2016 Likely Candidates for POTUS?

[136 or 142]

Chicken hawk John Bolton chickens out of running.

Still, there are more announcements to come:
Pataki Will Announce on May 28


Democrats
O’Mally Will Announce on May 30

I believe Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal, who have both formed 'exploratory committees' are the next to make a formal announcement.

[albrecht]

Chicken hawk John Bolton chickens out of running.

Still, there are more announcements to come:
Pataki Will Announce on May 28


Democrats
O’Mally Will Announce on May 30

I believe Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal, who have both formed 'exploratory committees' are the next to make a formal announcement.

That was pretty quick. Announce yesterday and back out today? And "though he may still use his super PAC and non-profit organizations." I don't know whatever law(s) are but it would seem, to me, to be at least in a little bad taste if I solicited people to give money to ME because I am running and then quit and say I'm going to spend that money on someone else (or, as appears in this case, against someone else.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418398/bolton-passes-presidential-run-joel-gehrke

[136 or 142]

That was pretty quick. Announce yesterday and back out today? And "though he may still use his super PAC and non-profit organizations." I don't know whatever law(s) are but it would seem, to me, to be at least in a little bad taste if I solicited people to give money to ME because I am running and then quit and say I'm going to spend that money on someone else (or, as appears in this case, against someone else.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418398/bolton-passes-presidential-run-joel-gehrke

1.He announced yesterday that he would announce today.

2.I could be wrong about the PAC, but I believe he set that up to support Congressional candidates and not for a Presidential run (and he raised something like $7 million for them).  I don't believe he set up either an 'exploratory committee' or a Presidential PAC. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[albrecht]

1.He announced yesterday that he would announce today.

2.I could be wrong about the PAC, but I believe he set that up to support Congressional candidates and not for a Presidential run (and he raised something like $7 million for them).  I don't believe he set up either an 'exploratory committee' or a Presidential PAC. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

1. Ah. That makes a bit more sense though still sort of lame. Why "announce" that you are going to "announce" if you aren't going to run? Especially unless there really was a large ground-swell or you were a favorite, incumbent, etc.
2. I have no idea and haven't researched his PAC or the "non-profits" he apparently runs, or research what laws there are (if any) or what was promised to donors.

[136 or 142]

1. Ah. That makes a bit more sense though still sort of lame. Why "announce" that you are going to "announce" if you aren't going to run? Especially unless there really was a large ground-swell or you were a favorite, incumbent, etc.
2. I have no idea and haven't researched his PAC or the "non-profits" he apparently runs, or research what laws there are (if any) or what was promised to donors.

1.It's likely because he has a huge ego and wants to believe that he is a player important enough to hold a press conference to even announce that he isn't running.

2."Bolton's PACs could provide a notable boost to a candidate he decides to support - or a significant threat to a presidential hopeful he targets as too weak on national security. In 2014, the organizations raised over $7 million to aid GOP candidates."

Sounds like the PAC was set up to support Congressional candidates.

[albrecht]

1.It's likely because he has a huge ego and wants to believe that he is a player important enough to hold a press conference to even announce that he isn't running.

2."Bolton's PACs could provide a notable boost to a candidate he decides to support - or a significant threat to a presidential hopeful he targets as too weak on national security. In 2014, the organizations raised over $7 million to aid GOP candidates."

Sounds like the PAC was set up to support Congressional candidates.

$7 mil is small potatoes; better spent targeting local elections with that kind of money. I imagine he has a relatively decent influence in the Neo-Con set though on the speaking and interview tours.
When will politicians learn? Been following this one for prurient interest, I guess. Especially running on "morality" and other clap-trap. At least it wasn't a boy. I miss politicians like Gov.Edwards or Good-Time Charlie Wilson etc. Why cover-up who you are as long as you bring home the bacon or support the right bills?
http://news.yahoo.com/missouri-house-speaker-apologizes-actions-intern-075849319.html

[136 or 142]

â€" May 27: Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum will host an event in Butler, Pennsylvania on May 27, where he'll announce if he'll make a bid for the GOP presidential nomination.

â€" June 1: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has, according to Politico, told donors to watch for a June 1 presidential announcement in his home state of South Carolina.

