What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2016 race (1 Viewer)

snogger

snogger

Footballguy
Kasich clashes with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

Call it a dry run for the primary debates. Five governors all thinking of running for president were on the stage when Kasich, a wily 62-year-old former congressman, demonstratively disputed Walker’s retelling of political history.
Click to expand...
During the 1995-96 budget dispute between Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress, Walker said, “Clinton did not say the Republicans in Congress aren’t going to work with me so I’m going to do an executive order.”

“He sat down with them,” Walker said.

Kasich, who like Walker just won re-election to a second term in a Rust Belt, labor-dominated state, snapped almost matter-of-factly.

“No, he shut the government — the government got shut down first,” Kasich said.

The audience laughed. And then the two men, both of them likely to run for president in 2016, began to talk over each other as NBC’s "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd stroked his red goatee in delight.

“There was tremendous animosity,” Kasich said, almost yelling, to remind the younger Walker that he, Kasich, had been there himself as a member of Congress.

“It wasn’t —” Walker tried to get out before Kasich cut him off.

“Scott, it was!” Kasich said. “I’ll tell you, when you’re sitting around and we’ve got Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole at each other over a shutdown, it wasn’t easy either.”
Click to expand...
:popcorn:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carly Fiorina eyes a 2016 presidential bidAdd former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina to the list of Republicans taking a look at the 2016 presidential race.

The Washington Post reports Fiorina, who lost a 2010 U.S. Senate race in California, “has been talking privately with potential donors, recruiting campaign staffers (and) courting grass-roots activists.” She’s also planning to visit Iowa and New Hampshire.

While Fiorina’s got a compelling narrative as the first woman to lead a Fortune 500 company, she will also face challenges in what could be a very crowded field of Republicans reaching for the White House.

For one, Fiorina was defeated by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer by 10 percentage points in 2010 — a year in which there were strong anti-Washington feelings across the country and the political environment was ripe for Republicans.

In 2010, Fiorina was an unknown to many conservative voters and she received a well-timed endorsement in the GOP primary from Sarah Palin. That shored up Fiorina with conservatives and she defeated former congressman Tom Campbell and Tea Party favorite Chuck DeVore for the Senate nomination. But if she runs in 2016, there are many better known and well-established Republicans — from Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who appeal to the party’s Tea Party wing, to current and former governors such as Chris Christie and Jeb Bush, who would attract support from the GOP’s mainstream — who are also looking at running for president.

In an interview with National Journal ahead of the 2014 midterm elections, Fiorina said this about running for president:

People ask me that a lot, so if you get asked that a lot you have to think about it — you have to consider it. I’m flattered by the question and I have to consider it.
The Post also reported Fiorina, who received a $21 million severance package when she was fired from Hewlett-Packard, still owes nearly $500,000 from the Senate race.
Click to expand...
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/11/26/carly-fiorina-eyes-a-2016-presidential-bid/

 
Not the first to say it, but how ####### crazy is it that the country right now is looking at a good chance of having a Bush or Clinton in the White House.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huntsman would make a great President. Shame he's too left to the Repubs and too right of the Dems.

 
Gawain said:
Huntsman would make a great President. Shame he's too left to the Repubs and too right of the Dems.
Click to expand...
But that's idea behind bringing Amy on board.. She'd pull in some of the Left and even some from the right..

Hell, my Father in-law is a Republican and his :rant: on the democrats are "historic" in our family..

But, the first time I mentioned Amy to him( We live in Western Wisconsin so tend to hear more about Minnesota politicians then Wisconsin)

I had a :jawdrop: reaction when he said "I wish I could vote for her"..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somebody in another thread mentioned Kasich favorably (midwestern guy from that area) and I have to say I like this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/30/ohio-s-kasich-stands-up-to-the-right-on-common-core.html

Ohio’s Kasich Stands Up to the Right on Common CoreThe Ohio governor just took a bold stand against Tea Party hysteria about education standards. Call him the anti-Jindal.
This past Sunday, Ohio Governor John Kasich did something surprising and important.

On Fox News, a mecca of misinformation about the Common Core academic standards, Governor Kasich expressed strong support for the thoughtfully developed standards for what students need to know and be able to do at each grade level in English Language Arts and math to ensure they’re prepared for college or career. “The Common Core was written by state education superintendents and local principals. In my state of Ohio, we want higher standards for our children,” Kasich said. ...
Click to expand...
This feels like one of those things that get drummed up before an election for its own sake, to get people excited with no real goal or purpose in sight.

I don't really have a problem with CC, it sounds like a good idea in a lot of places, and it's good to see Kasich challenge the thinking early here. He's got my attention.

 
And then there's Jindal:

From 2010, when the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted to adopt the Common Core standards with his blessing, until well into 2014, Governor Jindal supported the Common Core for the same practical reasons Kasich supports them: they will help more students succeed academically and in life.

But then, when it became clear that there were political points to be scored with presidential primary voters by attacking Common Core, Jindal changed his position, manufacturing a fictional federal conspiracy to nationalize curriculum as his rationale.

It would be one thing if Jindal was merely telling untruths about the Common Core to boost his approval ratings on the far right. But Jindal didn’t stop there. He supported efforts to revoke the standards through legislation; then he unilaterally and erroneously tried to pull Louisiana state out of the Common Core through executive order at the beginning of the school year; then he pushed to repeal or delay it with a lawsuit; and then he used his administrative authorities to approve contracts to try to throw a monkey wrench in the state’s efforts to implement an aligned assessment.

Fortunately, key Louisiana legislative leaders, State Superintendent John White (whom, ironically, Jindal recruited to come to Louisiana), a majority of members of the State Board of Education (including Jindal appointees who resisted his pressure for them to resign), advocacy groups, business leaders, parents, and educators have successfully advocated to to prevent one of the nation’s most powerful Governors from throwing out the higher learning standards and better assessment. Additionally, his attempts to stop the progress through lawsuits have failed.

While the fight to protect the Common Core in Louisiana continues, teachers statewide in Louisiana are now teaching and students across Louisiana are now learning based on improved standards. And if the experience of early adopter Kentucky is instructive—and it should be—the result will be improvements in student achievement, graduation rates, and college readiness over time.

