whembly wrote:

Food for thought... the (D) Senate's chance is linked to Obama's Job Approval...

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Food for thought... the (D) Senate's chance is linked to Obama's Job Approval...

Which also indicates that the probability of victory for Republican hopefuls is linked to Obama's job approval. That said, I've never found Presidential approval to be a strong indicator of the outcome in Senatorial votes, there are simply too many additional variables in play in any given Senatorial election (which RCP notes).

 whembly wrote:
Food for thought... the (D) Senate's chance is linked to Obama's Job Approval, per RCP

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

Yep.

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

O.o

Are they happening now?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

Yep.

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

O.o

Are they happening now?

Does that matter? WWII happened a long time ago, it's still bad if you supported the nazis. And it's would still be hypocritical of him to have supported crackdowns on leftist revolutions.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Transcript:

Much bombastic! Such Republican!

Yep.

I wonder how he feels about the Contras, or the Brazilian military coup, or any of the many instances in which South American countries oppressed leftist revolutionary movements at the behest of the US.

O.o

Are they happening now?

Does that matter? WWII happened a long time ago, it's still bad if you supported the nazis. And it's would still be hypocritical of him to have supported crackdowns on leftist revolutions.

Wha?

Rubio wasn't alive during WW2...

Even during The1964 Brazilian coup d'état (I'm assuming that's dogma is referring to)...

Contras occurred around 1985... Rubio was 14-ish... he was chasing girls at this age.

dogma ain't got nuth'in.

 whembly wrote:

Rubio wasn't alive during WW2...

 whembly wrote:

Are they happening now?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Rubio wasn't alive during WW2...

Nice job biting on a Godwin.

 whembly wrote:

Are they happening now?

Rubio is not an idiot, nor are any members of his staff. He knows these things occurred and is clearly dodging any commentary relative to those events in order to secure his position in Florida.

 whembly wrote:

Yup. Absolutely.... doesn't make it less awesome.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yup. Absolutely.... doesn't make it less awesome.

Yes, it does. His speech is a boring pastiche of national and Florida Republicans.

It has also just occurred to me that Rubio's position on the Mexican government should be considered. After all, it is socialist, so clearly the cartel violence that has not spilled over into the US should be regarded as against a leftist government, and therefore in support of the US.

 whembly wrote:

I don't understand really what you're yammering about.

Are you surprised that he's doing this? He's politicking for Florida isn't he? This is red-meat for the Cubans in Florida...

A trove of Clinton White House records long processed for release remains hidden from public view at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock — even though the legal basis initially used to withhold them expired more than a year ago.

The papers contain confidential advice given to or sought by President Bill Clinton, including communications with then-first lady Hillary Clinton, and records about people considered for appointments to federal office.

About 33,000 pages of documents are involved, according to the National Archives, which runs the library.

Under the Presidential Records Act, such records can be withheld for up to 12 years after a president leaves office. However, at the 12-year mark, those broad restrictions fall away and the once-secret presidential papers are generally subject to disclosure. For the Clinton files, that milestone came and went in January 2013.

The long-sealed records pose a delicate series of choices for the Clintons, and even President Barack Obama. They could allow disclosure of the papers, fueling new stories about old controversies like Whitewater and pardons granted as the 42nd president left office in 2001. Or they could fight to keep some or all of the files secret, likely triggering a court battle and stoking concerns that the former president and his wife are unduly secretive.

Either way, it’s a potentially messy situation unfolding just as Hillary Clinton — widely considered a clear front-runner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination — mulls over whether to make a second bid to return to the White House.

t’s not entirely clear who’s responsible for the delay, since the release process involves the library and National Archives headquarters, as well as lawyers for the former president and Obama.

Unlike collections in other hands, the withheld files at the Clinton Library are under the control of the federal government. Obama would have to choose whether to back any privilege assertion by the ex-president — a move that would be in tension with public statements Obama made as a candidate and as president, promising to improve access to presidential records. Even the long delays in accessing the files raise significant questions about whether reforms Obama imposed on his first day in office are working.

After a series of inquiries from POLITICO in recent days, an official with the current White House said Tuesday afternoon that a large batch of the formerly withheld Clinton records should emerge soon.

