Americans Make It Surprisingly Clear Who They Don’t Want to See Running in 2016

Capture

By Kevin Boyd (6 hours ago) |

In the new year, the 2016 presidential race is going to start sorting itself out. Both parties are expected to have competitive contests, but more attention is likely to be paid to the GOP field.

Two of the most discussed potential candidates are not exactly fresh faces on the political scene: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Yet, in two recent polls, the American people say they aren’t interested in a retread from the past and want someone new.

According to Rasmussen Reports, most Americans believe that Republicans should seek a fresh face to run for president:

Most voters – including Republicans – think the GOP should start fresh during the next presidential election. But a sizable number of voters also express concern about families from both sides of the political aisle holding too much influence.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Republicans should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2016. Just 10% think the GOP should promote a candidate who has run in the past. Twenty-five percent (25%) are not sure.

In addition, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that the American people are generally not interested in either a Jeb Bush or a Mitt Romney candidacy.

Just 31 percent of all voters say they could see themselves supporting Bush in 2016, while 57 percent say they couldn’t support him;
33 percent could possibly support 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, versus 60 percent who oppose him;

If the American people really do desire a break from the political status quo, the Republican party will have a difficult time selling two possible nominees that come from well-known, unpopular political dynasties.

Why Dem attacks misfired in Scalise controversy

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91212&siteSection=washingtonexaminer&videoId=28301887

Screen Shot 2015-01-02 at 10.51.33 AM

BY: Byron York January 1, 2015 | 4:52 pm

Democrats have tried to rev up the outrage machine over news that Rep. Steve Scalise, the number-three ranking House Republican, may or may not have given a speech to a white supremacist group in Louisiana 12 years ago.

Not only has the Democratic Party attacked Scalise himself, it has also gone after the House GOP leadership and, now, the 2016 Republican presidential field.

Story continues below

The sin of Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, et al, according to the Democratic National Committee, is that they have not been quick enough to denounce behavior that — it’s worth repeating — may or may not have happened more than a decade ago. “Do you really think it’s appropriate to have Rep. Scalise remain a part of Republican leadership, or will you let your silence speak volumes?” the DNC said to the Republican 2016 field on New Year’s Eve.

“Just like last year with Cliven Bundy, and the Duck Dynasty crew just months before, leading Republican presidential contenders are bending over backwards to defend these elements within their party instead of condemning them,” the DNC added in a New Year’s morning email.

There’s a lot of noise, but in this case, the outrage machine is sputtering. In part that’s because of the flimsiness of the evidence involving Scalise. But there are other reasons that have more to do with President Obama and our current politics.

First, it’s important to say that if Scalise did in fact appear before the European-American Unity and Rights Organization in 2002, he shouldn’t have. And if information emerges that Scalise did anything more than that, or that he espoused the group’s ideology, he’ll lose his GOP whip position in a heartbeat.

But if the 2002 speech (or maybe non-speech) is the extent of this story, a lot of Republicans just aren’t in the mood to dump the newly-chosen member of the House leadership. For three reasons, all related to the Obama White House:

1) The Sharpton factor. There’s no need to dwell on Al Sharpton’s offenses, from Crown Heights to Freddie’s Fashion Mart to the Tawana Brawley hoax. Suffice it to say that Sharpton has been behind some of the ugliest racial episodes in recent decades. Yet Sharpton has visited the White House more than 70 times since the first Obama inauguration. Sharpton is said to be on texting terms with Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder. And the president himself has addressed Sharpton’s National Action Network, standing in front of the group’s “No Justice No Peace” logo. So Republicans ask why they should excommunicate Scalise, who may have done absolutely nothing wrong, while Obama embraces Sharpton.

2) The Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Yes, there was a big controversy when videos of the angry, anti-American rants of Obama’s pastor became public during the heat of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. But Obama claimed he never heard the worst of what Wright said, and managed to dispel much of the controversy with a speech in which he declared, “I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community.” After that, the New York Times editorial page rewarded Obama with an editorial headlined — this is true — “Mr. Obama’s Profile in Courage.” Obama, of course, did not withdraw from the presidential race. So Republicans ask why they should disown Scalise when Obama steadfastly refused to disown Wright.

3) The diminishing effectiveness of the race card. A lot has been written about whether race relations have worsened since Obama became president. Whatever the case, it is true that Obama’s time in office has resulted in an exponential growth of racial accusations stemming from non-racial political disputes.