But sadly, results aren’t primary for blindly ambitious politicians like Jindal. Appealing to Tea Party voters in Republican primaries is. That’s why Kasich’s decision to stand up for the Common Core and against deception and opportunism at the expense of children was both impressive and important.

Here’s hoping that other Republican presidential hopefuls see the appeal of Kasich’s position and follow suit.
Click to expand...
This is all true

Jindal did something very similar with a major lawsuit brought by our levee board to seek compensation from the oil companies for what they have done to our coast.

What is most galling is he will be railing against Obama's own EO's and end runs around Congress, and it will be among the most hypocritical things you will hear during the upcoming hot air balloon race.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Somebody in another thread mentioned Kasich favorably (midwestern guy from that area) and I have to say I like this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/30/ohio-s-kasich-stands-up-to-the-right-on-common-core.html

Ohio’s Kasich Stands Up to the Right on Common Core

The Ohio governor just took a bold stand against Tea Party hysteria about education standards. Call him the anti-Jindal.

This past Sunday, Ohio Governor John Kasich did something surprising and important.

On Fox News, a mecca of misinformation about the Common Core academic standards, Governor Kasich expressed strong support for the thoughtfully developed standards for what students need to know and be able to do at each grade level in English Language Arts and math to ensure they’re prepared for college or career. “The Common Core was written by state education superintendents and local principals. In my state of Ohio, we want higher standards for our children,” Kasich said. ...
Click to expand...
This feels like one of those things that get drummed up before an election for its own sake, to get people excited with no real goal or purpose in sight.

I don't really have a problem with CC, it sounds like a good idea in a lot of places, and it's good to see Kasich challenge the thinking early here. He's got my attention.
Click to expand...
it was Yankeefan. I didn't know much about him before that, and after reading a little, I don't hate him.
 
joffer said:
Jindal is running out of ways to embarrass himself
Click to expand...
Uh, this is Louisiana, we are the big leagues of political embarrassment. You have no idea. We haven't had anyone in the national spotlight since Huey Long (as opposed to your Vitters and Livingstons and Dukes and Edwards, etc.). I'm thinking Bobby's just getting started.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to try to think of a bigger idiocy than complaining about Volcano monitoring when you live in Hurricane Alley but it's hard to do.

Somehow I think he'll top it.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I thought you political junkies out there might be interested in this article on Hillary's most recent poll numbers...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181949/clinton-favorability-familiarity-bests-2016-contenders.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/12/the-new-gallup-numbers-may-have-two-bits-of-bad-news-for-hillary-clinton/
Click to expand...
At this point it is hers to lose.. None of the current crop of Republicans are going to bring over the moderates like she will.

The Clinton's are the definition of "I'm rubber, you're glue" .. Doesn't matter what skeletons are found, or what they say, they seem to come out better then before..

Good marketing I guess :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
snogger said:
Group seeks to break Democratic and Republican stranglehold on presidential debates :excited: :popcorn:
Click to expand...
This happens every election cycle, but it seems pretty unlikely to change. Also, the proposed system seems sorta problematic to me:

Any candidate or party that gets enough petition signatures to secure ballot access in states totaling at least 270 Electoral College votes – enough to win the White House – would notify the CPD. If more than one candidate or party does so, the one with the most signatures would become the third participant in the debates.
Click to expand...
 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
snogger said:
Group seeks to break Democratic and Republican stranglehold on presidential debates :excited: :popcorn:
Click to expand...
This happens every election cycle, but it seems pretty unlikely to change. Also, the proposed system seems sorta problematic to me:

Any candidate or party that gets enough petition signatures to secure ballot access in states totaling at least 270 Electoral College votes – enough to win the White House – would notify the CPD. If more than one candidate or party does so, the one with the most signatures would become the third participant in the debates.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
We can always hope.. I truly believe candidates run away from being a 3rd party candidate because it is so difficult in the current environment to get noticed.. :kicksrock:

I think if they were to open this up a bit people like Jon Huntsman, who has zero chance of winning the Republican Nomination, would run as a 3rd party candidate and REALLY shake things up..

 
snogger said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
snogger said:
Group seeks to break Democratic and Republican stranglehold on presidential debates :excited: :popcorn:
Click to expand...
This happens every election cycle, but it seems pretty unlikely to change. Also, the proposed system seems sorta problematic to me:

Any candidate or party that gets enough petition signatures to secure ballot access in states totaling at least 270 Electoral College votes – enough to win the White House – would notify the CPD. If more than one candidate or party does so, the one with the most signatures would become the third participant in the debates.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
We can always hope.. I truly believe candidates run away from being a 3rd party candidate because it is so difficult in the current environment to get noticed.. :kicksrock:

I think if they were to open this up a bit people like Jon Huntsman, who has zero chance of winning the Republican Nomination, would run as a 3rd party candidate and REALLY shake things up..
Click to expand...
I do think a successful 3rd party run is probably more likely now than it has been in past election cycles due to the rise of zillion dollar SuperPACs. It would still be a huge challenge, though, because the candidate isn't supposed to tell the SuperPAC what to do.

 
Bring back the Whigs...

http://www.modernwhig.org/

Where We Stand

Because Whigs value differences of opinion and independent thought, we do not necessarily take a position on every particular issue that may be fashionable for the moment. Instead, we propose a program of broad reforms that we believe will strengthen our country as it faces the challenges of the 21st century.

One thing you will notice as you look at our stances is that we have polls that allow you to vote on what you think about our stances. If you think the stance should be modified we ask you to not just vote for this, but to leave a comment as to how and why. You can then go into our forums and post, civilly debate, and collaborate with others on why you think what you do. You can even go a step further and join the Whigs and help us in our National Associations.

There you will be able to research, civilly debate, and collaborate with fellow members, policy experts, and candidates to help create effective policy based on research, logic, and rational approaches. These tools will give you, the citizen, one of the most effective ways to be involved in politics and government which is essential for our democracy to be renewed and to thrive.