“The White House has cleared a significant number of P2/P5 Clinton documents … roughly 25,000 pages,” said the Obama aide, citing the legal designations originally used to withhold the records.

The aide, who asked not to be named, did not say precisely when that clearance was given. However, he added: “There have been no executive privilege assertions on Clinton materials to date.”

After several days of queries, a National Archives spokesman said Tuesday evening that some — but not all — of the previously withheld records have been approved for release.

“As of today, the representatives of the former and incumbent presidents have approved the release of a majority of the approximately 33,000 pages of Clinton presidential records that were previously withheld” under the advice and appointment provisions, said Chris Isleib, director of communications for the National Archives. “Our goal is to make these records available as soon as possible, but it will take the Clinton Library and [the National Archives and Records Administration] additional time to complete the logistics of making available such a large release, including being able to make the records available on the Web.”

Isleib said the White House had extended the deadline regarding the remaining records until March 26.

An aide to former President Clinton indicated Tuesday evening that the former president’s aides just learned of the current White House’s signoff on some of the records.

“We were notified today by the National Archives and Records Administration that the White House had cleared over 20,000 pages of previously closed Clinton administration documents, subject to an assertion of executive privilege by the former president. We informed NARA that President Clinton did not intend to assert privilege with respect to the documents,” said the aide, who asked not to be named.

Handling of historical records about the Clintons is already drawing increased scrutiny — attention that seems certain to grow in the coming months.

“Especially if you have a Hillary Clinton candidacy for president, there is going to be renewed interest in how these things are depicted, what’s public and what’s not. That’s a debate that’s about to be had,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a University of Houston political science professor who conducted research at the Clinton Library and was frustrated that certain records relating to Clinton-era scandal management were off-limits.

Earlier this month, the conservative Washington Free Beacon published a pair of stories that sparked questions about history’s ability to haunt the former first lady. One delved into records kept by late Clinton friend Diane Blair detailing many of Hillary Clinton’s personal concerns about the crises that beset her husband’s presidency, including his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The other article noted that papers from Bill Clinton’s official files during his two terms as Arkansas governor are locked away from view at a public library in Little Rock.

The Free Beacon stories did not mention the much vaster collections at the Clinton Presidential Library: some 78 million pages of paper records and 20 million emails — only a tiny fraction of which are available for public research. However, the Republican National Committee quickly made such a link, portraying the undisclosed files as a political liability.

“The Blair archive wasn’t the only locked down library in 2008 — the Clinton Library was described as ‘Little Rock’s Fort Knox,’” an RNC email to reporters said, quoting a 2007 Newsday story.

As archivists at the Clinton Library have processed records for the past decade or so, they have dutifully marked the advice-related and appointment-related information so that it could be released with little additional work after the 12-year point.

However, more than 13 months after the legal restrictions expired, there are no indications that any of the formerly restricted records are available for research.

“The obvious answer is they are trying to protect Hillary and there’s no question at all that there’s something in that … but the reality also is they don’t have the staff,” said Gettysburg College professor Shirley Warshaw, a frequent visitor to presidential libraries.

National Archives personnel have repeatedly complained that they lack the resources and personnel to complete legally required page-by-page reviews in a timely fashion. However, the formerly restricted Clinton records have already been reviewed and don’t require much new effort to prepare for release.

For at least some of the records, the National Archives has formally advised representatives of Bill Clinton and Obama of the planned release, giving both parties a chance to look over the records before they would become public — and giving both parties an opportunity to slow down the process.

In September, a top archivist at the Clinton Library told POLITICO the formerly restricted material was still “work[ing] its way through the notification process.”

If either Clinton or Obama objects to any release, they could try to assert executive privilege over the material, setting up a potential court fight.

The Clinton Library has not published a comprehensive list of the materials held back from prior document releases. However, information posted online indicates that a number of the withheld records come from Hillary Clinton’s office.

