Billionaire mogul Sheldon Adelson looks for mainstream Republican who can win in 2016
Source: Washington Post
Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who along with his wife plowed more than $92 million into efforts to help mostly losing candidates in the 2012 elections, is undertaking a new strategy for 2016 to tap his fortune on behalf of a more mainstream Republican with a clear shot to win the White House, according to people familiar with his thinking.
In 2012, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson spent so much of their money on long-shot candidate Newt Gingrich that they helped extend an ugly intraparty fight that left the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, severely bruised by the time he faced President Obama in the general election.
This time, the Adelsons are plotting their investments based not on personal loyalty, but on a much more strategic aim: to help select a Republican nominee they believe will have broad appeal to an increasingly diverse national electorate.
The change in attitude comes amid early jockeying by a lengthy list of aspiring Republican presidential contenders to win the affections of the billionaire, who is in the beginning stages of assessing the field.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/billionaire-mogul-sheldon-adelson-looks-for-mainstream-republican-who-can-win-in-2016/2014/03/25/e2f47bb0-b3c2-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html
[IMG][/IMG]
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Oh wait, there is... They are called Democrats these days. Well, he's in luck, I hear Clinton is running and expected to win.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)brooklynite
(93,834 posts)That would make the REAL Democratic Party pretty small...
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)so I think we pretty much know where she stands.
It is all about the shifting of the middle. "Republican" today means fascist oligarch or religiously insane zealots. "Democrat", means Old guard right-wing Republican, and "Commie-Pinko-Socialist" means LBJ Great Society Democrat.
question everything
(47,263 posts)next president. What, do they prefer Rand Paul? Christie?
The loss of the Supreme Court for generations?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)or isn't she?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Yes, she got paid for two speeches. So?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)$400,000. That is enough, by itself, to make her a member of the 1%. And somehow, this is considered OK?
You can be damned sure people would have a different view if it were Ted Cruz or ANY other GOP presidential candidate getting that paycheck.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Ironically, the Clintons were the poorest couple to enter the WH in many years. Their current status is based mostly on book royalties and Bill's speeches. Hillary has only been giving paid speeches since she left her post as SOS.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong in people trying to make a buck after they leave office. As long as what they do is legal, I don't care.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)as if it actually means something other than GS thinks that's what she's worth to them as a speaker. I'm supposed to think badly of her for taking a check from a bank?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I'm for taking as much of these vultures' money as she, or anyone else, can. Sock it to them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It may sound like a lot of money to some people but to GS, that's the change they found in the sofa cushions.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)in return.
Sure, that's the way politics operates.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If you think it makes her look bad to accept the money, you seriously couldn't be more wrong.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)she is in a position to give plenty.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and before knowing who the republican is going to be. I hope you put your talent into a perfect march madness sheet - you could get a billion dollars for that.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)You are going to pretend she is not the de facto candidate? You are going to pretend that any of the current whack jobs on the right are going to beat her?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And that was when she announced she actually was running which she still hasn't done for 2016.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)She was only considered the done deal by the PUMA crowd who had problems with "inadequate black men".
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I don't even remember who else was running - it was Hillary against Barack.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)you had two major players, so it wasn't a done deal except to the PUMA crowd.
Saunders says he might run, but the Vichy Dem leadership ship will stop that right out of the gate. Warren has said she isn't going to run. Biden has made noises but he is too old and has major health issues, so he is a non-starter.
That leaves HRC.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)take seriously anyone who compares the Democratic party with nazi sympathizers.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)not sympathizers (though a few were were both, I suppose).
You know, like when Democrats collaborate with Republicans to cut Social Security, food stamps, and other Great Society programs. When they collaborate to thwart sensible gun control laws or environmental legislation.
Or, more importantly when they collaborate to torture, wage illegal wars and spy on the populace (even if they get upset later when they find out they are included in the spying).