Affirmative Action

In keeping with our meritocratic philosophy, Modern Whigs oppose all forms of favoritism or discrimination based on arbitrary factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc. We reject identity politics and race-based affirmative action programs. Many would argue that we are not yet ready, as a society, to drop AA programs entirely. Maybe our society will never be comletely ready for such bold social progession, yet AA programs are contra toWhig philosophy and we might suggest there are ample anti-discrimination laws on the books now that all citizens ought be protected. Let's move into the future!

How do you feel?:

' 'Do you agree with our stance on affirmative action? If you think it should be modified please leave a comment as to why.

Church & State Separation

Our membership ranges from deeply religious to completely secular. Modern Whig philosphy asks us to not mix politics and religion, relying on civil ethics, natural law and objective analysis to form public policy. We speak to integrity and merit, and not to "traditional family values" to use a catch phrase in vogue. We follow the rule that the government must not fund religious activities, nor can it favor one religion over others. However, the business of forcing Christmas trees and reindeer ornaments off of city hall property is ridiculous. Common sense ought apply for free expression of constructive religious philosophies, preferably at the most local level. The Constitution is steeped in natural law and guarantees freedom of religious expression and a secular government.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree or disagree with our stance on this issue? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why

Education

To compete in todays global economy we must foster some of the best schools and universities in the world. America cannot afford to let other countries take the lead in math, engineering and space exploration while we argue about the merits of teaching creationism in science class. Whigs believe such debates are out of place in the 21st century and only distract from the task of fixing our public schools. We favor the ideas of school choice, merit-based pay for teachers and charter schools, as well as a stronger emphasis on science and math in academic curricula. We also favor reforming the onerous practice of funding public schools through property taxes, which effectively condemns the poorest areas to having the worst schools.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on education? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

Electoral and Government Reform

We need to change the method Americans use to elect their leaders, which is outdated and broken. This is the heart of Modern Whig methodology. We believe all citizens have equal rights and duties to participate and be represented in the democratic process and oppose all attempts to limit participation or distort representation. Our political system as it is today contains certain unrepresentative and, frankly undemocratic, features that restrict political competition and undermine citizens ability to properly exercise their political rights and duties. Modern Whigs adopt the position that to effectively tackle some of these problems outlined below, we must first start with the keystone to the electoral process- The Ballot.

- A plurality-based electoral system tends to polarize the electorate. This is a mathematical fact. It is also a system where a candidate can win with a minority of the vote and ballots cast for other candidates end up being wasted; Whig Solution: actively petition both at the state and national levels for the use of Approval Voting (AV) on all ballots including primaries, in which voters can vote for one or multiple candidates based on overall preference. After consultation with experts and careful thought and ratiocination, MWP beleives this is the required first step before we can effectively move on to the other problems we observe as stated below. The adoption of Approval Voting would open up the political process to new voices, reduce polarization and eliminate the wasted vote syndrome or spoiler role of alternative party candidates without adding any cost or complexity to the current balloting systems. In economic terms, we can add better competition and possibly lower costs, with the output of a better "product" of public policy. For more information on this you can visit www.nationalrenewal.org. Please also visit our RESOURCES page for a more detailed explaination and references of the MWP position.

It is important to note here that the demise of the ancient American Whig Party in fact caused the birth of this two party system during our Civil War. We Modern Whigs feel it is about time we reset that. It is part of our vision.

Today's Whigs see reframing the ballot itself as the keystone which will enable further reform of the electoral system in the following areas, which is not a complete list:

- The overwhelming influence of money in political campaigns; Whig Solution: campaign finance reform in the direction of public financing, along with free and equal access to the airwaves. Public financing of elections may seem expensive at first, in the long run it can ensure that citizen representation is not undermined by large pools of money. Public financing will also reduce the amount of time that incumbents must campaign allowing them to focus on representing their fellow citizens. Whig Leadership example: MWP candidates will not accept any corporate donations. MWP has established a Whig Works PAC for charitable purposes.

- Lobbying, as in back door deals off of the public record. Rules against this must be enforced.

Whig Solution: no special access to legislators for lobbyists, and a ban on politicians working as lobbyists for five years after leaving office. This is huge business today and consequently will be very difficult to get under control. We would like to suggest using technology to record everything that transpires between representatives and lobby groups. Akin to meeting in an open lobby back in the day. Whig leadership examples - no corporate donations accepted, our MWP PAC is for charitable and educational purposes only and MWP citizen-representatives require all lobby groups to present openly at representatives' local policy forums.

- The Electoral College, which only serves to thwart the will of the people in presidential elections.

Whig Solution: either make the allocation of electors proportional to the popular vote in each state, or abolish it altogether. Whig Leadership example: in the spirit of pragmatism and proper causal sequencing, we would defer the issue of reviewing the Electoral College until fundamental ballot reframing has been completed. Furthermore, if money begins to become marginalized through greater competition and we make some real advances on the "prostitution of politcs" front, the combination of these two ought foster a much higher level of civil discourse amongst all citizens, enabling a clearer shared vision on the effectiveness of the Electoral College.

- Gerrymandering, the cynical practice in which partisan insiders redraw boundaries after every census in order to create safe electoral districts for the benefit of their own party.

Whig Solution: place redistricting in the hands of non-partisan citizens committees. California's recent "clean slate" redistricting effort employing demographic science is a model in this regard. Demographic science is as Whiggy as can be! The redistricting in New York is still being reviewed, but shows similar benefit.

-Term limits for U.S. Congress, two consecutive terms for U.S. Senate (12 years consecutive total). Five consecutive terms for U.S. House (10 consecutive years total.) Whig Leadership Example - MWP citizen- representatives will self-maintain term limits. MWP encourages our future citizen-representatives to have named an apprentice as future candidate in their second term to aid in continuity and shorten the learning curve for first term leaders.

- Tuesday only elections make it hard for voters to get the polls;

Whig solution: hold elections on weekends or all week, and expand early voting. The key here is simply to broaden the time frame and use better technology to ensure the greatest pool of voters canvassed and world class accuracy. Here we really ought strive to be simply the best in the world, truly leading by example.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on this issue? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

Energy Independence & National Security

Why are energy and national security tied together? Because our nation cannot be secure as long as we cannot meet our energy needs with our own resources. Our countrys addiction to oil is well documented. Our political class has allowed our dependence on Middle Eastern oil to continually increase; thereby showing it learned nothing from the Oil Shocks of the 1970s.

