And for those who might be a bit nervous about what to expect when they arrive , this Canadian offers some tips:
Opening Statement 4.16.17
” Hillary Clinton is the favorite U.S. presidential candidate among millionaire voters and would win a head-to-head contest with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, according to the third CNBC Millionaire Survey conducted in March that was released today.
The survey, which polls 750 Americans with a net worth of $1 million or more, found that 53 percent of millionaires would vote for the Democratic ex-Secretary of State, compared with 47 percent for the GOP presidential hopeful, in a hypothetical general-election match-up. Clinton had the support of 91 percent of Democratic millionaires, 13 percent of Republican millionaires and 57 percent of Independent millionaires.”
Published on Apr 22, 2015
” On this episode of the Rundown, John Phillips, Scott Ott, and Stephen Kruiser discuss whether the Koch Brothers are supporting the Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in the Republican primary.”
” An abscess of anger seems to gnaw at Hillary Clinton, but the reasons for her resentments remain unclear. The world’s oldest party, which governed the nation during two world wars and is the primary architect of America’s regulatory and redistributive state, is eager to give her its presidential nomination, in recognition of . . . what?
The party, adrift in identity politics, clings, as shipwrecked sailors do to floating debris, to this odd feminist heroine. Wafted into the upper reaches of American politics by stolid participation in her eventful marriage to a serial philanderer, her performance in governance has been defined by three failures.
Her husband, having assured the 1992 electorate that voting for him meant getting “two for the price of one,” entrusted to her the project that he, in a harbinger of the next Democratic president’s mistake, made his immediate priority — health-care reform. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan urged him to begin with welfare reform, just as wise Democrats wanted President Obama to devote 2009 to economic recovery rather than health care, perhaps sparing the nation six years and counting of economic sluggishness.”
As companion pieces to Mr Will’s article we recommend these more complete lists of the shady dealings of Hillary and Bill :
” “Ignore the noise – Clinton will win in 2016,” we are assured by a columnist in Hillary’s journalistic namesakeThe Hill. “The email flap will be gone soon enough.”
That’s probably the way to bet. Rightie pundits are going on about government-issue Blackberries, insecure servers, federal record-keeping, the law, national security, peripheral stuff like that. Leftie pundits are saying: yawn, nobody cares, it’s never gonna catch fire, give it up. Everyone implicitly agrees that Hillary did something she shouldn’t and that her justification for doing so is ridiculous. The only disagreement is whether it makes any difference. The Hill‘s Fernando Espuelas says no:
Clinton has a built-in advantage — her gender… Some percentage of Americans, likely a large one, would like to cast a historic vote. When polling points to Americans wanting “change,” what bigger change than a woman as president?
A change to a competent citizen-executive whose administration spends within its means, ceases obstructing economic growth and middle-class prosperity, and restores American influence in the world?
Oh, well. One takes his point: Most other citizens of developed and not-so-developed societies cast those “historic votes” long ago – Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ceylon, India, Dominica, Jamaica, Guyana, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Israel, Turkey, Portugal, Germany, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Transnistria… At the time of those “historic votes” on a good half of that list, “gender” was not “a built-in advantage” but a built-in disadvantage that skilled and nimble female candidates had to be exceptional to overcome. If I follow Mr Espuelas correctly, he’s saying that America is getting round to its “historic vote” so late that “gender” is now such an advantage that any old female candidate can be dragged across the finish line, no matter how shopworn, wooden, charmless, tin-eared and corrupt.
Maybe. But, even so, Hillary Clinton is still a severe test of that thesis. Charles Krauthammer detects “Early-Onset Clinton Fatigue“. Whether that is yet afflicting the electorate, it certainly seems to have gripped the candidate. At that press conference, Hillary seemed to be going through the motions. Flush with Saudi cash and a well-oiled shakedown Rolodex, Clinton Worldwide Inc has no reason not to run for president, but apparently no compelling reason to run. When the candidate runs into trouble, grizzled drooling attack dogs from the Nineties – Lanny Davis, James Carville – are loosed from their chains and limp dutifully from the Old Pooch Home to bare their remaining fang for their mistress. Is there anyone new, young, talented willing to defend Hillary? I mean, other than Huma, the only woman in America whose marriage rivals the exhibitionist creepiness of the Clintons in their heyday.”