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Perhaps you can convince someone else this is a decent argument.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)in my opinion that the Democratic leadership has sold us out repeatedly. The facts of history support that view.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)It's OK, I forgot him too.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and thought Kerry made a terrible choice on that front. Of course I voted for that ticket but the alternative was an obscenity.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)They pay 200k for her continued loyalty on policy matters. That is where they get their value.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)She hasn't been in a position to do or vote on anything since 2008. What continued loyalty are you referring to?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Don't see why this is so hard to grasp.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I'm in the habit of waiting for someone to do something venal rather than making assumptions based on...what exactly is this being based on again?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)But I think a little bit of the latter is mixed in there somewhere.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)naive in the slightest. I'm also not in the habit of pronouncing judgement until a crime has actually been committed. Is there too much money in politics? Do the banks have too much control? Yes to both but what you're talking about is different. You seem to think another candidate who will shun the money actually has a chance to win. Now THAT's naive.
denbot
(9,894 posts)Good luck with his next go-around
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Democratic member of the 0.1%, so I must LOVE someone more right wing and a member of the 0.01%?
How can I argue with that logic?
Beacool
(30,244 posts)will be a member of the 1%.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)are working hard to go from the 1% to the .1% to the .01%.
And the more six figure checks they take, the less they have any empathy for us.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)I don't. The Roosevelt and Kennedy families, despite their vast wealth, have done a lot of good for the nation.
Being poor does not inherently mean that a person is good, the opposite holds true of wealthy people too. Not all the rich are blood sucking vultures.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)When HRC went to Goldman Sachs and made her little $400,000 speeches it was to tell them how she thought picking on Wall Street was mean.
That makes her part of the problem.
Going to Wall Street and in essence telling them you don't intend to rock the boat makes you a bad person, especially when you pick up a check on the way out.
I don't resent wealthy people, I resent greedy, wealthy people who don't pay their fair share and the people who enable them, wealthy or poor.
Given your avatar, you are not going to admit their is anything wrong with HRC, so this is a pretty pointless debate, is it not?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Up is down, good is bad, and bad is good with that one, when it comes to HRC.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)even Barbara Bush said America had had enough Bush presidents.
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)ad infinitum...
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)about a week later, but still...
tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)and no Bush will ever get into that White House ever again...
dustbin, meet bush history
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Republicans will start out saying "No more Bushes" and mean it. Then will come the debate where Ted Cruz says something racist. Then will come the press conference where Rand Paul demonstrates a complete ignorance of some basic historical fact. After a few months of this sort of thing, Jeb will be picking up supporters who say, in effect, "Well, at least he won't horribly embarrass us."
Jeb might well also have the advantage Romney had in 2012 -- being the only serious competitor for what's left of the centrist wing of the GOP, while a bunch of Cruz/Paul types compete for the fundies, Tea Partiers, chickenhawks, gun nuts, and assorted RWNJ's. Jeb's chance of being in that position, and riding it to the nomination, is obviously greater in light of Christie's recent setbacks.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)The Republican bench is a mile wide and an inch deep. I would have guessed it would have been either Jeb or Christy but Christy pretty much blew his chance with the Washington Bridge scandal -- something I thought was just going to blow over, and it still may, but I doubt it. The only sane candidate they have is Jeb Bush.
yuiyoshida
(41,759 posts)in the White House, what a depressing thought!! IF that happened, this country will surely go belly up like a dead whale.
Cha
(295,899 posts)Point out to me a single Republican on par with or to the left of William Proxmire, Nelson Rockerfeller, Margaret Chase Smith, George Romney (yeah, Mitt's old man), or the Pre-1980 pro-abortion, anti-Reaganomics George Bush Sr.?
And while you certainly can come up with genuinely liberal Democrats in the caucus, you won't find them in leadership positions.
So my assertion stands, positions staked out by the Democratic Party such as "Ending welfare as we know it", the illegal invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, failure to prosecute war criminals, failure to prosecute Wall Street criminals, the ACA, "reforming" Social Security with the "chained CPI", warrantless domestic spying, repealing Glass-Stegall, and so many more ideas too depressing to mention, were ALL Republican ideas.
Take a look at this manifesto from the 1956 REPUBLICAN party platform and tell me HONESTLY if today's Democratic leadership would embrace and FIGHT for anything this reasonable:
The Republican Party believes that the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the people is as important as their economic health. It will continue to support this conviction with vigorous action.
Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years, to raise the continuing consideration of these problems for the first time to the highest council of Government, the President's Cabinet.
Through the White House Conference on Education, our Republican Administration initiated the most comprehensive Community-State-Federal attempt ever made to solve the pressing problems of primary and secondary education.