Following the 9/11 attacks, it became clear that energy independence is a matter of national security. Regardless of any arguments about global warming or climate change, Whigs believe our country MUST develop alternative sources of energy (wind, solar, nuclear, etc). Otherwise our security will remain hostage to events in the volatile Middle East and we will be forced to continue supporting corrupt and autocratic regimes whose oil we need to power our economy. This situation is utterly unsustainable.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on this issue? If you think it should be modified please leave a comment as to how and why?

Fiscal Responsibility & Financial Reform

Neither government nor corporations or households can be exempt from the basic rules of accounting. Revenues should match or exceed expenditures, excessive debt should be avoided, and some funds should be kept in reserve for future rainy days.

Deficit spending is acceptable only in times of economic crisis or war. Practices such as unfunded mandates, pork-barrel spending, or cutting taxes while fighting wars are unacceptable. The recent economic crisis was the result of excessive borrowing by gigantic financial institutions for the purpose of engaging in unregulated betting on the value of derivatives backed by dubious mortgages. Post-crisis financial reforms must include: limits on leverage, the regulation of derivatives trading and most important of all, the break-up of financial institutions that are too big to fail (TBTF), so that no one entity can bring down our entire economy unless bailed out by taxpayer money.

A properly-functioning market economy should not require taxpayer bailouts of private companies in the first place! We view the recent financial reform legislation as a missed opportunity to address the TBTF issue and avoid future bubbles. Over the last twenty years improper regulation and deregulation may have contributed greatly to the current economic crisis. We must learn from mistakes of the past.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

Health Care

Should be available, portable and affordable for all citizens, with means-tested government subsidies for those who cannot pay in full. De-link health benefits from employment. The practice of saddling employers with costly pension and health insurance benefit obligations is hurting the ability of American companies to compete in the global economy. This is most obvious in the auto industry.

While we support the basic goal of expanding coverage to all Americans, we do not believe recent health insurance reform legislation will reduce health care costs. More research and work needs to be done on this subject, and legislative changes will have to be made in order to bring costs under control. The dramatic and unabated costs in health care costs threaten to cripple our families and nation.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on this health care? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

Immigration

The USA is and has always been a country of immigrants. The Modern Whig Party understands the dual responsibility of securing our borders while also dealing realistically with those illegal immigrants already in the country. We propose the following: offer illegal immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably.

Illegal immigrants will not be entitled to jobs that require security clearances, but will be eligible for the GI Bill, Tricare and all other benefits afforded to US service members who serve honorably. This program also will include a background check and English-language classes if necessary. In this manner, any illegal immigrant ranging in age from 18 to 42 will receive job skills and educational benefits while they earn their citizenship for themselves and their immediate family members in defense of our country.

Going forward, we must also revamp our legal immigration process so as to attract those whose skills, education and entrepreneurial spirit will enable them to become productive contributors to the knowledge-based economy of tomorrow.

Lastly, Modern Whigs feel that assimilation is key to our melting pot, and while all citizens should appreciate the various cultures that make up America, we should share a common language. Being proficient in the English language is critical for us to fulfill our role as citizens.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree or disagree with our stance on immigration? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why

Infrastructure

Americas infrastructure is in great need. It is evidenced by our failing power grid, bridge collapses and failure of levees around the nation. Our infrastructure is one of the main keys to our American way and quality of life as well as to the strength of our nations economy. A failing infrastructure will only help cause a failing economy. In some cases outdated infrastructure is more than simply a bottleneck, but poses a national security threat. It is time to reinvest in Americas future and infrastructure( as well as alternative energy) will be the key. The Modern Whig Party will look at repairing or replacing our 20th century era infrastructure and upgrade to modern 21st century digital grids, and repair our transportation system. Ancient Whigs did much the same during the early 1800's when they pushed for canals and rails to cross our vast Nation. We can do this without massive tax increases by removing redundant programs, mitigating wasteful government spending and using governement guaranteed infrastructure loan banks for very low interest, very long-term financing suitable for 100 year capital improvements. More details on this will be outlined in our Renewed American System as infrastructure ( as well as alternative energy) is one of the keystones of a revived American economy.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on infrastructure? If you think our stance should be modified please leave a comment how & why.

Job Creation

Prior to the recent crisis our economic growth was based on consumers buying and selling houses and cars using borrowed money. We cannot return to this unsustainable model. Instead, the jobs of tomorrow will be created by:

-Rebuilding our infrastructure (roads, bridges, ports, airports, light rail, etc.)

-Renegotiating free trade treaties that only result in the outsourcing of jobs to countries with low labor and environmental standards.

-Offering tax incentives for corporations to grow manufacturing jobs in this country.

-Closing tax loopholes that some corporations use to hide profits abroad.

-Investing in alternative energy sources, the foundation of our next economic boom.

-Improving our schools, especially the quality of our science programs, so that our young people gain the skills necessary to create, design and build the technologies of the future.

All of these ideas will be detailed and form the core economic policies of our Renewed America System.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on job creation? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

National Security, Foreign Policy & Veterans Affairs

As a patriotic party founded by American veterans, Modern Whigs are committed to a strong national defense. America will act to defend its national interests multilaterally whenever possible and unilaterally if necessary. Whigs reject isolationism and favor strong alliances with reliable partners who are willing to share the burden in the fight against common enemies. While the nature and faces of America's threats have changed, many modern Whigs feel it is time for a less militarisitic and more constructive foreign policy, based on our natural principles of freedom and self-determination. This will require ever vigilant and constantly evolving defense and diplomatic policies. Whigs believe America must honor its veterans and should provide them with access to the highest possible quality of care and services through a well-funded Veterans Administration. To help our veteran members and families and non member veterans and their families we have our Veterans Affairs Advocacy group within the Modern Whig Party. This group works to help out veterans and their families with veterans issues.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on this issue? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

Reproductive Rights

The Modern Whig Party understands that this is a divisive issue, with many possible "right" answers. Because of this, we feel that it is incumbent on the Federal government to ensure that every person is entitled to make their own decisions, and that the law should reflect that stance.

