Thread: The 65 people who might run for president in 2016

The 65 people who might run for president in 2016

video at link below

There are 65 prominent people who might run for president in 2016.
The Democratic and Republican fields contrast sharply. Hillary Clinton is the clear front-runner, while there is no front-runner on the Republican side.
Twenty-three Democrats have been mentioned as a candidate or are eyeing a bid, according to an analysis by The Hill. The GOP side has 42.
Most of the people on this list won’t run, and some have adamantly claimed that they’re not interested. But many politicians have changed their minds on seeking the White House. Before mounting his 2008 bid, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he wasn’t running.
The following is The Hill’s list of 65 people who might run for president in 2016.
Democrats
Vice President Biden — Will he or won’t he? Polls show he is trailing Hillary Clinton badly. Last month, President Obama said Biden would be a “superb” commander in chief.
California Gov. Jerry Brown
Brown has run for president three times. He says a fourth is “not in the cards.”
Montana Gov. Steve Bullock — Bullock is seen more as a vice presidential possibility.
Hillary Clinton — Will she run? Of course she will.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo — He would be a top contender if Clinton wasn’t running. But the ongoing corruption probe in New York looms over Cuomo’s head.
Howard Dean
The former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential candidate told CNN he hopes Clinton wins. But last year, he warned she wouldn’t get a pass in the Democratic primary.
Russ Feingold — The liberal darling mulled a 2008 bid before losing his reelection race in 2010.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) — Gillibrand has made it clear she backs Clinton. But if the former first lady doesn’t run, Gillibrand might.
Al Gore — Few think he will run, but political analyst Mark Halperin sparked new speculation on “Morning Joe” last month, when he said the former vice president might challenge Clinton.
New Hampshire Gov. Maggie Hassan — She might opt to run for the Senate in 2016.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper — A popular governor who has indicated he won’t run.
John Kerry
The secretary of State absolutely ruled out a 2016 campaign earlier this year. But then again, so did Barack Obama before he ran in 2008.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) — See Gillibrand. Klobuchar visited Iowa last year and will be back in the Hawkeye State this week to stump for Senate hopeful Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa).
Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) — There’s a Draft Joe Manchin effort out there, but the centrist is more likely to run for governor again should he leave the Senate.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley — Uphill climb for O’Malley. How tough? Three members of the Maryland delegation (Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Reps. Steny Hoyer and John Delaney) have already said they would back Clinton in the Democratic primary.
Janet Napolitano The Washington Post last year called the former governor and Cabinet official “a woman to watch in 2016.”
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon — The unrest in Ferguson is a huge test for Nixon, whose last name wouldn’t be an asset if he runs.
Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick — Will likely run for president at some point, but not in 2016.
Sen. Bernie Sanders — The liberal Sanders, who is technically an independent, has said he would challenge Clinton if no one else from the left launches a bid.
Brian Schweitzer — The former governor of Montana has had a rough summer.
Sen. Mark Warner (Va.) — Warner stunned political observers, when he didn’t run for president in 2008. He instead ran for the Senate and is up for reelection against Ed Gillespie this fall.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) — Unlike Clinton, Warren has been busy on the campaign trail for Senate candidates.
Jim Webb — The former senator is eyeing a long-shot bid.


Republicans
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) — Ayotte, who is up for reelection in 2016, is already being discussed as a vice presidential pick.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) — Tea Party favorite has said she might run again in 2016.
Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour — Barbour is well liked by the GOP establishment and was included in a Republican National Committee straw poll in January.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)

Blackburn denied a report she is mulling a bid.
John Bolton — The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is leaving the 2016 door open.
Scott Brown — Brown is the underdog in his race against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
Jeb Bush — Bush fatigue would be a significant obstacle for the former Florida governor.
Herman Cain — Jon Stewart prayed on the air that Cain would run again.
Ben Carson

