Bowsite.com

With Tuesday's election putting a major slap down on the Dems, here's a good read:

"Why Hillary won't run

By Tim Jones

Hillary will not run for president in 2016 for a variety of reasons. The midterm massacre sends a strong signal that the electorate is fed up with liberal policies and politics, and Hillary would essentially be the third term of Obama.

The majority of people are against mass legalization of illegal aliens and Obamacare. She is going to essentially have to run on Obama's record, and if not, repudiate his presidency and try to explain what exactly she did for four years as his secretary of state, not to mention fend off questions anew on Benghazi, which will most assuredly come up in any presidential debates.

She will have to defend Obamacare, which is getting more unpopular by the day as people continue to lose their existing policies and their longtime doctors, and especially as they endure skyrocketing premiums. There will be major sticker shock in 2015 when another round of expected increases in Obamacare premiums comes to pass.

She will have to defend Obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive order on amnesty for millions of illegals, which, if it takes place as expected, will rip apart the country as much as the Iraqi War did for Bush 2, with Obama leaving office an extremely polarized electorate and very low approval ratings, all of which won't be a very pleasant departure gift to Hillary.

I believe that Hillary is going to say it's just not worth it. She's making millions of dollars now giving speeches, living a comfortable life where she calls the shots, as opposed to enduring the demands of campaign trail, and then possibly the White House dictating her every move. Who needs it? Life is good as it is now.

She won't run."

No one?

Warren is lefty enough and criminal enough to be the new Darling of Dems. She's also a socialist, which will come in handy.

I also have been wondering who it will be instead of her. I think that the nominee will be someone whose name has never been associated with the obama administration. It will be a "fresh new face." It will be someone "young", apparently more conservative than obama and very attractively packaged by the press.

Warner, Cuomo, Webb (party insiders), McRaven (with his military credentials), one of several dem governors who have been away from DC over the past 6 years (many from nearly red states)?

What has happened is that the clinton machine and money have kept everyone serious out of consideration up until now, so whoever it is will be perceived as a "new" face.

The other option is that the even more leftist members of the party will run the process and nominate someone from that wing of (a gender-challenged minority leftist illegal alien (Again? It worked the last two elections.)) because this is a throw away election for the dems.

Owl,

You forgot the "again" at the end of your question. :^)

Elizabeth Warren is a bona-fide kook (remember the whole Indian heritage thing when she was running for the Senate?), plus no one nationally knows who she is, outside of politicos like us on this forum.

Even less people know who Jim Webb is than Elizabeth Warren. He also had some pretty embarrassing issues that came up during his Senate campaign with regards to some books he wrote. He still won on a state level in a state that was already in the process of turning "purple", but would he be able to have the same success on a national level? I doubt it.

The Dems may nominate Elizabeth Warren, and if they do, I'll be jumping for joy. We won't have any problem beating a northeastern Liberal Democrat Kook like her.

Only Warren is way left of McGovern.

Go Dems, Go!

michael

I hope that either Scott Walker or Ted Cruse gets the nomination on the Right.

If Hillary does not run, who beside Fauxahontas do them Dems have left?

If they both run, Warren will do tremendous damage to the former First B!tch. Warren is the darling of the far left progressives who hate Hillary for not being far enough left.

Hillary would likely win that battle, but she would emerge badly damaged.

Which goes to show us how awful she is as a candidate that she could lose to someone with not one single accomplishment to his name in his entire life, unless you count voting 'present' as an accomplishment.

Sexism, Straight-Up: Hillary Clinton Donor Under Investigation in Counterintelligence Probe

By "counterintelligence," I think they mean espionage against the US.

Maybe on behalf of Pakistan.

A former high-ranking diplomat and Clinton ally at the center of an FBI counterintelligence probe was a registered foreign agent for the Pakistani government up until just days before she was appointed to run the U.S. State Department's Pakistan aid team.