Criticism of presidents can get pretty harsh, as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush will attest. But when Obama has been on the receiving end of harsh criticism, some of his supporters have not hesitated to interpret the situation in racial terms, accusing Republicans of attacking Obama because he is black. The sheer frequency of this has made Republicans wary of Democrats playing the race card. And that is the background of the Scalise controversy; the same instinct behind the portrayal of Republicans as racist for criticizing Obama is now behind attacks on the GOP over Scalise. Republicans are tired of it.

The facts always matter. If new, previously unknown facts appear that cast Scalise’s actions in a different light, then the GOP calculation will change. But unless that happens, don’t expect Republicans to surrender this time.

Has John Boehner (R-OH) been Blackmailed?

Screen Shot 2014-12-22 at 11.08.29 AM

This story might explain a lot.

Matt Drudge tweeted: “Spending bill passed because NSA has ‘dirt’ on speaker.”
Is there blackmail behind John Boehner’s easy capitulation to Obama and the passage of the pork-laden, government controlling CROmibus bill?
Does Obama know something about Boehner that we don’t know?
There was news about a Boehner exposé in 2010. It never happened. The following is from WND:
“In September 2010, the Huffington Post promised the New York Times was preparing a bombshell exposé on a reported Boehner affair with Lisbeth Lyons, the lobbyist for the American Printing Association.
“‘Insiders on Capitol Hill are buzzing about an upcoming New York Times exposé that will detail an alleged Boehner affair,’ the HuffPost story said. ‘Sources say the Times is looking for the right time to drop the story in October to sway the election, similar to how the Times reported during the 2008 presidential campaign on an alleged John McCain affair that supposedly had taken place many years before and that was flatly denied by the woman in question.’”
What do you think happened? If Boehner would cooperate with the Democrats, keep the Tea Party at bay, and whip up Republican support, the story would be buried. But there was always the possibility that the story could be made public if Boehner didn’t go along with certain pieces of legislation.
Now there’s new talk about Boehner dirt that might help explain why the Speaker supported so much Democrat crap.

“He drinks a bit. That is well-chronicled.

“The tabloids have splashed headlines about torrid affairs, including one with a lobbyist.
“And, of course, he cries in public.
“But is there more to the personal story of House Speaker John Boehner that would explain his funding of Obamacare and the president’s executive action providing amnesty for millions of illegal aliens in his budget accommodation with Democrats?
“Enter the ubiquitous Matt Drudge who tweeted Friday: “Obama got EVERYTHING. NSA dirt on Boehner must be incredible. Chicago wins.”

Screen Shot 2014-12-22 at 11.10.51 AM

“Matt Drudge is not some blogger. He’s the man who told the world about the ‘blue dress’ that ultimately got Bill Clinton impeached.
“Earlier this year, Boehner hinted about retirement, saying: ‘Listen, I can’t predict what’s going to happen. I’m going to be 65 years old in November. I never thought I’d live to be 60 so I’m living on borrowed time.’”
It’s too bad the Republican voters in Ohio didn’t forcefully retire him this year.
These days I wouldn’t dismiss a story like this. Corrupt politics is followed by denigrating morals. One leads to the other.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/19156/blackmail-reports-john-boehner-true/#Kp8DPrhwsDT0SY1b.99

OBAMA’S NUCLEAR HYPOCRISY: HE PROMISED A WORLD WITHOUT NUKES, WHAT HAPPENED?

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 11.28.14 AM

Libs fooled again

Screen Shot 2014-12-16 at 11.31.17 AM

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

Mark these days. A long-dreaded transformation from hope to doom is taking place as the United States of America ushers the world onto the no-turning-back road of nuclear perdition. Once, we could believe there was another way to go. Indeed, we were invited to take that path by the man who is, even today, overseeing the blocking of it, probably forever.

It was one of the most stirring speeches an American president had ever given. The place was Prague; the year was 2009; the president was the recently sworn in Barack Obama. The promise made that day is worth recalling at length, especially since, by now, it is largely forgotten:

“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act… So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now, we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, ‘Yes, we can…'”

President Obama had been in office only three months when, boldly claiming his place on the world stage, he unequivocally committed himself and his country to a nuclear abolition movement that, until then, had at best existed somewhere on the distant fringes of power politics. “I know,” he added,

“that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible… and there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it’s worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake. We know where that road leads.”

The simple existence of nuclear weapons, an American president declared, paved the road to perdition for humanity.