For example, in 2011, the library withheld as confidential advice portions or all of 785 pages of health-care-reform-related records from the first lady’s staff. The papers were removed from a large set of files released in response to a lawsuit from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

Also withheld under the now-expired confidential advice provision were a series of documents pertaining to Clinton-era scandals such as Whitewater and the death of White House aide Vince Foster. The records held back include legal memos on such subjects from figures like Clinton personal attorney David Kendall and White House Counsel’s Office lawyer Elena Kagan, who became a Supreme Court justice in 2010.

In 2007, a total of about 2,600 pages at the library were being withheld in part or in full as confidential advice, a National Archives spokeswoman told The New York Sun. The number apparently grew to at least about 33,000 by last year.

The expiration of the 12-year restrictions on the Clinton files is also a key test for an executive order Obama signed on his first full day in office, promising to overhaul the presidential records process and remove obstacles he said were put in place by his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

The delays in access to the processed-but-unreleased Clinton-era records are far longer than those involving comparable files from President George H.W. Bush’s White House.

When the 12-year restriction on Bush’s records dropped in 2005, formerly withheld records began to emerge quickly from his library in College Station, Texas. Nearly 10,000 pages of records were made available to researchers just 29 days after the 12-year mark. A total of more than 31,000 pages of formerly restricted files were released in the course of that year. Full release of the more than 68,000 pages was completed in 2009, according to the Bush library’s website.

However, the expiration of the 12-year restriction on President Ronald Reagan’s files led to greater delays and a messy legal fight.

About 70,000 pages were processed but restricted as confidential advice to Reagan when his papers hit the 12-year mark in 2001, according to a court filing. That looming release triggered a policy review by the incoming administration of President George W. Bush, which held up disclosure of the files.

In November 2001, Bush issued a new executive order on presidential records. Historians and other researchers denounced the order and filed suit, claiming Bush’s directive would allow for unlimited delays and give former presidents or even family members of deceased presidents broad authority to block releases. A court ultimately held a portion of the Bush order illegal.

Despite the ongoing litigation, the first batch of about 8,000 pages of formerly restricted Reagan records was made public in February 2002. The release of the remaining records took place by 2004, although Reagan’s representatives ultimately prevailed in withholding 11 documents totaling 74 pages. The withheld papers included a memo about pardons for Oliver North and John Poindexter, as well as a document about Nancy Reagan’s use of military aircraft.

Obama’s White House has boasted that his executive order would lead to greater openness at presidential libraries.

“President Obama has also ensured that White House records, even sensitive documents, will become more readily and more quickly available to the public in the future,” a 2011 report on Obama’s commitment to open government declared. Promising greater openness in “the near and far future,” the report said Obama “rescinded” the Bush order, which had allowed “former presidents and their descendants to delay indefinitely the release of information.”

Despite the thousands of pages of previously withheld records now in limbo, disclosure at the Clinton Library has not stopped altogether.

Last October, the Clinton Library did release a batch of 57,234 pages of health care reform-related records to Judicial Watch, whose lawsuit demanding access to the complete set of files was brought in 2007 and continues. No pages were withheld as confidential advice in the latest batch. In addition, that same month the library and the Central Intelligence Agency released 300 documents pertaining to the Bosnia crisis.

But researchers still complain that the clearance process Obama put in place has not worked much better than Bush’s.

“The Obama executive order has probably solved some of the problem, but certainly not all,” said George Lardner, a former Washington Post reporter who has done extensive research on presidential pardons. “The Obama order is easily subject to manipulation. The Obama order includes a provision that the time period for review can be extended and extended and there’s no limit to it. … The Obama order is worse than the Clinton [era] order, and certainly not that much better than the Bush order.”

“For sure, you’ve got a delay in the process because of that three-tiered system of review,” Rottinghaus said, referring to the National Archives, the former president and the current one. “The Obama administration has promised more openness and couldn’t completely deliver.”

If issues of access to Clinton Library files do become a political headache for Hillary Clinton in a forthcoming presidential bid, it won’t be the first time.

During the 2008 presidential race, Clinton came under fire — often from Obama and his allies — for allegedly trying to keep her White House files shrouded in secrecy.

In one of the highest-profile episodes, late NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert used the forum of a televised debate in October 2007 to publicly challenge Mrs. Clinton about off-limits records from her time as first lady.

