America's Maverick Part 2: Madame President

[OSR stands with Israel]

Jindal Bounces back with strong wins in South Carolina and Florida seemingly make the GOP primary a 2 man race between Jindal and Paul.



Source: https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/06/26/race-2016-jindal-court-rulings

Blitzer: After it seemed like Congressman Ron Paul had become the frontrunner with wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Senator Bobby Jindal struck back with 2 decisive wins in South Carolina and Florida and thanks to how the delegates are allocated in those states, won all 75 delegates that are allocated in both states

South Carolina

Senator Bobby Jindal 44% 25 Delegates
Former Governor Mitt Romney 21%
Representative Ron Paul 18%
Governor Rudy Giuliani 10%
Senator George Allen 7%


Florida :

Senator Bobby Jindal 46% 50 Delegates
Former Governor Mitt Romney 24%
Representative Ron Paul 19%
Governor Rudy Giuliani 11%

Total Delegates So Far:

Louisiana Senator Bobby Jindal 82 Delegates
Representative Ron Paul 13 Delegates
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 8 Delegates
New York Governor Rudy Giuliani 7 Delegates
Virginia Senator George Allen 4 Delegates
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty 2 Delegates



Blitzer: So SE what are your thoughts on these results so far

Cupp: Listen while I wanted Governor Romney to win, I much prefer Senator Jindal to be our nominee than Congressman Paul so I am happy about these results. Now are there some things I am worried about with a Jindal candidacy yes, but I am not worried that he would lead our party to destruction like a Paul candidacy would. Senator Jindal not only would not sacrifice our core foreign policy and national security principles like Congressman Paul would, he would expand upon them while Ron Paul on the other hand would utterly shred them and take us back to where we were in the 1920s and 1930s on foreign policy which was wrong.

So I am content with these results, and my hope is that Senator Jindal as the campaign goes on is really able to start to articulate our agenda in better ways as to win in November he will have to do a better job at that.

Blitzer: So John if you assume Senator Jindal is the nominee how would a winning map for him look like

King: I would say this, he does have a conceivable path even though it is very narrow. For example the type of campaign he is running is not really good fit for the North East, Upper Midwest, or West Coast and due to that you probably could assume he unlike Bush would not carry Oregon, New Hampshire, that Maine District and probably New Mexico too given hed be weaker with Hispanics than George Bush was.

So those states add up to 17 electoral votes and if you take them off the Bush total which would be 277 by 2012 allocation instead of 269, hed be down to 260 10 away from winning. So how does he win, well the first thing he can do is flip Missouri and if he does that he would get to exactly 270 votes but as I talked about his path is narrow as the only two other Clinton 08 states I could see him flipping are Arkansas and West Virginia which would mean if he ran the table hed only get up to 281 votes. That is a very narrow path to victory so I would say Senator Jindal has his work cut out for him if he wants to expand his map .

Blitzer: Thanks John

[OSR stands with Israel]

Breaking News: Electoral Reform Amendment Ratified by enough states to officially become the 28th amendment

Cooper: Enough States have ratified the electoral reform amendment that passed last year making electoral reform a reality. As a reminder here are some key changes

Key Changes:

1. Binds The Electors to the candidate they are pledged to vote for

2. The National Popular Vote Winner will receive 15 Electoral Votes

- This provision will not go into effect until the 2016 Election

3. Any state where the margin between the top two candidates are within half a percentage point will be required to conduct a state-wide recount to determine who won the state

4. A Candidate who wins the popular vote of an individual state shall be awarded all the states electoral votes .

- This provision will not go into effect until the 2016 Election

5. Congress Shall have the Power to reject any changes made to election laws that take place within a year of the presidential year.

- The rejection of such changes shall be only applicable to the presidential race
- This provision will not go unto effect until November 8th, 2015

6. If no candidate still wins a majority of the EV the election is thrown to the House of Representatives where each representative gets One Vote for President and Each Senator Gets a vote for Vice President between the top 2 candidates.


Cooper: Also as a reminder , only provisions 1, 3 and 6 will be applicable for the 2012 election so we will still be mainly using our current system for this November's election. Now let's go to former John McCain who worked behind the scenes to help this pass. So President McCain how happy are you this passed

McCain: I think this amendment is an important reform that prevents the type of potential crises we faced after the 2008 election and could have have faced after elections such as the 1968 and 1992 election so I am happy that this reform has been ratified. I can tell you it was not easy but the fact is we all agreed there needed to be some reform and I am glad we all came together to pass a ratify this.

Cooper: Thanks President McCain and congrats on your effort. President Clinton also released a statement and this is what it said

Clinton: The ratification of the electoral reform will help guarantee our nation does not fall into a crises over an close election dispute and also guarantees that the voters choices in each state will be how the electors vote as well. I want to thank the efforts of members of both parties in helping pass and ratify this amendment and especially than former President John McCain for his effort in helping get this amendment pass.

Both RNC and DNC to be held in battleground Missouri



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI77W2PjyKI

Blitzer: An interesting fact to remind everyone is that both conventions this year will be held in the battleground state of Missouri. The Republican one will be held in Kansas City at the same venue where they held their last convention back in 1976 and the Democrats will be holding their in the other side of the state in St Louis.

King: Now that you brought up 1976, it was also the last time we went into a convention with the nomination truly being up for grabs and then President Ford did end up beating then Governor Reagan by a pretty narrow margin to get the nomination and many also credit the concession speech Ronald Reagan gave as setting up his 1980 bid. So does that foreshadow anything, we will have to see.

2012 Republican Convention

Dates : August 27th- August 30th
Host : Kansas City , Missouri
Venue: Kemper Arena

2012 Democratic convention :

Dates : September 3rd- September 6th
Host : St Louis, Missouri
Venue : Scotttrade Center

[OSR stands with Israel]

Paul Wins 4 of 5 States on Mini Tuesday and Romney drops out of the race :



Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/05/14/152686294/ron-paul-will-stop-campaigning-but-will-continue-delegate-hunt

Blitzer: Congressman Ron Paul had a pretty good Mini Tuesday with wins in 4 out of 5 contests tonight and lets now look at a summary of those contests

Contests won by Ron Paul:

Nevada: Paul 37% 11 Delegates Romney 35% 10 Delegates Jindal 28% 7 Delegates

Colorado: Paul 41% 15 Delegates Jindal 34% 12 Delegates Romney 25% 9 Delegates

Maine: Paul 54% 11 Delegates Romney 25% 5 Delegates Jindal 21% 4 Delegates

Minnesota: Paul 47% 19 Delegates Jindal 38% 15 Delegates Romney 15% 6 Delegates

Contests won by Bobby Jindal:

Missouri: Jindal 61% 32 Delegates Paul 20% 10 Delegates Romney 19% 10 Delegates

Total Delegates So Far:

Louisiana Senator Bobby Jindal 153 Delegates
Representative Ron Paul 79 Delegates
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 48 Delegates
New York Governor Rudy Giuliani 7 Delegates
Virginia Senator George Allen 4 Delegates
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty 2 Delegates




Blitzer: Despite those wins , it seems like Senator Jindal has slightly increased his lead

King: Yes Wolf and that is because of a landslide win in Missouri which was the largest state up tonight. I will say the bigger news for though is that Governor Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race and has endorsed Senator Jindal. So tonight very well may be the high watermark for Congressman Paul becuase from this point forward he will have to be getting over 50% of the vote in primaries to win them.

Borger: I will also add that many reports are saying that Governor George W Bush is set to endorse Senator Jindal as well, and that Former President McCain is set to work behind the scenes in favor of Senator Jindal. Really the fact is Congressman Paul did take huge advantage of a favorable set of contests up today and will get some momentum but the question now is can he start consistently getting over 50% of the vote now given it is a two man race now and do so with the entire Republican establishment ready to rally around Senator Jindal .

Gergen : Yes the fact is that while yes Congressman Paul will get to claim victory tonight despite Jindal exceeding his lead, the fact is him winning Nevada might have ironically be the beginning of his downfall as if Governor Romney won that, it is very possible that the Governor stays in till Super Tuesday but since he lost it he had no choice but to drop out. This means it will be easier for the anti Paul Forces to consolidate the vote behind Senator Jindal so this night isnt as good for the Paul camp as they think as it forces a 1 on 1 race, earlier than they would have liked.

Blitzer: Ok thanks David

[OSR stands with Israel]

Jindal and Paul meet for debate 1 week before Critical Super Tuesday



Source : https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/chris-wallaces-simple-question-churns-post-debate-chatter

Important Moment 1:

Wallace: Senator Jindal you have criticized the President's actions in the lead up to the War and since the end of the war so if you were commander in chief what would you have done differently and if elected what policy towards Iran and Syria would you change.

Jindal: Chris, the reason I have criticized this is because we waited until the Iranians and Syrians invaded Iraq to send in all our available troops when the fact is we should have sent them to Iraq when the Iranians and Syrians signed that treaty in the Summer of 2010. If we had done that , it would have deterrence against both regimes  and if they still invaded we would have been able to stop them at the beginning of the invasion instead of having to fight our deadliest war since Vietnam and a war that had the highest per year American casualties since World War 2. It would have also prevented the deaths of countless Iraqis and it is proof why appeasement doesnt work and what we did in the lead up to the war was appeasement.

Now what I have done differently at the end of the war, is I would not have agreed to this ceasefire agreement unless the Iranians and Syrians agreed to remove Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Al Assad from power and hand them over to proper authorities for them to face trial for the various war crimes they created. The fact is we let them get away with war crimes and that was a bad message and I can tell you as President, I will ramp up sanctions against both nations to make it clear that their will be severe consequences for the war we just started.

Paul: The statement gave by the senator is another example of the reckless foreign policy he and his neoconservative team support. If we wanted to capture the leaders of Iran and Syria that would require us to commit to a full regime scale war in two different nations which according to many experts would require us to reinstate the draft for us to occupy both nations. The fact is we need to learn from this war and that is a huge reason for this is is the Iranians and Syrians wanted the Iraqis to remain neutral and instead of negotiating we kept fanning the flames which led to this terrible war. The fact is if we never decided to permanently occupy Iraq then maybe the war could have been avoided to begin with.

The best way to stop conflicts is to one figure out how were contributing to them and then get out of those places and that is what I will do as the next commander in chief. I will bring our troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, and from all across the world back home as that is the first step in the direction to no longer fanning the flames of conflict.

Jindal: What the Congressman said is just not true, and the fact is we have seen all through history that appeasement does not lead to peace but more war .  This was shown to be true in WW2 , at many times during the Cold War and now in the lead up to the Iranian and Syrian invasion of Iraq  and it is imperative we do not return to that failed policy. The fact is American strength has been the best defender of liberty all throughout our history : from destroying fascism in WW2 , to defeating communism in the Cold War , to ending the tyranny of the Tailban  and Saddam Hussain  , and just recently in defending the freedom of Iraqis and I as president intend to uphold that tradition

Paul : The problem with the senator assertion is that he doesn’t understand that these conflicts didn’t arise out of no where . The Nazis and Soviet Union rose out of the ashes of WW1 which was arguably the most unnecessary war in history and one we helped prolong first through military aid and then by directly intervening ourselves , 9/11 was a result of us funding the Mujadeeen in Afghanistan which later became al-Qaeda, the current Iranian regime came into power due to blowback of a coup we committed there in 1953 and Saddam Hussain became as powerful as we did because we backed him in his invasion of Iran .

The question to ask is what we can do to prevent the next conflict because roots of future conflicts take place years before they happen, and my goal is to prevent those roots from being planted to begin with. People call me an isolationist but the fact is that is not true because I have always been in favor of free trade and peace negotiations so that point is just not true.

Jindal : Of course as President you want to take actions to help prevent conflict but  one of the ways we do that is by the principle of peace through strength and that’s what I will uphold as your next president.

Important Moment 2:

Bair : According to a recent Fox News poll a majority of Americans are pessimistic about the future of the economy and many believe that we will be in a recession potentially over the next couple of years . What will either of you do as president to prevent such a recession and if it’s to late , what will either of you do to help the economy grow faster . Congressman Paul , You first

Paul : the first thing we need to do is end our current monetary policy which is effectively based on creating bubbles , devaluing our dollar which is a huge reason for many of the recessions we face. One way we can do that is by returning to the gold standard which is something I will push as President. Number two we must drastically cut spending across the board and yes that means we must significantly cut the military budget, give young people the ability to opt out of entitlement programs they will never receive, and get rid of 5 cabinet level departments such as : Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development . Doing this will allow us to actually not bring our budget into balance but start paying down our debt as well as well as significantly reduce taxes for Americans.