Carson is a rising star in the GOP.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — Bridge-gate hasn’t deterred Christie, who sounds like he’s going to be a candidate.
Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) — Tea Party star must convince kingmakers that he can beat Clinton.
Mitch Daniels — The ex-governor of Indiana decided against running in 2012 because of family concerns.
Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin — The former House member is in the mix of speculation.
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam — He says he’s not interested in running.
Newt Gingrich — The 2012 presidential candidate and ex-Speaker might run again. Asked by Fox News’s Greta van Susteren about throwing his hat in the ring, Gingrich responded, “Ask me that in January of 2015.”
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — Haley is always mentioned as a possible candidate.
Mike Huckabee
Huckabee’s poll numbers are quite good.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — The former House member knows policy inside and out, but he would have to stand out amid the many personalities that will be on the 2016 stage.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich — Will Kasich and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman both run? Regardless, Ohio is a must win for the GOP in 2016.
Rep. Pete King (N.Y.) — A frequent critic of Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.).
Rep. Steve King (Iowa) — A kingmaker in Iowa and a hard-liner on immigration.
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez

The first female Hispanic governor is not expected to run for president. But she will be a leading vice presidential candidate.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) — She has a bright future, though a presidential run in 2016 probably isn’t in the cards.
Sarah Palin — The RNC put her in its straw poll, but most think the former Alaska governor will remain on the sidelines.
Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) — Paul, who is up for reelection in 2016, looks like a sure bet to run for president. Of all the possible 2016 GOP hopefuls, Paul has arguably had the best 2014.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence — Pence is a dark horse who shouldn’t be overlooked. The former House member was Tea Party before the Tea Party existed and is well respected by social and fiscal conservatives.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry

Comebacks are common in politics, but can Perry pull it off? He has two things going for him: The border crisis has put him front and center on the national stage, and the right has rallied behind him in the wake of his indictment in Texas.
Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) — Portman, who is up for reelection in 2016, is headed to New Hampshire next week.
Condoleezza Rice — The former secretary of State routinely comes up in this conversation, but the chances of a Rice bid are remote.
Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.) — The retiring House member and soon-to-be talk-radio host hasn’t ruled out a run.
Mitt Romney — The rumors of another Romney run continue to persist.
Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.)

Rubio will have to decide whether to run for president or reelection in 2016. As he said, “you can’t be on the ballot for two different offices” in Florida.
Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.) — He seems more intent on becoming Ways and Means Committee chairman than running for president.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval — It’s more likely that Sandoval would challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2016.
Rick Santorum

The former Pennsylvania senator is being overlooked in the 2016 race. He did, after all, win the Iowa caucus in 2012.
Joe Scarborough — The host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” is certainly eyeing a return to public office. Will it come sooner or later?
Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) — He probably won’t run but will be discussed as a possible No. 2 on the ticket.
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder — He faces a challenging reelection race in November.
Sen. John Thune (S.D.) — Thune nearly ran in 2012, and he has more than $9.5 million in his campaign war chest.
Donald Trump —Trump might run, but don’t bet on it.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker — Walker first has to win reelection this year.
Allen West — The former congressman from Florida is mulling a bid.
— Vivian Hughbanks and Tomas Navia contributed.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...#ixzz3AxICVEpe
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Aren't we all just thrilled!!!!

August 14, 2014, 06:00 am

Warren dances around 2016 states


video at link below

By Kevin Cirilli

Progressives are urging Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to stump in Iowa and New Hampshire for 2014 candidates, despite her reluctance to touch down in early primary states that would catapult her into the 2016 spotlight.
The liberal hero has increasingly become one of Democrats' top surrogates this cycle, all the while adamantly denying she has any presidential ambitions for two years from now.
Warren has taken her message to a dozen states the year, including Oregon, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio and West Virginia. But she's left off both the Hawkeye and Granite states despite the fact that both are top GOP targets Democrats are defending.
ADVERTISEMENT