“There was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?” Russert said, brandishing a copy of the letter.

“That’s not my decision to make,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And I don’t believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we’ll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.”

Obama leapt on the political opening, raising his hand to chime in.

“This is an example of not turning the page. We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history, and not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, as you’re making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem,” Obama said. “Part of what we need to do is rebuild trust in our government again. … And that means being open and transparent and accountable to the American people.”

Russert’s questions infuriated Bill Clinton, who later called them “breathtakingly misleading.”

“She was incidental to the letter,” the former president insisted. “It was a letter to speed up presidential releases, not to slow them down.”

While the purpose of the letter was to narrow the overall amount of information kept from the public, the letter does indicate that “communications directly between the President and First Lady” should be “considered for withholding,” among several other categories.

Those restrictions are precisely the ones that expired last January.

Later in the campaign, the Clinton Library did release Hillary Clinton’s official schedules as first lady. They contained little news and proved far less damaging politically than the controversy over the delay in releasing them.

 whembly wrote:
Let's try this again...

This goes for both congress critters and potential presidential nominees.

Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

Here's the Democrats need to do, in general:
Stick with what works?
-War on Woman
-Throw Hillary on stage... all she has to do is say "hi"
-Defend Social Programs
-???
-Profit?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Let's try this again...

This goes for both congress critters and potential presidential nominees.

Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

Only problem is that this has never been the GOP message.

The Republicans love rules, they love to make rules, they love to tell people what they can and cannot do and they love telling people what they HAVE to do.

Oklahoma is about as red as you can get. Our State Senate is 75% Republican and our State House is 71% Republican. Do a basic bill search for all the bills introduced this year and you will see nothing but rules and regulations introduced by the Republicans. And it's not really much different on the national level.

The idea that the Republican Party is the "leave me alone" party and the "don't make rules for people" party is the biggest load of bull and you have to be 100% delusional and a complete idiot to believe that. At some point that might have been true, but it hasn't been for a very long time.

Republicans and Democrats are 100% the same when it comes to telling people what to do. The only difference is that they have different priorities and different targets that they want to control and restrict.

Here's the Democrats need to do, in general:
Stick with what works?
-War on Woman
-Throw Hillary on stage... all she has to do is say "hi"
-Defend Social Programs
-???
-Profit?

They have to be willing to make sacrifices and they need to work on that by presenting budgets that are workable and budgets that are getting us back on track on sensible spending. They have to introduce reasonable laws if they want to actually pass any legislation without giving Republicans ammunition.

George W. Bush drove us apart but Barack Obama is doing everything he can to bring us back together.

 whembly wrote:
Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Here's what I think the GOP needs to do, in general:
The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

Essentially: Get off my freaking back and leave me alone, let me do my own damn thing... I think is a pretty powerful message.

Nah, the Republicans have been beating that drum for a generation. Anyone that the message resonates with has heard it and is already voting Republican. To everybody else it just sounds like the same tired old rhetoric (which frankly it is).

Republicans really need to run on, well, nothing. The economy is still crappy, and the Republicans have done a great job at attacking the ACA, so there's no real policy achievement for Democrats to hold up. In that environment all Republicans have to do is set themselves up as small targets and expect a low Democratic turnout.

Democrats, on the other hand, have a tough sell. They have to keep pushing on issues (hence the minimum wage thing)... but it's hard to run on a reform message when you've been in power for some time. Other than that, they just have to hope that Republicans do something to get Democrat aligned but cynical voters to get scared of the Republicans. But Akins moments only come along every so often (the dumb comments aren't enough, you also need the right political moment), and well, given everything else going up against them they maybe need like a triple Akins to do it.

 whembly wrote:
I think "doing nothing" is a mistake for Republicans... they can't just keep bashing Democrats and their policies (ACA, Immigration, etc...). They really need to define what they're going to do in Congress. Otherwise, they'll end up doing pretty much what the Democrats are doing "being on different sides of the same coin".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I think "doing nothing" is a mistake for Republicans... they can't just keep bashing Democrats and their policies (ACA, Immigration, etc...). They really need to define what they're going to do in Congress. Otherwise, they'll end up doing pretty much what the Democrats are doing "being on different sides of the same coin".