Jindal: I would follow the model set by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s which is to significantly cut taxes to help stimulate the economy , take an axe at the overburdensome regulatory state that stifle growth and yes to prevent a financial crises, I do believe some sort of financial reform is needed which is why I working to help pass a bill that would get us reform. We also need to work on getting a free trade deal passed with nations across the pacific and one that also does not undermine our sovereignty and as President I would appoint my Trade Representative to do exactly that. Lastly we must unleash the beast of our energy sector and I believe that a full push towards energy independence would do that and I can tell you having energy independence will help one prevent us from being so reliant on other nations for oil and also would help create many jobs.

Paul: This is the problem again with Republicans and that is you also believe the government should play a role in fixing a problem it created. The fact is the reason we are at risk of a financial crises is because of terrible monetary policy that helps create bubbles, inflates financial assets and as President I would put a change to that.

Bair: Congressman Paul to follow up on that who would you name to chair the federal reserve

Paul: I believe the Federal Reseve system should be phased out but if we are unable to do that we need someone to chair the federal reserve, to be someone who believes in going back to the gold standard and thats the type of person I would nominate .

Bair: What about you Senator Jindal

Jindal: I would nominate someone to head the Fed to be someone who would 1. Keep bubbles from forming by not enabling asset inflation, 2. someone who is willing to be transparant and 3. someone who has the competency for the posiiton

Bair: Moving on


Important Moment 3:

Bream: One question on the minds of Super Tuesday voters according to multiple polls is which one of you would give the Republicans a better chance of winning back the White House in November. So why would each one of you give the party a better chance of winning than the other

Jindal: Well I would say to look at the figures and that is since 1980 and the Reagan Revoultion our party has mainly relied on what many people call the conservative 3 legged stool: someone who stands strong on foreign policy issues, someone who believes in less government interference in our economy and someone who stands strong for traditional family values and the results for our party have been great. We have won 5 of the 8 presidential elections since then, and something most people dont know is the Democrats have not won over 50% of the national vote in any election in that period too so the fact is that coalition has done well for us and I clearly am the person who represents that 3 legged stool better.

The fact is our party cannot afford to give up any one of those legs if we intend to put together the coalition we need to win and nominating Congressman Paul would do exactly that. His nomination would hand the issue of standing for a strong foreign policy to the Democrats which is something that has never been the case in my lifetime and we would lose big if that is the case.

Paul: First of all I would obviously argue against the idea that a strong foreign and national security policy means an very militaristic and interventionist foreign policy and I believe I could make that case to the voters so regardless what conventional wisdom  says, I dont believe nominating me would hand that issue to the Democrats. The main reason though why I think I give the party a better chance of winning is that I am the only candidate who will actually offer substantive change and I believe we can get a lot of voters who usually sit out of elections to vote for us if we offer that change as well as get many apathetic democrats over to our side because many of them want change too.

I want people to keep this fact too and that is in the past 100 years, only 1 incumbent Democratic President has gone down to defeat and that was Jimmy Carter in 1980 and our nominee that year, Ronald Reagan, campaigned strongly for change and not only for Democrats but the way the Republicans had governed over the prior decades too. The fact is if we dont campaign on change , we will lose because you wont be giving the voters a reason to vote the incumbent out then.

Jindal: Who says I won’t be campaigning on change because the fact is the economic , social and even many foreign policies I will campaign on will mark a change from President Clinton . What is true is I am not a change from republicans over the past few decades and my question is why should we change the direction of our party . The principles we have pushed for last 3 decades under President Reagan in the 1980s , under Speaker Gingrich and the Contract with America in the 1990s and under President McCain in the 2000s helped grow our economy, give individual Americans more control over their economic destiny , and helped spread freedom across the world and in places which never had freedom before .

So no congressman Paul we do not need to run away from our record , we need to embrace it and stand boldly on our principles and that’s what I will do if I’m our party’s nominee in the Fall . Yes taking down an incumbent won’t be easy but it can be done if we stand boldly on our record and our principles and not run away from it .

Paul : Were their successes by our party over the past few decades , the answer is yes and we should defend it but that doesn’t mean there were things we failed at . For example not a single Republican president since Eisenhower has balanced the budget , not a single Republican president in my lifetime has stood up and really defended individual liberty and we can see these examples from the failed war on drugs and giving our agencies the ability to spy on Americans , and not a single Republican president has stood by and followed the words of our founders to not get entangled in all these overseas conflicts . By the way President Hillary Clinton has continued the policies of prior republican presidents in these areas so if you really want to run on change we need to mark a change in these areas .

[OSR stands with Israel]

House Passes Financial Reform Bill:


Cooper: The House earlier today passed a financial reform bill which had these provisions

Details of the Reform:

- Put in place stricter qualified mortgage rules to prevent defaults of home mortgages

- Largest Financial Institutions will not be allowed to have leverage ratios at any greater than 20:1 by 2016

- Largest Financial Institutions will be required to hold at least 8% of their assets in liquid capital

- Put stricter regulation on ability for commercial banks to engage in proprietary trading and investing in hedge funds/private equity

- This law will only apply to financial institutions with total consolidated assets of 250 billion or more

Cooper: This bill passed with most Democrats voting for it and a third of Republicans voting for it. President Clinton called the bill a good bill but also hopes the Senate can make it better but if it cant, she would be willing to sign this bill into law.

Senator Jindal praised some of the legislation but called for some parts to be improved while Congressman Paul calls it a bad regulation that does reform the wrong way.

Jindal wins Arizona and Michigan in lead up to Super Tuesday

Blitzer: With Super Tuesday just 48 hours away, heres an updated look how the delegate count looks so far and remember since Mini Tuesday both Michigan and Arizona have voted and both voted for Senator Jindal and despite both states losing half their delegates for holding their primary before Super Tuesday, Senator Jindal benefited from winner take all rules to run up his delegate count.

Michigan: Jindal 60% 24 Delegates Paul 40% 6 Delegates
Arizona: Jindal 67% 29 Delegates Paul 33%

Total Delegates So Far:

Louisiana Senator Bobby Jindal 206 Delegates
Representative Ron Paul 85 Delegates
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 48 Delegates
New York Governor Rudy Giuliani 7 Delegates
Virginia Senator George Allen 4 Delegates
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty 2 Delegates



Blitzer: So John Senator Jindal goes into Super Tuesday with a lot of momentum

King: Yes, he does and with Governors Romney and Giuliani campaigning for him in the New England and Governor Bush campaigning with him in the South, former Senate Majority Leader Slade Gorton in Washington , the establishment is going all in to ensure that he wins the nomination. In fact out of the Dozen contests that are up tomorrow this is what we believe

Likely to go to Jindal: GA , TN , VA, OH , OK

Likely to go to Paul : VT, AK

Battleground: MA , ND , ID, WY , WA

King: As you can see the problem with the Paul strategy is that even if he sweeps the battlegrounds, Jindal wins the bigger states and given delegate allocation, he likely will come out with the advantage . So right now Senator Jindal is well situated for Super Tuesday.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here's the actual Dodd-Frank: https://fin.plaid.com/articles/major-provisions-of-the-wall-street-reform-and-consumer/

[OSR stands with Israel]

Jindal takes firm control of GOP race after winning 8 of 12 contests on Super Tuesday



Source: https://www.cfr.org/blog/campaign-2016-bobby-jindal-gop-presidential-candidate

Blitzer : Senator Bobby Jindal had a big night winning 8 of the 12 contests up tonight including winning most of the battleground contests too. Lets now look at the contests won by each candidate and look at the overall delegate count

Contests Won by Bobby Jindal:

Georgia: Jindal 74% 56 Delegates Paul 25% 20 Delegates
Virginia: Jindal 63% 49 Delegates Paul 36%
Ohio: Jindal 64% 54 Delegates Paul 35% 12 Delegates
Massachusetts: Jindal 52% 22 Delegates Paul 47% 19 Delegates
Oklahoma: Jindal 70% 30 Delegates Paul 29% 13 Delegates
Tennessee: Jindal 76% 44 Delegates Paul 23% 14 Delegates
North Dakota: Jindal 50% 14 Delegates Paul 49% 14 Delegates
Washington: Jindal 54% 23 Delegates Paul 45% 20 Delegates

Contests Won by Ron Paul:

Vermont: Paul 68% 13 Delegates Jindal 31% 4 Delegates
Wyoming: Paul 53% 16 Delegates Jindal 46% 13 Delegates
Idaho: Paul 51% 32 Delegates Jindal 48%
Alaska: Paul 60% 16 Delegates Jindal 39% 11 Delegates

Total Delegates So Far:

Louisiana Senator Bobby Jindal 526 Delegates
Representative Ron Paul 274 Delegates
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 48 Delegates
New York Governor Rudy Giuliani 7 Delegates
Virginia Senator George Allen 4 Delegates
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty 2 Delegates



Blitzer: So John, how does the remaining Delegate math look

King: As we have mentioned many times, to win the nomination on the first ballot you need 1,144 delegates and as we can see Senator Jindal is almost half way there already and we still have 33 contests to go as remember while we have 50 states , DC and 5 territories play a part in the nominating process and out of those 33 contests, 5 of them are in the 6 largest states so while that may give the Paul camp hope, that also means Jindal hasnt had the ability to run up the totals in those states yet.

Now as for the delegate math, Senator Jindal only needs around 43.3% of the rest of the delegates to win the nomination while Congressman Paul needs 61.1% so as you can see Jindal is starting to get a pretty big advantage. This is further exacerbated by the fact that Senator Jindal has won 61.1% of the delegates so far so Congressman Paul needs a huge turnout if he wants any chance of winning.

Blitzer: Thanks John, now lets go over to our panel. So Pat , many have compared the Ron Paul candidacy so far to your candidacies in 1992 and 1996 so what do you think of his night so far.

Buchanan: Wolf, I would not say our candidacies are the same given our differences on many social issues but the fact is his core message of having a non interventionist foreign policy and being opposed to these big government programs is resonating so much because he is the only candidate from either party these past two decades to even talk about both these issues. While yes he may not be winning, I want to point out he is doing better than I ever did and the important part is he is laying the groundwork for a movement than can start gaining influence in the GOP.

So while it is unlikely he will win the nomination, the fact is he is showing that there is an appetite for his message in so many congressional districts and even states across the country which means someone with his ideology could win many house and senate seats and then start to influence policy.

Cupp: I wouldnt get to excited about that because Congressional primaries work very differently than presidential ones do but I will say yes potential is there to potentially reshape parts of the GOP caucus if this campaign really becomes a movement but its hard to say if it will happen or not. Also I am not sure how much of Congressman Paul is because of his policies vs this field not being a relatively weak Republican field and the fact is in 2016 it will not be this weak. Either the GOP will have an incumbent President in Bobby Jindal or if he loses you will see a much stronger GOP field in 2016. Here is a potential field 4 years from now: George W Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Susana Martinez , Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley and I could go on and on really. Hell there are rumors that Congress may pass an amendment allowing non natural born Americans who have been Citizens for 30 years to run for President which would mean potentially Arnold Schwarzenegger too so the fact is I am not really seeing where this Ron Paul Revolution is coming from because who will lead it after him.

Buchanan: You may see it from Ron Paul himself SE and yes people may bring up his age but he has a lot of energy for his age and the same may be true 4 years from now and if the Republicans lose, he will get to run an I told you so campaign and potentially ride that wave for 4 years just like Ronald Reagan did after 1976.  Or you may see someone else leading this movement 4 years from now , but who knows .