Should Warren decide to hit the trail for Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) or incumbent Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), she'd certainly fuel speculation that she's looking to lay the groundwork and build support for a presidential campaign in the early caucus and primary states.So far, she has no plans to visit Iowa or New Hampshire, according to sources familiar with the matter.
While Warren’s hesitancy to travel there may hinge on reluctance to stoke the 2016 fire, for Senate candidates her absence in those early states isn’t because she’s not wanted.
One Democratic strategist told The Hill that insiders have been urging her in recent weeks to stump in Iowa and New Hampshire, despite the presidential attention that would come with it.
The freshman senator has consistently maintained that she is not running for president, despite liberals' increasingly urging her to challenge presumed-nominee Hillary Clinton.
But as the GOP's chances to take the Senate have increased, and the open seat race in Iowa especially has moved to a toss-up, liberals are growing more vocal for Warren to step in.
"Appearances be damned — she's got to go. She'd be an asset to them," griped Democratic strategist Nathan Ballard, a former spokesman for now-Secretary of State John Kerry's failed 2004 presidential run.
"She should go," added Neil Sroka, communications director for the liberal Democracy For America.
"We wouldn't be surprised” about a Warren visit, predicted Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC).
Taylor said that PCCC has raised more than $1 million this campaign cycle from people "who are part of the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party."
Though Warren hasn't appeared in Iowa or in New Hampshire, she has raised $298,000 for Shaheen and $41,000 for Braley. She hosted a Boston fundraiser in June for Shaheen and has also sent fundraising emails for both Braley and Shaheen.
There’s no apparent campaign visit scheduled for Iowa or New Hampshire, and representatives for both Shaheen and Braley declined to directly answer whether or not she's been invited.
"Senator Warren is a champion for the middle class and working families and we appreciate her support," said Harrell Kirstein, a spokesman for Shaheen's campaign.
Warren spokeswoman Lacey Rose declined to comment.
Ballard said that should Warren decide to visit either state, she'll need to have a plan ready to deal with the presidential buzz.
"She's got to have a message ready about how this is not a presidential run — or at least come clean about her presidential ambitions," he said.
Polls have Braley in a tight race in Iowa with Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst in the race to succeed retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D). Meanwhile, Shaheen has a comfortable lead against Warren's political nemesis: Scott Brown, who was a GOP senator from Massachusetts until Warren beat him in 2012.
"While I understand politically she might want to avoid the back-and-forth of the, 'Will she or won't she run for president?' there's no doubt in my mind that it'd be a boon to those candidates," Sroka said. "But yeah, it'd no doubt drum up 2016 buzz, too."



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...#ixzz3AxM956H7
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


August 18, 2014, 12:31 pm

Hillary Clinton headed to Iowa


By Alexandra Jaffe

Bill and Hillary Clinton are headed to the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa in September to headline retiring Sen. Tom Harkin’s (D) annual steak fry.

Hillary Clinton's attendance at the event, sources confirmed to The Hill, marks the beginning of her fall campaign activities as she contemplates a run for the White House in 2016.

Clinton is one of Democrats’ most in-demand campaign surrogates this cycle, with an unpopular President Obama persona non grata on the trail. With many in the party excited at the prospect of her potential presidential bid, her visits to the stump could pack a real punch.

The steak fry appearance also marks her first return to a state that was not kind during her last run for the presidency. Clinton posted a damaging third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses in 2008, a defeat she never recovered from as Obama began his march to the nomination.

Other potential 2016 Democratic hopefuls have already made appearances in Iowa, including Vice President Biden, who headlined the steak fry last year, and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who keynoted an Iowa Democratic dinner last month.

The fundraiser will benefit Democratic candidates across Iowa, including Rep. Bruce Braley (D), who is locked in a tough fight for Harkin’s seat.

Hillary Clinton is also expected to raise money for the major Democratic campaign committees, and is likely to hit the trail for a number of other Democratic candidates facing difficult races.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...#ixzz3AxMXK6oy
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Red State Democrat runs Pro-Obamacare Ad


By Onan Coca / 21 August 2014

Do you think Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) is scared?

What if I told you that he just started running an ad that trumpets his support of Obamacare?

Yep, now you KNOW he’s running scared.

Here’s his latest ad which expresses his support for Obamacare and why voters in Arkansas who hate the law should actually be happy he voted for it.



Mark Pryor is feeling the heat from his opponent Republican Tom Cotton, and he knows that the only way to win in November will be to use a bold approach.

Well, you can’t get much bolder than jumping on the bandwagon for a piece of legislation that the majority of America (and the vast majority of Arkansans) HATE.

I personally can’t wait until I can start calling Tom Cotton “Senator Cotton.”

