People to watch who may shift the US 2016 campaign

[webfact]

People to watch who may shift the US 2016 campaign
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the year that will pass before the 2016 campaign for U.S. president formally kicks off with the primary process, any number of candidates, donors, political operatives — and people who have nothing to do with American politics — will shape the race for the White House. Here's a look at people who will be worth watching in the next year.

1. Elizabeth Warren, Potential Rival

The populist senator from Massachusetts is, at the dawn of 2015, the only person who appears able to mount a competitive challenge to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination. The architect of President Barack Obama's consumer financial protection agency, Warren would be able to quickly raise millions from an already enthusiastic following. She has repeatedly insisted she is "not running for president," but her consistent use of the present tense has left some liberals begging her to get into the race.

2. Ron Paul and Rafael Cruz, Proud Fathers

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, two Republican senators mulling White House bids, are no strangers to stirring up trouble Congress, but both are tame compared to their fathers. Rafael Cruz, a Dallas-area pastor, says God prefers conservative candidates and that Obama is a "Marxist" who should be sent "back to Kenya." Ron Paul, a physician and former congressman from Texas, opposed almost every facet of government as overreach during his time in office and two Quixotic campaigns for president, winning the nickname "Dr. No." Both fathers are sure to become focal points of scrutiny should their sons enter the race for president.

4. Raul Castro, Communist Dictator

Obama's recent decision to restore America's diplomatic relations with Cuba thrust the issue — and the island nation's communist leader, Raul Castro — into the 2016 contest. The move was vigorously condemned by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American eyeing a White House bid who slammed Obama for a deal that "conceded everything and gained little." Should Castro fail to take steps in the next year toward democracy and improving human rights, he would vindicate Rubio's criticisms and highlight his developing rift over foreign policy with Paul, one of the few Republicans to say Obama's move on Cuba was the right one.

5. Bill Clinton, Would Be First Gentleman

The former president is sure to emerge as the ultimate surrogate if his wife seeks the White House a second time. He was among the most popular campaigners for Democratic candidates during the 2014 elections, and his speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention helped sell Obama's economic agenda and first-term record. Yet Bill Clinton remains a wild card, offering both the potential to amplify Hillary Clinton's message and draw intense fire for any potential misstep.

3. Sheldon Adelson, Republican Megadonor

One of the Republican Party's most powerful donors, the casino magnate has the money to single-handedly bankroll a candidate's presidential prospects — which he did in 2012 for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Several White House prospects have already traveled to Las Vegas to court Adelson, the chairman and CEO of the Las Vegas Sands Corp. and one of the world's richest individuals. His advisors suggest Adelson is in no hurry to pick his 2016 favorite, but look for foreign policy — and Israel in particular — to weigh heavily on his ultimate decision. Adelson is a staunch supporter of the Jewish state.

6. Columba Bush, Would Be First Lady

Perhaps no one has more influence on former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's presidential aspirations than his wife of 40 years, Columba Bush. Long uncomfortable with media attention, a Bush presidential bid would thrust her into the national spotlight whether she likes it or not. It would also shine a light on their three children, one of whom has struggled with substance abuse. And as the debate over immigration rages inside the party, Columba Bush's background — she is a native of Mexico — could play prominently in the presidential campaign of her husband, the son and brother of former presidents.

7. Paul Fishman, Prosecutor

As U.S. attorney for New Jersey, Paul Fishman is leading the federal criminal investigation into a scheme to create traffic jams on a bridge that links New Jersey with Manhattan — a political scandal that still hangs over the political ambitions of Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican who is considering entering the presidential race. There is no evidence linking Christie directly to the effort to tie up traffic on the bridge, but even if he is formally cleared by Fishman, the federal prosecutor could announce a string of indictments against the governor's former staffers, aides and appointees just as he's announcing his candidacy for president.

