden for example, and Warren, that Senator Paul, as well as the balance of the GOP field, would fare better.

2016 – The Early Players - Update– Elizabeth Warren (D) Continues War on Women, Rand Paul (L-R) squarely in the Middle, Jeb Bush (R) – Name Brand

First and foremost, one must understand that Hillary Clinton is most likely, not going to run for the 2016 nomination – despite all rumors to the contrary – and hints from the Clinton’s – part of the reason is one Elizabeth Warren – newly elected Progressive Democrat Senator, former Professor (Part-time) from Massachusetts – as the Washington Post suggests: “A case for Elizabeth Warren in 7 Minutes”. The drumbeat is just beginning. Warren, the female equivalent of Barack Obama, is a darling of the far political left, and with past “Super Delegate” experience, Clinton certainly knows that the Progressive Wing is capable of ousting the actual popular vote winner, in a heartbeat. With this is mind, and years of service, she is undoubtedly tired and wary.

Therefore the equal pay for women drumbeat has begun, yet, it may sound, at this point, overly familiar to those who are in the trenches, or feminists who have seen passages of Equal Pay Acts since 1963. Although denying she is seeking Warren, she is the best bet the Democrats have of even making a dent in 2016.

Unless of course, the RNC is ridiculous enough to run Jeb Bush – former Governor of Florida, son of President George H, and brother to President George W. Political dynasties are well-liked by the public in the same vein as lifetime Senators and Congressional Representatives. Yet, as CBS asks the question Can Jeb Bush win over the Christian right in 2016? , the answer is – yes. The next question would be – to what avail? The Christian base is put a part of the electorate that either shows up or not, and is unforgiving and unpredictable at best. The ranks and file would be expected to vote for yet another Bush, but that leaves the independents, the Libertarians, the Tea Party and a slim yet viable chance for Warren.

However, there is one Libertarian that has the RNC wary, as well as the DNC, that doctor from Kentucky – Rand Paul, the Libertarian leaning Republican – In the Politico article the Libertarian Surge, it is apparent that suppression of freedom, the growing and ever domineering Federal government, loss of free enterprise, and jobs, is becoming more popular with the general public. What Paul represents is a hybrid of both, the Republicanism of the 1960’s aligned with the Libertarian small government ideology and his popularity is growing, along with his donor base.

It is, of course, far too early to suggest one may best the other, as pitfalls happen to candidates in the primary stages, and in the general election and the players change – constantly up until those in New Hampshire, Iowa, and the Carolina’s suggest who may or may not be the next President, but who will continue to move forwarded on that particular quest. For now, we watch we wait and we listen for someone who is not necessarily wedded to the “Party” but to the people’s best interest – so far, we have one who can break the mold, so to speak, set by his father.

Harry Reid (D-NV) – Brings Partisanship to New Heights – Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – works with Coburn (R-OK) on Bill – Sick of it All Yet?

An article in the New York Times speaks to the power plays by the Majority Senate Leader, Harry Reid and his “uncompromising” position on anything Republican. Apparently, there have been bills brought forth by Republicans which Democrats of like mind might have voted for or against (with dialogue), yet Senator Reid stops all from being brought to a vote on the Senate Floor(New York Times). Reid, the Majority Leader, has the job of traffic cop when it comes to legislation and whose legislation is brought forth, voted upon and sent to the President’s desk for signature. When he blocks one party entirely, he’s playing partisan politics, which, one might suggest, will not turn out well for the current party in power (Democrats, which Reid leads by the nose).

Playing nice, at the moment, is the newly elected Progressive from Massachusetts, Senator Elizabeth Warren, with of all people Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Apparently they have co-written legislation on transparency with corporations specific to tax breaks, and the people’s money (both personal and tax) when it comes to banking. The referring article by the Huffington Post notes Coburn as an arch-conservative. - Coburn releases the annual government waste book available here, at www.coburn.senate.gov From this point of view, it’s a reasonable match, as Coburn is shouting government waste from the rooftops, and Warren is shouting corruption and waste as well. The bill will be on the Senate Floor, but the question remains, with Reid’s inability to allow anything with a Republican Label go to the floor, what happens to Warren and Coburn’s noble quest?

