I enjoy reading Charles Krauthammer commentaries and his does a great job of pointing out the obvious. He is purely partisan which is fine and one of the reasons I enjoy his writings. This week he came out with his picks with odds of winning for the GOP field in 2016. You just have to love his view of our up coming election!

Handicapping the 2016 Field

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416059/handicapping-2016-field-charles-krauthammer


What is great is Tea Bagger favorite Ted Cruz is in the bottom of his tier 2 candidates with 15-1 odds of winning.

Quote:
5. Ted Cruz. Grand, florid campaign launch with matching rhetoric. Straightforward base-oriented campaign. Has developed a solid following. Could break out, especially in debate. 15-1.




Based on his odds you guys are going to have to get comfortable with having another Bush and that is best you can expect!


Great story guys!

He Puts Rubio first.

Which I found interesting.

Rubio at 3-1 and Jeb at 3.5 to 1 (7-2). Both of these guys have some real depth and competence.

Rubio has more passion.

I was amazed that he discounted Walker, mostly for inexperience on a national stage. Still has him in the first tier at 4-1.

Overall, a pretty interesting article.

BMT

I agree. I don't see the big money lining up behind Rubio. Old money Bush will swing the establishment $ and if he wins in the general election we all will be hating "Bush III" I don't see the country electing a 3rd Bush.

Dr. Charles is nothing like a real conservative. I don't listen to him.

A dolt pontificating always makes me chuckle

Krauthammer is brilliant and always interesting.

He's not a conservative as I think of a conservative. He's more of an aristocratic, country club Republican and as long as one remembers where he's coming from, it's always interesting to here what he has to say. He does make some good points from time to time. Like many of his kind, they don't understand the fervor and angst of those of us who are really worried about this country.

DF

Got bad news for you. Not enough "real" conservatives in this country to elect one - period.

Unfortunately I have to agree with Nathan; Republicans seemingly are more against Republicans than they are against Democrats.

People are fed up with Obama and the Dem's. Who ever gets the Rep nomination is our next president. Hasbeen

Unfortantley, Dr Charles is probably right on his predictions.

The Republican Party won't nominate Cruz or Jindahl, or that idiot Rand Paul. And Scott Walker will have a melt down before the primary, or multiple skeletons will fall out of his closet.
And the Democraps & Libertard Media will continue to crucify Ted Cruz because he scares them the most.

I still think either Jindahl / Cruz or Perry / Jindahl are the best choice for POTUS, but that will never happen.

Bush and Rubio are the only GOP candidates who can get the Mexicans to support them on the GOP side. And If it should come down to Bush vs Hilliary or Rubio vs Hillary, you can bet your sweet ass that I for one WONT stay home and NOT vote for Bush or Rubio. Because that's Exactly how the [bleep] in Charge won the last two elections !

It's a long time till the primaries start. Any poll,prediction done now is not worth a hill of beans.

Not gonna get worked up about it either till the primaries start.

Good advice, buddy!

Yep. And don't pay attention to what the psyops weenies in the Propaganda Corps say. Their job is to influence support for the R they can live with in the event the democrap they really support loses.

Vote for the candidate you like in the primaries and hold your nose and vote for the nominee in the general.

Actually it's not that simple! You see....the folks that are paying the bills these days are OUT VOTED by those that are on the take to the tune of 52% to 48% so it's a done deal! That 52% doesn't give a rats azz whether the POTUS rapes a six year old girl every day on the Oval Office desk....as long as they get their handouts!!

Yup.

Leave it to [bleep] slurpin goochie goo lickers like Walt to introduce tea baggin ball polishin topics into otherwise normal conversation.

Fuggin libtard homo.

I say again, in case ya missed the other day, if you're ever back here in the Oneill area look me up so I can buy ya a beer...

With just a little bit a rat poison in it.

The problem is with the likes of Cruz feeding Red Meat to the bottom of the base( and being unelectable) will make all candidates pander to the extreme crazy right creating candidates who will attempt to out crazy the other candidates. The GOP primary process brings out the true believers on the right in droves, isolates the remainder of the GOP and you get stuck with a McCain or Mitt who would not know a conservative if it bit them. End result is you have an unelectable candidate regardless.

Oops

Busted by a fa ga la lovin computer program.

Maybe I should spell " [bleep] " djizs.

(see if this works )

Eventually the establishment RNC will rule the day and Bush III will be selected,not elected. The Country is too far "gone" to elect a real conservative. The RNC will talk tough when its needed but pull the inevitable "bait and switch". The US voters are too ill-informed to really realize what has happened to the Country. The only way to awaken them is another 9/11 sized attack, which is obviously not an acceptable development.
So that sets up a centrist GOP nominee against "Obama light". In either case our goose is cooked - only sooner in one case.

Okay.

All better now.

Not as good as Mog75 pics,but she'll do.

Don't give up Bigwhoop.
We ain't dead, yet, and we ain't gonn die AIDS or vegan malnutrition like all the smegma slurpin walts.