8. John Podesta, Steady Influence

A senior adviser to President Barack Obama, Podesta is a trusted Democratic counselor and environmental policymaker who served as Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff. Podesta has said he doesn't intend to leave the White House until Obama's mid-January State of the Union address and could serve as Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman. If he joins the campaign, Podesta would provide stability to an organization that was plagued by infighting in 2007 and 2008 during Hillary Clinton's first unsuccessful run for president. Podesta could help Clinton navigate the party's liberal wing and the final term of Obama's administration.
____

Associated Press writers Steve Peoples and Ken Thomas in Washington, Jill Colvin in Newark, New Jersey, Will Weissert in Austin, Texas, Adam Beam in Frankfort, Kentucky, and Thomas Beaumont and Catherine Lucey in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-01

[Choctastic]

They missed Carlin from the list...

[spidermike007]

Yes, we could use a stand up comic as president. Chances are, he would be at least as knowledgable as Obama, anyway, on a variety of issues, and he would be far better at thinking on his feet, than the current occupant of the White House.

Actually, I would love to see a law passed whereby the presidential candidates were limited to a 90 day campaign, and a budget of 10 million dollars. The whole episode is such a waste of money, and two years is so over the top, as to be ridiculous. It is a caricature of a campaign. Hence the need for a comics participation.

[chuckd]

They overlooked Tom Steyer.

He and his PAC only donated $73,843,859 to the Democratic party and liberal causes in 2014.

PS: According to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) those devil worshiping Koch brothers gave $7,730,635 to Republicans and conservative causes.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

They overlooked Tom Steyer.

He and his PAC only donated $73,843,859 to the Democratic party and liberal causes in 2014.

PS: According to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) those devil worshiping Koch brothers gave $7,730,635 to Republicans and conservative causes.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

It wasn't limited to $7 million.

Charles and David Koch are worth $31 billion each. It is estimated by Mother Jones, a left-leaning American magazine featuring investigative and breaking news reporting, that the brothers in addition to direct contributions to the GOP also contributed through a number of cut-out political action committees and front groups a total $60 million of so-called "dark money" to unseat President Obama and many democratic congressmen in the 2012 elections. Despite their "investment" the Democrats swept national elections largely due to Obama's novel use of the internet to garner tens of millions of small contributions for the Democrats.

[chuckd]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

They overlooked Tom Steyer.

He and his PAC only donated $73,843,859 to the Democratic party and liberal causes in 2014.

PS: According to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) those devil worshiping Koch brothers gave $7,730,635 to Republicans and conservative causes.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

It wasn't limited to $7 million.

Charles and David Koch are worth $31 billion each. It is estimated by Mother Jones, a left-leaning American magazine featuring investigative and breaking news reporting, that the brothers in addition to direct contributions to the GOP also contributed through a number of cut-out political action committees and front groups a total $60 million of so-called "dark money" to unseat President Obama and many democratic congressmen in the 2012 elections. Despite their "investment" the Democrats swept national elections largely due to Obama's novel use of the internet to garner tens of millions of small contributions for the Democrats.

"It is estimated by Mother Jones,"

Link please?

My reference is from the 2014 campaign. You seem to be referencing the 2012 campaign.

[zydeco]

Rafael Cruz sounds even better than Ted. Too bad he can't run.

[Thaiready]

We already had a stand up comic spend 8 years in the White House....His name was George Bush!!

sure miss him too

[Thaiready]

Yes, we could use a stand up comic as president. Chances are, he would be at least as knowledgable as Obama, anyway, on a variety of issues, and he would be far better at thinking on his feet, than the current occupant of the White House.

Actually, I would love to see a law passed whereby the presidential candidates were limited to a 90 day campaign, and a budget of 10 million dollars. The whole episode is such a waste of money, and two years is so over the top, as to be ridiculous. It is a caricature of a campaign. Hence the need for a comics participation.

I agree with you......but you know you'll only upset the "Socialist Liberals" with your comment.

[uptheos]

Obama's adviser Al Sharpton must be in with a shout.

[spidermike007]

Yes, we could use a stand up comic as president. Chances are, he would be at least as knowledgable as Obama, anyway, on a variety of issues, and he would be far better at thinking on his feet, than the current occupant of the White House.