Reid is now in a position to play this either way – for example: He may shut it down entirely as it would appear that a Republican has something to offer and to be bi-partisans should it go to the Senate floor for a vote or, he can allow the vote – giving the one most likely to run for the Democrat Nomination for President (Elizabeth Warren), a leg up so to speak.

Meanwhile, all the worthwhile and the worthless legislation that both parties are writing (as that is the job they are hired to do), sits and nothing gets done – and Reid rules over a do-nothing Senate – if he were slightly less moral, one might liken him to the mad ruler of Rome, Caligula (referring to the madness of Power).

As the general voting public on both sides including rank and file Democrats and Republicans as well as Tea Party and Progressive, are growing more leery by the day of the partisanship shown on both sides. It is as if two big bullies are running the nation – into the ground. Which brings up a point – if one of each of what is seen as the more radical factions of both parties, actually makes a run at the Presidency and or any office for that matter, and avoids the general label of D or R – it follows that that individual would endear themselves to the public – the voting public.

A perfect example of such is the recent brouhaha over Chris Christie and his Turnpike Scandal. Not a fan of the Governor on some points, the level of partisan rhetoric coming from the Democrats, and stony silence from the Republican’s is ridiculous. The man took responsibility for something he was unaware of, and that shows leadership. Of course, the Republicans have some grievances with Christie as they felt he should not have embraced the President during the crisis of Hurricane Sandy, while Mitt Romney, the second worse candidate in recent memory, was trying to unseat the worst President since Jimmy Carter. Blaming Christie is ridiculous, as Romney was not supported by either the right wing evangelicals as well as the Tea Party! – When 20 million voters stay home, it’s time to change strategy. Not likely as they are having Bush delusions (Jeb Bush) and the Democrats are currently in love with Hillary Clinton. One might suggest that none of those mentioned in the preceding, will actually make it through the nominating process.

Which point, one of the most progressive individuals one might meet, suggested, who cares about Christie, why is this even news? This is referring, of course, to the labels - again.

Keep it up Harry, the DNC and the RNC and soon we will have new parties develop which are long past due. The public is becoming increasingly aware and increasingly Independent (or not affiliated with any political party)

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.

President Obama and a Third Term – the Reasoning, the Right, The Left, the Money and the Constitution

The Steps, in brief, to amend the Constitution -image thisnation.com

There’s a great deal of “talk” about President Obama running for a Third Term and being successful, and talking heads as well as PAC’s are pushing this theory as if it were “gospel”. There is one questions to consider before sending money to a PAC or organization that would help one prevent such a scenario – especially considering how many are wedded to the theory that the United States is going to “hell in a hand-basket” over one man in the White House.

How would the President, with Congress and a majority of the States push through a repeal of an amendment in time for the President to qualify for a third term? The answer is simple. The 22nd Amendment was passed with what was considered “blazing speed”: it was brought before the Congress and passed on March 24, 1947. It was ratified on February 27th, 1951. (U.S. Constitution.net) That’s three years from the time the Congress passed the amendment, until it was ratified. The processes (There are two): :

1. A Bill must pass both Houses by a two-thirds majority. Once passed, the Bill goes to the State’s to “ratify”. Each State must vote on whether or not to adopt the amendment, again, the magic number is two-thirds of the states. A note: There is generally a time-limit written into the Bill, and that time limit is generally seven years.

2. A Constitutional Convention may be called. This involves two thirds of the states legislatures asking for a Convention to be convened for amendments. Once the states are convened, Proposed Amendments are then sent back to the states to be ratified.

When looking at both Constitutional paths to changing an amendment, one understands that the process is both lengthy with no guarantees of passages given the diversity of the States, especially in the two-party system in which the U.S. functions.

Yes there are other methods not discussed about, the Informal Amendment (or those interpretations of the Constitution brought before the Supreme Court), and the Popular Amendment which has never been attempted. The later would require a national election, which on the surface sounds very simple, and yet, neither of the aforementioned are specifically written in the Constitution itself, the Popular Amendment was proposed by one of the framers. For more information on the above refer to: uscontitution.net.