Our members are split on this subject just like the rest of the country. And if you are starting to understand what the modern Whig philosophy means by encouraging independent thought and respecting others opinions and perspectives, you might correctly guess that modern Whigs represent a diversity of both pro-choice and pro-life voters. Why? How can we? The bottom line is that this one particular issue should not be the sole basis for which political party people affiliate with. On one level, it points to a deeper Constitutionally-based issue. On another level, it is one of the most deeply divisive issues facing America. Yet, it is not an issue that can find much common ground. This would seem to tell us that abortion ought not be debated at the national level, as the issue is too divisive for the Republic to stand. It should be handled at more local levels of government where common ground might be more easily found. It is time to end the trend of having this one issue become a deal breaker. Each state can determine its course of action like any other public health issue that revolves around medical procedures. The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items as the less involvement by the government in our private lives, the better. In addition, we encourage states to consider additional funding for greater access to adoption for people wishing not to keep a child and for qualified couples or individuals wishing to become parents of adopted children. Responsible safe-haven laws also give people an additional option beyond abortion. We support all policies giving couples additional options beyond abortion.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on abortion? If you think it should be modified please leave a comment to as why and how.

Same Sex Relationships

Each state can determine the extended rights of same sex couples based on their own local values. Whigs do, however, see this form of discrimination as contra Constitutional. It does follow other civil rights battles in our past where the Constitutionality of non-discrimination has always reigend. In essence, the sexual orientation of the folks down the street has no bearing on anybody else's life, nor ought it be in government purview. In keeping with our meritocratic philosophy, Modern Whigs oppose all forms of favoritism or discrimination based on arbitrary factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc. We reject identity politics and race-based affirmative action programs. Government must be indifferent to my race and orientation.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on this issue? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

Second Amendment

We support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our general viewpoint is that states can regulate firearms to whatever their local values dictate, but these regulations must be reasonable and can't be too costly or otherwise prohibitive to a point where it would violate the Constitutional right. Whigs do however, recognize an unalienable linkage between freedoms and personal responsibility. We favor programs to further the personal responsibility of firearm owners to include training, formation of Firearm Responsibility Groups in our communities and universal background checks to ensure those who are now prohibited from owning firearms can't access them. We do not beleive in the current forms of gun control, which will likely do little to curb gun volence. Instead, Whigs speak to a Firearms Reponsibility Policy ( FRP) which would be the responsibility of each state to adopt to their own local values, but with a shared national database. Many Whigs feel that citizens protecting each other, having each others' back so -to-speak, ought be a cornerstone of any public safety policy. FRP, not gun control, is the correct, sustainable and purely Constitutional stance.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on this issue? If you think it should be modified leave a comment as to how and why?

Social Tolerance

In keeping with our meritocratic philosophy, Modern Whigs oppose all forms of favoritism or discrimination based on arbitrary factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc. We reject identity politics and race-based affirmative action programs, always advocating for a level playing field driven solely by merit.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on Social Toleration? If you think it should be modified please leave a comment as to how and why.

Taxes & Income Inequality

The main reason our current economic recovery is so painfully slow is that our Middle Class is broke lots of debt, no jobs, low incomes and depressed home values. Meanwhile non-sustainable growth by credit expansion, loss of high wage manufacturing employment and our convoluted tax code have all conspired to bring us to the point where the top 1% of households control 43% of the countrys financial wealth (meaning total net worth less the value of home equity), and the bottom 80% of households control just 7% of the financial wealth. Another symptom of this problem is Warren Buffets famous statement that his effective individual income tax rate is lower than that of his secretary. The tax code needs to be drastically simplified and made more equitable: the vast majority of loopholes, subsidies, exclusions, exemptions and deferrals should be eliminated; capital gains and other forms of passive income should be taxed at the same rate as earned income above a certain income threshold.

There are many well researched proposals which seek to change our income tax scheme, like the flat tax or fair tax. While these may have merit, our Nation is at a precarious financial position. Therefore, Modern Whigs do not propose any radical change to our income tax scheme at this time, other than a simplification of the current code and closing of tax loopholes. We must look to grow revenues in order to pay down the national debt a sound and fair funding base for our government. Any changes to the overall tax scheme must be implemented while in a strong financial condition.

Whigs will sponsor a National Association on Taxes which will explore the competing income tax proposals such as flat tax or fair tax with input from financial and macroeconomic experts to help us evaluate their effect on tax rates, national income and income inequality.

Further, the Modern Whig philosophy is to empower the states with the resources to handle their unique affairs. The logic is that people in Alabama should not always have to flip the bill for earmarks that occur in New York and vice versa. For example, a senator from Oklahoma has used his committee powers to stifle an important transportation project in Virginia. The reality is that the more local one gets the more in tune with the unique and specific needs of that area.

This is why we propose that federal tax dollars be provided to each state in a lump sum every fiscal year based on population. This eliminates the need for most earmarks and pork-barrel spending as the onus will then be on state legislators and governors to allocate funding for issues that they see fit. Of course the federal government will still vote on other special projects and traditionally federal items, but these projects will be more manageable to monitor. In addition, the allocations to the states also provides a better opportunity to balance the federal budget while also forcing local voters to pay more attention to state elected officials.

How do you feel?:

Do you agree with our stance on Taxes & Income Inequality? If you think it should be modified please leave a comment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cruz is actually not the first GOP candidate to declare:

Former IRS Commissioner Mark Everson To Run For President. Yes, Of The United StatesIn the 1996 Halloween episode of The Simpsons, space aliens and siblings Kodos and Kang, as part of their relentless quest to conquer Earth, abduct presidential candidates Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. The pair then use advanced technology to bio-duplicate the forms of Clinton and Dole and take their places in the election process, guaranteeing that one of them will be chosen as the next leader of the U.S. Their plot is foiled moments before the election, however, when on the steps of the Capital Building, Homer exposes their true form to the gathered audience.

Faced with the reality that both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are, in actuality, malicious aliens with eyes towards enslaving all of civilization, the crowd mulls its options, giving rise to one of the greatest quotes in the history of the show:

With the next election a mere twenty months away, the current state of our two-party system looks every bit as laughable as depicted in The Simpsons. Sure we won’t be choosing between two aliens in 2016, but it is entirely possible we will be choosing between a Clinton and Bush. Again.