Obama as The Captain Ahab of Nuclear Weapons

At that moment, the foundations for an imagined abolitionist world were modest indeed, but not nonexistent. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had, for instance, struck a bargain between nuclear haves and have-nots, under which a path to abolition was treated as real. The deal seemed clear enough: the have-nots would promise to forego obtaining nukes and, in return, the world’s reigning nuclear powers would pledge to take, in the words of the treaty, “effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

For decades before the Obama moment, however, the superpower arsenals of nuclear warheads continued to grow like so many mushrooms, while new nuclear states—Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea—built their own impressive arsenals. In those years, with the singular exception of South Africa, nuclear-weapons states simply ignored their half of the NPT bargain and the crucial clause mandating progress toward eventual disarmament was all but forgotten.

When the Cold War ended in 1991 with the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and the next year Americans elected as president Bill Clinton, who was famously against the Vietnam War, it was at least possible to imagine that nukes might go the way of internationally banned chemical weapons. But Washington chose otherwise. Despite a paucity of enemies anywhere on Earth, the Pentagon’s 1994 Nuclear Posture Review insisted on maintaining the American nuclear arsenal at Cold War levels as a “hedge,” an insurance policy, against an imagined return of Communism, fascism, or something terrible in Russia anyway—and Clinton accepted the Pentagon’s position.

Soon enough, however, even prominent hawks of the Cold War era began to worry that such a nuclear insurance policy could itself ignite a global fire. In 1999, a chief architect of the nuclear mindset, Paul Nitze, stepped away from a lifetime obsession with building up nuclear power to denounce nukes as “a threat mostly to ourselves” and to explicitly call for unilateral disarmament. Other former apostles of nuclear realpolitik also came to embrace the goal of abolition. In 2008, four high priests of the cult of nuclear normalcy—former Senator Sam Nunn, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, and former Secretaries of State George Schultz and Henry Kissinger—jointly issued a sacrilegious renunciation of their nuclear faith on the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. “We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons,” they wrote, “and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal.”

Unfortunately, such figures had come to Jesus only after leaving office, when they were exempt from the responsibility of matching their high-flown rhetoric with the gritty work of making it real.

Obama in Prague was another matter. He was at the start of what would become an eight-year presidency and his rejection of nuclear fatalism rang across the world. Only months later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in large part because of this stunning commitment. A core hope of the post-World-War-II peace movement, always marginal, had at last been embraced in the seat of power. A year later, at Obama’s direction, the Pentagon, in its 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, actually advanced the president’s purpose, committing itself to “a multilateral effort to limit, reduce, and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide.”

“The United States,” that document promised, “will not develop new nuclear warheads.” When it came to the future of the nuclear arsenal, a program of responsible maintenance was foreseen, but no new ground was to be broken. “Life Extension Programs,” the Pentagon promised, “will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide new military capabilities.”

Obama’s timing in 2009 was critical. The weapons and delivery systems of the nuclear arsenal were aging fast. Many of the country’s missiles, warheads, strategic bombers, and nuclear-powered submarines dated back to the early Cold War era and were effectively approaching their radioactive sell-by dates. In other words, massive reductions in the arsenal had to begin before pressures to launch a program for the wholesale replacement of those weapons systems grew too strong to resist. Such a program, in turn, would necessarily mean combining the latest technological innovations with ever greater lethality in a way guaranteed to reinvigorate the entire enterprise across the world—the polar opposite of “effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.”

Obama, in other words, was presiding over a golden moment, but an apocalyptic deadline was bearing down. And sure enough, that deadline came crashing through when three things happened: Vladimir Putin resurfaced as an incipient fascist intent on returning Russia to great power status; extremist Republicans took Congress hostage; and Barack Obama found himself lashed, like Herman Melville’s Captain Ahab, to “the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them, till they are left living on half a heart and half a lung.” Insiders often compare the Pentagon to Moby Dick, the Great White Whale, and Obama learned why. The peaceful intentions with which he began his presidency were slapped away by the flukes of the monster, like so many novice oarsmen in a whaling skiff.

Hence Obama’s course reversals in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria; hence the White House stumbles, including an unseemly succession of secretaries of defense, the fourth of whom, Ashton Carter, can reliably be counted on to advance the renewal of the nuclear force. The Pentagon’s “intangible malignity,” in Melville’s phrase, was steadily quickened by both Putin and the Republicans, but Obama’s half-devoured heart shows in nothing so much as his remarkably full-bore retreat, in both rhetoric and policy, from the goal of nuclear abolition.