Four thousand communities, studying their school populations and their physical and financial resources, encouraged our Republican Administration to urge a five-year program of Federal assistance in building schools to relieve a critical classroom shortage.
The Republican Party will renew its efforts to enact a program based on sound principles of need and designed to encourage increased state and local efforts to build more classrooms.
Our Administration also proposed for the first time in history, a thorough nation-wide analysis of rapidly growing problems in education beyond the high schools.
The Republican Party is determined to press all such actions that will help insure that every child has the educational opportunity to advance to his own greatest capacity.
We have fully resolved to continue our steady gains in man's unending struggle against disease and disability.
We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded polio.
Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.
We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases.
We demand once again, despite the reluctance of the Democrat 84th Congress, Federal assistance to help build facilities to train more physicians and scientists.
We have encouraged a notable expansion and improvement of voluntary health insurance, and urge that reinsurance and pooling arrangements be authorized to speed this progress.
We have strengthened the Food and Drug Administration, and we have increased the vocational rehabilitation program to enable a larger number of the disabled to return to satisfying activity.
We have supported measures that have made more housing available than ever before in history, reduced urban slums in local-federal partnership, stimulated record home ownership, and authorized additional low-rent public housing.
We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system.
We pledge close cooperation with State, local and private agencies to reduce the ghastly toll of fatalities on the Nation's highways.
We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needsexpansion of social securitybroadened coverage in unemployment insurance improved housingand better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)seabeckind
(1,957 posts)He ought to try being a democrat. Except for once, I've felt that way for 30 years.
Mass
(27,315 posts)or did Adelson never consider whether he could win or not?
Either way, it does not say anything good about Adelson's management abilities, spending millions and millions without a cost-benefit analysis.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)What would that generic "mainstream" Republican be like? First, he would have to be willing to confront the Tea Party and call their bullshit bullshit to woo away some democratic-leaning voters. ("Maybe we shouldn't cut food-stamps." "Obama was not the Devil."
How would the Tea Party react? By pressuring other Republicans to denounce the Mainstreamer.
(Step 1 in the republican civil war.)
How would Adelson react? By running ads against Tea Party interests.
(Step 2 in the republican civil war.)
Possible outcome No.1:
The fight with the Tea Party will damage the Mainstreamer enough to ruin his chances. (The media LOVES gaffes. That's all they are good for.)
Possible outcome No.2:
The Tea Party refuses to support the RINO. (Yeah, they didn't like Romney either and voted for him anyway, but Adelson's strategy would force an open confrontation between fundies and realos, widening the rift, because for the fundies purity trumps competence.)
BumRushDaShow
(127,267 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)I'm sticking with my guess that Jeb Bush's crew is busy wrecking the prospects of anyone who can fill that mainstream candidate slot, Chris Christie among them.
You and I know that Jeb isn't a mainstream candidate of any sort. But my reading of the tea leaves suggests to me that Jeb is already running, and he's gonna re-cast himself as "mainstream" over the course of the next year.
I've been saying for years now that another Bush has to get into the White House in order to gain control of and destroy all the incriminating documentation from the last Bush administration. (Theoretically, those documents could be released by President Obama now that he is in his second term, but precedent dictates that the current President should not open the books on his immediate predecessor.)
Jeb's people are going to try to destroy everyone who stands in the way--especially Hillary Clinton. I hope she is ready for it.
One thing going in Mrs. Clinton's favor is the legacy of George W. Bush: an entire generation of right-wingers who were carefully programmed to spit venom at the mention her name are dying out three to five elections sooner than anyone guessed before W. lowered life expectancy across white rural America. She has literally outlived her most virulent opponents.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)- He's so impartial that electoral irregularities in his state made his brother president.
- He's so for small government that he meddled with the medical decisions of Terri Schiavo against the will of her family and against medical advice.
- His last name is Bush. George Bush's presidency was so flavorless that he's already forgotten and George W. Bush is a pariah in the Republican Party.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Romney cheated on his taxes and robbed common people's pensions.
Bush 2 was a moron and a coke guy.
Didn't matter. Dress them up with some nice media propaganda and you can pass him off as Mother Theresa.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)One of the things they bring up against him is the Terri Schiavo case.
llmart
(15,499 posts)and coke-addled daughter. Yeah, Columbo, or whatever the hell her name is, would look sooooo classy as a First Lady.