The Washington Post reported last week that the State Department's aid coordinator for Pakistan, Robin Raphel, is the subject of a counterintelligence investigation and has had her security clearance revoked.

The FBI has not specified the nature of the probe, although the Post indicated that it could be espionage-related. She was reportedly placed on administrative leave last month, and the State Department said she is no longer employed by the agency.

Raphel previously served as an assistant secretary of state under President Bill Clinton and rejoined the State Department in August 2009 to focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan aid issues. She is also close to Hillary Clinton and contributed $2,000 to her presidential campaign in 2007.

From 2007 until 2009, Raphel worked for the lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates, where her clients included the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.

Raid: Her neighbors are wondering why the FBI is searching her home.

Incidentally, she has been known as being very anti-Indian, and very pro-Pakistan and even very pro-Taliban over her career.

Apparently this is, get this, being embargoed from the American Media, but she has earned the nickname "Lady Taliban."

His "accomplishment" in the eyes of Liberal voters is that he was half-black, and, unlike Jesse Jackson, "clean" and "articulate", or so Joe Biden said:)

Well, when one looks at the Democrat leadership, we see:

You Won’t Believe How Old the Democratic Party’s Leaders Really Are

The average age of the Democrat leadership come 2016 is: 74.1 years. And the best they have on the bench is Fauxahontis.

Now, when it comes to the Republican leadership...which party is in trouble? LOL at FEPOs.

Just what the American voters are pining for. Two ancient white liberals with absolutely NO accomplishments to show for all those years.

""Senate Democrats want to enlist a progressive firebrand as a member of their leadership: Elizabeth Warren.

The incoming Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, is engaged in private talks with the Massachusetts freshman to create a special leadership post for the former Harvard professor, according to several people familiar with the matter. It’s unclear exactly what the new job would entail — but luring the populist liberal into leadership could inject fresh blood into a team reeling from significant midterm election losses.""

The way the Dems have painted themselves into the Clinton corner it would seem the Dems are even more so. There has been little to no movement or serious talk of mutiny.

All she is now is a name. But IMO by election time she will look like a truck ran over her, a truck filled to overload with her baggage.

Lots of time yet I guess. They could come to their senses, Shillery could bow out claiming "health issues" like falling and hitting her head, airsick from evasive maneuvers in her plane, medical files lost.... basic Shillery BS. Like HA said so well...."at this point what does it matter..."

I don't consider Warren any kind of serious contender. In many ways she is the Ron Paul of the liberal left. She has a rabidly loyal but small faction of support.

Does anybody really think Hillary had a good election night?

By Ross Kaminsky – 11.12.14

Andrew Romano, a California-based writer for Yahoo News, spilled a lot of ink in recent weeks explaining why Latinos were not ditching the Democrats in this election (they moved toward the GOP by six percent overall, and more in some tight key races), why Mark Udall might “still have a shot in Colorado” (he didn’t), and why Republican governors were “flailing” in their quests for re-election (four of the five he named won, and the one who lost, the extremely unpopular Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, had long been a fifteen to twenty point underdog).

So he’s not exactly a credible pundit when he pens his newest morsel of Democratic hope-over-reality naïveté: that the big winner of the 2014 midterms was Hillary Clinton.

Romano’s wishful thinking is being echoed by many on the hard and soft left, including Forbes contributor Rick “I write from the left” Ungar, Cosmopolitan’s senior political writer Jill “Feministe” Filipovic (I didn’t’ know Cosmo even had such a position, though I suppose a magazine so focused on positions would have one of each…), Reuters political reporter Gabriel Debenedetti, AMERICAblog’s Progressive editor-in-chief John Aravosis, and editor of the National Interest, Jacob Heilbrunn.

