the CEO of Comcast is a massive Obama donor, he has Obama to his house for fundraisers, and they own MSNBC
And Comcast is an evil, monopolistic company that controls politicians through its money. Sometimes the parts do not embody traits of the whole... And sometimes people play both sides to get his/her way.
Lighten up Francis, rebroadcasting fees and broadband turf wars aren't exactly the stuff of DeBeers or the Virginia Company.
<iframe src="http://new.livestream.com/accounts/4773527/events/3912819/videos/81443654/player?width=640&height=360&autoPlay=false&mute=false" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
The GOP racing form: First edition Washington Post By Charles Krauthammer With Ted Cruz announcing and Rand Paul and Marco Rubio soon to follow, it’s time to start handicapping the horses and making enemies. No point in wasting time on the Democratic field. There is none. The only thing that can stop Hillary Clinton is an act of God, and He seems otherwise occupied. As does Elizabeth Warren, the only Democrat who could conceivably defeat her. On to the GOP. First Tier 1. Marco Rubio. Trails badly in current polls, ranking seventh at 5 percent, but high upside potential. Assets: Foreign policy looms uncharacteristically large in this election cycle, and Rubio is the most knowledgeable and fluent current contender on everything from Russia to Cuba to the Middle East. The son of Cuban immigrants, he can break into flawless Spanish (so can Jeb Bush) and speak passionately about the American story in a party that lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points in 2012. Liabilities (in the primaries): His Gang of Eight immigration apostasy, though his current enforcement*first position has wide appeal. Second, after Barack Obama, will voters want another first-term senator with no executive experience? (Same for Cruz and Paul.) Major appeal: Fresh, young, dynamic persona is a powerful counterpoint to Clinton fatigue. Goes out at 3-1. 2. Jeb Bush. The consensus favorite (though I remain a bit skeptical). Solid, soft-spoken, serious, with executive experience and significant achievements as governor. What he lacks in passion, he makes up for in substance. And he has shown backbone in sticking to his semi-heretical positions on immigration and Common Core. Obvious liability: His name. True, it helps him raise tens of millions of dollars, but it saddles him with legacy and dynastic issues that negate the inherent GOP advantage of running a new vs. old, not again campaign against Hillary. Odds: 7-2. 3. Scott Walker. A fine record of conservative achievement. Has shown guts and leadership in taking on labor unions and winning three elections (five if you count proxy elections) against highly energized Democrats. Good, rousing speech in Iowa, but has stumbled since, flubbing routine questions on evolution and patriotism, then appearing to compare the Islamic State to Wisconsin demonstrators. Rookie mistakes, easily forgotten — if he learns from them. Pandered on ethanol and fired a staffer who complained about Iowa’s unwarranted influence. Sure, everyone panders to Iowa, but Walker’s calling card is standing up to pressure. Most encouraging sign: ability to maintain altitude after meteoric rise. Numbers remain steady. And his speeches continue to impress. Odds: 4-1. Second Tier 4. Chris Christie. Some politicians have their one moment. Christie might have missed his in 2012 when his fearless in-your-face persona was refreshingly new. Over time, however, in-your-face can wear badly. That plus Bridgegate cost him traction and dropped him out of the first tier. Biggest problem: being boxed out ideologically and financially by Jeb Bush for the relatively moderate governor with cross aisle appeal slot. Odds: 12-1. 5. Ted Cruz. Grand, florid campaign launch with matching rhetoric. Straight-forward base-oriented campaign. Has developed a solid following. Could break out, especially in debate. 15-1. 6. Mike Huckabee. Great name recognition, affable, popular. But highly identified with social/cultural issues — how far can that carry him beyond Iowa and evangelicals? 15-1. 7. Rand Paul. Events have conspired against him. Obama’s setbacks and humiliations abroad have created a national mood less conducive to Paul’s non-interventionism. His nearly 13 hour anti-drone filibuster would not fly today. Is trying to tack back, even signing the anti-Iran deal letter of the 47 senators. Strong youth appeal, though outreach to minorities less successful thus far. Bottom line: High floor of devoted libertarians; low ceiling in today’s climate. 30-1. Longer Shots 8. Carly Fiorina. Getting her footing. Given current societal taboos, she is best placed to attack Hillary and has done so effectively. Can she do a Huckabee 2008 and, through debates, vault to the first tier? Unlikely. But because she’s talented and disciplined, not impossible. 50-1. 9. Ben Carson. Polling high, but is a novice making cringe-worthy gaffes, for example, on the origins of Islam and on gay choice (“a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight, and when they come out, they’re gay”). And not knowing that the Baltic states are in NATO. Truly good man, brilliant doctor, great patriot. But not ready for the big leagues. Chance of winning? Zero. Others Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and John Kasich — still below radar. If they surface, they’ll be featured in the next racing form.
Rubio is going to announce on April 13th. Poor thing. Went from being the darling of the party to a middle of the pack also ran before he turned 45. Party loved the idea of a Hispanic flag bearer until he had the nerve to support an immigration bill that wasn't born out of hate for Hispanic people.
