Wed, Dec 24, 2014, 9:45 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed early today

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ADVANCED CELL TECH Message Board

  • elk_1l elk_1l Dec 13, 2013 10:44 AM Flag

    WILL THE TEA PARTY STEP UP TO THE CHALLENGE, DICKW

    Yes, dickw, it does look like the cauldron is boiling and we have reached that do or die moment so will the Tea Party grow a set of balls and step out and up to establish their own official political party so they can move ahead charting their own course in a just and pure crusade?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • WHY TED CRUZ NEEDS A LESSON IN GOP HISTORY

      By Carl M. Cannon - December 15, 2013 | Real Clear Politics

      A week after the conservative-led government shutdown that relegated the Republican Party to the fringes of polite society—at least according to the establishment media—but which actually merely delayed widespread outrage at Obamacare’s abysmal rollout, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz flew to Des Moines.
      Iowa is a long way from Cruz’s home turf, and even farther from Washington, D.C., but it’s the state that holds the first voting in the quadrennial presidential nominating process. Sen. Cruz is apparently contemplating that calendar, and after his semi-filibuster on Obamacare funding helped shut down the government for more than two weeks, he was the flavor-of-the-month in conservative circles.

      The Des Moines event was the Iowa Republican Party’s annual Reagan Dinner. Cruz was the headliner, and he made sure to glorify the Gipper.

      “We’re facing a new paradigm in politics … the rise of the grassroots [and] it has official Washington absolutely terrified,” Cruz said. “This new paradigm has been beta-tested, unlike the Obamacare website. It was beta-tested in 1980 with the Reagan Revolution and it pulled this country back from the brink.”

      I’m not certain what that means, but I’m pretty sure grassroots politics didn’t first blossom on these shores 200 years after George Washington was leading the Continental Army in battle. Meanwhile, Cruz has been making even more dubious historical claims, of the sort that ought to concern anyone who wants to see a Republican in the White House.

      “The clearest pattern that emerges is when Republicans nominate a strong conservative as a presidential candidate, Republicans win,” he says. “When Republicans nominate a candidate who runs as a moderate, Republicans lose.”
      Usually, Cruz prefaces that assertion by placing it in the last 40 years, which is convenient, if misleading. The success of the modern Republican Party can be traced to 1952, when Dwight Eisenhower emerged as the choice of East Coast establishment against Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, a conservative so fierce in his opposition to the New Deal that he earned the sobriquet “Mr. Republican.”

      Eisenhower’s presidency elevated his vice president, Richard Nixon, who ran in 1960 as a conservative, narrowly losing to John F. Kennedy. Four years later, with Kennedy martyred and Lyndon Johnson in the White House, the Democrats prevailed again—this time against Barry Goldwater, whose fiery brand of conservatism dominated the campaign and spooked the American people.

      In fairness to Goldwater, voters simply weren’t going to choose to have their third president in 12 months. But noting that no Republican could have won that year is not the same as saying the GOP nominated its most competitive candidate. In his convention address in San Francisco, Goldwater assured his landslide defeat by asserting that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

      That brings us to 1968, when Richard Nixon was nominated again, this time running as the pragmatist who first dispatched challenges from two more liberal Republicans, George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller. Not trusting Nixon much more than they did Romney or Rocky, however, movement conservatives urged California Gov. Ronald Reagan to run, and rallied behind him when he did.

      Reagan came closer than many realize to winning the 1968 nomination, and Nixon won the presidency campaigning as a peace candidate, of all things. In 1976, the Reagan challenge was again rebuffed, this time by an incumbent president, Gerald Ford, who lost to Jimmy Carter.

      So Ted Cruz is correct, I suppose, at least insofar as 1976 is concerned. In 1980 and 1984 Reagan won landslide victories, but the 1988 contest that Cruz believes was a face-off between the conservative George H.W. Bush and the more moderate Bob Dole was not an ideological battle. Actually, the most fiscally conservative candidate in the field was Jack Kemp.

      Dole finally got his chance in 1996, besting a weak field in which Lamar Alexander was probably the most moderate, and with Phil Gramm, Pat Buchanan, and Steve Forbes carrying the right-wingers’ water. Dole lost to incumbent President Bill Clinton. I covered that race, and until Ted Cruz came along, I never heard any Republican suggest that Gramm, Buchanan, or Forbes could have beaten Clinton—including Gramm, Buchanan, and Forbes.

      Four years later, George W. Bush bested his main challenger, John McCain, and Bush became a two-term president. But Dubya didn’t win the popular vote in 2000, a benchmark McCain might have attained. We’ll never know, but when self-styled 21st century Reaganites invoke their hero’s name, they might want to consider Reagan’s 1984 campaign against Walter Mondale.

      Reagan didn’t eke out a 49 percent plurality, as Bill Clinton did in 1996, or a 51 percent win, as Bush and Obama did in 2004 and 2012, respectively. He won 59 percent of the popular vote while carrying 49 states. He got virtually all the Republican votes (after expanding the GOP itself), most of the independents, and millions of moderate Democrats.