By the way, if you haven’t gotten to know Tom Cotton yet… take a look at this.




Here’s hoping Rep. Cotton will be Senator Cotton soon.

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/8099/red-stat...6Sh4GIqv9F5.99



Politicians!!!!! Gee they always talk from both sides of their face don't they???

Rick Perry Fights a Political Indictment; Chris Christie Defends Bruce Springsteen

Posted on August 21, 2014




Perry certainly has his 2016 campaign on track.

Check it out:
Rick Perry went in and was fingerprinted and mug shotted yesterday on this silly indictment for executing a constitutional power the governor in Texas has, line-item veto. Tom DeLay was also indicted by the Travis County DA and has had some very interesting things to say about this, because of an old, old Texas controversy. DeLay eventually had the whole thing thrown out after nine years.

I don’t want to spend a lot of time rehashing this, but the Democrats were going after DeLay for the longest time because he was the Republican whip in the House. He was called the Hammer because he got the votes for Newt and the Republican leadership. He was able to keep that caucus unified and in line. He whipped the votes, and he did a great job of it. The Democrats hated him because he was effective. They hated him because he was an exterminator before getting into Congress. He was not a political professional. He got rid of bugs, like the Orkin man. And he was so fed up that he got into politics and rises to the third highest position in the Republican leadership.

Well, the Republicans, as they so often do, decided to show the Democrats and the country how high-minded they were and how above the fray they could be, and how evenhanded and how decent. Because, of course, the Republicans are always racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes and what have you. They’re mean-spirited extremists that do nothing but hate. And so the Republicans, always eager to show everybody that none of that is true, instituted a rule which said if any of the leadership were ever under indictment they would be forced to resign.

Continue Reading on www.rushlimbaugh.com ...

Rick Perry Fights a Political Indictment; Chris Christie Defends Bruce Springsteen

August 20, 2014
Windows Media


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's turn to Rick Perry. Rick Perry went in and was fingerprinted and mug shotted yesterday on this silly indictment for executing a constitutional power the governor in Texas has, line-item veto. Tom DeLay was also indicted by the Travis County DA and has had some very interesting things to say about this, because of an old, old Texas controversy. DeLay eventually had the whole thing thrown out after nine years.
I don't want to spend a lot of time rehashing this, but the Democrats were going after DeLay for the longest time because he was the Republican whip in the House. He was called the Hammer because he got the votes for Newt and the Republican leadership. He was able to keep that caucus unified and in line. He whipped the votes, and he did a great job of it. The Democrats hated him because he was effective. They hated him because he was an exterminator before getting into Congress. He was not a political professional. He got rid of bugs, like the Orkin man. And he was so fed up that he got into politics and rises to the third highest position in the Republican leadership.