So the electorate is yearning to cast a “historic” vote ? We’ve already seen how well voting with that criteria in mind works out . God help us if the masses fall for that again .
” Plummeting from a great height to be sure, Philip Bump acknowledges, but definitely going in the wrong direction — fast. The initial read off of yesterday’s Gallup poll shows Hillary Clinton in good shape against the rest of the field, albeit a field with low name recognition. Most of her Republican competition has lots of upside in their numbers, but Hillary has reached almost total name recognition saturation … not exactly surprising for someone who has spent the last 22 years in Washington. Accordingly, her favorability/unfavorability gap plus her name recognition puts her almost literally in a class of her own in this survey:”
Hillary looks unassailable at the moment — but this is just a moment, Bump reminds us. What happens when we look across almost a quarter of a century of Gallup data on Hillary Clinton? Bump charted the data on Hillary’s favorability since early 1992:” (see above)
” It seems everyone on the activist left of the Democratic party wants Elizabeth Warren to challenge Hillary Clinton. The New York Working Families Party, born out of the infamous and disbanded ACORN empire, has endorsed her. A new YouGov poll paid for by Warren backers purports to show that once voters are familiar with the stances of both women, Warren will beat Hillary in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Warren, who was elected to the Senate from Massachusetts only four years ago, has refused entreaties to run, although she always uses the present tense (“I am not running for president”), which gives her some wiggle room. After all, at age 65 she can’t wait forever if she wants to reach the White House.
The Huffington Post average of all polls shows Hillary leading Warren by a crushing 60 percent to 12 percent. But it’s not only these polls that might be keeping her out of the race. Recall that Barack Obama overcame a similar deficit and went on to win the nomination in 2008.
Warren’s reluctance probably has more to do with the reach and ruthlessness of Team Hillary. “Her command of the Democratic machinery, from fundraising to grass-roots organizing, is so extensive that almost everyone else is understandably intimidated about even testing their talents against her,” the Washington Post observed of Mrs. Clinton.
Obama strategist David Axelrod, who knows Warren well, says she is keeping the door open a sliver because doing so increases her ability to influence the Democratic party. “Hillary is probably as well-positioned within her own party as any open seat candidate has been in our lifetime,” Axelrod told radio host Hugh Hewitt.
One of the usually unspoken reasons that potential rivals are scared of running is that they know Team Hillary pulled its punches against Obama in 2008 — in large part because he was African American. When Bill Clinton compared Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina historically to those of Jesse Jackson in the same state, he was viciously attacked; for the rest of the campaign, he was relatively mute. “I think that they played the race card on me,” Clinton complained to WHYY Radio in Philadelphia in April 2008. “We now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it all along.”
As usual , the astute John Fund knows his politics and this article provides a very damning documentation of the skeletons in Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren’s closet . Read it all and spread it far and wide .
” The Center for American Progress, the preeminent liberal think tank in Washington, is poised to exert outsized influence over the 2016 president race and — should Hillary Clinton win it — the policies and agenda of the 45th President of the United States. CAP founder John Podesta is set to run Clinton’s presidential campaign, and current CAP president Neera Tanden is a longtime Clinton confidante and adviser. CAP recently rolled out a major blueprint for combat wage stagnation and inequality that many view as a template for a Clinton economic agenda, and there are surely more major policy statements to come.
So interest in CAP’s funding sources — and its internal workings in general — is likely to intensify and take on a political cast.
Today, CAP is revealing its major 2014 donors, after taking some criticism for lack of transparency. The organization provided me two lists of its donors, which you can read right here and right here. The first is for the C (3), the nonpartisan think tank arm; the second is for the more political, issue-advocacy-oriented c (4).
Perhaps most notably, given CAP’s advocacy for an economically progressive agenda, is that CAP’s top donors include Walmart and Citigroup, each of which have given between $100,000 and $499,000. Other donors to CAP — a leading advocate of health care reform — include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents leading biotech and bio-pharma firms, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, both of which have given up to $49,000.”