Jeb has too much baggage.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)We have the chosen one.
Just like in 2008 and 2004 and 2000 and 1992.
The PRICs decide what teams get to play in their superbowl and they don't care which team wins. Cause they win no matter what.
They marginalize any competition long before they are a competitor.
BTW, Adelson isn't a PRIC. He's just a guy with money.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I didn't say they were, but the way you present it, they are not.
Another damned Bush-Clinton election looks inevitable at this point--but I probably said that at this point eight years ago, too, in which case I was totally wrong.
But you know what I can say, with utter certainty? Hillary Clinton is a better candidate for having lost the nomination in '08. She worked very, very hard since then, and now nobody would dare question her experience, her foreign policy expertise, and so on. I like her better now than I did then, as a candidate, and I have high admiration for her ability to learn quickly and well.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)the closures to Bridget Kelly!
I doubt there is any real interest in dumping incriminating documentation from prior administrations - especially if it involves foreign policy. The reason is pragmatic - not nefarious.
1) Any administration - if it wants to pass anything - usually needs some support from the other side. (Obama had about 4 months when this was not true - if he got every Democrat in the Senate and almost all of the House Democrats). Dumping anything incriminating on serious issues will destroy any chance of working together.
2) Concern that it will destroy America's prestige and influence - and it would destroy America's narrative.
I suspect this is why Watergate (which involved political misdeeds) and Clinton/Lewinsky (Clinton's personal life) were able to destroy Nixon and hamper Clinton's second term - neither were actions taken by the US government. On the other hand, Iran/Contra was a bigger negative in the late 1980s than now or 10 years ago. How many here have a problem with Oliver North or Eliot Abrahms questioning John Kerry's foreign policy or patriotism - when lying to his subcommittee is why they were indicted. I suspect that the Bush/Cheney Iraq lies will end up more like Iran/Contra than Watergate.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)My assertion that Bush is behind Christie's outing shouldn't be provable, if the Bush people are any good at the lying they do.
But they aren't that good. Long ago they realized charade-for-a-day was good enough to push the lie into tomorrow, and that was all they needed. Dick Cheney still does it every time his legacy of torture and murder is revisited in the press.
So let's just make a mental note, you and me, to come back to this about two years from now and see if we can see the following:
1) That Jeb Bush is in fact running, and at this point in the cycle in 2016, will be the front runner;
2) That someone from Chris Christie's bridgetrollgate staff near the time that the story was exposed will be in a high position on Jeb Bush's staff, and a high-level appointee by Jeb should he win;
3) That the question will have been directly asked of this nameless person, whomever it shall be, and that person will have evaded the answer or lied about it.
Those are some pretty specific predictions that I can feel about 70% confident making right now.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)The Port Authority official who oversaw the lane closing at the George Washington Bridge said that he had he informed Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey about it at a Sept. 11 memorial while the closings were occurring, according to an internal investigation released on Thursday by lawyers for the governor.
The official, David Wildstein, told Mr. Christies press secretary of the Sept 11 conversation at a dinner in December just before his resignation from the Port Authority, according to the report.
So, let's just see if that fellow doesn't land on his feet--and on the Bush campaign staff.
Frustratedlady
(16,254 posts)I wondered who stepped forward to support him financially. I hope we're wrong, but they wouldn't be using BFEE money.
Auggie
(31,058 posts)But please not Bush vs Clinton.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)with a little graft and corruption thrown in, maybe?
Auggie
(31,058 posts)ABC?
CBS?
CNN?
Faux News?
Maybe Maddow, but that would reach people who wouldn't vote for the asshole anyhow.
Unless he would pull a Chris Christie -- you know, fuck with peoples' cars -- most voters wouldn't care what he did.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)It's going to be an uphill battle in 2016. This won't be like 2008, where after 8 years of Bush a Democrat was more likely than not to win the WH.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Adelson is just a guy with money and little influence on the big stage.
The Koch's represent the PRICs. They knew 2008 was a throwaway. So they acted accordingly. They didn't care about McCain. Not in the least. The PRICs paid him lip service...especially on the choice of Palin. She was a joke and they knew it. She was there as a disruptor and distractor.