â€" June 1: Former Texas governor Rick Perry told a South Carolina TV station earlier this month that he'll "make an announcement of my intentions around the 1st of June, so we're about 30 days out from allowing that to be public." It's unclear how he might make that announcement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/brace-yourself-the-2016-field-is-likely-to-increase-by-more-than-half-by-the-end-of-the-month/

[onan]

I'm thinkin that some of these crooks sense a change coming in campaign financing and want to fill their chest before that happens.

[Up All Night]

â€" June 1: Former Texas governor Rick Perry told a South Carolina TV station earlier this month that he'll "make an announcement of my intentions around the 1st of June, so we're about 30 days out from allowing that to be public." It's unclear how he might make that announcement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/brace-yourself-the-2016-field-is-likely-to-increase-by-more-than-half-by-the-end-of-the-month/

The Perry Announcement will be June 4th in Dallas. Location not known. Could be at the Winspear Opera House. Cue up Wagner...

[albrecht]

I'm thinkin that some of these crooks sense a change coming in campaign financing and want to fill their chest before that happens.

Yep.
I'm sure there are a few politicians who really care about their consituents and the country/area they represent BUT:
-look how many come out (if they ever leave office) millionaires, even if they started out with modest means
-why would anyone rational spend millions (including their OWN money) to get elected to a position with a meagar salary (in comparison to what they are currently making in the private sector?)
-why would a person or business give money to a politician unless they expect some payback?

[Up All Night]

Jeb Bush finally gets an answer straight for "Knowing what we know now...."

Jon Stewart parses out the answers...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVYFjDk41mw

[albrecht]

Jeb Bush finally gets an answer straight for "Knowing what we know now...."

Jon Stewart parses out the answers...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVYFjDk41mw

How could a politician running for office with his name, brother, father, etc not be prepared for basic, obvious questions? Having said that I thought Stewart, nee' Leibowitz, was quitting his show? One of those long tours before quitting or has the situation changed again?

[Gd5150]

That's hilarious!!! I love Stewert he's so outside the box. Where else beside Yahoo SNL ABC NBC CBS MSNBC CNN a 100 mainstream newspapers, big public education, Hollywood, magazines could we get humor and fake information that makes fun of Repubicans. His retirement has now surpassed Brett Farves 37 fake retirements.

That being said, Rubios answer addressing the typical left wing backseat driver foreign policy question was spot on: "if I knew what we knew now I wouldn't have gone into Iraq. And neither would George W Bush. Or Hillary Clinton. Or John Kerry. Or John Mccaine. Or the UK."

Here's an idea, why doesn't the media try asking politicians running for office questions about incidents and deaths they were directly responsible for. For example; "Hillary, if you knew what we knew now, would you have ordered there to be more security on the U.S. Embassy in the Middle East on 911, yes the embassy you chose to ignore while Americans were killed and you and Obama ignored calls or help" remember when the media asked her that? Me neither. That's because it would never happen.

[jimbo50]

How could a politician running for office with his name, brother, father, etc not be prepared for basic, obvious questions?

Best answer to Megan would have been " WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE!!"
It worked for Hillary.

[FightTheFuture]

Best answer to Megan would have been " WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE!!"
It worked for Hillary.

It worked for Hills, because practically every single journalist alive is a left-wing moonbat.

[jimbo50]

It worked for Hills, because practically every single journalist alive is a left-wing moonbat.

It's a prerequisite for the position.

[136 or 142]

It worked for Hills, because practically every single journalist alive is a left-wing moonbat.

The public doesn't fall for bullshit made up Rethuglic Party scandals so, of course, it must be the fault of the media. It's far more likely that unlike Rethuglics, the remaining 65% or so of the American public is simply far too intelligent to care about made up Rethuglic scandals.

Only a Rethuglic would be stupid enough to believe the Fake News scandals about Democrats, and I believe that all the "journalists" on Fake News are Rethuglics.

[analog kid]

It worked for Hills, because practically every single journalist alive is a left-wing moonbat.

That's kind of a paranoid world to live in. I'm glad I don't.

[Up All Night]

Here's an idea, why doesn't the media try asking politicians running for office questions about incidents and deaths they were directly responsible for. For example;

"Hillary, if you knew what we knew now, would you have ordered there to be more security on the U.S. Embassy in the Middle East on 911, yes the embassy you chose to ignore while Americans were killed and you and Obama ignored calls or help"

remember when the media asked her that? Me neither. That's because it would never happen.

And that shows the true bias of our American media. It is neither fair or balanced.