      So that’s the blueprint, and it didn’t happen by accident—and it certainly didn’t happen by constructing the narrowest possible ideological appeal to voters. Cruz understands this, at least in theory, because he often says Republicans must sound more “aspirational,” which is to say, more Reaganesque in their appeals. But that’s not an easy trick to pull off.

      In 2012, Rick Santorum, the last movement conservative standing in Mitt Romney’s unhappy march to the nomination, told Iowa Republicans that when it came to drawing the contrast on Obamacare, Massachusetts’ “Romneycare” program made Romney the worst standard-bearer Republicans could choose. It was a valid point, one that Santorum promptly undermined by doing things like telling New Hampshire high school students (who couldn’t vote anyway) that he wasn’t cool with contraception. That’s not something Ronald Reagan would have done. 

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Well elk, first of all, I don't believe there is a just and pure crusade anywhere in politics. However, as far as the Tea Party goes, I think they would prefer to stay in the Repub Party if the RHINOs would either leave or move back to conservatism both of which seem unlikely.That being the case, they would have no choice but to strike out on their own to establish a third party. I admit this would be very difficult but, who knows, the time may be right. The people are getting fed up with what they see in Washington. I really believe you guys are in trouble but you do have the time and the RHINOs on your side and nothing can be taken for granted. For whatever it is, that's how I see it.

      • 2 Replies to dickw3939
      • OMG, dickw, now even the hookah to the cauldron is pumping steam and things are getting so hot, shrill and nasty even the lobsters are trying to climb out of the pot and get away from the blistering heat in the kitchen so why isn't the Tea Party able to grow a pair of balls and make it official.

        As Lincoln said:

        A house divided against itself cannot stand....and, alas, it's separate but equal divisions must step apart and proudly erect and be supported by their own magnificent beams raised and thrust into the beauty of the sky of amazing grace.

        Wherefore art thou, ye mighty children of the Tea Party?

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • Re: "....they would have no choice but to strike out on their own to establish a third party. I admit this would be very difficult but, who knows, the time may be right. The people are getting fed up with what they see in Washington. ..."

        That's the spirit dickw, that is what we need to hear from you guys.

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • RUBIO VS. RYAN

      Marco Rubio: I Knew 'All The Details Of The Important Parts' Of The Ryan-Murray Plan

      The Huffington Post | By Luke Johnson
      Posted: 12/13/2013 9:34 am EST | Updated: 12/13/2013 3:27 pm EST

      Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) rejected the criticism that he came out against the bipartisan Ryan-Murray budget agreement before reading it, saying Friday on CBS' "This Morning" that he knew the "details" of the plan before it came out.

      "I knew full well all the details of the important parts that were in it. In fact, they had been leaked days in advance, they had been leaked hours in advance," he said Friday. "There was an understanding in this building, including from among our conferees about what it included, and it had fundamental things we were well-aware of."

      He went on, "For example, that it broke the budget caps that Congress had imposed on itself just two years ago and actually will increase the amount of money we have to borrow. It had elements in there, for example, that will make it easier for Democrats to come back to Congress and raise taxes by waiving something called the budget point of order, which is a technical term internally but basically it means they can come back with 51 votes in the Senate and raise taxes. Those two reasons alone are reasons to oppose this."

      Within minutes of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.) announcing a budget deal that would gradually raise spending levels, Rubio released a statement charging that the deal makes it "harder for more Americans to achieve the American Dream." The deal also reduces the deficit by $20-$23 billion by hiking airline fees and requiring federal employees to kick in more to their pensions.

      When asked Thursday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" about Rubio's quick response to the deal, Ryan said, "Read the deal and get back to me."

      He continued, "Look, people are going to do what they need to do. In the minority, you don't have the burden of governing, of getting things done."

      A Ryan spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Rubio's contention that he knew the details of the plan before it came out.

      The budget deal passed the House Thursday by a 332-94 vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday that he wants to speed things up in the Senate to allow a vote on the bill, which is likely to pass the Senate.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • with the republicans fighting among one another, they wont be able to help the Democrats out of this healthcare mess. crazy like a fox 2014 LMAO

    • U.S. REPUBLICAN PARTY'S INTERNAL TENSIONS ERUPT INTO THE OPEN

      BY ALEXANDER PANETTA, THE CANADIAN PRESSDECEMBER 12, 2013 8:57 PM

      WASHINGTON - DIVISIONS THAT HAVE BUBBLED FOR MONTHS WITHIN THE U.S. REPUBLICAN PARTY HAVE ERUPTED THIS WEEK INTO THE OPEN.

      The flashpoint for the open hostilities is a bill that would provide two years of budget-making stability on the heels of one U.S. government shutdown and multiple debt-ceiling showdowns that risked damaging the American credit rating.

      Tea party groups that hold considerable influence have castigated the legislation as a sellout of conservative principles, because it would moderate planned spending cuts previously scheduled under the so-called fiscal cliff.