In 2012 they made a bit of an effort on the pres side but didn't care that much. They concentrated on the state level. By controlling the house they control the whole agenda. Just like the thing Rachel was talking about about the dark money extortion...and all the others. Issa is there to stop the IRS from enforcing the charitable tax business.
They didn't care that much about Romney. Would have just been icing on their cake.
2016? A lot like 2012 on the pres side (they can marginalize any thorns) but their emphasis will be the senate. Just having a filibuster stop doesn't let them give full rein to their agenda.
And what Obama did after 2008? And Reid's crummy handling of the senate?
Priceless -- played exactly into their hands. His choice for Treasury and AG? Perfect.
The ONLY shot liberals had to reverse all the Raygun agenda was 2008. The ONLY shot.
And the rest is history.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)All the R candidates are severely flawed, clownish and transparent in their greed and lust for money
Beacool
(30,244 posts)Berlum
(7,044 posts)It it always heartening to learn about how the 'superior" toe-tapping, bathroom-stall, diaper-clad, casino 'values' of the Republicons will save America for Jesus.
DFW
(54,047 posts)Major fallacy wit this reasoning is that Republicans don't LIKE "diverse."
Republicans like white, "Christian" anti-gay, anti-equality, anti-women male candidates. They make exceptions (Jindal, Haley, Sen. Scott) if they say the right things, but they'd never accept anyone of the kind as their presidential candidate.
Adelson wants someone he and the Kochs can buy and control, preferably so bland as to NOT offend too many people, and the hope the Democrats will be caught flatfooted (as in 2000) again. Once their guy is in, THEN he can wreak his destruction (Cheneybush) according to plan (as in 2001-2009).
Don't laugh. It has happened (1980, 2000). It can happen again. Adelson, the Kochs and a couple others are willing to fork out a billion dollars between them if it means they can "buy their country back." Don't think it's not for sale.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)He's married to a Mexican woman and has "brown children" (as Bush Sr. infamously called them).
Enrique
(27,461 posts)maybe one day Amazon will sell candidates.
bigworld
(1,807 posts)which is where the Democrats need to devote resources. Now's the time to focus on building local candidates in the red states. We can win in the south, we can win in red states but have to start building coalitions now, not just buying TV ad time three days before an election.
Beacool
(30,244 posts)He and Koch are already putting a lot of money into the 2014 midterms, while Democrats seem to be playing the lyre.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Just how many gop types are in a contested district?
Since the gerrymandering has given the gop so much control over state legislatures they have solidified that even more.
Pretty soon the democratic districts will be able to caucus in the back room at a Denny's...as long as they don't mind paying to park.
bigworld
(1,807 posts)and tell them how they're being snowed over by the GOP and the tea party. We need to get out to the countryside and show 'em how a strong national infrastructure will help them, we need to appeal to the good ol' boys with the gun racks and tell 'em that common sense gun regulation isn't going to hurt them.
Nationally, it's obvious to our side that the Republicans need to widen their tent. Well, we could too.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)Fuck him
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)C0RYH0FFMAN
(20 posts)My gosh it is supposed to be Popular Sovereignty...Not Soveriegnty by will of unscrupulous billionaires.
wheniwasincongress
(1,307 posts)I think about Bill Maher's joke: Jeb is a guy who looks like a George, and George Bush is a guy who looks like a Jeb
olddad56
(5,732 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)I think he could talk a billion out of Sheldon's pocket again.
tanyev
(42,354 posts)Warpy
(110,900 posts)The whole idea behind his largess to Republican was a quid-pro-quo that would get him out of being prosecuted.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)corrupt billionaires trying to buy the White House... not Obama, not the NSA, not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi.
Its shocking that many are blind to this. We will be steamrolled by these assholes if we dont stick together and fight this.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)except that relationship was intended to be more under-the-table. Ari Fleischer has the blessing of the SCOTUS to wear his "sold" sign out in the open to name those who pay for their policy-driving services -- & to unabashedly concede so candidly that his party is beholden to give the billionaire his own primary.
Ari Fleischer's quote:
Certainly the Sheldon Primary is an important primary for any Republican running for president, said Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush who serves with Adelson on the RJC board. It goes without saying that anybody running for the Republican nomination would want to have Sheldon at his side.
I agree about the importance in fighting this. It's clear that Citizens United created a monster & has to go.