While I have nothing against the Bush or Clinton families, has the political landscape become so dynastic, so exclusive, that in a country of 319 million people, our only options for the nation’s highest office are the spouse and sibling of former Presidents? Aren’t there any fresh faces willing to run for the country’s highest office?

Well, how about Mark Everson?

Does that name ring a bell? If you’re a tried-and-true tax geek, it certainly should, because Everson was the Commissioner of the IRS for four years under George W. Bush –from 2003 through 2007 — before moving on to become a vice president at Alliantgroup, a nationally-known provider of specialty tax services such as R&D credits.

And earlier today, Everson announced that he is running for President in 2016. And yes, he’s serious.

I know what you’re thinking. Doesn’t the IRS have a bit of a public perception issue right now? Won’t Everson’s running for President with IRS Commissioner, 2003-2007 on his resume be about as well received as Adrian Peterson applying to become a Big Brother? The answers are yes and yes, but that’s not stopping Everson.

Based on a quick glance at his website, it appears Everson — a 60-year old Yale graduate — is a conservative who will run as a Republican. His view on taxes is an interesting and curious one, given his history:

It is time to be bold. I favor the Competitive Tax Plan authored by Columbia professor Michael Graetz. Adopting the plan will put in place a destination-based VAT that will apply to goods and services. The plan will remove 150 million Americans from the income tax rolls, freeing them from the hassle of filing an income tax return and dealing with the IRS.

A VAT? Well, that won’t make his former co-workers too happy, now will it?

And what does Everson have to say about income inequality and the growing divide between the 1% and the rest of the country?

To retain adequate progressivity in our tax system, income taxes will remain in place for the highest earners, but at lower rates. Providing payroll tax credits to low-and moderate- earners will prevent them from realizing tax increases. The Competitive Tax Plan would also expand refundable child credits.

OK, so it sounds like the unwashed masses will not pay income tax, but rather a destination-based VAT tax, while the rich will pay income tax at lower rates. Fair enough. And what about corporate taxation?

Under the plan, corporate rates will drop, allowing American businesses to prosper in the global economy. I would adjust the Graetz plan to retain and expand the existing research and development tax credit to ensure America maintains its leadership position in innovation.

Call me a cynic, but as the VP of a company that has assisted clients in claiming $3 billion in R&D credits, I had an inkling that the credit would remain a key part of Everson’s tax plan.

And what would Everson do about the finite state of much of the tax law and the resulting ”will they or won’t they?” regarding the so-called extended provisions?

One of the worst features of the current system is on-again, off-again tax legislation. We need stability in the tax code so that business owners can make rational investment and hiring decisions knowing the rules of the road. Tax provisions should have a minimum duration of ten years to reduce uncertainty and align with budget scoring rules. Last year’s tax extenders exercise was a disgrace, with provisions enacted into law just before Christmas only to expire two weeks later at the end of December.

OK, that doesn’t say much. But he doesn’t like expiring provisions. That’s good.

Interestingly, if elected, Everson would serve only a single four-year term, and use his time in office to seek a constitutional amendment limiting all future presidential tenures to one five or six-year run as Commander in Chief. Everson also supports an amnesty and path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and wants to revamp Obamacare, He opposes capital punishment and abortion. And don’t worry red states: he ain’t coming for your guns. YEE-HAW!!!

Will Everson get elected? Stranger things have happened. OK, maybe stranger things haven’t happened, but this is America, dammit. When I was a little boy, my Mom looked me square in the eye and told me that if I applied myself and worked really hard, someday I could grow up to be a night watchmen at a warehouse. But if she had told me I could become President, I would have believed her. Your surname doesn’t have to be Bush or Clinton to run this country; everyone is free to dream of becoming President and making that dream a reality. I believe that, and clearly, Mark Everson does too.

But whatever happens in 2016, don’t blame me. I’m voting for Kodos.
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2015/03/05/former-irs-commissioner-mark-everson-to-run-for-president-yes-of-the-united-states/

 
Watching Hillary Clinton Nod VigorouslyDecoding her appearance at the Center for American Prosperity.

Mostly, what Hillary Clinton did on Monday morning, as part of a panel discussion on urban issues held at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, was nod vigorously and take copious notes. She did this with great enthusiasm, as if the ideas being presented were all thrilling and new. And in a way, the message her body language sent was perfect: I'm here. I'm listening more than I'm talking. And I am even willing to go to school.

For the many progressives who wonder where exactly Clinton stands on a number of issues, including trade, Wall Street reform and how she'd address income inequality, inspiring the feeling that they are being heard as she's still sketching out the policy particulars of her expected presidential run is no small thing.

Also in her favor, she looked far more rested and at ease than when most of us last saw her, at the news conference on her decision to do all State Department business on a personal email address.

When she did speak on Monday, she talked about investing in infrastructure, including human infrastructure. Among the most pressing questions, she said, are, "What do we do to better equip our people to be able to take the jobs? And how do we keep middle-class families in cities where they want to stay? They don't want to leave, but they're being priced out."

She applauded the work of unions pooling their public pension money to create green jobs by training people to do "energy retrofits, energy efficiency,'' and praised progressive New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio for "trying to create pre-K access for every young child in New York, regardless of who that child is and who its parents are."

And she cited new work out out of Harvard on how a lack of social mobility and income equality go hand and hand. "It turns out that places where the fabric of community is strong, with a vibrant middle class, places that are more integrated across class, places with good schools, places with unions, places with religious organizations and civic organizations help people feel rooted, part of a community and then being able to pull together all of the aspects that play into upward mobility."

She touted the work of her family's foundation in preparing young people for their first jobs -- through a program called "Job One." And she spoke favorably about Germany's wage-subsidy system, based on the idea that it's better to pay out to keep people employed than to pay unemployment benefits.

In closing, she told advocates for criminal justice reform, job and skills training and Latino entrepreneurship, "Amen! I love discussions like this," and loved, too, she said, getting back to "an evidence-based discussion," presumably as opposed to the one about her exclusive use of a private email as secretary of state.