Well, the Republicans, as they so often do, decided to show the Democrats and the country how high-minded they were and how above the fray they could be, and how evenhanded and how decent. Because, of course, the Republicans are always racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes and what have you. They're mean-spirited extremists that do nothing but hate. And so the Republicans, always eager to show everybody that none of that is true, instituted a rule which said if any of the leadership were ever under indictment they would be forced to resign.
The Democrats have no such rule. That kind of thing is a resume enhancement in the Democrat Party. But the Republicans were trying to illustrate how aboveboard they all are, and how decent and so forth. And the Democrats, "Is that all we gotta do? Just indict this guy for something and he's gotta go? We can't beat him at the ballot box, so the Republicans are gonna tell us how we can get rid of him?" Yep. And so they found, what was it, three, Ronnie Earle, they had to go through three grand juries before they would indict DeLay. I mean, it was so preposterous. But Ronnie Earle, the DA at the time, finally found enough grand jury members that would give him an indictment, and DeLay had to step down.
He was in the weeds on this for nine years, I think. Well, the same Travis County DA indicted Rick Perry for exercising the line-item veto. The veto denied funding to the Travis County office. Rick Perry had seen videotape of this female, Lehmberg is her name, the DA got caught driving drunk three times the legal limit and the videotape of her arraignment is one for the ages. I mean, the woman is just wild-eyed hammered and threatening. They had to put a spit rag on her. Have you ever heard -- Dawn, you probably know what a spit rag is, much time as you spend in jails. (laughing)
Anyway, a spit rag is a mask. It's kind of like a gag that is over the mouth and the nose because the suspect is so angry and out of control that they're spitting on everybody. So they put the spit rag on her. They put her in a wheelchair and strapped her into it, and she was still going bananas. And Rick Perry said (paraphrasing), "I think Texans deserve better. I'm not gonna fund this office with somebody like that running it. This is absurd." So this was pay back, the indictment of Rick Perry.
What I was gonna say is, because of an age-old Texas gripe, long ago, it's a long story, but long ago there was another governor that was legitimately behaving way, way outside the bounds, and it was decided that this particular DA's office could indict statewide officials, not just people inside the county, and that has been the case ever since. I mean, for decades. It's just a quirk of Texas jurisprudence.
So, anyway, they indict Perry for exercising this veto. He's responded to it extremely well, but he's always gonna have the word "indicted" now in every headline, and he's gonna have a mug shot in every story, although I don't think he will. I don't think he will. Because he's learned there are ways to do mug shots. The way to do a mug shot is to make it look like an official portrait. You go in there dressed well and you smile. You smile and you look happy, and the media will not use it, particularly if you look good.
Now, the female, the drunk-beyond-control DA of Travis County, her mug shot looks like you would think a mug shot of a perp looks. I mean, it's not flattering. But Perry's looks like GQ. So they won't use it. Very, very smart on Perry's part, to smile. It just looks like an official state portrait, his mug shot. So it won't be. But the word "indictment" will be in there.
So now the headlines are already out there. "Four of the top presidential hopefuls are now involved in legal scandals." Yes, NBC had the story yesterday. It's Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, and I forgot who the fourth is. But the Democrats got what they wanted. They got Rick Perry indicted. They get the word "indictment" in every story. So he shows up to be fingerprinted and to get his mug shot, and before he was booked he held a press conference and spoke about the charges. We have two sound bites. Here's the first.
PERRY: I'm here today because I did the right thing. (cheers and applause) I'm gonna enter this courthouse with my head held high knowing the actions that I took were not only lawful and legal, but right. (cheers and applause) And if I had to do so, I would veto funding for the Public Integrity Unit again.
RUSH: He wasn't finished.
PERRY: This indictment is nothing short of an attack on the constitutional powers of the office of governor. There are important fundamental issues at stake, and I will not allow this attack on our system of government to stand. (Cheers and applause) I'm gonna fight this injustice with every fiber of my being and we will prevail. (cheers and applause) And we'll prevail because we're standing for the rule of law. (cheers and applause)
RUSH: Now, for whatever it's worth, there are a lot of Democrats who are joining the chorus of people who think this was really, really, really botched. That the Texas Travis County DA just really overstepped. Not a lot, but there are a few, and they've shown up on Fox, and they have said so. Now, the indictment, Perry was technically indicted for exceeding his executive powers.
I find it fascinating that nobody in the Drive-Bys sees the irony. I mean, here you have Obama, who really has exceeded his executive powers countless times, waiving Obamacare all those times, adding things to it, executive orders. You talk about something who has exceeded his executive power, it's Barack Obama hands down and everybody knows it, everybody agrees. Just nobody wants to do anything about it. Perry went off, got ice cream after he was mug shotted and fingerprinted.
Here's Chris Christie, you gotta hear this. This was yesterday, Long Branch, New Jersey. Governor Christie held a town hall event. Now, this is part and parcel of what I am talking about. There was a woman in the audience at the town hall meeting holding up a sign that said, "Indict." This is what the Democrats want. They got the picture. Here's a town hall meeting and the cameras record some stupid idiot standing there with a sign that says, "Indict." Because like I said yesterday, the Democrat Party, Obama, is all about eliminating the opposition. That's what is going on, criminalizing the opposition.
So an unidentified woman, during the Q&A at the Chris Christie town hall... Get this question. She said, "I thought that Bruce Springsteen asked that none of his music be played at your events because he doesn't believe in your politics. Is that true? I thought Springsteen said that you couldn't play any of his music."
CHRISTIE: No.
WOMAN: I heard --
CHRISTIE: He never did that. No, you're wrong. In fact, I saw Bruce just a week and a half ago. If you're gonna be cute, we should get the story right. Listen, I know him and you're wrong, and I understand you're now expressing your politics.
WOMAN: My neighbor --
CHRISTIE: You're now expressing your politics and your objection, and that's fine.
WOMAN: No.
CHRISTIE: Don't put it in Mr. Springsteen's mouth. Put it in yours, 'cause I know Bruce, and I've spoken to Bruce, and you're wrong.
RUSH: Oooookay. So, back to Springsteen. This is how you hurt Christie. You know, Chris Christie loves this guy Springsteen. He just loves and idolizes him. I mean, the most exciting day in his life -- he said this -- is when Obama put Springsteen on the phone after hurricane whatever it was up there. Yeah. Hurricane Sandy.
You know, Obama and Christie were doing the moonwalk there on the beach, and they're getting together "for one and ever" and solve all the problems -- yip yip yip yip yahoo -- one week before the election, and Obama puts Springsteen on phone and Christie almost starts crying. He was (sobbing), "Oh, my God, Bruce Springsteen! Oh, jeez, my hero! Ohhh, I can't believe it! I can't believe it!"
And then Springsteen made a joke on a late-night comedy show making fun of Christie over Bridgegate and hurt Christie's feelings. (sobbing) "Oh, gee, I thought the guy liked me! I thought we were best buds now," blah, blah, blah, blah. So now they're going at Christie, holding up a sign that says, "indict."
And then hit him with, "By the way, I thought Bruce said he didn't like your politics and you can't play his songs." They've reduced Christie here to, "Oh, no, no! I know Bruce. I know Bruce likes me. I like Bruce. No, no, no! You're just wrong. You're just wrong. Bruce... Bruce... I just spoke to Bruce last week! Bruce and I are cool!"
END TRANSCRIPT



Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/08/...xA337fvIQLd.99



Dancing Chris Christie joins Jimmy Fallon




Impressed with this man yet??? Hmmm is this a bridge to far??

Nunn Says She’s Not a Sure Vote for Harry Reid

Michelle Nunn AP

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
August 22, 2014 10:55 am
Georgia Democratic Senate candidate Michelle Nunn on Thursday said she wasn’t sure she’d vote for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to keep his job should the Democrats maintain control of the Senate.
Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

But the juiciest bit of news may have come shortly after the Georgia Chamber event, when Nunn served notice to her fellow Democrats that she wasn’t a sure vote for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to keep his job — should her party keep control of that chamber in November.
Said Nunn:

“I look forward to changing the composition in the leadership of the Senate. The way that we’re going to change Washington is to bring more people to recognize – to have the humility to recognize – that there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle…
“I will vote for the Democratic leader that I think best represents our capacity to get things done and move things forward. …”

Nunn is trailing Republican nominee David Perdue by 6%, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/nunn-says-shes-not-a-sure-vote-for-harry-reid/

Nunn Says She’s Not a Sure Vote for Harry Reid

So just what is she saying, that she can be bought???? My opinion of course...

Biden Wishes More Republicans Were Like Sexually-Harassing Former Senator




BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
September 19, 2014 11:01 am

After an impressive trifecta of gaffes in the last week, Vice President Joe Biden remarked Friday that the kind of Republican he misses most is the former Oregon senator who was accused of sexual harassment and disgracefully ousted from the Senate.

“This is not your father’s Republican party,” Biden lamented. Back in the day, he recalled, Republicans worked with Democrats: “It was Republicans that were involved, guys like Mac Mathias and Packwood and so many others.”

Sen. Bob Packwood (R., Ore.) was accused of multiple incidents of sexual harassment, and a 1995 Senate committee found him guilty of a “pattern of abuse of his position of power and authority as a United States senator.” They unanimously recommended he be expelled from the Senate.