Borger : I think really if Congressman Paul is smart he would enthusiastically endorse Senator Jindal if these types of results continue to happen for a month or so in exchange for concessions in the platform . Keep in mind Ronald Reagan did do that in 1976 which created goodwill for him in 1980 and second if Jindal manages to win , getting those promises will mean he’d still have had impact on public policy .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Jindal continues to dominate primaries by sweeping rest of March primaries with the exception of Hawaii


Contests won by Bobby Jindal :

American Samoa Convention: Jindal 9 Delegates
Alabama : Jindal 81% 41 Delegates Paul 18% 9 Delegates
Guam Convention : Jindal 9 Delegates
Kansas : Jindal 66% 32 Delegates Paul 33% 8 Delegates
Illionis: Jindal 63% 52 Delegates Paul 36% 17 Delegates
Louisiana: Jindal 90% 46 Delegates Paul 9%
Mississippi: Jindal 82% 33 Delegates Paul 17% 7 Delegates
Northern Marinara Island: Jindal 77% 7 Delegates Paul 22% 2 Delegates
Puerto Rico : Jindal 75% 23 Delegates Paul 24%
US Virgin Island : Jindal 55% 5 Delegates Paul 44% 4 Delegates

Contests won by Ron Paul:

Hawaii: Paul 53% 11 Delegates Jindal 46% 9 Delegates


Louisiana Senator Bobby Jindal 792 Delegates
Representative Ron Paul 332 Delegates
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 48 Delegates
New York Governor Rudy Giuliani 7 Delegates
Virginia Senator George Allen 4 Delegates
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty 2 Delegates




Blitzer: So John is Congressman Paul done after a string of defeats

King: Well as usual lets look at the math and as we can see that Senator Jindal only needs 32% of the rest of the delegates to win the nomination while Congressman Paul needs 73.8% so the odds are extremely stacked against him especially given the fact a bunch of winner take all contests are up soon .

So is it over no, but it is very very hard for me to see a path for Congressman Paul to win the nomination at this point.

Blitzer: Now with us is former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Secretary Powell, you have been a critic of both these candidates but now that it looks like Senator Jindal is in very strong position to win the nomination , will you endorse him.

Powell: I am not ready to do so at the moment Wolf and let me tell you why. First he continues to spread the myth that if we sent troops into Iraq in 2010 , it would have prevented the Invasion when every one of our intelligence officers has said if we did , the Iranians and Syrians would have invaded then and the war would be harder to win not easier. Second and more problematic is he keeps saying that we should not have taken the deal when again high ranking officials in the military believe it is good that we did not go all the way to Tehran and Damascus and the deal to end the war was the best case scenario for peace in the region. Now I can tell you this, and that is we have tried the policy of running foreign policy and wars directly through DC and it ended up being disastrous so we should learn from those past mistakes instead of repeating them.

Blitzer: Do you worry then what would have happened if Senator Jindal was in the White House last August and had to make that decision

Powell: Yes I do and frankly let me tell you why going all the way would have been bad. The fact is we would need around half a million troops to occupy Syria and around a million and a half to occupy Iran which would completely spread our military thin and make us weaker to dealing with threats across the world because the fact is once you topple a government, it will take years before you can withdraw. The only way in my opinion to manage to occupy both Syria and Iran and not have our troops spread thin is by either reinstating a draft which should not happen or letting Russia and China have a significant influence in the occupation process which would mean the regime that wed replace the current ones with wouldnt be that much better.

So the fact is yes Senator Jindal is far more of a neoconservative than I am but so was Former President McCain but the difference is President McCain showed he would be willing to listen to the advice of our generals, intelligence agencies if they conflicted with his ideological agenda and Senator Jindal needs to show me that before I can endorse him because at the end of the day foreign policy is not about ideology but about actual facts on the ground.

Blitzer: Ok last question Secretary Powell, what do you say to the Republicans what about the economic and social issues

Powell: The fact is a President while they do have influence over economic and social policy, that at the end of the day is determined by Congress and the States. So if you are voting primary on those issues, I would say what matters the most is making sure the Republicans win both houses of Congress in 2012 and do well in state legislative races that will be up. On the other hand the President has a lot of power over foreign policy and national security policy which is why I vote based on that and why I have been a Republican for so long because our party has clearly had the edge on foreign policy in every election in my adult life with the exception of 1964. So am I open to endorsing Senator Jindal, yes but I am not ready to do so at this moment cause of these concerns.

Blitzer : Thanks for coming on Secretary Powell

Powell : Anytime Wolf

[OSR stands with Israel]

Jindal Sweeps April Primaries

Blitzer: Senator Jindal after a very strong April is now on the verge of the nomination as he is now only 32 delegates away from winning the nomination after sweeping every primary. Here is a summary of the results

Contests won by Bobby Jindal:

DC: Jindal 79% 19 Delegates Paul 20%
Maryland: Jindal 76% 37 Delegates Paul 23%
Wisconsin: Jindal 66% 42 Delegates Paul 33%
Connecticut: Jindal 56% 28 Delegates Paul 43%
Delaware : Jindal 61% 17 Delegates Paul 38%
New York: Jindal 70% 95 Delegates Paul 29%
Pennsylvania: Jindal 73% 72 Delegates Paul 26%
Rhode Island: Jindal 54% 10 Delegates Paul 45% 9 Delegates

Louisiana Senator Bobby Jindal 1112 Delegates
Representative Ron Paul 341 Delegates
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 48 Delegates
New York Governor Rudy Giuliani 7 Delegates
Virginia Senator George Allen 4 Delegates
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty 2 Delegates




Blitzer: So John, Senator Jindal had a dominanting performance this month

King: Yes and at the end of the day momentum is very very important in primaries and Senator Jindal had the momentum entering the primary and rode that to a sweep . Keep in mind every one of these contests except Rhode Island was winner take all so that really allowed Senator Jindal to rack up the numbers so it is fair to say it is all over at this point.

Blitzer: Pat, SE do you agree

Buchanan: Wolf, I would agree that Ron Paul's hopes of becoming the Republican nominee is pretty much done at this point but I do not think it means his campaign is done at this moment. There are multiple reasons someone may continue their campaign, from influencing the party platform and to build the ground work in each state for future election cycles as well so I would say it depends on the type of question you are asking

Cupp: I think it is absolutely over at this point though I understand why CNN Cant officially say that because it is theortically possible for Ron Paul to get 100% of the remaining delegates and force a contested convention but thats not realistically possible so its over in that sense. I also disagree that it would be in the best interests for his movement for him to continue as that creates a perception that he is not a team player while if he drops out now , then he could extract some concessions from Senator Jindal and create the perception he is a team player which would help in building a movement.

Blitzer: That is interesting though according to Congressman Paul, he will not be dropping out tonight so the primary so we wont be declaring the primary over just yet

Cupp: That is a mistake in my opinion

[OSR stands with Israel]

Breaking News: Lousiana Senator Bobby Jindal Becomes the Presumptive Republican Nominee after wins in Indiana , West Virginia and North Carolina



Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/416990332/5-things-you-should-know-about-bobby-jindal

Blitzer: Tonight was indeed a historic night as not only did Senator Bobby Jindal win every contest up tonight, he also crossed the delegate threshold meaning he will become the first person nominated from either the Republican or Democratic parties to not only be an Indian-American but the first Minority in general and if he wins he will become the first non white president. Here is a summary of the results tonight what led to this historic moment:


Indiana: Jindal 77% 46 Delegates Paul 22%
North Carolina: Jindal 84% 46 Delegates Paul 15% 9 delegates
West Virginia: Jindal 68% 25 Delegates Paul 31% 6 Delegates

Louisiana Senator Bobby Jindal 1229 Delegates
Representative Ron Paul 356 Delegates
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 48 Delegates
New York Governor Rudy Giuliani 7 Delegates
Virginia Senator George Allen 4 Delegates
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty 2 Delegates




Blitzer: Stand by so we can listen in to Congressman Paul

Ron Paul Suspends Campaign but does not Endorse Jindal at the moment:

Paul : Thank You Thank You . A short while ago , Senator Jindal officially crossed the threshold needed to win the Republican Party nomination and due to that I have to sadly say that I will be suspending my campaign as I no longer have any chance left at winning the nomination. Many are now questioning whether or not I will endorse our party’s presumptive nominee , Senator Bobby Jindal, and my answer to that it is not important whether or not I endorse him or not but whether or not he can convince you to vote for him in November as he will require not only your vote but for you to turn out in large numbers if he is to lead our party to victory . Since I also want to see our party win this November here are some ways I believe Senator Jindal can do so and I fully understand that the both of us do have very big differences in views . Despite our philosophical differences, I do believe there is some common ground we can find with his philosophy, and here they are :

- Senator Jindal  claims to be a strict constructionist when it comes to the constitution so if that’s the case he should have zero issue committing to these policies

1. Ending the practice of warantless wiretapping as that is a clear violation of the 4th amendment and any strict constructionist should agree

2. Believing all military interventions should first have to be approved by Congress which again anyone who is a strict constructionist would agree because the constitution makes it clear that Congress and not the President has the power to declare war or authorize military interventions

3. Truly believing in the 10th amendment of the constitution which means letting states do stuff you may disagree with. Any person who considers themselves a strict constructionist should be able to agree with this

- Senator Jindal Claims to be a strong economic/fiscal conservative which if true he should support these policies

1. He should pledge to nominate someone to the Federal reserve who will ensure a strong dollar and prevent asset inflation like he promised at the debate

2. While we may have differences on foreign policy, everyone should agree that the Pentagon should be audited given how much money we spend on it to ensure that taxpayer money is not being falling into the hands of special interests or wasted.

3. To have a plan on how we can get to a balanced budget within 5 years of taking office.


These policies proposals would show to not only my voters , but to voters all across the nation that our party is serious in a constitutional conservative agenda and help us provide a contrast to the Democrats that is needed to win in November. I want to end by once again thanking all my supporters and letting them know that while we may have lost this election, the fight has just begun, and it is important we sustain the movement we created in this election so we can finally implement the changes our nation needs. Thank You

Blitzer: So Pat and SE what did you think

Buchanan: I think it was smart because the fact is Congressman Paul had two difficult options which was 1. let his base down by immediately endorsing Senator Jindal which would deflate his movement which was the whole point of his campaign or 2. refuse to endorse Senator Jindal which would result in the party establishment accusing him of not being a team player and destroying his movement that way. So I think the route he chose of holding his endorsement for now in exchange for policy promises that both his base and Senator Jindal's base could agree to was smart

Cupp: My guess is it was just an excuse for him to not have to endorse Senator Jindal but I do hope I am wrong here as we do need to unite as a party if we want to win.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bobby Jindal's Potential Vice Presidential Picks

The Favorites:


Rudy Giuliani:



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rudy_Giuliani_(cropped).jpg

Mitt Romney:



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6_cropped.jpg

Tim Pawlenty:



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tim_Pawlenty_official_photo.jpg

Jon Kyl:



https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jon_Kyl,_official_109th_Congress_photo_(cropped).jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Paul Ryan:



Source : https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Ryan_official_portrait_(cropped_3x4).jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Rob Portman :



https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rob_Portman_portrait_(1).jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Tom Davis:



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Davis_headshot.jpg


Potential Wildcards:

Marco Rubio:



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marcorubio2.jpg

Susana Martinez:



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Governor_NewMexico.jpg

Carly Fiorina:



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carly_Fiorina_NFRW_2015_lighting_corrected.jpg

Gary Johnson:



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GJ_Head_Shot_1_(10483995115)_(1).jpg

Gordon Smith:



Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_Smith_official_portrait.jpg

[OSR stands with Israel]

Senate Votes for House Version of Financial Reform and President Clinton signs it into law:

Blitzer: The Senate Today voted in favor of the house version of financial reform and the President signed it into law. The bill garnered the support of every Democrat despite the grumblings of many progressive Democrats such as Senator Bernie Sanders who believe the bill does not go far enough and also got the support of 10 Republicans which gave the bill enough backing to break a filibuster. Notably Senator Bobby Jindal we are told was not present in the senate while this bill was being voted on, so Ed do you think it was smart

Rollins: I do as the fact is if Senator Jindal was put in a lose-lose situation with this bill as if he voted in favor of it, he would have risked alienating the Ron Paul Voters he needs to bring back in the fold and if he did not then he would risk getting embarrassed with 11 Republicans voting for it despite his opposition to it.

Now will President Clinton hit him on it sure, but I dont think it will be damaging as the fact is the President missed many senate votes 4 years ago when she ran for President as well so I dont think she can go way to overboard on it.