The standard version of the “Hillary won the midterms” myth goes something like this:

1. The midterms’ massive repudiation of President Obama and what Charles Krauthammer calls “Obamaism” means that pressure from Hillary’s left including fear of a presidential run by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has all but vanished, allowing Hillary to campaign in the center rather than continuing on her “businesses don’t create jobs” idiocy. (Ungar)

2. The 2014 results were “more of a referendum on questions about Obama’s leadership rather than a sweeping rejection of Democratic policies” (Debenedetti), allowing Clinton not only to run against Republicans but also giving her more political leeway to contrast herself with President Obama.

3. Republicans will govern like right-wing nuts, including “two long years of attacks on women’s rights” (Filipovic), engaging in “shenanigans” led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) such as voting to repeal Obamacare — “just imagine the crazy things Ted Cruz and the Tea Partyers are going to come up with” (Aravosis) — while “pushing for a renewed military surge in the Middle East” (Heilbrunn), thereby allowing Hillary to campaign against an “impetuous” Republican Party that will be just as unpopular as the GOP was in 2008.

Republicans aren’t buying it. Some likely GOP presidential contenders, assuming that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in 2016, came out of the election swinging at Hillary.

Most notably, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul led with a Twitter campaign based on the hashtag #HillarysLosers showing pictures of Clinton with the many candidates whom she supported who were trounced last Tuesday. Paul went for the jugular, posting not only that Hillary was the night’s big loser but also taunting her: “You didn’t think it could get worse than your book tour? It did.”

That post came complete with a picture of Clinton with Kentucky’s loser, Alison Lundergan Grimes, whose 15.5 percent drubbing at the hands of future Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was twice as bad as polls predicted.

Other #HillarysLosers as posted on Facebook — Sen. Paul blanketed social media — included incumbents Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Udall (CO), and Mark Pryor of Clinton’s “home state” of Arkansas. More than half of the candidates endorsed by Hillary lost, including seven of eight women candidates and many of the highest profile Democrats across the country.

In a Sunday interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Wisconsin Governor and likely Republican presidential aspirant Scott Walker — himself probably the biggest winner of the midterms — said that “Hillary Clinton is all about Washington” and “in many ways, she was the big loser on Tuesday because she embodies everything that’s wrong with Washington.” (Among other things, Walker was making the case that a governor would be a better candidate than a member of Congress.)

One of the few mainstream political outlets that accurately portrayed the midterms’ impact on Hillary was the National Journal. As reporter Tim Alberta put it:

President Obama took a beating Tuesday night, and therefore, so did Clinton. The midterm results represented a blistering rebuke of Obama, and it’s fantasy to think his former secretary of State and Democratic heir apparent doesn’t feel the second-hand sting. Clinton remains the highest-profile appointment of the Obama administration. She played a major role in crafting and executing the president’s foreign policy. And her likely presidential campaign, fairly or unfairly, is already viewed as an attempt to secure “Obama’s third term.” That’s dangerous territory for Clinton…

Paul and Walker’s criticisms, along with Mr. Alberta’s analysis, are valid but do not directly address the current Democratic talking points about Hillary and her midterm “victory.” Those talking points deserve direct contradiction.

1. Liberal claim: By neutering the Progressive wing of the party, the election will allow Hillary to stop selling out to the left.

Reality: Even in comparison to Barack Obama, nobody will buy a rebranding of Hillary as a centrist. She was for Obamacare, then known as Hillarycare, fifteen years before this president shoved it down the throat of an unwilling nation which is still choking on it.

One of the lessons learned by Democrats in 2014 is that their base is disheartened — a mirror image of the lesson learned painfully by Republicans in 2012. In order to raise money, staff phone banks, and get people knocking on doors, Hillary will have to motivate the Progressive base of the party — which she can only do by continuing to appeal to their leftist instincts. Trying to be a bland centrist, much less a near-Republican won’t work for Hillary any more than it worked for Bob Dole or John “maverick” McCain or even Mitt Romney (though Romney had moved aggressively to the right during the primary season).