Biden reminisced wistfully over the woman-harassing senator at a DNC Women’s Leadership Forum.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post gave Biden the worst week in Washington.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/biden...ormer-senator/



But no mention of this from Biden:

Boom: Federal Investigators Find No Christie Link in 'Bridgegate' Probe


Guy Benson | Sep 19, 2014









When the team of investigators enlisted by Chris Christie's office to look into the 'Bridgegate' matter -- which was comprised of former federal prosecutors with reputations on the line, by the way -- cleared Christie of any knowledge of those fateful lane closures, critics scoffed. Of course his personally-sanctioned internal investigation produced favorable results. Acutely aware of that skepticism, Christie made the following prediction during a lengthy press conference at which he unveiled the inquiry's results: "I think the report will stand the test of time. But it will be tested by the other investigations that are ongoing.” He was right, of course. If independent investigators had unearthed evidence refuting his consistent story, his credibility would be shot. And the probe he'd authorized would look like a corrupt joke -- an elaborate, crass, and taxpayer-funded cover up. Well, that report has been tested by federal investigators for nine months, and now we have our first meaningful look into what they've found. Or, more accurately, haven't found:

The U.S. Justice Department investigation into New Jersey Gov.Chris Christie’s role in “Bridgegate” has thus far uncovered no information he either knew in advance or directed the closure of traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge, federal officials tell NBC 4 New York. The September 2013 closures -- where several entrance lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Ft. Lee were shut down causing a traffic nightmare for commuters -- has been the subject of several federal and state investigations. Federal officials caution that the investigation begun nine months ago is ongoing and that no final determination has been made, but say that after nine months authorities have uncovered no information Christie either knew in advance or ordered the closure of traffic lanes . According to one former federal prosecutor, who had no involvement in any of the probes into the bridge closure, investigations of this kind will often turn up a solid connection early in the inquiry.

And that hasn't happened. This isn't the final report, so it's probably premature to sound the "total exoneration, full stop" trumpet just yet, but this is big news nonetheless. To recap: The Christie-authorized investigation cleared him, the feds have found zero evidence connecting him to the decisions he's repeatedly repudiated, and the Trenton-based legislative probe has also struck out, by leading Democrats' own admission. Oh-for-three. Unless significant, heretofore unseen information comes to light (and no, deranged, discredited accusations don't count), this matter is resolved. Two high-ranking members of Christie's inner circle abused their authority and lied about it, which is a fair knock on Christie's judgment. But he dealt with the violators swiftly and decisively (and with contrition), and his unwavering insistence that he had absolutely nothing to do with their machinations appears to have been vindicated by the facts. But in the sphere of public opinion, real damage has been done. Christie's recovered from his mid-scandal polling free fall in New Jersey, but he's never come close to recapturing the remarkably broad-based support that fueled his overwhelming re-election victory. The media's incessant drum-beating on 'Bridgegate' has taken its toll; we'll see how much ink and airtime they devote to this new chapter. Either way, the federal whiff presents a peg for Christie to hang his hat on -- a clean, easy rebuttal to scandal-related criticism that may come his way should he decide to run for president in 2016.
Many conservatives harbor legitimate wariness when contemplating a potential Christie presidential candidacy; absent major countervailing evidence, 'Bridgegate' should be stricken from the sources of concern. In fact, aside from the judgment questions pertaining to the fired staffers, it might even deserve a place in the 'positives' column. Democrats threw everything they had at the guy to try to kill his political career in one fell swoop. Much of the mainstream media was happy to oblige in the endeavor. Though they've wounded Christie, they didn't finish him off. Their obvious fear of him, coupled with his skillful and articulate defense of himself throughout this ordeal, shouldn't be discounted. Conservatives should also be mindful that the Left is increasingly weaponizing the criminal justice system as a means of knee-capping people they view as threats. Over the last year alone, they've come after Christie in Jersey, Rick Perry in Texas and Scott Walker in Wisconsin (which might be the most insidious case of the three for a number of reasons). The Right can and should have robust debates about personalities and policies in advance of 2016, but it must stand arm-in-arm against unjustified character assassination in the form of partisan criminal investigations and bogus indictments. I'll leave you with a bit of snark at the anti-Christie media's expense:

John Sexton @verumserum Follow Bad timing: Salon piece today criticizes the "lapdog press" for not hitting Christie harder on Bridgegate: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/18/chris_christies_lapdog_press_how_the_new_york_time s_and_co_are_embarrassing_themselves/ …
3:35 PM - 18 Sep 2014



Guy Benson @guypbenson Follow I'm sure MSNBC will go wall to wall with the Christie exoneration tonight, yes?
3:18 PM - 18 Sep 2014



In fairness to MSNBC, it's not exactly a slow news week -- but if it were, would they devote endless hours of coverage to this narrative-disrupting revelation? Doubtful, and don't bother asking, either. Rachel Maddow "doesn't play requests."