Blitzer: Well we will find out whether it was smart of not but in the meanwhile the President has indeed signed the financial reform bill so this bill will now be law


Momentum grows for potential amendment to allow non natural born citizens to run for President as President Clinton endorses measure

Cooper: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment by Senator Orin Hatch to allow non natural born citizens to run for President as long as they have been citizens for at least 25 years gained momentum as President Clinton endorsed the measure, saying that the current rule does not make as much sense for the 21st century and it should be the voters who decide whether they should or should not be President. So John many are saying Senator Orin Hatch , introduced this to pave the way for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to make a potential run 4 or 8 years from now if the President is reelected. What are the rumors to that

King: I would say those rumors are probably correct as it is no secret that Governor Schwarzenegger  does want to run for President at some point but he is currently ineligible to do so but would not be if this proposed amendment by Orin Hatch passes. By the way many Democrats would also benefit from such a change such as Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm so there is a reason either party may do this.

Cooper: Would you say the fact this was introduced by Senator Hatch shows that Republicans think they are the underdogs in this election and some are starting to plan for 2016

King: Well I think every acknowledges that they are the underdogs this November as defeating an incumbent President is very difficult and history proves it. In the past 13 elections an incumbent has been on the ballot , only in 3 of them has resulted in the incumbent losing and one of those incumbents wasnt even elected so it shows that history is against the Republicans here. Add to that , that since 1896 there has only been one time that a party has lost the White House after just 4 years and that was the Democrats in 1980 , and really one other time that they were close to losing in their attempt for a 2nd term and that was the Democrats in 1916. Every other time a party attempting to get a 2nd term were clearly successful, so given this history its not a surprise to see Republicans think more long term

Not that it is not possible for Senator Jindal to win but it is going to be an up hill climb

[OSR stands with Israel]

Senator Bobby Jindal to push for constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman

Blitzer : Senator Jindal today reacted to the news that Washington , Maine , Minnesota and Maryland will all have ballot measures to legalize same sex marriage by reiterating a pledge that he’d push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage between one man and one woman . As you may remember Former President McCain did not endorse such a measure in 2004 but then Senator Bush did 4 years ago . So John What are the chances this can even pass

King : Well the fact is over the past two decades there has been a major change on this issue . When Gallup first asked this poll , less than 30% of Americans supported same sex marriage being legal while today polls show the issue is 50/50 so I don’t think such an amendment could even come close to passing as remember not only do you need 2/3rd of both houses of congress but 3/4th of the states and an amendment just won’t pass on a 50/50 issue . My guess is that Senator Jindal is hoping to use this issue to sweep the southern and border states but the issue is many libertarian leaning states the Republicans have won the past 3 times such as Oregon , Colorado , and New Hampshire could be alienated by such rhetoric. So we will have to see the effect on this but it is very possible this could hurt Senator Jindal in the electoral math instead of help him .


President Clinton backs NCAA Sanctions against Penn State, saying she hopes it sends a message that keeping our kids and our students safe is more important than Sports

Cooper: Less than two weeks after former FBI Director Louis Freeh released a report outlining that the late Penn State Football Coach Joe Paterno along with other officials of the university covered up child sexual abuse committed by now convicted former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, the NCAA decided to impose severe sanctions on the university including banning them from playing in bowl games for 4 years and put on probation for 5 years.

Many have called the sanctions the toughest in decades and President Clinton reacted earlier to it by approving of the sanctions.

Clinton: Given the magnitude of the charges that Jerry Sandusky was convicted of a month ago , I do think the sanctions against Penn State are appropriate. While it is a great football program, the fact is the fact is the safety of our kids and our students is more important than winning football games and I hope this sends a message to every university around the country that the safety of our kids and our students comes first over anything else .

Cooper: So the President has made it clear she supports the NCAA in sanctioning Penn State. James as our resident NCAA Football fan do you

Carville: This is truly a tragic and awful situation but my opinion on this has been that things such as bowl bans are wrong headed as they punish people who had nothing to do with the crime to begin with and that is the players on the football team. My belief is punishment should be against those direcltly involved in the cover up and I hope those responsible face whatever legal consequences possible, and I support heavy fines so you can take the revenue that Penn State gets from football and use it to compensate the victims of Jerry Sandusky and to endowments that purpose is to help prevent child abuse. These things would directly punish the program itself and the people responsible for the crime rather than punish those who had nothing to do with it.


Cooper: What do you say though to those given that programs such as USC were given bowl bans for far less

Carville: I think USC getting a bowl ban was wrong headed as well. The fact is Bowl Bans in my opinion seem to punish players who had nothing to do with the wrongdoings and I think NCAA sanctions in general should be more geared to punishing those who were responsible for the wrong doing such as coaches, athletic directors, and being put on probation .

Listen I fully understand the need for punishment and my hope is that every individual responsible for covering up Jerry Sandusky's crimes, faces criminal consequences for their actions and that would be real punishment as that punishes the people responsible for the crime and not the players who had nothing to do with it .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Senator Jindal Releases Vice Presidential Shortlist:

Blitzer: Senator Jindal's team just released his Vice Presidential Shortlist , so lets now go over to John King to see who is on the shortlist and what are the strengths and weaknesses for each candidate .

King: Ok lets start with Governor Romney

Mitt Romney:



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mitt_Romney_by_Gage_Skidmore_6_cropped.jpg

King: Picking Governor Romney would help balance the ticket out as it would send to socially moderate and socially liberal Republicans that Senator Jindal values their viewpoints in the party and that could really help Senator Jindal's chances in states like New Hampshire, Colorado and Oregon all of which were states that Senator Bush won 4 years ago. Governor Romney also helps balance the ticket in terms of prior experience as it means the ticket will also have someone who has worked in an executive branch before and that could help Senator Jindal with independent voters who think he lacks that experiences.

Now some weaknesses Governor Romney has is that one many have criticized him for his record on flip flopping which is something independent voters may not like and is someone who probably would not help boost the ticket with swing Midwestern voters either.

Blitzer: Ok what about Senate Minority Leader Kyl who as we know is not running for reelection this Fall.

Jon Kyl:



https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jon_Kyl,_official_109th_Congress_photo_(cropped).jpg#mw-jump-to-license

King: Well one advantage to that is that as Senate Leader , hed have to spend a lot of time worrying about boosting his party's senate candidates which is something he wont have to do now which means he can focus on the presidential campaign. I would say the advantages he brings to the ticket is one he brings a lot of political experiance which can help with swing voters and him being from the Southwest could boost Senator Jindal's chances in the Southwest where he will be looking to keep Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico in the Republican column.

Blitzer: What about some weaknesses

King: Senator Kyl wouldnt really bring any enthusiasm to the ticket at all which isn’t good as turnout is very important in winning close states in elections. Also he wouldn’t help with the types of voters who are looking for change and that is something any challenger looks to tap into in order to win

Blitzer : What about senator Ryan

Paul Ryan:



Source : https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Ryan_official_portrait_(cropped_3x4).jpg#mw-jump-to-license

King : Senator Ryan would help bring lots of enthusiasm from the conservative base so if what the Republicans are looking for is turnout , well he’d bring it . He also is from Wisconsin a state that’s voted for the winner in the past 5 presidential elections and him being on the ticket could help make that state a battleground this upcoming November which would expand the map for Senator Jindal .

Blitzer: What about weaknesses

King : While Senator Ryan may excite conservative voters he may help alienate many moderates from the ticket which would make it all the more difficult for Senator Jindal to win . Second his history of supporting privatizing entitlement programs may alienate senior voters too which are critical in states like Florida which is a state Republicans must win if they have any hopes of getting to 270 Electoral votes .

Blitzer : What about Mrs. Fiorina

Carly Fiorina:



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carly_Fiorina_NFRW_2015_lighting_corrected.jpg

King : She would help greatly in helping Senator Jindal make the case that they are running as outsiders and help bring that type of energy to the ticket. She could also help Senator Jindal appeal to more female voters than they otherwise would in this campaign.

Blitzer: What about some weakness

King : Well the fact is she lost the only poltical campaign she ran , albeit in California and yes while picking a Wildcard as your running mate can bring lots of energy to your campaign it can also end disastrously so that is something Senator Jindal should be aware off .

Blitzer : Lets go over to our Panel and see who they want picked as Senator Jindal’s running mate. Speaker Gingrich you first

Gingrich : My hope is that Senator Jindal picks Senator Ryan as his running mate as he is by far in my opinion the best candidate if you want to make the case for the conservative agenda this fall as he not only has the best conservative track record out of these 4 but he also has clearly studied up on these issues so he can help make the intellectual case as well .


Buchanan : I believe the choice Senator Jindal should make is pick Governor Romney . Not only is governor Romney someone who’d help balance the ticket the most , he’s someone who out of these 4 has the best track record on issues such as trade and energy policy both of which have been missing from the Republicans in quite some time .

Cupp : Honestly I’m not sure but given the fact Senator Jindal is an underdog going with Carly Fiorina could be his best choice as she’d be the pick that could shake up the narrative of the race the most which is something I believe Senator Jindal must do in order to win . Secondly people say she could be a risky choice but I disagree as she didn’t really do that badly in her Senate campaign in 2010 so I think she has the potential to bring the most upside as Senator Jindal must change the narrative of this race in order to win .

Now if this was an open race , I would say Governor Romney would be the best choice but it isn’t so the circumstances are different

[OSR stands with Israel]

CNN Releases First Battleground Map of Election:

Blitzer : With just a couple weeks until the RNC , CNN is now ready to release its first official battleground map of the cycle and here’s how it looks




Clinton/Rockefeller 247 51%
Jindal/? 177 43%
Tossup 114

Blitzer : Ok now Let’s go over to John King to get some questions answered about this map . So John , the battleground isn’t anywhere near as big as it was 4 years ago

King: No Wolf and the reason is many of these Midwestern states that 4 years ago were battlegrounds now lean to President Clinton. So because of that as you can see the President does have a pretty big starting out advantage compared and Senator Jindal is gonna have a lot of work to do in order to open up the map

Blitzer : So what are some of the best opportunities for Senator Jindal to expand the map

King : Well , I believe that the best opportunity for Senator Jindal to expand this map comes in these Midwestern and rust belt states such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Now if he picks Senator Ryan as his running mate , my guess is we would change Wisconsin to tossup but I would not say that’s the current lean Democratic state that offers the best opportunity for Senator Jindal , and I’d instead argue Pennsylvania is

Blitzer : Why Pennsylvania

King : Well there are multiple reasons for this and that is that Pennsylvania has 10 more electoral votes than Wisconsin and they are polling similarly. More important though is what it means for the rest of the map and that is if Senator Jindal can put Pennsylvania in play it likely means neighboring Ohio starts to lean his way as well and thus the starting map rather than giving President Clinton a 247 to 177 would reduce that advantage to an 227 to 195 advantage which . That is not all because for Pennsylvania to be in play , Senator Jindal would either need to do much better in the Philadelphia suburbs which likely means that the President isn’t doing well enough in the Northern Virginia suburbs to realistically win that state which would boost Senator Jindal’s starting number to 208. Another possibility is that Senator Jindal is outperforming with White Working Class voters which probably means Kentucky isn’t really in play meaning his stating number would go up from 195 to 203.

So as you can see while putting Pennsylvania in play would not make Senator Jindal the favorite, it would pretty much make this election anyone ball game so I would not be surprised to see his campaign try hard to put the state in play

Blitzer : Can he do so though

King : Hard to say which is why he will need a strong rollout of his Vice Presidential pick and a strong convention as those two things can give him the momentum he needs for this campaign.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Senator Jindal selects Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as his running mate:



Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mitt-romney-returns-campaign-trail-new-hampshire

Jindal : Thank You , Thank You. As you may all know , selecting a Vice Presidential candidate is the most important decision a candidate can make because not only would they be your running mate but also if you win , would represent our nation as the Vice President for 4 years . Now making such a decision is not easy and as many know, there were many qualified candidates I considered for the job but after careful consideration I have decided to name Governor Mitt Romney to be our party's Vice Presidential nominee(Applause). Governor Romney has experience in the Business World where he helped save all sorts of companies and later the Olympics in Salt Lake City , and as governor where he was able to work with a Democratic legislature to help bring the changes Massachusetts needed to help their economy grow(Applause) and turn the state around as well(Applause) .