A recent piece by New York Times science correspondent William J. Broad made the president’s nuclear failure dramatic. Cuts to the US nuclear stockpile initiated by George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, he pointed out, totaled 14,801 weapons; Obama’s reductions so far: 507 weapons. In 2010, a new START treaty between Moscow and Washington capped future deployed nukes at 1,500. As of this October, the US still deploys 1,642 of them and Russia 1,643; neither nation, that is, has achieved START levels, which only count deployed weapons. (Including stored but readily re-armed and targeted nukes, the US arsenal today totals about 4,800 weapons.)

In order to get the votes of Senate Republicans to ratify the START treaty, Obama made what turned out to be a devil’s bargain. He agreed to lay the groundwork for a vast “modernization” of the US nuclear arsenal, which, in the name of updating an aged system, is already morphing into a full-blown reinvention of the arms cache at an estimated future cost of more than a trillion dollars. In the process, the Navy wants, and may get, 12 new strategic submarines; the Air Force wants, and may get, a new long-range strike bomber force. Bombers and submarines would, of course, both be outfitted with next-generation missiles, and we’d be off to the races. The arms races.

All of this unfolds as Vladimir Putin warms the hearts of nuclear enthusiasts everywhere not only by his aggressions in Ukraine, but also by undercutting the landmark 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by testing a new ground-launched cruise missile. Indeed, just this fall, Russia successfully launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile. It seems that Moscow, too, can modernize.

On a Twenty-First Century Road to Perdition

Responding to the early Obama vision of “effective measures” toward nuclear disarmament, and following up on that 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, senior Pentagon officials pursued serious discussions about practical measures to reduce the nuclear arsenal. Leading experts advocated a shift away from the Cold War’s orgasmic strike targeting doctrine that still necessitates an arsenal of weapons counted in the thousands.

In fact, in response to budget constraints, legal obligations under a jeopardized non-proliferation treaty, and the most urgent moral mandate facing the country, America’s nuclear strategy could shift without wrenching difficulty, at the very least, to one of “minimal deterrence.” Hardcore national security mavens tell us this. Such a shift would involve a reduction in both the deployed and stored nuclear arsenal to something like 500 warheads. Even if that goal were pursued unilaterally, it would leave more than enough weaponry to deter any conceivable state-based nuclear threat, including Russia’s, no matter what Putin may do.

Five hundred is, of course, a long way from zero and so from the president’s 2009 goal of abolition, and yet opposition even to that level would be fierce in Washington. Though disarming and disposing of thousands of nukes would cost far less than replacement, it would still be expensive, and you can count on one thing: Pentagon nuclearists would find firm allies among congressional Republicans, who would be loathe to fund such a retreat from virtue’s Armageddon. Meanwhile, confronting such cuts, the defense industry’s samurai lobbyists would unsheathe their swords.

But if a passionate Obama could make a compelling case for a nuclear-free world from Prague in 2009, why not go directly to the American people and make the case today? There is, of course, no sign that the president intends to do such a thing any longer, but if a commander-in-chief were to order nuclear reductions into the hundreds, the result might actually be a transformation of the American political conscience. In the process, the global dream of a nuclear-free world could be resuscitated and the commitment of non-nuclear states (including Iran) to refrain from nuclear-weapons development could be rescued. Most crucially, there would no longer be any rationale for the large-scale reinvention of the American nuclear arsenal, a deadly project this nation is even now preparing to launch. At the very least, a vocal rededication to an ultimate disarmament, to the actual abolition of nuclear weapons, would keep that road open for a future president to re-embark upon.

Alas, Pentagon advocates of “minimal deterrence” have already been overridden. The president’s once fiercely held conviction is now a mere shadow of itself. As happened with Ahab’s wrecked whaling ship, tumultuous seas are closing over the hope that once seized the world’s attention. Take it for granted that, in retirement and out of power, ex-president Obama will rediscover his one-time commitment to a world freed from the nuclear nightmare. He will feel the special responsibility proper to a citizen of “the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon.” The then-former president’s speeches on the subject will be riveting and his philanthropy will be sharply targeted. All for naught.

Because of decisions likely to be taken this year and next, no American president will ever again be able to embrace this purpose as Obama once did. Nuclear weapons will instead become a normalized and permanent part of the twenty-first century American arsenal, and therefore of the arsenals of many other nations; nuclear weapons, that is, will have become an essential element of the human future—as long as that future lasts.

So yes, mark these days down. Nuclear abolition itself is being abolished. Meanwhile, let us acknowledge, as that hopeful young president once asked us to, that we know where this road leads.