2. Liberal claim: The election was about President Obama’s leadership rather than Democratic policy preferences, allowing Hillary to campaign somewhat against Obama and portray herself as not seeking “the third Obama term.”

Reality: Of the three claims, this one has the most merit — or at least the first half of it does. The election was as much about Barack Obama’s utter inability to lead and his “my way or the highway” approach to dealing with Republicans (and occasionally even with Democrats) than it was about specific policies despite persistent public opposition to Obamacare. Unfortunately, most independent voters (much less Democrats) are not well-enough informed to have turned against Progressivism more broadly even as they turned against its current leading representative, not realizing that he is that movement’s apotheosis.

So Hillary can attempt to stay close to Progressive policy goals while suggesting that President Obama’s methods were misguided, roughly the same criticism she (not coincidentally) offered of Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky when she penned her 1969 Wellesley College senior thesis on the man. (Two years later she wrote Alinsky a letter asking when Rules for Radicals would be released, calling the book “the fulfillment of Revelation.” Sounds like a good place to start for another Obama term.)

But again, will the public buy it? That depends primarily on whether Republicans can lash her to the mast of the sinking ship that is the Obama legacy just as they did to now-defeated Democrats across the nation last week. You can bet that a “third Obama term” will be a phrase you’ll be utterly sick of two years from today.

3. Liberal claim: Republicans, being led by the nose by Ted Cruz, will govern like out-of-touch extremists, particularly on social issues.

Reality: Can you name a 2014 Republican candidate for a major office who aggressively campaigned against the Supreme Court’s de facto permitting of gay marriage by refusing to hear cases on the subject (something which may soon change with the Sixth Circuit’s upholding of bans on same-sex marriage)?

Yes, Ted Cruz (who was not on a ballot this year) is an outspoken champion of traditional marriage. But in a CNBC interview on October 30, Cruz said, “I support the Constitution letting each state decide each marriage law consistent with the values of their citizens. If the citizens of California decide they want to allow gay marriage, that’s a decision for them.” That led to former Rep. Barney Frank praising Cruz’s “evolution” on the issue as very “significant politically.”

And when host Joe Kernen asked Cruz if Republicans would continue to focus on social issues, Cruz immediately pivoted to taxes, economics and the constitution. Ted Cruz may be aggressive, he may be self-serving and ambitious (as all politicians are), and he may occasionally be wrong. But he’s not an idiot and will not try, much less succeed, in dragging Republicans to political suicide in a country that is moving inexorably toward a more libertarian — or at least more federalist — approach to social issues.

Similarly, can you name a Republican candidate for major office (with the possible exception of some late conservative-baiting by Kansas Senator Pat Roberts) for whom opposition to abortion was a leading campaign plank?

In Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, and elsewhere, Republican Senate candidates minimized their support for “personhood amendments.” In Colorado, “personhood” (which defines an unborn child or fetus as a person for certain legal purposes) lost for the third straight time. Although the 2014 language was narrower than the prior two failures, the measure lost 65 percent to 35 percent even as Republican Cory Gardner was defeating incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Udall by 2.5 percent.

As the Cook Political Report noted, among 15 issue areas on which candidates spent money advertising, social issues were the fourth lowest. Fully 78 percent of spending in that category was by Democrats as they relied on the hackneyed “war on women” strategy which, mercifully, seems to have run its course following the jump-the-shark moment of a reporter calling out “Mark Uterus” for his focus on birth control in what George Will called Udall’s “relentlessly gynecological campaign.”

Just as Hillary must appeal to her liberal base, Republicans have the unenviable task of appealing to socially conservative activists while still trying to capture the votes of independents and moderates. Perhaps Ted Cruz’s appeal to federalism shows such a path.

