Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (61050)	1/9/2013 10:31:48 PM
From: Farmboy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Of course they are. Then they whine about Republicans not 'working with them'. Now I ask, why would I 'work with' someone who is trying to steal my money, my house, and my entire way of life? Liberals are truly brain dead.

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (61050)	1/12/2013 7:21:44 AM
From: greatplains_guy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Can Republicans Win a Government Shutdown? Without a shutdown Republicans have no leverage to obtain anything useful from the White House. David Harsanyi January 10, 2013 If Republicans do happen to force a shutdown in Washington, it's very possible they'll be embracing a political loser while doing the rest of us an immense favor. With three Washington-manufactured fiscal apocalypses—sequestration, the debt ceiling and a new "budget"—on the docket, the idea of shutting down government to extract concessions from the iron trap sometimes known as the Obama administration has gained traction among Republicans. Or, I should say, the idea of threatening to shut down Washington has. Pat Toomey, John Cornyn and other conservatives have said as much, though they've littered their shutdown statements with comforting modifiers, such as "partial" and "temporary," to allay the fears of Americans, who apparently can't fathom existence without the Department of Commerce. Certainly, it would energize the conservative base, and it might be effective in pressuring Democrats into genuine spending reforms. Because, despite what you may have heard, it's worked before. As recent Washington arrival Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pointed out, "we didn't default on our debt" after the notorious 1995 shutdown battle between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. "And the result was balanced budgets—and some of the greatest fiscal responsibility we have seen in modern times from Congress—because fiscal conservatives stood together and said, 'We need to be responsible.'" Gingrich, who has seemed to have some reservations about the shutdown through the years, now defends it in the context of policy, recently saying, "We would never have gotten to a balanced budget and we would never have gotten welfare reform without that fight." Can the Republicans claim political victory again? I'm skeptical. First of all, Barack Obama isn't Bill Clinton. The level of ideological stamina in the White House, not to mention the willingness to fracture the nation to protect spending, is rather imposing. Moreover, Obama has no incentive to compromise after winning an election convincingly, and with the help of some of his friends in the media, he's been able to portray the GOP as obstructionists for failing to rubber-stamp his agenda. Then, John Boehner isn't Newt Gingrich, either. For all we hear about the latter's eccentricities and faults, the Gingrich Congress—for a while there, at least—was imbued with a sense of purpose and offered Americans a cogent argument. Folks may not remember, but in the early phases of the fight, Clinton's poll numbers were dropping—and nothing hurt the man more. The country, too, is different. We will never—and I mean never—hear Obama offer America a speech declaring the era of big government over, because, well, it would be preposterous, and it's not as if the country wants to hear it. How Republicans shut down government matters, though. Failing to raise the debt ceiling would probably trigger panic in the markets. A more politically opportune time would be to deal with this when the government's general operating budget expires. Seeing as Senate Democrats have been unable to produce a budget for years—and not a single politician has voted for an Obama budget—Republicans have a case to make about responsible governing. But even if the GOP risks losing the short-term politics, no matter how fortuitous a shutdown might be for Democrats, it isn't a situation any side could live with for an extended period of time. Obama would almost surely have to concede more on taxes and entitlement reform. Without a shutdown—or the threat of one—however, Republicans have no other leverage to obtain anything useful from the White House. Follow David Harsanyi on twitter @davidharsanyi reason.com

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (61050)	10/29/2013 8:10:58 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Hillary Will Run How could she not? By Pete du Pont Oct. 28, 2013 9:14 p.m. ET Hillary Clinton is going to run for president in 2016. Granted, she is exhibiting even more coyness than most presidential prospects, and yes, the media are filled with those asking "Will she or won't she?" But the only real question is: How could she not run? How can someone who has spent a life in politics and who sees a clear path to becoming president not run? Mrs. Clinton started her career four decades ago, working with the House Judiciary Committee staff during Watergate. She served as first lady in Arkansas, as an active and highly visible first lady in Washington, as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state. She may have the most diverse political experience of any nominee for president in the last 20 years. How can a feminist icon not run when she has a solid chance to become the first female president of the United States? Mrs. Clinton surely knows how close she came in 2008. Had she won the Democratic nomination, she would have almost certainly ridden a feminist wave to a victory over John McCain, and she'd likely be in her second term now. She recognizes the election of a female president would mean something for future generations. Her husband seems to want her to run, and there is no indication their daughter is against it. Eight years will have passed since 2008, and at close to 70, she'd be older than recent nominees other than Mr. McCain. But assuming her health does not deteriorate, she should seem fit for office. She's certainly tough enough. The 2008 nomination process and her sometimes rocky tenure as first lady would lead one to think there is no new scandal or embarrassment—involving her or her husband—that could come to light between now and 2016 and be large enough to derail a campaign. It is difficult to think of any possible Democrat opponent who could best Mrs. Clinton for the nomination. A recent poll of likely Democratic voters in the important primary state of New Hampshire shows Mrs. Clinton with 64%, more than four times as much support as the next four names combined. True, it's doubtful many people saw Barack Obama as a nomination threat in 2005, and it is possible some very strong candidates will emerge between now and 2016. But Mrs. Clinton starts with quite an advantage. To keep that advantage, she must begin the process of increasing the number of Democrats who are politically indebted to her by campaigning and raising money for the party's candidates for congress and governor. Her recent stumping on behalf of Terry McAuliffe, who's running for Virginia governor, is certainly a start. She needs to evaluate the shortfalls of her 2008 campaign and make sure she corrects them. She needs to start squeezing out any competition; if she lets word get around to liberal donors and party apparatchiks that she's likely to run, that would suck much of the air out of other potential campaigns. She will need—at the right time and in the right way—to solicit President Obama's support, or at the very least see that he does not actively support her competition. While questions from Mr. Clinton's tenure as governor and president are old news now and will be even older in 2016, Mrs. Clinton and her team will need to develop a response when the Benghazi tragedy, which occurred on her watch at the State Department, inevitably arises on the trail. Fairly or not, it is doubtful she will suffer much in the way of fallout, but when the Benghazi issue does arise, she won't want it to consume more than one or two news cycles. To win the general election, she should hope the Republicans nominate a candidate as uninspiring as Mr. McCain. Demographics will play a role. Will the Republicans have a woman on the ticket, or an African-American? Would a Republican nominee like Sen. Ted Cruz or Sen. Marco Rubio pull Hispanic voters from Mrs. Clinton's column? Or would Mr. Cruz or Mr. Rubio suffer because of their inexperience in a nation still smarting from promoting a first-term senator to the White House in 2008? What would a female, Hispanic governor on the Republican ticket, such as New Mexico's Susana Martinez, mean to the race? These are questions for the future, but we know the answer to what everyone's asking now: Yes, Hillary Clinton is running for president. online.wsj.com