You did it! You used all of your big words in that post!!!

I will be in Oneill this summer-June as a matter of fact big talker.

HEY !!!
I can (bleep)ing say smegma on here without gettin [bleep] bleeped!

Amazing...

Decon...
and hold the latex, right ?
See ya then. Just let me know.

I always suspected, Walt, you never really left Oniell and just internetted out as though from AK.

You got fired teaching school for fondling little boys, didn't ya.

And you're hiding in your poor old 90'something Mother's basement, aren't ya.

Why wait til June?

Come on Big Talker...I will be in Nebraska the first week in June and O'neill for sure...Stop shooting your mouth off and lets meet in Oneill. Guys like you are ll about shooting your multi off but piss your pants when someone stands up to your BS.

Meet you at Tanners or how about at the Westside for a cup of coffee. The offer is out there, put up or shut up big talker. Right here on the fire..put up or shut up

Only in a JEEP!

I don't think that Krauthammer is off base in his predictions, as much as those of us who love freedom and prosperity would like to believe he is.

These people, who run for president, are politicians. By default, they are scumbags to a man. The majority of them are lawyers. The old saying "It's the 99% of them that give the rest a bad name"...it's fairly accurate. No offense to the good lawyers aboard here.

The problem has become VERY evident when political matters are discussed here, in what is likely a very conservative arena compared to the public at large.

You've got guys here longing for a conservative like Bush! In light of the current head man, i can sympathize with that point of view...but Bush would have been considered a communist in the Reagan era.

Best advice I can offer is to turn off the TV, never look at another innanet news sight, and live happily ever after...if they come to your door wanting to take your shiz...shoot em in the face. The bottom line is that we are in a country where the majority are tuned into communism/socialism...so the country we grew up in is gone. I'm not saying you shouldn't stand against it, but you're pissing in the wind. Enjoy the years you have left and teach your children well.

Hard as it is to swallow, especially in light of the sacrifices our service men/women have made...the Great Experiment has failed. It's over and done. Obama is the symptom, liberalism is the disease. Sorry to have to be the one to say it.

Unless you are ready for another civil war, learn to suck it up and live your life. No one is going to really stand up while they are still employed and the markets are still working. It does not matter that it's all fantasy-dreamland economics...it's not gotten bad enough for anyone to take up arms. When it does get bad enough, people will side with the government solution that requires them to do nothing.

Hmmm


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". EB

We had one good leader who spun us out of the spiral in the 80's, the rest have been communist-lite at best. Since I wasn't born, how long was it before that?

Mog,is your wife responsible for that carnage?

Not sure. We killed a bunch yesterday. I didn't keep the pictures straight. The rifle in the picture is her muddy girl howa 1500 204. She's shooting up the factory loads mentioned previously. I shot with my blr 223, and my AR, shot up some 40 gr ballistic tips I had leftover from last year 8208xbr not sure why the charge weight wasn't written on the box. I actually managed to kill a stragler with my 1911 45 too, although I won't be disclosing the number of shots required for me to hit a crippled gopher at 10 feet.

They are no different than Reagan was so there are plenty.

Good for her!

If you're the kind of handgun shot that I am,probably too many to count.

I can tell you she killed way more than me although we didn't keep track. I was being fairly generous with my vehicle positioning, and I had to herd the horses out of the area several times. (I'm out here almost every day and can shoot any time I want, she works in town and doesn't get to shoot much so I try to give her an edge when she gets out.)

You're so chivalrous.

Yep, Reagan gave us amnesty for illegals, the ban on machine guns, and the ban on non-sporting ammunition. Great guy that Ronnie.

Bottom one was the 45acp, Winchester white box 230 fmj.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Hewlett-Packard Co Chief Executive Carly Fiorina on Sunday said the chances of her running for U.S. presidency were "very high" and she would announce her plans in late April-early May.

Fiorina, speaking on Fox News Sunday, put the chances of her running for president in 2016 at "higher than 90 percent" but said she could not yet announce the bid as she was working to establish her team, get "the right support" and financial resources.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-fo...her-than-90-percent-2015-3#ixzz3Vn5ZYDGI

Krauthammer 2012 picks >> Michele Bachmann: Tea Party favorite. Appeals to Palinites. Could do well in Iowa. Hard to see how she makes her way through the rest of the primaries. A strong showing in debates and a respectable finish would increase her stature for 2016. But for now: 20-1 to win the nomination.

Donald Trump: He's not a candidate, he's a spectacle. He's also not a conservative. With a wink and a smile, Muhammad Ali showed that self-promoting obnoxiousness could be charming. Trump shows that it can be merely vulgar. A provocateur and a clown, the Republicans' Al Sharpton.

The major candidates

Mitt Romney: Serious guy. Pre-vetted (2008). Tons of private- and public-sector executive experience. If not for one thing, he'd be the prohibitive front-runner. Unfortunately, the one thing is a big thing: Massachusetts' Romneycare. For an election in which the main issue is excessive government (see Axiom One), that's a huge liability. Every sentient Republican has been trying to figure out how to explain it away. I've heard no reports of any success. Romney is Secretariat at Belmont, but ridden by Minnesota Fats. He goes out at 5-1.