In his post-election press conference, future Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) gave a welcome demonstration of the long-lost sound of adult supervision inside the beltway. McConnell may have the occasional tug-of-war with Tea Party-oriented Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee (UT), Rand Paul (KY), and perhaps the newly-elected Tom Cotton (AR) and Ben Sasse (NE). But he is a disciplined and experienced Washington hand who appreciates the institution he will soon lead. McConnell will ensure that Republicans — even if they do hold hearings exploring the worst failures and abuses of the Obama administration, which they should — are shown as rational leaders rather than as “right-wing whack-jobs” and the “Party of No.”

As we watch the implosion of the Obama presidency, many Democrats have (and many have long had) buyer’s remorse over not electing Hillary Clinton in 2008. With an electoral tidal wave sweeping Democrats out of power across the country last week, the left find themselves in need of happy thoughts.

This week, that happy thought is that “Hillary won the midterms,” her post-election vanishing act notwithstanding.

Although the electoral map will be daunting for Republicans in 2016, having to defend 24 of the 34 Senate seats up for election, the public mood will remain sour because President Obama’s narcissism prevents him from recognizing the degree to which the election was a referendum on him; his behavior, his petty tyranny, his abuse of executive branch authority, his single-minded political focus on hurting Republicans, will not change.

It will be challenging for Hillary Clinton to market herself as different enough from Barack Obama that the country would want to risk another four or eight years of political back-biting and dysfunction during a time of unmatched-in-recent-years peril to the civilized world. Indeed, the more that foreign policy remains in the headlines, the worse it is for Hillary “reset button” Clinton whose term as Secretary of State is notable only for how effectively she used it to stay away from her husband.

The next two years are a critical time for Republicans, who too often find ways to disappoint, to prove to the American public — once again willing to give them a try — that they deserve to hold the reins of power. Yes, even Republicans can learn, aided by sober-minded leadership but still guided by principle.

Their first step forward to victory in 2016 should be a strong performance in the 114th Congress. Then, despite the left’s current fantasy, the eventual Republican presidential nominee will be further boosted by the fact that the midterm elections harmed few people as much as they harmed Hillary Rodham Clinton."

"The rigors of a campaign and the bright lights of debate would cause her head to explode."

Man, what I wouldn't pay to see that!

Here is an interesting analogy (I copied this, hope it formats OK)

"In a news conference, Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers football team next season.

Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be the starting QB because she had spent 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers - even though she has actually never played football at any level from grade school up, never ran the offense of any team, nor ever played the game.

During this period of time, she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, the nickel package, man-to-man coverage, so she is now completely comfortable with all the other terminology involving the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows 50% of those polled supported the move.

Does this sound idiotic and unbelievable ... or familiar to you?

Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be the President of the United States and 50% of Democrats polled agree.

She has never run a city, county, or state during her "career" as being Bill Clinton's wife. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the White House, my immediate thought was, "So does the pastry chef."

When it comes to running the State Department, her biggest achievement was getting a US Ambassador and 3 other Americans killed, by pretending terrorism had been defeated."

Hillary in particular is whiny, not likable and grates on people. The more people see of her, the more irritating she becomes and the less they like her.

I suspect if asked, the majority of Americans would tell Hillary, "Just go away!"

Could you take a minute and explain the connection in mizz warren's mindset and our booming domestic production of anything?

Thaaaaankz

You mean the uncredited quote from Berkley Professor George Lakoff that Fauxahontas, Obama and Hillary routinely try to pass off as their own insight?

No wonder you lap it up Sparky; plagiarism seems to be your chosen vehicle of expression.

Elizabeth Warren would be a repeat performance of Michael Dukakis; a Northeast progressive who made the mistake of thinking the rest of America in any way resembles the liberal Northeast.

And Dukakis only had to run against a middling challenger too.

Pay forward

Sig Heil , Sig Heil

Energizing fer sher

What exactly is wrong with it?

Of course you'll defend it Sparky; it rewards failures and punishes successes; it is the antithesis of the American dream and the wet dream of the American liberal progressive.

Of course you'd like to think those who've succeeded didn't author their success; it salves the sting of the failure that is liberalism.