Here is the list of “evil corporations” that are supporting CAP and by extension , Hillary Clinton …
” $1,000,000 or more
The Hutchins Family Foundation
TomKat Charitable Trust
$500,000 to $999,999
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Not On Our Watch
Open Square Charitable Gift Fund
Embassy of United Arab Emirates
Walton Family Foundation
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
$100,000 to $499,999
A.L. Mailman Family Foundation
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME
American Iron and Steel Institute
Annie E. Casey Foundation
The Arcus Foundation
Avatar Alliance Foundation
The Barkley Fund
Blue Moon Fund
The Crimson Lion Lavine Family Foundation
Quinn Delaney and Wayne Jordan
Joanne and Paul Egerman
Embrey Family Foundation
The Henry Luce Foundation
Irving Harris Foundation
Joan and Irwin Jacobs
Embassy of Japan
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
Linden Trust for Conservation
Constance J. Milstein
The Murphy Family Foundation
National Education Association, or NEA
New Venture Fund
New York Community Trust—BDEK Fund
The Nick and Leslie Hanauer Foundation
Open Society Foundations
Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Robert W. Roche
The Rockefeller Foundation
Sixteen Thirty Fund
Jay T. Snyder
Stoneman Family Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
$50,000 to $99,999
Altman Kazickas Foundation
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
Fomento Social Banamex
Bank of America
Blanchette Hooker Rockefeller Fund
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield
Johnson Family Foundation
Orin S. Kramer
LaSalle Adams Fund
McGraw Hill Financial
Rebecca and Nathan Milikowsky
National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Nordic Council of Ministers
Steven Rattner and Maureen White
Rockefeller Family Fund
Robert E. Rubin
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States, or TECRO
Time Warner Inc.
Henry van Ameringen
WhyNot Initiative “
Take note of the foreign donors as well as all the “evil corporate” money gathered by these hypocritical liberals .The list goes on as does the story at the Washington Post
” Gradually it is sinking in to Official Washington that the 2014 election could very well do to Democrats what the 1930 election did to Republicans: make them irrelevant for at least a generation.
In 1930, the first election after the Stock Market Crash saw Republicans go from a 270-164 majority in the House to a minority, albeit by one seat. In the next three elections, Republicans would continue to lose until there were only 88 Republicans in the House after the 1936 election. The Depression wiped out two-thirds of the House Republicans in just eight years and it would be another decade — and world war — before Republicans got control once more. And then only for two years and then two years after Eisenhower’s election. Democrats controlled the House for 60 of the 64 years from the 1930 election to the 1994 election.
Talk about your climate change. The effects on the nation were devastating but only in retrospective. Incremental socialism cam in the guise of helping people and solving problems, even as it grew the government into Godzilla proportion.
In 1930, state legislatures flipped Democratic overnight as well. The damage was long term. It would be 84 years until Republicans controlled the West Virginia House of Delegates again. West Virginia fared well in the 1920s — far better than most of the 11 Southern states. Today it is the second-poorest state in the nation.
Now then, I am not saying that the 31 states where Republicans control the legislature will definitely go Republican in the 2016 presidential race. But if they do, that’s 314 Electoral College votes. You need only 270 to win.
The good news for Republicans and the bad news for Democrats is that scenario seems plausible, because people may be looking for political stability. “
Read Mr Surber’s entire analysis here but don’t get cocky , if any group can drag defeat from the jaws of victory it is the GOP .
” We’re told that the presidency is important because the head guy gets to appoint, if he’s lucky, a couple of Supreme Court judges. But they’re playing catch-up to the culture, too. In 1986, in a concurrence to a majority opinion, the Chief Justice of the United States declared that “there is no such thing as a fundamental right to commit homosexual sodomy”. A blink of an eye, and his successors are discovering fundamental rights to commit homosexual marriage. What happened in between? Jurisprudentially nothing: Everything Chief Justice Burger said back in the Eighties – about Common Law, Blackstone’s “crime against nature”, “the legislative authority of the State” – still applies. Except it doesn’t. Because the culture – from school guidance counselors to sitcom characters to Oscar hosts – moved on, and so even America’s Regency of Jurists was obliged to get with the beat. Because to say today what the Chief Justice of the United States said 28 years ago would be to render oneself unfit for public office.”
Spot on as usual … read it all