I also was impressed by the Presidential campaign he ran in the primaries where he not only talked about the substantive issues facing our country such as our trade relations with China, our energy needs and in reforming our broken regulatory system but showed he had a plan to deal with them(Applause). As President it is critical to have a Vice President who not only has knowledge about the issues we are facing but can provide the fresh eyes needed to ensure that you are going down the right path and I am confident Governor Romney will be that type of Vice President. Now it is my high honor to introduce to you the next Vice President of the United States, Mitt Romney.


Romney: Thank You Thank You. I want to start out by thanking Senator Jindal for giving me the honor of representing our great party as its Vice Presidential nominee and I look forward to do all I can to help you win this election and in making our nation a better place(Applause). Just the other day many economists are worried the increase in energy prices we have seen ever since the war could lead to another recession by sometime next year and while yes it will be critical for us to help make the recovery as fast as possible, it is also critical that we put in the policies to not put us in a similar position as we are in now(Applause). This means we must increase our energy production across the board so we can meet all our energy needs and thus not be so negatively impacted by events across the globe(Applause). We also must reassess our current trade relation with China as the fact is China along with Russia have long enabled the Iranian Government which not only attacked Iraq last year but for so long as been a state sponser of terrorism and to do that we must reform our trade relationship but our tax code and regulatory system so we can incentivize companies to stay here(Applause).

This is why it is critical we elect Senator Bobby Jindal as our next President because he unlike the President has a plan to address our energy needs, reform our tax code, and our regulatory system and doing so will help fix many of the problems we are facing today(Applause). Thank You, May God Bless You and May God Bless America

[OSR stands with Israel]

2012: Republicans Make History at Convention with the Nomination of the First Non White Candidate in History

Notable Speakers:

Former President John McCain: See Below

Speaker John Boehner: Talked about the need for the house to remain in Republican Hands

Senate Minority Leader Jon Kyl: Talked about the need for the senate to go Republican

Senator Jeb Bush: Talked about Senator Jindal's accomplishments in the Senate and how his leadership skills will help pass the legislation the US needs to solve the issues facing the nation

Senator Paul Ryan: Energized Conservatives by talking about the need to cut taxes, pass regulatory reform and reduce the size of the government

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich: Talked about how Senator Jindal follows in the line of past conservative leaders such as Barry Goldwater , Ronald Reagan, himself and John McCain

Florida Governor Marco Rubio: Talked about the need to elect fresh new leaders to help solve the problems we have today and how Senator Jindal is that leader

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger: Energized the crowd by talking about how great the American Dream is and how Senator Jindal's life embodies it


Excerpts of Former President John McCain's Address to the RNC




Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=bovAL6_wLMw

McCain: Thank You Thank You. While this may be my 8th time addressing this convention, I can tell you it is just as great of an honor to do so today as it was back in 1984 when I spoke to you the first time and as in 2000 and 2004 when I spoke to you as the nominee of this great party(Applause). Each time I have spoken to you, I have talked about the need to elect bold leaders who consistently make the changes needed to improve our nation and this time is no different(Applause). With our economy entering potentially rough waters, it is important we not only elect a leader who understands the policies needed to make our ride as smooth as possible but one who understands why may enter such water to begin with so we can avoid them in the future(Applause). It is why I am proud to endorse Senator Bobby Jindal for President because he is such a leader(Applause).

Senator Jindal understands that it is individuals and individual businesses that create jobs which is why he plans to lower taxes and get rid of burdensome regulations that slow our economy down(Applause). He also understands the importance of balancing the budget which is why he plans to cut wasteful spending as well make reforms to make government programs more efficient as well. Now doing so is not easy and requires strong leadership as many special interests will be opposed to it, but as someone who has known Senator Jindal for many years I can tell you that he will provide that leadership(Applause).

Now the most important job a President has to do is keeping our nation safe and to do so, a President must understand a strong and assertive America is a must and Senator Jindal understands that(Applause). The fact is hostile powers across the world time and time again are always looking for a way to expand their power and influence and history has shown what deters them is strength and as President , Senator Jindal will make it clear to them that the United States of America will always stand in defense of liberty(Applause). Thank You, May God Bless You and May God Bless America.

Excerpts of Mitt Romney Speech accepting the Vice Presidential Nomination:



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=02zTj_xGx60

Romney: Thank You Thank You. It is truly a great honor to be nominated for Vice President by this great party of Lincoln and I accept your nomination(Standing Ovation). I am also very thankful once again for Senator Bobby Jindal for giving me this great honor and I look forward to campaign for him all across the country to ensure that he will be elected the 45th President of the United States of America(Appluase). As you all may know, early on in the process I had to debate Senator Jindal many times as part of the Presidential process and while debates can be contentious you also learn a lot about your opponents in them. What I learnt was that Senator Jindal has a great command of the issues facing our nation and a concrete vision and plan to address them(Applause) which is exactly what we need in a President(Applause).

With our nation on the verge of rough economic waters, it is important that we have a president that understands what really makes our economy grow and that are the great businesses throughout our nation(Applause). It is small businesses who time and time again produce such great innovation that transforms our economy and we need a President who understands that the best thing the government can do is to stay out of the way and let them spur innovation(Applause). We also need a president who understands the best way to create a stable world is through strength and Bobby Jindal does understand that. Thank You, May God Bless You and May God Bless America

Excerpts of Bobby Jindal's Speech accepting the Presidential Nomination:



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2k9_uToQWM

Jindal: Thank You Thank You. It is truly the honor of my life to be nominated as this great party's Presidential Nominee and I accept your nomination(Standing Ovation). Throughout the history of our party we have produced great Presidents such as Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, John McCain all of whom dealt with the issues and crises facing our nation head and all of whom advanced the cause of freedom both at home and world wide(Applause) and it is why they all were great President(Applause). While the issues we face today may be different from the issues that faced those presidents, what has not changed is a leader who is not afraid to tackle the issues facing our country and that is what Governor Romney and I intend to do over the next 4 years(Applause).

With many Americans worried about the future of our economy, it is important that we understand that its private enterprise and not the government that leads to economic growth(applause). I believe it is important that the government reduces the tax burden on individuals and businesses all across the country as well as take an axe at the overburdensome regulatory state that stifles economic growth to help unleash economic growth(Applause). We also will also implement a spending freeze on all domestic growth to curb the growth of government, as well as give us the opportunity to take a look at where we can make spending cuts as well to help bring our deficit down(Applause). For the past 4 years we have seen a president implement policies that do the exact opposite and it has led our economy to be back in rough waters less than 5 years after our last recession so the fact is these policies do not work and we cannot afford to have another 4 more years of these policies(Applause).

Now while having a good economy is very important for our society, it is not the only thing that makes a society great. To have a strong society, we must have strong families and a strong moral foundation and that is something I intend to do as well by one leading with example and two by promoting a culture of life and three by defending traditional families(Applause). Last and arguably the most important is to ensure our national security and the best and most proven way to do that is by having a strong military, having a proactive foreign policy that deters aggressors because the best way to have peace is through strength(Standing Ovation). Thank You, May God Bless You and May God Bless America.


Jindal and Clinton tied in polls after the convention bounce  

Blitzer: Lets go now over to John King to see how the convention has changed the electoral map so far



Jindal/Romney 46% 198
Clinton/Rockefeller 46% 196
Tossup  144

King: Well as you can see its changed it quite a bit as Jindal has surged from 7 points down to now tied in the polls and with that now has a super narrow lead electorally as well. I will like to point out though that these types of convention bounces are common place and the President is likely to get one too so we should wait until the DNC is over before really analyzing where the election stands.


Blitzer: Lets now go over to our panel and get their reactions to how they think the convention went. Pat First with you

Buchanan: I will say Senator Jindal and the Republicans did a good job by hitting all these themes of all three legs of the conservative stool but what they lacked is telling us what type of change they would bring to the nation if elected. Fundamentally just like George Bush back in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996 failed to understand my base , I feel that Bobby Jindal did not show he understood the Ron Paul base who by the way did better than I ever did as well. The fact is there is a part of the electorate who questions all our involvement in these international conflicts and while yes many may not agree with Ron Paul or me in this, many do wonder why there seems to be this almost unconditional support where the debate is always framed on whether we should intervene or whether we have not intervened enough . Also I dont think Senator Jindal did a good job being able to explain what changes he would make to economic policy so I think while he did hit his bases , he failed to go further than that.

Cupp: I think it was a fantastic speech as I think Senator Jindal did a great job explaining why conservatism is a very mainstream ideology and also the principles behind it. I disagree with Pat that we did not hear what types of changes he would make as we heard over and over again his plan to cut taxes, reduce regulations , and cut wasteful spending so we saw a very detailed economy plan and also explanations given why such policies would work. My opinion is that Senator Jindal could have potentially got himself into the game with this convention, but of course its too early to say that at the moment.

Buchanan: I would like to respond to SE's point by saying that yes he talked economics but nothing the Republicans have not been saying for 30 years now. I like to point out every time the GOP has been swept to power: 1980: Ronald  Reagan came in with a whole new economic philosophy, 1994: Republicans were swept into control of congress for the first time in 40 years on a detailed plan to reduce the size of government called the contract of America and in 2000: John McCain swept in on an anti corruption message. In none of those cases did the Republicans just end up rehashing past Republican success which is what I saw from this convention tonight

Borger: I actually agree with Pat here on that point but the fact is its not easy to come up with a change message. Reagan did at a time of major major economic dissatisfaction that does not exist today, in 1994 the Republicans rode a wave off the fact that the first two years of Bill Clinton's Presidency did not go well and given 40 years of Democratic rule in the House and in 2000 McCain really was able to capture the alienation people were feeling towards politics of the time through his anti corruption message. So coming up with a change message is not as easy as those 3 elections make it out to seem.

Blitzer: Thanks for your input

[OSR stands with Israel]

2012 DNC: Democrats Gather with Hopes of not only Holding the White House but also regaining a trifecta:

Notable Speakers:

Former President Bill Clinton: Talked about how President Hillary Clinton has stayed true to many of her life long goals and achieved many of them as President and called her a better President than he was.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: Talked about the need for the house to go Democratic

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: Talked about the need for the senate to remain in Democratic Hands

Senator Caroline Kennedy: Praised President Clinton's work on healthcare and childcare issues and talked about the need to reelect President Clinton to continue and expand upon those accomplishments

Senator Mark Pyror: Talked about his friendship with President Clinton and how she has done a good job in helping find consensus on many different issues

Senator Joe Biden: Praised President Clinton's Foreign Policy and talked about her policies have kept us safe from terrorism, kept Iraq free and how it is helping promote democracy worldwide.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland: Praised President Clinton's economic policies by saying they are helping create good paying jobs for the working class, helping develop our infrastructure and by helping increasing domestic energy production.

Washington Senator Jay Inslee: Praised President Clinton's efforts to help the environment while also helping our economy at the same time.  

New York City Mayor Donald Trump: Blasted Senator Bobby Jindal and the Republicans, calling their economic plans a disaster, their social policy theocratic and warned that electing them could get us into an unnecessary war


Excerpts of Vice President Jay Rockefeller's Speech Accepting the Vice Presidential Nomination:



Source : https://youtu.be/zOWoHshsDCk?si=0cJH9NxL9wAMLIuv

Rockefeller: Thank You, Thank You. It is once again a great honor to be nominated for Vice President by this great part of Jackson and Roosevelt and I accept your nomination(Applause). Four Years ago when gathered together at the Democratic Convention, we outlined a vision of what our party believed needed to be done to make our nation a better place, such as move towards a system where everyone could afford health insurance(Applause), Childcare is more affordable for working class families(Applause), and a better education system for our kids(Applause). I can now proudly say that over the past four years President Clinton has taken action in each one of those areas and thanks to those actions we have seen: More Americans having Health Insurance(Applause), Childcare being made more affordable(Applause) and we reformed our education system for the better(Applause).

Now while many Republicans may claim that if they controlled the White House for the past 4 years  they would have also passed healthcare reform , let me remind you that they controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress for the preceding 8 years before we took office and they did not pass such reform and then they along with Senator Bobby Jindal opposed the parts of our reform proposal that expanded Medicare and Medicaid(Boos). Now can we improve our healthcare and childcare system even more yes, but the solution to this is not to elect someone who would appoint someone to head the department health and human services who opposed these reforms to begin with but rather someone who supported it to ensure we can continue to make it better(Applause).