The link is a good start and addresses some of what should be painfully obvious fallacies behind Lakoff's reasoning.

I see the point of taking credit for other's thoughts and ideas sailed right past you; not surprising.

Do Corporations add to the tax base that pays for roads and bridges? Does that tax revenue pay for the building of schools, the hiring of administrators and teachers?

Yes and yes.

Does the police , medical services etc, take care of their businesses?

For the very slow-same as the above.

Are you disagreeing that we all enter into a social contract as Americans?

No, just that you haven't the vaguest understanding of what the intended meaning of the term is; not from Thomas Hobbes, John Locke or the Founding Fathers.

Someone once said that the main difference between Dems and Repubs is that Dems succeed and provide a ladder for the others. Repubs succeed and pull the ladders up with them.

History is replete with debunked sayings. Repetition does not equate to validity.

The main difference between Democrats and Republicans are Republicans believe that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalienable rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The degree to which those rights will be fulfilled is only limited by the desire to succeed of the individual and the extent to which they will accept the responsibility for the choices they make and recognize the consequences belong to them.

Democrats end after the first paragraph and then move to redistribute wealth from those who have risked and achieved and dole it out to those who may have tried and failed then stopped and waited for someone to "even things out."

It's amusing to hear this referred to as "a helping hand", "Christian charity" or any other sobriquet. Charity is the act of voluntary giving; your version is extortion by legislative fiat. A helping hand is a vehicle to self-fulfillment; it is not reaching into someone's wallet and stealing their hard-earned wages.

You are the very embodiment of that saying.

You'd like to think that; no you NEED to think that. Only by fostering that belief can you begin to justify the outright thievery you practice under the guise of aid to the needy. The same needy you and your ilk keep shackled in perpetual dependency.

You and your ilk are the vilest of hypocrites; wrap yourself in a false blanket of benevolence while sucking the lifeblood out of those who unknowingly line up at the trough you dollop out just enough to exist on, never enough to gain self-reliance out of.

You are the very embodiment of that saying.

"I got mine, everyone else, screw off"

Safe your false pontifications for the chorus over at HuffPo, DU or KOS Sparky. Aside from you that's the only audience that buys that swill.

You are nothing but the latest playing of the same broken record. Peddle your failure somewhere else and take your excuses bandwagon along for the ride.

nice teets big boy, BTW

"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

He's just wizzing all over himself because he can't fool people here.

Do welfare recipients and illegal aliens use tax paid roads, bridges? Did public schools train and educate their children?

Yes and Yes.

Does (Did you happen to mean to type Do and auto correct got it wrong again?) the police , medical services etc, take care of welfare recipients and illegal aliens? Yes of course

Someone once said that the main difference between Dems and Repubs is that Dems take from the productive and give it to the unproductive. Repubs succeed and pull everyone up with them.

Now who is the very embodiment of the saying.

"I got mine, everyone else, screw off"

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Tell ya' what Skippy....you run on that. Make it the Democrap platform. Shout it from the rooftops. Make no mistake a$$hat, the 2014 elections ARE a repudiation of that mindset and governance.

Go ahead, make that the campaign slogan. Your party and the party of leeches that haven't accomplished sh!t in their lives except to live off the fruits of others will be decimated. Metaphorically speaking...there will be blood in the streets.

welcome to the show bird

She would not just loose but loose badly. Historically badly.

Her ego will not allow her to sit on the sidelines when the nomination is hers to take.

Hell, she's still pissed she LOST the nomination in 2008 to the black Messiah.

You bet yer ass she'll run.

I'm thinking a 1954 Rambler Country Club - one that has had a dozen or so feral cats using the back seat as a litter box. :^)

Hoookaaay...

She'll wind up running on what she says she WANTS, or SAYS she'll do, not to mention her VAST experience with the military and the private sector.

Sounds like another unqualified, incompetent affirmative action pick we got stuck with.