Actually, I would love to see a law passed whereby the presidential candidates were limited to a 90 day campaign, and a budget of 10 million dollars. The whole episode is such a waste of money, and two years is so over the top, as to be ridiculous. It is a caricature of a campaign. Hence the need for a comics participation.

I agree with you......but you know you'll only upset the "Socialist Liberals" with your comment.

I used to be a liberal. I love offending thin skinned people, and being as politically incorrect as possible. It is great fun watching my liberal friends squirm. And I have many of them. I agree with some of their issues. Too bad there is no party to represent them. Personally, I consider Obama to be more conservative than george jr.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[lil fluffy clouds]

Great, choose your next puppet, as if it makes a difference...

[Publicus]

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

[HeijoshinCool]

Nothing and no one will "shift" what is already written in stone. It's all an illusion.

[Publicus]

Don't see anyone challenging the facts of the listing as they have been presented, regardless of the source.

There might be an issue if the material presented were not true. My own recollection which is admittedly off the top of my head is that the presentation is largely if not entirely true, factual.

One could say the two posters between them have provided a valuable public service, i.e., the presentation is true and factual, and its source is an accurate one.

[chuckd]

Don't see anyone challenging the facts of the listing as they have been presented, regardless of the source.

There might be an issue if the material presented were not true. My own recollection which is admittedly off the top of my head is that the presentation is largely if not entirely true, factual.

One could say the two posters between them have provided a valuable public service, i.e., the presentation is true and factual, and its source is an accurate one.

You are now into justifying plagiarism?

Check out forum rule 14.

Cheers

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as the replies:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

[Publicus]

Don't see anyone challenging the facts of the listing as they have been presented, regardless of the source.

There might be an issue if the material presented were not true. My own recollection which is admittedly off the top of my head is that the presentation is largely if not entirely true, factual.

One could say the two posters between them have provided a valuable public service, i.e., the presentation is true and factual, and its source is an accurate one.

You are now into justifying plagiarism?

Check out forum rule 14.

Cheers

Moi...?!?

The accuracy of the contents seem clear.

Cheers to you as another new year dawns upon us all.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Publicus

[BoneRanger]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Edited January 2, 2015 by BoneRanger

[BoneRanger]

Yes, we could use a stand up comic as president. Chances are, he would be at least as knowledgable as Obama, anyway, on a variety of issues, and he would be far better at thinking on his feet, than the current occupant of the White House.

Actually, I would love to see a law passed whereby the presidential candidates were limited to a 90 day campaign, and a budget of 10 million dollars. The whole episode is such a waste of money, and two years is so over the top, as to be ridiculous. It is a caricature of a campaign. Hence the need for a comics participation.

Agree, campaign limits.

And this goes for MSNBC and FOX too. They are nothing more than 24/7 political campaigns disguised as news. Misinforming their respective audiences to pull in the votes. Unethical and immoral. Once in a while I see one of their shows and wonder, what kind of moron watches this garbage?

Should be illegal to advertise these type of broadcasts as news.

Edited January 2, 2015 by BoneRanger

[chuckd]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Just a brief note since I have already wasted more time on Democratic party propaganda than I want to, let me point out that Bill Clinton's Economic Stimulus Plan of 1993 was defeated by the Senate and never became law.

The reason Clinton turned out to be an economic genius is because he followed Newt Gingrich's lead and signed balanced budgets.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a lot to do with the sub-prime mortgage failure of 2007. That bill was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

Now, back to Alabama-Ohio State for me.

[BoneRanger]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Just a brief note since I have already wasted more time on Democratic party propaganda than I want to, let me point out that Bill Clinton's Economic Stimulus Plan of 1993 was defeated by the Senate and never became law.

The reason Clinton turned out to be an economic genius is because he followed Newt Gingrich's lead and signed balanced budgets.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a lot to do with the sub-prime mortgage failure of 2007. That bill was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

Now, back to Alabama-Ohio State for me.

Blaming Bushes failed administration on Carter, eh?

Then you want to give Clintons successes to Newt Gingrich.