Many may ask me why I chose to be a Democrat and not a Republican given my family history and the answer is the history of our two parties. It was a Democratic President who created social security despite Republican opposition, it was a Democratic President who created Medicare and Medicaid despite Republican opposition and now it was a Democratic President who expanded Medicare and Medicaid despite Republican opposition(Applause) so its clear in my mind what party is better for working people and that is the Democratic Party(Applause). It is why I am proud to have worked with President Clinton over the past 4 years and why I believe it is imperative that we reelect her as President of this great nation(Applause). Thank You, May God Bless You and May God Bless America


Excerpts of President Hillary Clinton's Speech Accepting the Presidential Nomination:



Source: https://youtu.be/C6GnHBEBWYE?si=fsWGXTmYEsyCx0UZ

Clinton : Thank You Thank You . It is my great honor to once again accept your nomination for President and I accept your nomination (Applause). 4 years ago when I addressed you , I said that it was possible for us to move towards a society where every American can afford healthcare, childcare and while many doubted those goals , I can proudly say that we are proving the doubters wrong(Applause). Now this does not mean we have reached that goal yet but what is important is we continue to progress towards that goal and I pledge to you that I will do everything in my power to ensure we continue to progress towards that goal(Applause). While many also have said that being commander in chief changes some of your goals , I can say that being commander in chief has only strengthened my resolve to accomplish these goals(Applause). There was no prouder moment for me as President then the day I addressed our troops who fought so valiantly to defend freedom in Iraq to commend them for their bravery and let them know that is really men and women like them who make our country so great(Applause). It is also why we must continue to progress towards those goals as it is our duty to those who serve in our military to leave to them and their kids an even better nation than the one that they enlisted for(Standing Ovation).

To do that we must continue to fight to make the American Dreams more accessible for all Americans by investing in the future of our economy(Applause) . To do so we must invest in higher education as the jobs of the future will require more and more Americans to get a college degree and if that’s the case then it is critical we invest more in it to make it more affordable(Applause). We also must invest in trade and technical schools to ensure that kids who want to go into those careers can do so as well(Applause). With millions of Americans worried about the future of the economy this is more critical than ever as investing in healthcare, childcare , higher education and the future of the economy can go a long way to calming those worries(Applause).

Now while it is important that we keep our economy here at home strong , it is also critical that we stand as a strong defender of freedom worldwide(Applause). As we saw with the Iranian and Syrian invasion of Iraq , dictators are not only worried about freedom spreading in their own nations but in other nations as well because they know that once the roots of freedom are planted in one nation then it can be spread to theirs as well(Applause). It is why through that fear they crack down on freedom in their own nations and it is critical that we make it clear that we will stand in firm opposition to those attempts(Applause) and in firm support of nations who are defending freedom from tyrants(Applause). History has proven that freedom can spread in places previously thought unimaginable such as Germany and Japan after WW2 , Eastern Europe after The Cold War and now Iraq and Afghanistan and I can tell you that freedom won’t stop spreading and I am certain that nations we couldn’t imagine being free today will also be free one day(Standing Ovation). Thank You , May God Bless You and May God Bless America


Hillary Clinton jumps back up to a 5 point lead after successful convention :

Blitzer : Let’s go over to John King and see how the map has changed since the convention



Clinton/Rockefeller 237 49%
Jindal/Romney 177 44%

King : The President successfully managed to wipe out much of the bounce Senator Jindal got from the convention but there are some changes from the initial battleground map . First of all states like Iowa and New Hampshire which were states that are traditionally competitive are showing more and more signs of learning toward the President while Pennsylvania despite the President polling similarly there , also will face a great challenge from Senator Jindal . The reason is simple and that is Iowa and New Hampshire only have 10 electoral votes in total while Pennsylvania has 20 so it makes sense for the Republican to contest Pennsylvania more than those states .

Blitzer : Now let’s go over to our pander and see what they think . Paul you can go first

Begala : I think the President had a pretty great convention as the Democrats as well as herself made it crystal clear of all the stuff they have already accomplished over the past 4 years and how they plan to expand upon those accomplishments as well which poll after poll shows the public wants . Furthermore the President firmly made the case that the Democrats are the stronger party on national security as well which is something we haven’t seen for decades .

Carville : I mostly agree with Paul but I would like to add that the President and the Democrats in my opinion were smart to mostly keep their message as positive as possible, while giving Mayor Trump the ability to be their party’s attack dog which is a role he relishes in . Doing so allowed us to mostly have a positive message from our two candidates while also having the ability to go after the other side as Mayor Trump is high profile enough to get enough people to tune in

Gergen : I would say the most interesting part of the convention was actually seeing the preview of the 2016 democratic primaries as you saw both Senator Kennedy and Mayor Trump effectively laying the groundwork for that primary . As for the President, I would  have to agree with the both of you .

[OSR stands with Israel]

Clinton and Jindal throw barbs at each other as campaign gets heated

Cooper : With the fall campaign fully underway , both the President and Senator Jindal have begin to fully start throw barbs at each other as the campaign gets more heated. The president accused Senator Jindal of pandering too much to right wing special interests and using irresponsible rhetoric when it comes to national security. On the other hand Senator Jindal has attacked the President for leading our economy into recession and not learning the lessons from not moving quickly against Iran and Syria which he blames for their Invasion. So David how much of this is just noise vs how much of this helps

Gergen : It can be a little of both and sometimes you don’t know until the campaign has ended to see which types of attacks worked or not . I will say that the choice of what type of negative campaigning is interesting but also not a surprise. President Clinton like any incumbent wants to portray the opponent as too irresponsible, too risky , and someone who just repeats talking points while the challenger wants to portray the president’s record in as bad as light as possible to give reasons for voters to throw the incumbent out . So none of these attacks have really strayed away from this

Polls and Battleground Map Remain Stagnant heading into Debates:

Blitzer: Before we talk to our panel about what we can expect from the debates, lets go over to John King to see the state of the race entering those debates

King: So far other than the fact that there are less undecided voters, things have not changed one bit since the DNC. Every state is rated the same way as it was right after the convention and the President still holds her 5 point lead over Senator Jindal. So I would say going into these debates, Senator Jindal really needs to use this opportunity to change the state of this race otherwise it would require a pretty big upset for him to win this election



Clinton/Rockefeller 237 50%
Jindal/Romney 177 45%

Blitzer: The question being what can Senator Jindal do to change the direction of this race, and with us about this our former staffers on prior campaigns. Ed First to you

Rollins: In my opinion the one major vulnerability the President has is people are worried about the health of the economy over the next few years and with the first debate being about domestic policy, that gives Senator Jindal his best opportunity to change the narrative of this race. It gives him the chance to try to make the argument that he has the better policies to lead our nation through potentially rough economic times and as my colleague James Carville once said, "its the economy stupid."

Carville: While yes that is true , the fact is unemployment was worse in 1992 than it is today and it is very different for people to be worried about an upcoming recession then for people to be worried about the fallout from one thats already taken place and the recovery afterwards.

Matalin: I have to say that while James is correct about that, Ed is also correct that the economy is the President's biggest vulnerabilities. The fact is gas prices have gone up quite a bit, voters are afraid of a recession taking place soon so tomorrow's debate gives Senator Jindal the chance to address these issues infront of a national audience. Now while James is correct its still different then being in a bad economy, I have to remind you that Bill Clinton won 370 electoral votes in 1992 so Senator Jindal does not need that big of a desire for change to win.

Blitzer: James what do you think the President needs to do

Carville: I think she needs to do what she has been doing and that is 1. Talk about her record and the fact she has past major reforms on healthcare and childcare 2. Take advantage for the fact that for the first time since like 1964 the Democrats have the advantage on the national security question and not the Republicans though that wont come up till the 2nd or final debate, 3. Really hammer home the fact that Senator Jindal has not done much more than just repeat talking points

Matalin : I would like to point out that the last point is really not true at all given Senator Jindal has been known to be a policy wonk for a long time so I would like to add that Senator Jindal needs to make that clear in these debates as well

Begala: Sure but the issue for Senator Jindal is polling shows Americans at large do not want to reopen the debate on healthcare at the moment which is the issue he was a policy wonk on . So if he talks to much about it , that likely would not go over well with voters who believe we should at the very least give these reforms time to succeed. Due to this , the issue he would likely be most credible on is an issue he cant campaign on and I think that helps the President as well.

As for what the President should do, I agree with James here.

Blitzer: Thanks and we all will be watching to see how the debates go

[OSR stands with Israel]

Summary of the First Presidential Debate:



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=7x9O9i2kZaM

Blitzer: Lets take a look at some of the key moments of this debate that our panel thinks that Senator Jindal had the edge

Key Moment 1:

Lehrer: With many Americans worried that our economy may be heading into a recession within the next few years, what would be each of your plans to deal with one if we headed into one

Jindal: Jim, my plan would focus on 3 major things: First to lower American's tax burden across the board to increase the amount of money Americans have in their bank accounts which then gives them more money to spend as well which stimulates the economy, Two to take a chainsaw to the regulatory state to give businesses more time and opportunity to focus on expansion as well as Research & Development which leads to job creation and Three we need to increase oil production in here in order to help bring down these high oil prices that have hurt our economy.

Doing these 3 things would help our economy grow out of a recession as fast as possible and even maybe avoid one from taking place in the first place or at the very least reducing the severity of one.

Clinton: My plan would to focus on 3 things as well which is : 1. have targeted tax breaks to ensure the Americans who most need it are getting tax relief rather than those at the top and also to incentivize businesses to put more money into R&D rather than into increased bonuses for example, 2. continue to invest into infrastructure and the industries of the future as doing so will help create new jobs in both the short and long run and 3. continue to make healthcare and childcare more affordable as doing so would free up Americans to spend more money in other areas which would stimulate the economy.

Doing this would in my opinion is the best way we can ensure economic growth not only in the short term but long term as well.

Jindal: The problem with the President's plan is once again it believes that government subsidies and created incentives are the best way to grow the economy when facts over and over have showed that not to be the case. For example the President mentioned targeted tax cuts for businesses but the problem with doing that is that it assumes that the government rather than the individual businesses know how to best invest their money which is just not the case and that one solution fits all which again isnt the case. The people who best know how to spend a businesses money are the people running the business in the first place and yes different businesses may invest their money in different areas which by the way helps create a competitive market which is good for the economy as well.

Again this shows the differences between our approaches as my belief is that its individuals , businesses along with investors who help grow our economy while the President and her party believe that government policy does and that is just not true.

Clinton: Senator Jindal, I do not believe that government policies are the only way our economy grows or is even mostly responsible for it but what I believe it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that the most help goes to people who need it the most. Also it is misleading to say that targeted tax credits are the government picking winners and losers as all we are saying is invest the into growing your company and not just giving your board a higher salary .

Jindal : Once again we see the President make assumptions on how businesses would spend the extra money they keep through their tax cut and all I will say is that I would not make those assumptions.

Lehrer: Moving on


Key Moment 2:

Lehrer: President Clinton, as you may know many Americans are worried about the increasing cost of college tuition and believe that the rising cost of tuition could make it harder for their kids to go to college. If elected to another term what would you do to address the issue

Clinton: Jim it is indeed a big issue which is why I believe it is time we must invest more into higher education and that includes universities, community colleges and trade schools as the fact is the jobs of the future will require a higher education and its important we invest in it. The first step is by giving every student whose family makes 125,000 or less a scholarship equal to the amount their community college costs and let them use that scholarship just not on community college but universities or trade schools as well.  Second we must increase the amount of merit based scholarships to ensure kids who study hard and do well in high school are rewarded for their hard work as well which is why I believe this scholarship should also be offered to any kid who has a GPA of 3.5 or above. Lastly we need to fund institutions of higher education itself so they are not as reliant on tuition as they are today to run day to day operations.

Lehrer: Senator Jindal

Jindal: The problem again with the plan is that while on paper it may help bring down college costs, in reality it would not as it does not address the real issues why college is so expensive and in fact just subsidizes the bloat . What needs to be done instead is we must go right at the root of the problem and that is to remove the bloat from our institutions of higher learning as doing so would actually reduce the cost of college. In fact this would be my guiding principle regarding any spending program and that is if an agency or an institution is getting tax payer money then we should require that agency and institution to cut the bloat as a condition of getting that money to begin with because our money should not be going to waste.