What would anyone gain from spouting off about a change to the 22nd amendment? A change that would be speedy enough to allow for a third term for any President (unless the process was started in Congress previous to that Presidents second term) – is technically impossible. Anyone who donated or supported candidates during the 2012 election might find that they are receiving robo calls from PAC’s in late November! Calls that warn of impending crisis, and how donating to that PAC will allow them to fight for the freedom’s one is losing, has lost or is about to lose. Seriously. There’s a lot of money at stake. One can point to the right, but one also has to understand that there are also PAC’s on the left, looking for continued employment and a source of income – from the individual “patriot” or “progressive”.

Could they be that devious, or money-grubbing? You betcha.

The 2012 election was won and lost for one reason and one reason only – the Republican Party failed to get out the vote. (Or enough of the vote to compensate for the 3 to 4% cheating one can anticipate from the Democrats). It is not an impossible task. It has been done before – before there were multi-billion dollar campaigns, and anyone with reason understands that messaging costs. However, the 2010 election should be the model for all elections, as there were PAC’s, but little to no real involvement from the national parties, with the exception of a few blessings (those candidates generally lost), and a change in the House that was historic based on the motivation of the people. One would think people were motivated in 2012, and the truth of the matter, they were obviously not motivated enough. There is an exemplary article written by Erik Erikson at Red State: “A Primer for Rich Donors Who Got Taken to the Cleaners by Republican Consultants” It is suggested reading for those on the right and those on the left of the political aisle.

The President won, the Progressives within the Democrat Party may want to enact social changes that those on the right are not simpatico with, and however, there is nothing done that cannot be undone. When one hears: “Obama Care! We’ll be stuck with it for-ever!” Think again. It is an Act that is constantly being changed by those currently in power. Waivers are granted, rules being written and re-written, before the Act takes full effect! In four years there will be yet another election, and if the people are disgusted by the left, then the people will vote for the more “right’ candidate. That will bring about a change in the Administration as well as all facets of the government, and new rules will be written. That is, of course, unless the Act itself is struck down once more on the basis of Religious Freedom (see Liberty University Health Care Suit).

A reasonable person might be tempted to hold onto their wallet. The reason: there are those that are espousing the third term, even talk show hosts are on the third term bandwagon. These are smart and savvy radio personalities that appear to have nothing to gain – except audience share and their advertisers (who happen to have a good deal to do with prepping for disasters, investing in gold, etc.)who both benefit from – fear. They may also believe some of what they are espousing, but again, as with anything else that needs to be verified, research the possibilities. If one doesn’t trust “Google”, then head to the local library and look it up!

Finally, there is always the next election, and to date, there are a few names being bandied about – from the Senator from Florida, Rubio, to the latest conjecture , Jeb Bush, or Bush III as the Drudge Report noted. However, those of us in the trenches know one thing for certain, regardless of which major party one is affiliated with, the power brokers are already choosing the next contender. If one is on the right or a Republican, one might look to who ran and lost previous to Mitt Romney. The old – “It’s your turn now” nonsense that continues to push a candidate that is clearly unelectable, unless it is a “dynasty” in which case, that may also be a mistake. (See McCain, See Romney). If one is on the left, get ready for Elizabeth Warren, the newly elected, Jr. Senator from Massachusetts, touted by some Progressives as the perfect candidate to Replace Barack Obama. Gone will be the race card, replaced by the “Feminist Card”. Watch the GOP try to match that. In the meantime, perhaps there will be a movement away from both major parties – towards the Libertarian Party, or if there is any sense in this world – the Tea Party (get organized please). This would allow for what the founding fathers actually envisioned – (Read: the Federalist Papers) a Republic that was free of strong Political Parties.

When the math doesn’t add up, there’s usually a reason: those factors not considered. For example, the polls and the possibility for a sweep by the Republican’s were there in 2012. What one did not account for was the fact that voters would sit this election out – for a multitude of reasons, including failure of software (nothing beat s boots on the ground). That said, the math for a third term, no matter which way one slices it, doesn’t add up – but what does add up is the money that will be sent by the gullible to either support or defend something that simply will not occur.