Item: Chucky Hate-Hammer bats his eyes lasciviously in GOP FRONTRUNNER* MARCO RUBIO's general direction. *currently polling 7th
"Ron Paul Is Expected to Play Little Role in Rand Paul’s Campaign" http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/u...-little-role-in-rand-pauls-campaign.html?_r=0"
Rand Paul is the absolute best candidate feom either side. Anyone concerned with his foreign policy is a) being foolish and b) has nothing to worry about because as soon as they get elected nothing changes
I decided to repost this in the Republican candidates thread. It should be in the Republican nuttery thread, but I will refrain. ******** Rand tries to promote a sort of hip young image. He isn't just another conservative big money Republican. You can support market fundamentalism and have peace, too. Just don't ask him if private business owners should be allowed to refuse to serve African Americans or gays. Op-Ed 'Stand with Rand' Paul? But where, exactly? Where does Rand Paul stand--what does he really believe--on foreign policy? It's nearly impossible to tell Rand Paul's numerous & sometimes bizarre contradictions on foreign policy call into question his true beliefs "Stand With Rand." That's Sen. Rand Paul's main slogan as he launches his campaign for the White House. He's holding a "Stand With Rand" rally in his home state of Kentucky on Tuesday and is holding another "Stand With Rand" rally in New Hampshire, the traditional first primary state, on Wednesday. It's an unfortunate choice of words, because it underscores the chief problem with his candidacy. For the life of me, I can't figure out what he really believes — where he really stands, especially when it comes to foreign policy. At a January forum with fellow Republican Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, Paul challenged his colleagues' hawkish showboating on Iran: "Are you ready to send ground troops into Iran? Are you ready to bomb them? Are you ready to send in 100,000 troops? I'm a big fan of … trying the diplomatic option as long as we can. If it fails, I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of negotiations, you're ruining it.'" Two months later, he was "ruining it" by putting his signature on an open letter to the Iranian leadership. Authored by arch-neoconservative Sen. Tom Cotton, the letter basically told Tehran that a Republican in the White House would nullify any deal negotiated by the Obama administration. His explanation for this complete reversal was baffling. He told Glenn Beck that it is "kind of crazy" for anyone to question his decision to sign: "Do I have any regrets about informing another country of how our Constitution works?" He told a different story at the SXSW Festival in Austin, Texas. Claiming to support the diplomatic talks, he said: "I want the president to negotiate from a position of strength, which means that he needs to be telling them in Iran, 'I've got Congress to deal with.'" How is it helpful to tell the Iranians that any agreement they sign may expire in two years? Cotton is nothing if not forthright: He has said he wants to "blow up" the negotiations, and certainly his letter aimed at doing just that. For Paul to join in this sabotage attempt was intellectually indefensible — and entirely in character. Rand Paul's record of policy contradictions is extensive. - As a U.S.-backed movement seized power in Kiev, Paul called for "respectful relations" with the Kremlin: "Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time, and I don't think that is a good idea." A few months later he was demanding that President Vladimir Putin be "punished," invoking "our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia's latest aggression." Putin, said Paul, was guilty of "violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation." Here's the thing: The Budapest Memorandum was never ratified by Congress. It was signed by President Clinton, who didn't bother to consult the Senate. It's kind of crazy, as Paul would say, that it's necessary to inform the senator how our Constitution works. Paul's record of contradictions is extensive. In 2011, freshly elected to the Senate, Paul proposed an alternative budget that zeroed out all foreign aid — including to Israel. The budget included a section explicitly eliminating aid to Israel on the grounds that it undermined "Israel's ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies." After the neoconservative wing of his party lashed out at him for being "anti-Israel," Paul started singing a different tune. His revised budget froze foreign aid at present levels. Yet even that modest attempt at fiscal discipline was thrown overboard when he voted to increase aid to Israel — and boasted about it in a statement issued by his office. The most bizarre part of the story is that the senator's office insists that Paul "has never proposed any legislation that targeted Israel's aid." It's one thing to change one's mind — it's quite another to deny that any change has taken place. Here's one last example. In June, Paul wrote an op-ed piece on the Islamic State crisis for the Wall Street Journal, asking: "What would airstrikes accomplish? We know that Iran is aiding the Iraqi government against ISIS. Do we want to, in effect, become Iran's air force? What's in this for Iran? Why should we choose a side, and if we do, who are we really helping?" Good questions, and yet it wasn't long before the senator was advocating airstrikes and calling for a formal declaration of war against Islamic State. I'm a libertarian and I was, as recently as a few months ago, enthusiastic about Paul. He started out as "a different kind of Republican" — a characterization his campaign never tires of invoking. But Paul's response to the barrage of attacks unleashed by GOP mandarins has been to deny this difference. This strategy threatens to nullify his attempt to broaden his appeal beyond conservative voters even as he alienates his libertarian base. Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com and a longtime libertarian activist. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...407-story.html
FiveThirtyEight: The Official 2016 GOP Field Gets Its First Real Contender: Marco Rubio http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-announcement-2016/
Washington Post: Mitt Romney warms to Marco Rubio as young senator cultivates relationship http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-warms-to-marco-rubio-as-young-senator-cultivates-relationship/2015/03/13/21a769b8-c98d-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html
I am predicting A Jeb- Rubio ticket. The Repubs will have to go after the Latino vote. They have reached their limit on white voters. Asians and African Americans -- are you kidding? The Latinos are the swing voters and that ticket is their best chance to get a higher percentage of them. However, Rubio and Jeb keep flipflopping on immigration to please their working class white followers so that could cause them problems. On the Dem side I am predicting a Hillary-Warren ticket. They had a secret meeting and that is my guess. Hillary to placate the big money Dems. Warren to excite the base. I also hope Bernie Sanders runs to get Hillary to do something besides triangulating and trying to be only a slightly less of a Wall Street and bomb Iran fan than Jeb.
Two guys from the same state on a national ticket? Won't happen. Ever. Two women on the same ticket (elected from the same region of the country)? Possible but very doubtful. Plus, Warren doesn't strike me as the VP type at all. Whether you like her or not, she won't be muzzled.
Hadn't thought of the Florida angle. There is the Hispanic women governor from New Mexico. I actually think Warren if pretty disciplined.