Getting back to the topic. "People to watch who may shift the US 2016 campaign."

Be prepared to capitalize on the 2016 presidential election. Short the market if Republicans wins. Go long if the Democrats win.

I'm not a Democrat or Republican. These are statistical facts that we all can financially benefit from by shorting the US market if a republican wins.

Like I said, 9 out of last 10 recessions were under republican leadership.

[spidermike007]

The US campaign for prez is excessive when compared and contrasted to other democracies but there isn't any other way to do it in the United States.

The regular-term election cycle proscribed in the constitution precludes the snap election common to the parliamentary system. Nor is the US a constitutional monarchy, meaning voters elect the civilian who is to become head of state (the prez).

No one is quite prepared much less imminently qualified to be the president. While the US has the Ivy League assortment of prestigious universities, there is no one or two schools of public administration or of governance such as in the Old World from Europe to China, from Eton to Peking University. Hence the US has the lengthy and grueling process of campaigning for the party's prize, which is its coveted nomination at its quadrennial national convention in the summer before the election. Even Hillary and Jeb have to be ground through the process like sausages.

The predicate of it all is that the grotesque process ensures that the person who emerges from it will not crack up in the White House given the highly partisan and no holds barred adverseral politicial system the US has, by conscious design always had.

Only the professional politicians, such as Bill Clinton or Jeb Bush, are paying any mind to it at this point out and away from it, along with the political junkies among the MSM and the off-MSM. The chronic follower and groupie junkies are posting to website discussion boards about it. In what really matters, the voters themselves take a moment in September of the election year to see who's running, watch the 3 + 1 debates during October, then the weekend before the first Tuesday of November make up their minds.

Your mind and my own mind are made up already. If Sen Warren turns out to be the D party nominee I'll vote for her in November, for sure. Conversely, if the R party ticket turns out to be Ted Cruz&Michelle Bachman, the Rs here will vote for it. There'd be some exception concerning who'd vote for whom, but not much.

Great post. Concise and thoughtful. I agree about Warren. But, how often does the US see a candidate of integrity? I think Richardson and Bradley were the last two I can think of. And the media hated them, as they did not suck ass, and they were not photogenic. The days of a candidate with integrity may be behind us.

[bendejo]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

They overlooked Tom Steyer.

He and his PAC only donated $73,843,859 to the Democratic party and liberal causes in 2014.

PS: According to Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) those devil worshiping Koch brothers gave $7,730,635 to Republicans and conservative causes.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php

It wasn't limited to $7 million.

Charles and David Koch are worth $31 billion each. It is estimated by Mother Jones, a left-leaning American magazine featuring investigative and breaking news reporting, that the brothers in addition to direct contributions to the GOP also contributed through a number of cut-out political action committees and front groups a total $60 million of so-called "dark money" to unseat President Obama and many democratic congressmen in the 2012 elections. Despite their "investment" the Democrats swept national elections largely due to Obama's novel use of the internet to garner tens of millions of small contributions for the Democrats.

That makes more sense, Wisconsin alone (a state where the brothers are pretty successful. politically) probably costs more than $7 million a year to maintain. Maybe Reid meant that's how much they donated that particular week.

[NeverSure]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Just a brief note since I have already wasted more time on Democratic party propaganda than I want to, let me point out that Bill Clinton's Economic Stimulus Plan of 1993 was defeated by the Senate and never became law.

The reason Clinton turned out to be an economic genius is because he followed Newt Gingrich's lead and signed balanced budgets.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a lot to do with the sub-prime mortgage failure of 2007. That bill was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

Now, back to Alabama-Ohio State for me.

Yes and by the time Clinton's (D) second term was ending the country was entering a recession which GW Bush inherited.

Ohio State beat #1 ranked Alabama and will play MY MIGHTY OREGON for the national championship 555.

[BoneRanger]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Just a brief note since I have already wasted more time on Democratic party propaganda than I want to, let me point out that Bill Clinton's Economic Stimulus Plan of 1993 was defeated by the Senate and never became law.