      Pressure from the grassroots, and conservative members, is nothing new to the Republican leaders in Congress. Only THIS TIME, THEY'RE FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE PARTY'S OWN SUPPORTERS — AND THEY'RE DOING IT LOUDLY.

      THE MOST RESONANT RHETORICAL BLAST CAME THURSDAY FROM HOUSE SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER. IN PAST BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS HE'D SHOWN RELUCTANCE TO TAKE ON THE TEA PARTY BASE AND, IN FACT, HAD EVEN USED THEIR CONTROL OVER HIM AS BARGAINING LEVERAGE, TELLING THE WHITE HOUSE AND DEMOCRATS HE COULDN'T OFFER ANY CONCESSIONS OR HIS MEMBERS MIGHT DESERT HIM.

      THIS WEEK HIS PATIENCE APPEARED TO RUN OUT WHEN SOME PEOPLE CRITICIZED THE BIPARTISAN BUDGET BILL EVEN BEFORE IT WAS MADE PUBLIC.

      "It's just that, you know, there just comes to a point when some people step over the line," Boehner told reporters Thursday. "When you criticize something and you have no idea what you're criticizing, it undermines your credibility."

      Boehner blamed the same conservative groups for causing the temporary government shutdown this past fall. They had promoted the idea that government should be closed unless President Barack Obama's health plan was defunded. And many politicians fell into line, fearful of primary challenges from the right along with a loss of grassroots fundraising dollars and organizational muscle.

      Looking back, Boehner said the pressure exerted over Republican law-makers forced them into a bad tactical place.

      "Well, frankly, I think they're misleading their followers. I think they're pushing our members in places where they don't want to be. And frankly, I just think that they've lost all credibility," Boehner said of the groups.

      "You know, they pushed into this fight to defund Obamacare and to shut down the government. Most of you know, my members know, that wasn't exactly the strategy that I had in mind. But if you recall, the day before the government reopened, one of the people that — one of these groups stood up and said, well, we never really thought it would work.

      "Are you kidding me?"

      One of the groups in question, Heritage Action, has said it will add the budget vote to its "scorecard" — its tracking of how congresspeople vote and how true they are to conservative principles.

      It bemoaned the fact the U.S. federal budget would rise beyond $1 trillion, thanks to $63 billion in "tax" increases dressed up as a variety of user fees. The plan would restore about one-third of the "fiscal cliff" cuts and replace its across-the board spending reductions with more targeted measures.

      "This is a significant achievement for President Obama, who believes that government spending is a panacea to America's economic woes," the Tea party-affiliated Heritage Action group said this week.

      The threat didn't work. On Thursday, a crushing majority of members from both parties in the House of Representatives supported the bill, which will now move into the Senate.

      DEMOCRATS, MEANWHILE, EXPRESSED HOPE THAT RECENT EVENTS MIGHT LEAD TO A MORE PRODUCTIVE U.S. POLITICAL SYSTEM. THE CURRENT CONGRESS IS ON TRACK TO PERHAPS BECOME THE LEAST PRODUCTIVE EVER, IN TERMS OF BILLS PASSED.

      THEY SAID THEY HOPED BOEHNER MIGHT HAVE BECOME EMBOLDENED TO WORK MORE OFTEN ACROSS PARTY LINES, INSTEAD OF BEING BEHOLDEN TO HIS PARTY'S RIGHT WING. NANCY PELOSI, THE DEMOCRATIC MINORITY LEADER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RATTLED OFF A LIST OF BIPARTISAN INITIATIVES THAT MIGHT PASS IF BOEHNER IS WILLING TO BRAVE THE WRATH OF THE RIGHT.

      Immigration reform. Infrastructure. A bill seeking to end workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians. Background checks for gun purchases. Those were four examples she cited of legislation that might pass if Boehner chooses to work out bipartisan deals, instead of courting the right.

      Pelosi declined to predict, however, whether this week's bipartisanship on the budget might be a one-off event or a real turning point for what has been dubbed the "do-nothing" Congress.

      "I think it's neither. I don't think it's a one-off, and I don't think it's a great turning point," Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill.

      "But I think that we have many more areas that we can work together in a bipartisan way."

      The White House, for its part, has largely avoided getting drawn into this week's internal Republican family feud. But it has endorsed the budget legislation, which has yet to pass Congress.

      "You could see the federal government go from being a drag to being a net positive if this (budget bill) goes through, which is hard to believe," Obama spokesman Jay Carney said at a press briefing Thursday.

      "Now, that's a pretty unimpressive bar for Washington to clear, but it reflects that for too long now in shutting down the government, in refusing to compromise, Washington has actually caused problems for the economy, when at the very least it should be neutral.

      "And at its best, which is what the president believes it ought to do, Washington should be taking action that helps the economy grow... And that's how it should be. And most importantly, perhaps psychologically, it tells the American people that, at least for the next couple of years, if Congress passes it, they don't have to worry about Republicans deciding the shut down the government again over their ideological disagreements with the president."

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Teaparty nuts never step up, but they do step in it a lot.

 
ACTC
6.98+0.18(+2.65%)Nov 13 12:19 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.