They fear the Clintons also, and would never ask that question directly to Hillary. There's quite a lot of unspoken fear of conftonting the Clinton Machine face-to-face.

I know Megyn Kelley would ask it, if Hillary would ever sit down with her.

Looks like we're only get to ask that question "off camera".

[136 or 142]

And that shows the true bias of our American media. It is neither fair or balanced.

They fear the Clintons also, and would never ask that question directly to Hillary. There's quite a lot of unspoken fear of conftonting the Clinton Machine face-to-face.

I know Megyn Kelley would ask it, if Hillary would ever sit down with her.

Looks like we're only get to ask that question "off camera".

That's absurd. 

Hasn't the various Congressional Committee already asked her this something like 7 times? Including once in person.  The problem for you Rethuglics is that the (Republican) committees have all concluded that there was no scandal.

[VtaGeezer]

That's absurd. 

Like the other top items in the current US conservative dogma aren't? 
4 Americans killed in an isolated event in Libya...three years of hair-on-fire hysterics; 5,000 Americans killed and a trillion $ burned in the 5+ year long neocon fraud of "liberating" Iraq...no problemo. 

The absurdity is that the Republican Party still exists after what they did to this country, let alone control the Congress.

[Gd5150]

Like the other top items in the current US conservative dogma aren't? 
4 Americans killed in an isolated event in Libya...three years of hair-on-fire hysterics; 5,000 Americans killed and a trillion $ burned in the 5+ year long neocon fraud of "liberating" Iraq...no problemo. 

The absurdity is that the Republican Party still exists after what they did to this country, let alone control the Congress.

That Hillary, Kerry, Democrats, England, and the entire world supported. The end of a tyrannical dictator. Free elections for the 1st time in decades. And as of 2008 was a complete victory and on path to be a free democratic ally to the west. Thanks to the Obama/Clinton foreign policy of no foreign policy, its now a complete disaster like national healthcare, and the economic recovery thats consisted of 100 million full time jobs lost.

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
- Bill Clinton 1998 Address to the nation

And as of 2008, this problem was completely erased. Thanks to the courage and leadership of George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Republicans, Democrats, and dozens of countries and their militaries who supported the noble cause of liberating Iraq. Saddam is no longer a threat, he is dead. Unfortunately we didn't know the US would be stupid enough to hand off control to a unqualified amateur and destroy the progress made just 2 years later.

"Last year, I announced the end to our mission in Iraq.  And we’ve removed more than 100,000 troops.  Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country’s security." - Bareak Obama 2011

This is what happens when you have children do jobs that require adults.

As for Benghazi, yes it was just another right wing conspiracy, thats why the Obama admin lied about it on national tv numerous times, and why Hillary called in sick every time she was ordered to answer questions. A conspiracy like her email server that she chose to have, and chooses to not turn over thus confirming again her corruption. A conspiracy like the Clinton foundation that has taken over 2 billion in bribes, and donated less than 10% to charity. - IRS

[albrecht]

Remember when the Clintons had their bagman Berger try to steal or destroy documents from the national archive? The cover-up behavior is nothing new to the Clintons (bimbo eruptions, Arkansas blood, etc.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/politics/clinton-friends-libya-role-blurs-lines-of-politics-and-business.html?_r=0
I love these leftists who know support Billary despite the corruption, links to big businesses and corrupt countries, private emails, refusal to talk to reporters, links with a pedophile and lolita flights, and tax-free Foundations with questionable funding and lack of public oversight. Very democratic or leftist!

[VtaGeezer]

That Hillary, Kerry, Democrats, England, and the entire world supported.

As for Benghazi,

Yeah, I supported it too...because my fucking President and his old man's Svengali, Dick Cheney, lied through their fucking teeth to us (that includes you) and to the Congress.  The Congress, including Kerry and Clinton, knew only what Cheney wanted them to know, and the clown Bush's job was to keep the 9/11 hysteria whipped up and keep dissenters shamed as virtual traitors.  They even snookered Colin Powell (wrecking his GOP Presidential aspirations so the GOP got Cap'n Crunch McCain to run against Obama). You repeat the latest con from the rightwing talking points; the tired old BS that we're better off because Saddam is gone.  Really?  Read the news from the ME lately?