She also paid those present the compliment of hinting broadly that she'll need to hear more from them as she puts a campaign together: "Don't be surprised if you get a call.''
Click to expand...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/watching-hillary-clinton-nod-vigorously

It's almost like Chauncey Gardner were running for president.

 
Hillary turns down invite to secretive donor meeting Some feel the club is too closely aligned with the Democratic Party.


An influential coalition of the biggest liberal donors is quietly distancing itself from the national Democratic Party and planning to push its leaders — including Hillary Clinton — to the left.

The Democracy Alliance funders club at a private April gathering in San Francisco is set to unveil a five-year plan to boost causes on which some of its members contend leading Democrats like Clinton have been insufficiently aggressive.


Some within the club’s ranks had felt that it aligned too closely to the Democratic Party during President Barack Obama’s campaigns and administration. And the plan, called 2020 Vision, represents a more assertively liberal direction for Democracy Alliance — one that could pose problems for Clinton in her expected presidential campaign and beyond, if she wins the White House.

It aims to steer more than $30 million a year toward groups committed to fighting income inequality, climate change and the influence of political money. A particular focus is on groups fighting those issues at the state level, reflecting a sense among donors that national political gridlock limits chances for progress on their issues, regardless of the specific candidates.



“The Democracy Alliance donors, as I read them, while they are almost all Democrats and they are electorally active, want to be a progressive force independent from the Democratic Party,” said the group’s president, Gara LaMarche. “That’s not about Hillary Clinton as such, or about Barack Obama as such. It’s about standing for certain core concerns on the economy and climate and pushing that in the states.”

LaMarche wouldn’t comment on plan specifics, expected to be completed in early April, except to say that it reflects broad “alignment” among progressive donors on “key economic issues and climate change.”

But other sources with knowledge of the plan characterize it as more aligned with Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the dream presidential candidate for many Democracy Alliance members, than with Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidate. And for some liberals, it foreshadows an emerging rift that could hamper efforts up and down the ballot in 2016, and possibly lay the groundwork for a liberal version of the tea party, resulting in years of factionalism.

Sources say the club invited former Secretary of State Clinton to speak behind closed doors at the San Francisco meeting, which runs April 12-15 at the Four Seasons hotel. She declined, citing a scheduling conflict — perhaps not surprising, given that she’s expected to launch her presidential campaign around that time. Sources say the group might ask her to record a video message, but Clinton’s office had no knowledge of such plans.

Clinton and her backers have had a sometimes uneasy relationship with the Democracy Alliance. Bill Clinton clashed with a donor named Guy Saperstein at a 2006 conference while defending his wife’s vote to authorize the Iraq War, and club members provided early support to Obama during his epic 2008 battle with her for the Democratic presidential nomination. More recently, Warren got rock star receptions in Democracy Alliance appearances in 2013 and 2014, when she was urged to seek the party’s 2016 nomination.


Hillary Clinton has never addressed the group, which has hosted numerous other high-profile Democrats, including multiple visits by Warren, Vice President Joe Biden and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

“Hillary did not fare well in the Democracy Alliance eight years ago, and I don’t think there is going to be much more support for her this time, other than people thinking that she is the horse we’ve got, so we better not criticize her because it could weaken her,” said Saperstein. A part owner of the Oakland A’s who last year pledged $1 million to a super PAC seeking to draft Warren into the presidential race, Saperstein dropped out of the Democracy Alliance in 2008 but remains friendly with current members; he said there are many who have “great attraction” to Warren.

Clinton might have been an uncomfortable fit at the San Francisco meeting because it would highlight issues on which her centrist sensibilities clash with the Alliance’s more liberal views.


For instance, according to a draft agenda obtained by POLITICO, the meeting will feature sessions on reducing the influence of big money politics and reforming the criminal justice system, including ending the death penalty. Clinton, an unparalleled fundraiser, hasn’t led the charge on campaign finance reforms and supports capital punishment — unlike potential 2016 Democratic presidential rival Martin O’Malley. The former Maryland governor, who oversaw the death penalty’s abolition in his state, was invited to speak, but an O’Malley spokeswoman confirmed he is not planning to attend.

Other sessions highlighting assertively liberal stances are titled “Connecting Climate, Education, and Economic Justice” and “Marijuana Politics: Times They are a-Changin’.” The latter session includes a tour of San Francisco’s premier cannabis dispensary, “to learn about the rapidly changing world of medical marijuana” and stimulate discussion “about the role marijuana now plays in American politics,” including how the issue “could help turn key races in 2016 and beyond,” the agenda says.

The death penalty and marijuana sessions were initiated by Democracy Alliance partners — as its member donors are called.

Marsha Rosenbaum, leader of the dispensary tour, praised LaMarche, who launched plans for 2020 Vision when he assumed leadership in 2013, for “an openness to a range of topics and points of view.”


David desJardins, a DA board member who — like Rosenbaum — supported Obama over Clinton in 2008, said he has “not decided” which candidate to support, but suggested that liberal donors and interest groups could influence Clinton’s agenda.

“There is a need to have a menu — like saying, ‘Here are some good policies that would help you actually win and govern.’ And, if outside groups do a good job of that, she’s likely to adopt them,” said desJardins, who was among the first employees at Google. “I want whoever comes out of the Democratic primary to be the best candidate they can be, so to me that means encouraging Hillary to run the best campaign as opposed to hoping that she runs a bad campaign or self-destructs. I wouldn’t want that.”

The DA, as it is known in liberal finance circles, was created in 2005 by a handful of major donors including billionaire financier George Soros and Taco Bell heir Rob McKay. They spent tens of millions of dollars in 2004 in a failed effort to oust President George W. Bush, and the DA was intended to shift major donor giving away from elections and toward a sustained investment in think tanks, media and organizing and data outfits that eventually would win the battle of ideas.

It was patterned on a model its founders believed had been effectively deployed for decades by a few dozen wealthy conservative families, including the Kochs, the Scaifes and the Coorses.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/democracy-alliance-wants-to-push-hillary-clinton-to-the-left-116275.html#ixzz3VGox25a2

 
Hillary Clinton Won’t Take Questions at Journalism Award CeremonyHillary Clinton, known for giant paydays in exchange for speeches, will take no money for her remarks before the 2015 Toner Prize Celebration later this month. She’s also not taking any questions.