The reason Clinton turned out to be an economic genius is because he followed Newt Gingrich's lead and signed balanced budgets.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a lot to do with the sub-prime mortgage failure of 2007. That bill was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

Now, back to Alabama-Ohio State for me.

Yes and by the time Clinton's (D) second term was ending the country was entering a recession which GW Bush inherited.

Ohio State beat #1 ranked Alabama and will play MY MIGHTY OREGON for the national championship 555.

So GW Bush oversaw 2 recessions but they were Clinton & Carters fault? U Huh...

And Clintons success was due to Newt Gingrich.

Now we have a president that cleaned up GW Bush's gigantic mess, the country is booming economically... and somehow he's the incompetent?

[Publicus]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagan’s tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clinton’s economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clinton’s economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Just a brief note since I have already wasted more time on Democratic party propaganda than I want to, let me point out that Bill Clinton's Economic Stimulus Plan of 1993 was defeated by the Senate and never became law.

The reason Clinton turned out to be an economic genius is because he followed Newt Gingrich's lead and signed balanced budgets.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a lot to do with the sub-prime mortgage failure of 2007. That bill was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

Now, back to Alabama-Ohio State for me.

Yes and by the time Clinton's (D) second term was ending the country was entering a recession which GW Bush inherited.

Ohio State beat #1 ranked Alabama and will play MY MIGHTY OREGON for the national championship 555.

I wanted to Like your post but only the second half........Bama got bambed so chuckd is still in shock but I expect he'll recover and be along before too much longer.....I spent a semester at OSU as a faculty exchange back in '85 and thought things were pretty good there, but I'll go for Oregon almost any day cause they're better all around in a number of things, including Track and Field too .

.....although I would not argue much with the first half of your post either except to say Clinton himself inherited a recession but he turned it into gold, and that one recession in Clinton's 8 years is a pretty good record.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Publicus

[BoneRanger]

According to Mike's Blog, bet on the Democrats when it comes to the economy.

A HISTORY OF RECESSION IN THE UNITED STATES 1950 TO 2008

http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html

As far as people to watch in the 2016 campaign. Go for the Democrat.

Investors can easily benefit if the Republicans get back into office by 'shorting' the US stock market.

Statistics prove, nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under the direction of Republican economic policy.

Reagan was an economic disaster. Reagans tight fiscal policy and massive deficit spending contracted the economy again in late 1981, producing unemployment of 10.8% and prime interest rates that hovered between 15% and 21.5%

Bill Clintons economic stimulus plan of 1993 produced the greatest wealth and job creation in all of recorded human history.

Clintons economic plan reduced the National Debt by $587 billion, and balanced 5 budgets.

NOTE: Not a single Republican House member voted for it and none of the last 5 Republican presidents had a balance budget.

Just a brief note since I have already wasted more time on Democratic party propaganda than I want to, let me point out that Bill Clinton's Economic Stimulus Plan of 1993 was defeated by the Senate and never became law.

The reason Clinton turned out to be an economic genius is because he followed Newt Gingrich's lead and signed balanced budgets.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1979 had a lot to do with the sub-prime mortgage failure of 2007. That bill was signed into law by Jimmy Carter (D-GA).

Now, back to Alabama-Ohio State for me.

Yes and by the time Clinton's (D) second term was ending the country was entering a recession which GW Bush inherited.

Ohio State beat #1 ranked Alabama and will play MY MIGHTY OREGON for the national championship 555.

I Like your post but only the second half....

.....although I would not argue much with the first half of it either except to say Clinton himself inherited a recession but he turned it into gold, and that one recession in Clinton's 8 years is a pretty good record.

That's right. Clinton did pull the U.S. out of the other Bush's economic mess.

Clinton cleaned up that mess and left a huge budget surplus to George Junior that he immediately squandered, then ran up the deficit while running down the Country.

Please, no more Bushes.

[bendejo]

Also 9/11 was Clinton's fault. If that doesn't make sense, have Sean Hannity explain it to you.

After that, read what Richard Clark has to say on it. I'm sure Condee Rice will have 'no comment.'