Clinton: Senator Jindal what exactly is the bloat at these institutions and what would you get them to cut

Jindal: A huge part of the bloat is as a study has shown , since the late 1990s universities have increased spending on administrative stuff than they have on educational stuff and that in my opinion is just unacceptable.

Lehrer : moving on

Important Question 3:

Lehrer : Senator Jindal you have made balancing the budget a huge part of your platform, so the question many voters have is how do you plan to get there without raising taxes like you promised.

Jindal: Thanks Jim and the way to do that is by one maximizing economic growth and two to get rid of wasteful spending and holding down the growth of government in other areas. To maximize growth we need to first cut taxes which would give individuals more money to spend and businesses money to expand, and take an axe at the overburdensome regulatory state that disincentives economic growth. To get rid of wasteful spending, I will one order a full scale audit of every major program and department in the federal government so we can find out where our money is being wasted and get rid of spending from those areas. To hold down the growth of government we will also means test government programs to ensure only those who are need of programs are actually getting it. If we do these things , I am sure we can achieve a balanced budget and I will use every tool at my disposal to get it done.

Clinton: Well the problem with Senator Jindal's proposal is that his tax plan would by every study reduce revenues by over 2 trillion in the next 10 years. This means that that not only would we move towards a balanced budget but rather actually increase the deficit even more unless he is willing to make cuts to programs that the public relies on such as cancel the Medicare and Medicaid expansion along with other programs that poor families rely on and that is just wrong . I think the better way to do move towards a balance budget is instead to ask the wealthiest individuals and corporations to pay a little more in taxes as they unlike poor families can afford to pay a little more.

Jindal: Once again this is a myth as time and time revenues have gone up after we passed tax cuts whether under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan or McCain because tax cuts lead to economic growth which then leads to more tax revenue. The reason deficits did not go up is because spending was not cut and I as President will use everything in my arsenal to ensure that we can check the growth of government and cut spending.

Clinton: Listen do we need to make spending cuts to move towards balance the budget yes but at the same time we also need to ask the wealthiest among us to pay a little more in taxes to help us achieve that goal too. In fact we have seen how this approach works back when my husband, Bill Clinton, was president in the 1990s and we saw both a balanced budget and an economic boom despite the fact that he raised top marginal tax rates as well. So the question that we have to choose between one and another is a fallacy and I believe we should model an economic plan of something that has already worked before and not something that did not.

Jindal: I would like to point out that President Bill Clinton also cut the capital gains tax rate so he too also cut taxes at one point

Clinton: But he also raised the top marginal income tax rate showing that we still did ask the highest earners to pay more back in the 1990s

Lehrer: Moving on


Battleground Map Moves Slightly in Jindal's favor after debate:

Blitzer: Lets go over to John King to see how the battleground map now looks after the first debate

King: Like expected polls did move in favor of Senator Jindal as we are now able to move Tennessee from Lean Jindal to Safe Jindal, Kentucky from Tossup to Lean Jindal and Iowa from Lean Clinton to Tossup. There is also some polling showing a potential tight race in Wisconsin too but we would like to wait to see for more evidence before changing that to a tossup as well because there are still some polls that show its still leans towards the President.

Blitzer: The map still favors the President though

King: Yes it does because while national polls are now showing just a 2 point race , the fact is the President does start out with a pretty good advantage. For example most polling shows while tossups, Iowa and Pennsylvania still tilt the President's way which would give her 257 electoral votes which is just 13 short and even if you give Senator Jindal Florida and Virginia he is only at 227 electoral votes. This means the President would only need 13 out of the remaining 54 electoral votes to win while Senator Jindal would still need a whopping 43 out of the remaining 54 so the fact is the President is ahead even if you start assigning states this way which by no means are in anyone's column yet.




Clinton/Rockefeller 231 48%
Jindal/Romney 185 46%

[OSR stands with Israel]

Summary of 2012 Vice Presidential Debate:



Source : https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YgCZQ8zDOGw/maxresdefault.jpg

Blitzer : Let’s take a look at key moments of this debate which many believe Vice President Rockefeller won

Key Moment 1:

Raddatz: Governor Romney if Senator Jindal is elected this November , what would be your role in his administration

Romney: Well first of all the job of any Vice President would be to one break all ties in the Senate and given how close the Senate is expected to be , I would not be surprised to see my self having to break a lot of ties as Vice President. As for a specific role I believe I can plan, I have to say its too early to say for certain but what I can say is having worked in business and finance I have the experience needed to help the president carry out his agenda. For example Senator Jindal wants to take an axe at the overburdensome regulatory state which I can tell you having worked in business and finance, I had to deal with regulations almost every day so I have experience in knowing which regulations do harm the economy . Second at bain capital we were tasked with restructuring all sorts of businesses and given Senator Jindal wants to restructure many agencies in Washington, I can bring that experience as well.

Rockefeller: Well like I said last time, I do not think its wise for a Vice President to deal with specific issues or areas as that can be handled by the cabinet, but rather be a help to the President whenever and whenever they need that help. So as Vice President, yes while I have spent a lot of time dealing with Congress , I have also sat in on joint white house meetings and it was my job in that moment to be President Clinton's top advisor so I was in that role as well. So these are the things, I think are important in a Vice President. I would like to add though that Governor Romney says he would bring his experience from business and while I do think there is some merit to that given that businessmen deal with regulations every day but I would like to add that the perspective can also be skewed.

A Job of a businessman is to primarily be focused on making profit while I would say an ideal regulation is to ensure that businesses can make profits without harming employees, customers, or the competitive market.  Some of those regulations yes may hurt the profit line but so do regulations that prevent 12 year olds from working on the assembly line for example and I don't think anyone opposes those regulations .

Romney: Vice President Rockefeller , while as a businessman my main job was to maximize profits, I also did come to know how different regulations work. So yes I do believe regulations are important in certain circumstances but also there are certain regulations that do not do what you claim they do and are just burdensome for businesses. Those are the regulations Senator Jindal will get rid of as President of the United States to help our economy grow

Raddatz: Moving on

Key Moment 2:

Raddatz: Vice President Rockefeller, having represented West Virginia in the senate for decades, you do know that the people of the state are skeptical on environmental legislation so do you think the President's energy policy could be problematic for your state

Rockefeller: Not at all Martha and I think it is a myth to say that growing the economy and protecting the environment are myths. It is a myth that has been said throughout our history but the fact is regulations that protected our air and water from pollution was great for our state's tourist and fishery industries which both helped stimulate the economy. Furthermore the President's energy policy is focused on both increasing production of our traditional energy sources and renewable ones and as a result you have seen the natural gas industry grow in the state of West Virginia over the past 4 years which has created more jobs for the people of West Virginia.

Lastly study after study has shown that investing in renewable energy would not only help the environment but create a lot of new jobs as well for the people of West Virginia and it is my belief along with the President to ensure new investments in renewable energy should go to areas that have struggled the most economically rather than areas that are doing well currently as doing so is what public investments is about.

Romney: The fact is the President's energy policies have hurt the state of West Virginia as what you have seen is more and more regulations that have made it harder for coal companies to stay in business which results in less jobs for people. No matter how the President and Vice President try to spin it, their energy policies have not been good for Appalachia and it is important we reverse it to help stimulate the economy there.

 
Rockefeller: Once again we see Senator Jindal and Governor Romney try to mislead the public in a way to get votes because the fact is the reason the number of coal jobs have declined has nothing to do with regulations but rather energy companies themselves choosing different energy sources . What the President and I have done is to implement policies to ensure that areas most effected by this do not get negatively impacted economically by making public investments in those areas rather than what the Republicans seem to want to do which is do nothing but blame government every time election season comes around. Well our party disagrees with that because we believe that rather than just blaming government, we believe in making it better so it works for the people of this country.

Raddatz: Moving on

Key Moment 3:

Raddatz: Governor Romney, one of your biggest issues that you ran on in both your bids in 2008 and 2012 was getting tough on China and it seems like Senator Jindal also agrees as well so if the both of you are elected what will you do

Romney: Well the goal has to be to hold China accountable for their unfair trade practices. We have many tools to accomplish that: from labeling China as a currency manipulator to restrictions on certain imports or exports if we have to as they cannot be allowed to cheat any longer. Senator Jindal and I are staunch supporters of free trade but its only free trade if both parties are playing by the same rules and currently China is not and we would make changes with that.

What we also have to do is make it clear to the Chinese that it is unacceptable to continue to support regimes like Iran and Syria despite the fact they invaded Iraq last year in an attempt to destroy Democracy there. Also we need to make it clear to China that rogue regimes like we see in North Korea must never ever have nuclear weapons so we will apply the right type of pressure on China to get them on board with that effort.

Rockefeller: It is my belief that China can be both an adversary but also potentially a partner too if they are made to follow the same rules everyone else is following. This is why the Clinton administration has brought more cases to the WTO against China in just the past 4 years then we did in the prior 10 and we have ended up winning the vast majority of cases as well.

It is also important if we are to compete with China for the future of the global economy we continue to invest in the economy of the future as well which is why we believe it is critical that the US government invest in high education, R&D , all sorts of energy sources and in creating A level infrastructure.

Romney: The problem is Mr. Vice President that yes you see these courts rule against China but if they are already so willing to violate trade rules, what makes you think they will follow these court rulings. This is why it is important in my opinion to back up those decisions with important actions such as labeling China as a currency manipulator and put certain restrictions on exports and imports until we can really see them follow the rules.

Rockefeller: The reason is because if we go through courts such as WTO we can get our allies on board with putting trade restrictions on China to enforce the ruling. Doing it unilaterally like you and Senator Jindal want to do will not mean our allies will join us which will make such restrictions ineffective.

Raddatz: Moving on

Vice Presidential Debate halts Jindal's Momentum

Blitzer: Vice President Rockefeller's debate performance while it did not bring the polls back to where they were before the debates, it did halt Senator Jindal's momentum which is still big given that Senator Jindal starts out with 46 less electoral votes

King : Yes Wolf it is big as Senator Jindal keep in mind needs 70% of the electoral votes consisted a tossup to win

[OSR stands with Israel]

What's going on in Israel

I do not really follow Israeli domestic politics much but I would say that President McCain would not be as naive as Bush was IRL so the 2006 Palestinian elections here would probably see Hamas banned from running in the elections.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/10/was-hamas-elected-to-govern-gaza-george-w-bush-2006-palestinian-election.html

How this effects Israeli domestic politics, I am not exactly sure but my guess is Netanyahu probably does not win in 2009 but since I am not sure I am not including it here. So how do you think Hamas not coming to power in Gaza changes the political landscape in Israel

[OSR stands with Israel]

Summary of 2nd Presidential Debate:



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q21rcSrhOM0

Blitzer: Lets take a look at key moments from this debate which most experts believe the President won slightly

Key Moment 1:

Audience Member 1: President Clinton, you have talked on the campaign trail of wanting to improve upon the healthcare reform bill that passed in 2009. So which ways do you think they need to be improved upon

Clinton: Well as you know, while I do think the reforms we passed early on in my presidency was great and a good step forward, it does not mean we cant still make improvements. An example of something I believe that should be done as well is that we should require large employees to provide their employees with health insurance rather than passing the buck onto our Medicaid system. The fact is while small business may not have the money to provide their employees with health insurance, companies such as Walmart and McDonalds do so is makes all the sense to put this regulation into place. A further benefit is , this would free up money that normally goes into Medicaid and then spend that money on increasing tax credits for individuals to buy health insurance and small businesses to provide their employees with health insurance as well.

So It is a reform that I will push for if reelected and it is why I believe the voters should not only reelect me this November but also reelect a Democratic Majority in the Senate and elect a Democratic Majority in the House so we can pass such legislation for me to sign into law.

Jindal: The problem with an employer mandate is that putting such a mandate would slow down the amout of people they would be able to hire which is the last thing we need at the moment. So while on paper it may seem like a great proposal, the fact is in practice it would actually put a greater strain on medicaid as it would lead to less jobs not more. What I believe that should be done is focus on actually bringing down the costs of healthcare which then will bring down the costs of insurance overall.

Some ways to do that is to get rid of the regulations that lead to higher costs and also to pass malpractice reform as much of the reason healthcare costs so much is because of frivolous lawsuits that lead to highest costs overall .