Benghazi; a Fox News-driven rightwing fetish over four unfortunate deaths. All while pushing Obama to send US ground troops to fight ISIS; that other wonderful legacy of Republican policy. What will you clowns do when the first American soldier shows up on ISIS-TV in burning cage? Oh...I know...you'll scream for more...and blame it on the liberals who tried to stop this catastrophic mess.  Just like Vietnam...just send more fodder and snap the flag at the doubters. 

Why is it conservatives can't grasp the concept of not throwing good money after bad? You hate Obama?  Fine.  But remember who's actions were directly responsible for the conditions that put him in office; yours.

[GeorgieForPresident2216]

In fact most of the world did not support the 2003 attack on Iraq, which is why the US had to go in unilaterally apart from England's help and the ragtag "coalition of the willing" they could form.  My country Canada, your largest national trading partner for what it's worth, did not support the war to begin with as it was not sanctioned by NATO or the UN, and never has.  Considering we are a Commonwealth country which virtually always follows England's lead, our head of state being Queen Elizabeth II,  that should tell you something.

[albrecht]

Back to the subject I don't think any of the revelations hurt Billary. If anything it helps consolidate support as they will be framed as "right wing attacks" or some such. He is golden and, lolita flights and all aside, he rubs off on her, particularly on the women angle (and so perceived criticism is just sexist attacks of the right-wing talk machine.) Benghazi is just a story for those already against her. Remember this is an administration that openly says returning vets are a threat, more than Muslims who they are importing, and has secret waiting lists at the VA and won't even fire VA employees who joke about veterans' suicides and the like. So dead people blamed on fake youtubes and lying about them or support for radical Muslim Arab Springers who turn into SI are a non-starter with most of the public.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-state-department-emails-release-schedule-118085.html

I think the avoiding the press thing could ding her. Why avoid the press, people like Stephanopolous, who are in were your employ? That is somewhat bizarre.

[SciFiAuthor]

I predict that Hillary will prove to be made out of teflon and survive her current troubles. People have about a two week memory span as Art recently noted about promotion (and he's very much right). By election time, only members of the Republican Party will remember that any of this actually happened. The Republican politicians however will not remember and it won't be brought up in any meaningful way.

I predict the Republican Party will screw up as usual and pick some unelectable jackass. Jeb Bush seems to fit that slot nicely.

For the first time since I turned 18, I may not vote for president in the coming election. I'll vote on everything else, but leave the presidential slot blank. My reasoning is that we truly now live in the Twilight Zone. Obama's trying to slip a free trade deal through (!) despite the promises of past free-trade deals falling completely flat to the enormous detriment of the US economy. Free trade with third world nations is one of the worst possible things you can do to your country. Yet here we are, Free Trade from the Republicans and Free Trade from the Democrats because our politicians no longer have actual ideology, they're just a bunch of crooks that claim to actually believe in some kind of political ideology backed by media parrots, whether that be the mainstream media or talk radio.

Why won't I vote third party you ask? Because corruption of this magnitude is infectious. You could vote in the stuffed corpse of Lenin in desperate hope of some kind of break in the political stagnation of the country like a depressed lemming going off the cliff in hope of a rise and the fucker would just sell out and sign a free trade agreement with China and export whatever jobs we've got left for a few cheap perks and gifts.

[136 or 142]

Why won't I vote third party you ask? Because corruption of this magnitude is infectious. You could vote in the stuffed corpse of Lenin in desperate hope of some kind of break in the political stagnation of the country like a depressed lemming going off the cliff in hope of a rise and the fucker would just sell out and sign a free trade agreement with China and export whatever jobs we've got left for a few cheap perks and gifts.

If a free trade agreement with China required them to trade their currency on the open market, to modernize their corporate laws and to respect the environment, it would be a good thing.

[albrecht]

If a free trade agreement with China required them to trade their currency on the open market, to modernize their corporate laws and to respect the environment, it would be a good thing.

They won't though until it is in their best interest. And I doubt the super-secret treaty will force them to do so, as usual it will likely be only our countries who will even try to abide by the rules. But, who knows, since we aren't even allowed to see, comment on, improve, or question the super-secret treaty and even politicians aren't allowed to copy it and Obama, and some Republican enablers, want to make it so Congress can't even change treaties. Very democratic, open process- even before some unelected international body starts over turning our laws or court opinions.

[VtaGeezer]

China is not a party to the TPP deal.  They know better.  Chinese trade policy can be summed up thus: "If you want to sell it here, you make it here...and we get a piece of the action and your technology too."