The March 23 ceremony will celebrate the winner of the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting. Clinton, a longtime friend of the award’s sponsors, is keynoting the event for free.

Tickets to the ceremony run $250, but the event is open to the press. “It’s going to stop being an awards ceremony if she makes any news — everyone will exit the room and start writing,” said Peter Gosselin, husband to the late reporter Robin Toner, for whom the award is named. “Journalists will be journalists.”

Clinton has faced increasing scrutiny over her reluctance to field questions from the press, including in response to a report this week about her email account while Secretary of State. (Not that TMZ didn’t try.) Gosselin confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that this and other stories had not altered her booking.
Click to expand...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-wont-take-questions-at-journalism-award-ceremony/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston Globe's editorial calling for Warren to run:

Democrats need Elizabeth Warren’s voice in 2016 presidential raceDemocrats would be making a big mistake if they let Hillary Clinton coast to the presidential nomination without real opposition, and, as a national leader, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren can make sure that doesn’t happen. While Warren has repeatedly vowed that she won’t run for president herself, she ought to reconsider. And if Warren sticks to her refusal, she should make it her responsibility to help recruit candidates to provide voters with a vigorous debate on her signature cause, reducing income inequality, over the next year.

The clock is ticking: Presidential candidates need to hire staff, raise money, and build a campaign operation. Although Clinton hasn’t officially declared her candidacy, she’s scooping up support from key party bigwigs and donors, who are working to impose a sense of inevitability about her nomination. Unfortunately, the strategy’s working: Few candidates are coming off the Democrats’ depleted bench to challenge Clinton. Neither declared candidate Jim Webb, a former Virginia senator, nor rumored candidate Martin O’Malley, a former governor of Maryland, represent top-tier opponents; independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has also hinted he might enter the Democratic primaries, but it’s difficult to imagine him thriving on the trail.

Clinton’s deep reservoir of support, from her stints as first lady, New York senator, 2008 presidential candidate, and secretary of state, no doubt poses a formidable obstacle. But Barack Obama overcame Clinton’s advantages in 2008, and Warren or another candidate still could in 2016. Even if they don’t, Clinton herself would benefit from a challenger. As former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick put it recently, “My view of the electorate is, we react badly to inevitability, because we experience it as entitlement, and that is risky, it seems to me, here in America.” Fairly or not, many Americans already view Clinton skeptically, and waltzing to the nomination may actually hurt her in the November election against the Republican nominee.

More important, though, the Democratic Party finds itself with some serious divides that ought to be settled by the electorate. Some are clear-cut policy differences, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an enormous free-trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations that Warren opposes and Clinton backs. Even in areas where the candidates agree, there are bound to be different priorities: It’s hard to imagine a President Clinton defending and enforcing the Dodd-Frank legislation with as much vigor as a President Warren, for instance.

Indeed, the big-picture debate on financial regulation and income inequality is what’s most at peril if the Democratic primaries come and go without top-notch opponents for Clinton. While she has a great many strengths, Clinton seems far more likely to hew to a cautious approach on economics. Her financial backing from Wall Street, her vote in the Senate to reduce bankruptcy protections, and her past reluctance to raise capital-gains taxes are no secret. Nothing about her record suggests much gumption for financial reform or tackling the deeply entrenched economic problems that increasingly threaten the American dream.

Seven years after the financial collapse, those challenges remain serious. To name just a few of the financial problems facing Americans: stagnant wages; ballooning student loan debt; exploitative payday lenders; shady subprime car loans; the proliferation of dubious for-profit colleges; inadequate retirement savings.

Unlike Clinton, or any of the prospective Republican candidates, Warren has made closing the economic gaps in America her main political priority, in a career that has included standing up for homeowners facing illegal foreclosures and calling for more bankruptcy protections. If she runs, it’ll ensure that those issues take their rightful place at the center of the national political debate.

Some of Warren’s admirers feel she’d be better off fighting for those causes in the Senate — but her opportunities to enact reforms there are shrinking, which should make a presidential run more attractive. As a member of the minority party in the Senate, her effectiveness is now much more limited than when she first won election, since Republicans control the legislative agenda. Democrats face an uphill challenge to reclaim the Senate in 2016 and face even slimmer prospects in the House. For the foreseeable future, the best pathway Warren and other Democrats have for implementing their agenda runs through the White House.

A presidential campaign would test Warren as never before. Her views on foreign policy are not fully formed. And on many other important issues — climate change, gun control, civil rights — Warren could struggle to articulate clear differences between herself and Clinton. That’s a risk she should be willing to take.

If Warren runs, some Massachusetts voters are bound to see it as abandoning the state that sent her to the Senate — but that shouldn’t discourage her either. Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry pursued their presidential ambitions without suffering much of a backlash at home. If Warren runs with conviction, and can clearly articulate voter unease with the widening divide between the 1 percent and the struggles of middle-class Americans, her candidacy will be welcomed.

Warren’s dedication is obvious to anyone who watched her raise funds by rallying thousands of grass-roots supporters in her 2012 Senate campaign. She should not shrink from the chance to set the course for the Democratic Party or cede that task to Hillary Clinton without a fight. The gap between the Facebooks and Googles of America and the rest of the economy has grown too large, and it deserves the kind of public debate and scrutiny that a national political campaign can spark. If she puts her causes and goals front and center, as Democrats gather their forces for the crucial 2016 campaign, Warren could enrich the political process for years to come.

This reflects the opinion of the Boston Globe editorial board.
Click to expand...
 
Everybody's decided Warren is not running.

It's just that we have had Ted Kennedy in 1980, Dukakis in 1988, Tsongas in 1992, Kerry in 2000 & 2004, Romney in 2008 & 2012.... I mean MA does seem to pretty much offer up a presidential candidate every single election term, don't they?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
$$$ The Official 115th United States Congress $$$
Replies
3
Views
285
Lutherman2112
L
lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
4K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto of Suing Saudi Arabia Bill
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
3K
The Z Machine
The Z Machine

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top