UPDATE - Christie responds:



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...probe-n1893814


Boom boom boom, see I know No'ting

The Reality of Truth is Never Comfortable ~ Ingest This ~ (remix)




Published on Mar 20, 2014
IF this video upsets you ... perhaps you should take a hard look at who you are and why the world as we know it is dark and evil ~

IF on the other hand you AGREE.. PLEASE CHANGE THE TITLE and remix/mirror this so others might hear this important message ~ So it DOES NOT DISAPPEAR ~

Description;
mirrored
By Larken Rose; Message to the Voting Cattle
Please make copy change title so it wont disappear.

• Category
  
  
  • People & Blogs
  
  
• License
  
  
  • Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)
  
  
• Created using
  
  
  • YouTube Video Editor
  
  
• Source videos
  
  
  • View attributions
  
  

Ann Coulter Calls Libertarians "Idiots"

Posted 10 hours ago by Gary North

There's a great debate raging over so-called Republican spoilers. These are candidates who challenge Establishment Republicans. As we saw in Mississippi, the Establishment got behind a long-time Establishment Republican and sabotaged a Tea Party candidate who wanted to make fundamental changes in Washington.

This type of double-dealing is happening in many GOP races. Tea Party advocates and libertarians are fed up with Establishment promises that don't bring about any results.

John Boehner won his primary race. He feels safe. So what does he do? He's working with Nancy Pelosi who told Bill Maher the following:

"It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate."

Will the GOP ever learn? Dr. Gary North says "no." The following article is controversial. You may not agree with it, but it will get you to think. -- Gary DeMar

__________________________________________

The lady never learns. “I am a Republican stalwart!,” Ann Coulter says.

The biggest current danger for Republicans is that idiots will vote for Libertarian candidates in do-or-die Senate elections, including Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Colorado. (That’s in addition to the “Independent” in Kansas who’s a Democrat.) Democratic candidates don’t have to put up with this crap — they’re even trying to dump the official Democrat in Kansas to give the stealth Democrat a better shot.

When we’re all dying from lack of health care across the United States of Mexico, we’ll be deeply impressed with your integrity, libertarians.

Which brings me to my final assignment this week: If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.

What has the Republican Party done for liberty lately?

In foreign policy? (How about war?)
In federal spending? (Remember Bush II’s drug prescription law?)
Deficits? (Remember Reagan? Remember Bush II?)
Supreme Court? (Chief Justice “ObamaCare” Roberts?)
But we are supposed to vote for them, no matter what. We must sanction them. We must give them legitimacy.
And when they sell us out, we are supposed to stay quiet and re-elect them.
Fifty years ago, I learned this rule: “If a politician thinks you are in his hip pocket, you will get sat on.” This rule is never violated.
How does a small voting bloc keep from getting sat on? By voting for a third party in tight races. By inflicting pain on the sellouts.
Electoral politics is all about inflicting pain.

The voters in New Hampshire and Florida who voted for Ralph Nader as a Green Party candidate instead of voting for Al Gore defeated Gore. The Democrats had pretended the greens were in their hip pocket. Dumb move. Nader sent them a message. They learned it well. When was the last time since November 2000 that a Democrat opposed the greens’ agenda?

Go here to read the rest of the article.


Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/17139/a...gGrXKMa1FH7.99


Oh forgive me but between the "Democ-rats" and the "Repugnant Rino's" , we haven't much of a chance...So what do you suggest voting for "repugnants again"?? How about paying attention and voting for people who follow the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Freedom and Liberty, I would say that MS. Coulter is a novel idea!!!!!