Newt Gingrich: Smart guy. A fountain of ideas. No, a Vesuvius of ideas. Some brilliance, lots of lava. Architect of a historic Republican victory in 1994. Rocky speakership. Unfortunate personal baggage. 12-1.

Haley Barbour: Successful governor. Experienced Washington hand. Abundant charm. Baggage: Years of lobbying, unforced errors on civil rights, early isolationist deviations. Rarely without a comeback, however. 7-1.

Tim Pawlenty: Formerly, unassuming, unprepossessing, solid two-term Minnesota governor. Currently, mouse that roars. Up-tempo style, middle-of-the-road conservative content. Apparently baggageless. Could be the last man standing. 5-1.

Mitch Daniels: Highly successful governor. Budget guru. Delightful dullness satisfies all axioms (see above). Foreign policy unknown, assuming he has one. Alienated some conservatives with his call for a truce on social issues. If he runs, 6-1.

Likely not running

Mike Huckabee: Has a good life - hosting a popular TV show, making money, building his dream house in Florida. He'd be crazy to run. Doesn't look crazy to me.

Sarah Palin: Same deal. Showed her power in 2010 as kingmaker and opinion shaper. Must know (I think) she has little chance at the nomination and none in the general election. Why risk it, and the inevitable diminishment defeat would bring?

Even less likely to run - the 2016 bench

A remarkable class of up-and-comers includes Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley. All impressive, all new to the national stage, all with bright futures. 2012, however, is too early - except possibly for Ryan, who last week became de facto leader of the Republican Party. For months, he will be going head-to-head with Obama on the budget, which is a surrogate for the central issue of 2012: the proper role of government. If Ryan acquits himself well, he could emerge as a formidable anti-Obama.

One problem: Ryan has zero inclination to run. Wants to continue what he's doing right now. Would have to be drafted. That would require persuasion. Can anyone rustle up a posse?



Charles Krauthammer's column,

Krauthammer has moved a long ways from the Left when he wrote and worked for Carter and Mondale.
Same path from Left to Right as Ronald Reagan who he now says was our greatest president.

In his own words...I’m often asked: “How do you go from Walter Mondale to Fox News?” To which the short answer is: “I was young once.”

Krauthammer has also written: “I believe that while everyone has the right to change views, one does at least owe others an explanation.”

He is always well worth reading or watching, but his endorsement/handicapping record sucks.

It's really easy, he simply went from Jewish Bolshevism to Jewish Zionism.

The way things are going, I'd take Billy Bob in a heartbeat over the present "disaster in chief".

I don't think it's possible to get one worse than what we have now.

Charles Krauthammer is not so sure....

"Senators are going to have a hard time," syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on Fox News last week. "We already tried a first-term senator,"

This one Die out of Prue Respect...

I think that was one of those flying gophers like shrapnel posts. I have no idea how he has time to lay down the gun, pick up the camera and snap the picture by the time the bullet arrives. I tried, and I'm not qualified. Low hits with the v max will launch them pretty good some times, direct hits do it occasionally too. Sometimes there ain't hardly a mark on them but they're dead as a door nail. Low miss is the best explanation I got.

Think they died of overdosing on Chili beans.

Mog...

You have a serious rodent problem down there.

Krauthammer is a great Conservative American. No wonder we all sit around watching FOX to have him tell us how things need to be.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/03/anybody-have-complete-text-of-this.html

"Charles Krauthammer "Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet. " Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996


In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of "assault weapons" will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America's home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-en\abling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these "assault weapons," were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

On the other side you have Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) demanding in trembling fury that the ban be repealed because his wife, alone in upstate New York, needs protection. Well, okay. But must it be an AK-47? Does, say, a .44 magnum -- easier to carry, by the way -- not suffice for issuing a credible, "Go ahead, make my day"?
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first -- and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end -- is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

True, part of the reason for the high crime rate is the ubiquity of guns -- which makes the argument circular and a solution seem impossible. But gun control advocates ignore other, egregious encouragements to crime at their peril. The lack of swift and certain retribution, for example. Judges like Harold Baer in New York, for whom four men loading $4 million worth of drugs into the trunk of a car at 5 in the morning, then running away from police, is insufficient cause for a search. Judg\es who need the president himself to yell and scream and threaten before reversing a decision to let serious criminality go unprosecuted.

In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, "You can go to jail for this," and he can correctly respond, "25 to 1 says I don't." So long as both the law-abiding population and the criminal classes doubt that serious crime leads to serious punishment, attempts at serious gun control will prove futile.

Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God's work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go."

Elks, thanks for that. I was getting to say some very nasty things about Jeb Bush but got distracted.

Now I don't have to say Bush is a POS agenda pimping whore.

Thanks,

D

It's like everyone is embarrassed by Charles' article telling us how he really feels.