Now this is funny:
“Let’s tell it like it is. If the doctors told Sen. McConnell he had a kidney stone, he wouldn’t pass it.” – Kentucky Secretary of State and 2014 Senate Candidate Alison Lundergran Grimes (D).
Meanwhile, a new poll shows that Governor Chris Christie is the only Republican candidate that has any chance against Hillary Clinton.
NATIONAL–PRESIDENT–Monmouth University: Fmr. Sec. of State Hillary Clinton (D) 43, Gov. Chris Christie (R) 39; Clinton 47, Fmr. Gov. Jeb Bush (R) 37; Clinton 47, Sen. Marco Rubio (R) 36; Clinton 48, Sen. Ted Cruz 32.
Cruz, in my opinion, is the most likely nominee. Cruz is hawkish like Christie, a bully like Christie, but 100% conservative and beloved by the teabaggers, which Christie is not. Electoral statistician Harry J. Enten at The Guardian, however, thinks Jeb Bush would be a strong 2016 presidential contender:
His true ideology looks like what one would expect for a winner for the nomination and general. After losing two presidential races in a row, parties tend to nominate candidates who are more moderate than prior nominees. Jimmy Carter was more moderate than McGovern, Clinton was more moderate than Dukakis, and Bush was more moderate than Dole.
Jeb Bush is actually to the left of every possible nominee per ideological scoring except for New Jersey’s Chris Christie and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman. Noticeably, Bush isn’t too far to the left.
Enten is wrong here. Ask any conservative why they lost in 2008 and 2012, and the answer is because they nominated moderate compromisers and flip floppers named John McCain and Mitt Romney. Yes, Bush is a great candidate for the GOP in the general, but first he has to be nominated by a primary electorate that will think Bush is just another McCain or another Romney. Yeah, not going to happen. This is the same reason why I think Chris Christie is doomed in the primary. In fact, Christie and Bush’s only hope is that the other (Bush or Christie) doesn’t run, and that the angry conservative teabag vote is split between Cruz, Santorum and Paul.
And now to the wonderful congressional GOP and the looming Budget crisis of their own making. First, Paul Krugman:
How did the G.O.P. get to this point? On budget issues, the proximate source of the party’s troubles lies in the decision to turn the formulation of fiscal policy over to a con man. Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, has always been a magic-asterisk kind of guy — someone who makes big claims about having a plan to slash deficits but refuses to spell out any of the all-important details. Back in 2011 the Congressional Budget Office, in evaluating one of Mr. Ryan’s plans, came close to open sarcasm; it described the extreme spending cuts Mr. Ryan was assuming, then remarked, tersely, “No proposals were specified that would generate that path.”
What’s happening now is that the G.O.P. is trying to convert Mr. Ryan’s big talk into actual legislation — and is finding, unsurprisingly, that it can’t be done. Yet Republicans aren’t willing to face up to that reality. Instead, they’re just running away.
Republicans in the House may or may not suffer electorally from their obstruction. But if they shut down the government, their state level counterparts, their GOP Governors who are up for reelection in 2014, will.
“Worried about the potential impact on the fragile economies in their states, Republican governors this weekend warned their counterparts in Congress not to shut down the federal government as part of an effort to block financing for President Obama’s health care law.”
“A range of Republican governors, including some who have refused to implement elements of the health initiative in their states, said in interviews that a standoff in Washington before the new fiscal year this fall could backfire on the party if it is seen as being responsible for bringing the government to a halt.”