That's very true. All we see the Rs in congress do is stop the Ds from doing anything. I listen to the weekly radio address and all it is is "The Democrats are doing this horrible thing", "Obama is doing this horrible thing.", never any ideas about what to do.

 whembly wrote:
I think "doing nothing" is a mistake for Republicans... they can't just keep bashing Democrats and their policies (ACA, Immigration, etc...). They really need to define what they're going to do in Congress. Otherwise, they'll end up doing pretty much what the Democrats are doing "being on different sides of the same coin".

I actually think minimum wage is a great plank for them to advocate.

 whembly wrote:

The GOP needs to start talking about Freedom and Liberty, distancing themselves from the Dems who want to make rule after rule after freaking rule to control everyone from cradle to grave.

 whembly wrote:

The ideas are there... it's just that the messaging is horri-bad.

 sebster wrote:

Definitely. Too little too late though, I suspect.

After months of railing against President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, Republicans scored a key victory in a hard-fought congressional race that had been closely watched as a bellwether of midterm elections in November.

Republican David Jolly defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a Florida special election Tuesday that largely turned on the federal health care law, with both sides using the race to audition national strategies in one of the country's few competitive swing-voting districts.

The implications of the dueling messages for control of Congress in November inspired both parties to call in star advocates like former President Bill Clinton and former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, in addition to blanketing the district with ads, calls and mailings. More than $11 million was spent on the race, according to the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group that tracks government information.[whembly: !!! sweet jebus!!]

While Republicans held the congressional seat for more than four decades until the death of Rep. Bill Young last year, the district's voters favored Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. Democrats were hopeful, clearing the field for Sink, the state's well-known chief financial officer and the party's gubernatorial nominee in 2010. Republicans failed to recruit their top picks, leaving Jolly to fight a bruising three-way primary.

This stretch of beach towns and retirement communities on the Gulf Coast is the type of terrain where Democrats need to compete if they hope to win seats in the House and keep control of the Senate. Analysts said the loss could bode badly for the party, which is already saddled with an unpopular president and a slow economic recovery.

"The overall picture does send a message and it says, 'Be afraid. Be very afraid,'" said Jack Pitney, a former national GOP official and government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "This is one more piece of evidence that 2014 will be a very difficult year for Democrats."

Democrats, however, downplayed the loss, saying the GOP fell short of its traditional margin in a Republican-leaning district packed with older voters. With almost 100 percent of the vote counted, Jolly had 48.5 percent of the vote to Sink's 46.7 percent. Even before the defeat, party officials had been lowering expectations.

"I've never believed that special elections are a bellwether of anything," said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who chairs the House Democrats' campaign operation. "You have to treat every district for what it is, not for what you want it to be."

Nevertheless, the battle for Florida's 13th District seat in the Tampa area was a prequel of sorts to the national fight this year over who controls Congress in the last two years of Obama's final presidential term. The House is expected to remain under Republican control. But in the Senate, Republicans are hoping to leverage Obama's unpopularity and his health care law's wobbly start to gain the six seats required to control the 100-member chamber.

That made the race in Florida a pricey proving ground for both parties heading into November elections.

Jolly, a former Young aide backed by Republicans and outside groups, campaigned on a conservative platform, promising spending cuts, balanced budgets and repealing the health care law.

The message against the health care overhaul proved a rallying cry for Republican voters, who surged to the polls on Election Day.

In Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program Wednesday, Ryan, who has become involved in the issue of poverty over the last year and a half, told Bennett there is a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”

“So there’s a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with,” added the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee.

In the radio interview, Ryan also referenced conservative author, American Enterprise Institute scholar, and self-described “right-wing ideologue,” Charles Murray, who wrote the controversial book “The Bell Curve,” which claims that black people have inferior intelligence and is the reason for social disadvantages.

"I've never believed that special elections are a bellwether of anything," said Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who chairs the House Democrats' campaign operation. "You have to treat every district for what it is, not for what you want it to be."

In Bill Bennett’s Morning in America program Wednesday, Ryan, who has become involved in the issue of poverty over the last year and a half, told Bennett there is a “tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work.”