Clinton : Most of the regulations put in place are their to protect patients from unsafe drugs, equipment and greedy practices which is something we should not be removing. Removing those regulations will make our healthcare system more unsafe and one of the primary jobs of government is keeping our people safe and we should not compromise that. Furthermore when it comes to malpractice reform, the fact is the Republicans pushed through Tort Reform back in 2005 and one of the arguments they used to push through that piece of legislation was that it would help bring down medical costs and that has not happened but what it has done is empowered the largest corporations in America while hurting the average American and that is not something we should be expanding upon.

Jindal: Some of the regulations we plan to get rid of are these unnecessary compliance requirements that do nothing but add paperwork and thus increase prices. We also will do a full scale review on existing regulations that are either unnecessary or obsolete and get rid of them as well which also would help reduce prices for Americans. As for tort reform, the fact is the bill we passed in 2005 was a generic tort reform bill which has helped remove so many frivolous lawsuits from the system and it is time we do the same for malpractice lawsuits again

Crowley: Moving on


Key Moment 2:

Audience Member 2: Senator Jindal, as a son of immigrants do you believe we need to make any changes to our immigration system and if so which ones

Jindal: Yes, I do believe we need to make changes to our immigration system because while yes we did make reforms in 2006 to our immigration system, we did not make much reforms to our legal immigration system what we desperately need. A problem we have with our current immigration system is one its outdated do we don't get the immigrants that our nation need and sometimes dont get the type of immigrants that would assimilate either and I think the best way to do so is to adopt a points based system similar to the ones in Australia and Canada which both have worked.

Clinton: Yes , I believe we do need to reform our immigration system as well and the best way to do that is to increase the amount of immigrants we bring in to the nation. Keep in mind we last set our green card caps in 1990 when the overall population was far less and it is time we adjust those numbers to base it on the population from the 2010 census rather than keep it from the 1990s census.

The reason for this is so we can ensure the best and brightest from all across the world can work here and contribute to our economy which in turn would give our nation a leg up compared to all our competitors .

Jindal: I would like to add on that it is important that immigrants who come here do assimilate and the best way to do that is to add an English language requirement for anyone who wants to become a permanent resident of this nation.

Clinton: I would disagree because our nation celebrates diversity and that includes language so no we should not put in such a requirement and I would like to point out that we do have an English language requirement for those who want to become citizens so we already have assimilation requirements in this nation.

Crowley: Moving on

Key Moment 3:

Audience Member 3: President Clinton, you have stated in the past that you believe gun laws should be made tighter again. Does that mean you would plan to reimplement the assault weapon ban passed by your husband back in 1994 or would you do something else

Clinton: Thanks for your question and I can tell you that first and foremost that I am a believer in the 2nd amendment and believe that individuals do have the right to bear arms and I am a supporter of that right. So when Senator Jindal tries to run ads that imply that I do not believe it in that is false because I do. Now what I do believe is there needs to be a conversation of what type of regulations should we implement and keep in mind everyone believes in some regulation because nobody believes that someone should have a right to own a Stinger Missile so the question really is what type of regulations should we implement.

Now my belief is that one we need to do a better job enforcing background check laws to ensure criminals and mentally ill individuals are unable to own guns, and two yes I do not believe weapons of war should be on the streets. What is important though is starting a proper conversation because I can tell you that if you have a proper conversation, we can come up with a solution and as President I think it is very important on an issue like this we try to lead a discussion that can lead to consensus where both gun and non gun owners agree rather than trying to ram down one group's views on the other and thats exactly what I will do if reelected.

Jindal: The President once again deflects this question because she knows that an assault weapon ban would be unpopular and the President as both a first lady and a Senator was in support of that. Doing so also clearly infringes on the 2nd amendment which clearly states an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed which the Assault Weapon did. Second , it did not even work as the fact is all it did is result is in law abiding Americans not being able to obtain them while law breakers still did.

So what we need to do rather is to strongly enforce current laws on the books and increase sentences for people who commit crimes with guns for example to do so. If you do that you can reduce crime and thus reduce the murder rate overall in the nation.

Clinton: Well I would like to point out that I also said that I believe it is a job of the President to find consensus when it comes to divisive issues like this rather than impose my personal beliefs on the public. I can tell you having campaigned all across the country that both gun owners and non gun owners support background checks, stricter regulations on magazines , closing the boyfriend loophole  which currently lets people convicted of domestic abuse continue to own guns if the victim was that person's girlfriend rather than wife and yes we should close that loophole immediately. Now Senator Jindal opposed these types of common sense regulations as a senator so in reality is it is him who is imposing his views on guns on the rest of the country.

Jindal: Again this answer is a deflection by the President because a President is not supposed to govern by opinion poll but rather by conviction and thats exactly what I would do as President. The fact is violating the 2nd amendment is violating the 2nd amendment regardless of what polls say and what works is what works regardless of what the polls say.

Clinton: Governing by consensus is not governing by the polls Senator Jindal. The fact is there is nothing wrong with having a President who is responsible to the needs and wants of the American public as in fact that is the job of the President and not just trying to pass your own personal agenda even if the public does not want it.

The fact is most Americans do not trust either party with this issue but still want this issue resolved which means they want us to work together to find consensus which is what I will do if reelected.


Pennsylvania moves into Lean Democratic Column after the Debate:

Blitzer: Now lets take a Blitzer: Lets go over to John King to see how the battleground map now looks after the first debate.

King: Yes , Wolf and the first thing you can see is Pennsylvania has moved from Tossup to Lean Democratic. The fact is the President in recent polls leads there by a good 6-7 points and given how suburban Philadelphia has trended over recent years, then I would say it would take an upset for Senator Jindal in this state. Here is the overall map though and as you can see that national polls havent moved that much.




Clinton/Rockefeller 251 49%
Jindal/Romney 185 46%

[OSR stands with Israel]

Summary of the Final Presidential Debate:



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=d6YNOx5XS0Y

Blitzer: Lets look at key moments of this debate which our panel thought the President won

Key Moment 1:

Schieffer: Senator Jindal , you have criticized President's Clinton's approach to dealing with Iran and Syria both before the war and afterwards. If you were President during the War against Iran and Syria, what would you have done differently.

Jindal: Well Bob, I would have sent American troops immediately back into Iraq after Iran and Syria signed the treaty they did in 2010 to deter the invasion from happening in the first place. The reason the invasion happened the way it did was because Iran and Syria believed they could take Iraq before we fully moblized and while that was thankfully not the case, defeating Iran and Syria cost far more lives than otherwise would have happened if our troops were mobilized earlier.

Instead what happened , was because it took months for our troops to fully mobilize the troops that were in Mosul and Baghdad were sitting ducks and the Mosul campaign led to the deadliest American battle since WW2 which could have been avoided if we only had fully mobilized prior to the invasion. As for how the war should have ended, I will say we should have have stopped such an offensive until they not only agreed to not only destroy their offensive capabilities but also guarantee some sorts of individual rights to their people.

Clinton: As the commander in chief , there is no tougher decision I have to take then deciding whether or not I should send our men and women into battle which is why it is so important for a commander in chief to listen to their Secretary of Defense, their generals , their national security council before making such a decision. The fact is mobilizing our troops on the Iranian and Syrian border was something we did discuss but our generals concluded that doing so would have caused the war to have started earlier before the Iraqis were ready to defend themselves. Keep in mind that it would have still taken a while for our troops to be fully mobilized so the consequences of an Iranian and Syrian invasion would have been worse in 2010 than it was in 2011 given the Iraqis spent that extra time period preparing for war themselves.

As for not accepting the armistice deal, all I can say is not doing so would have maybe required us to go all the way to Tehran and Damascus which would have resulted in the fatalities of tens of thousands of more of our troops and also led to a situation where we would have to occupy both nations. The issue with doing so is experts have estimated that it would take a million troops to successfully occupy Iran and another half a million to occupy Syria and given that none of our middle Eastern or European Allies would be interested in sending their troops to do so, it would have required us to shoulder all the burden. This would mean that in doing so we would sacrifice the national security of our nation in other regions of the world as well which would be disastrous which is why the armistice was the right direction.

Jindal: President Clinton, the fact is the way we get peace is through strength and neither the way you handled Iran and Syria before or after the war does that. It is just untrue to say that mobilizing troops in 2010 would have caused an invasion because history has shown actions such as those deters and invasion from taking place to begin with.

Clinton: Senator Jindal while you are great at giving talking points, it does not change the fact that neither you or I know better about military strategy in the Gulf than our generals on the ground in that region. In fact it would be the height of arrogance for any President to assume they know more about military strategy than generals and it was our generals who told me that mobilizing our troops in 2010 would have been a mistake and trying to push forward for a better deal would have been a mistake as well . So no I do not regret listening to them because they know the situation on the ground and military strategy far better than I do and a good commander in chief should listen to them when making important policy decisions


Schieffer: Moving on


Key Moment 2:

Schieffer: President Clinton, your administration has generally taken a harsher tone towards the Russians than many in your own party may like. Why is that so and if you are re-elected what would be your policy towards them

Clinton: I want to dispute the fact that we have taken a particularly harsh tone towards Russia and are rather trying to use our leverage to make them into a responsible stakeholder of a rule based order. The fact is there are consequences to actions you take and Russia constantly supporting bad actors like Iran and Syria and in financing corruption in Ukraine are not actions that will be looked upon favorably at all by the international community . That will make it less likely that nations across the world drop trading barriers on Russia for example while if they stopped behaving the way they do , the international community would be willing to trade with them more . I can tell you that we would for sure because having the largest nation in the world be our trading partner would be great but we obviously aren’t willing to sell out what we believe in either to make that a reality .

Jindal : Bob, the statement you heard by President Clinton is exactly the mindset that has caused problems for the past 4 years. The fact is people like Vladmir Putin do not get incentivized by stuff like becoming responsible stakeholders of a rule based but what people like him do get incentivized by are actual consequences. For example there is no reason someone who supports Iran and Syria should be allowed into the G8 and as President I would move to remove Russia from the G8 . I would also move to utilize our energy resources to help undercut Russian oil as well which then would give them a direct incentive to behave on the world stage

Clinton: Senator Jindal, again the problem with that type of policy is while it sounds good and tough , in reality it would not help us at all. The reason is that our European allies would not go along with kicking Russia out of the G8 or waging an trade war over energy with Russia so that would just cause us to be all alone here which would be a mistake. So the fact is those policies would not work to begin with and while the Senator mocks the idea of incentivizing Russia to follow the rules based order, that policy is not weak but strong. We have all our allies on board for that policy and that makes it so that when Russia loses out on potentially new trade then Russia is incentivized to change their behavior in order to get new trade .

Jindal : It’s why you need to show strong leadership as President. If we planted our flag and made it clear this is what our position will be , I am sure you could get our Allies on board with kicking Russia out of the G8 and in driving down their energy sector .

Schieffer: Moving on

Key Moment 3:

Schieffer: Senator Jindal, many experts have believed that for us to stay influential as we are in this century we will have to pivot some of our attention to Asia as much of the growth in this century will come from Asia. So If you are elected President what will you do to facilitate such a pivot

Jindal: Bob, I believe we do need to pivot some of our attention to Asia as the fact is if we don't China will. In my opinion the best way to do so is by increasing our trade relations with Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, India as doing so would mean those nations will come to us for trade rather than China. Doing so also would convince China to improve their trade practices as well as we would no longer be as reliant on trade with them.

Secondly we need to show that we are willing to crack down on some of the bad actors in that region such as North Korea and Pakistan as the former is led by mad men who threaten nuclear war and run the most oppressive nation on earth and the other is way to weak with terrorism which is something we cannot tolerate. So doing so will show nations across Asia that we are actually willing to engage with them , trade with them and stand firmly with them against bad actors.

Clinton: Well once again Senator Jindal's solution to everything seems to be to take more aggressive steps which again would not be wise in my opinion. For example a war between India and Pakistan and North and South Korea would be so disastrous that we must take action to help avoid it rather than enflame tensions even more. Now as President, I actually have improved relations with India but did so in a way which does not enflame tensions because that is the last thing we need. In my opinion the best possible solution rather would be to incentivize Pakistan to be tougher on terrorism and that is exactly what we have done and guess what they are tougher on terrorism today then they were 4 years ago.

As for our economic relations we are currently doing which is yes improve diplomatic and trade relations with those nations and which is why we are currently negotiating a trade deal called the Trans Pacific Partnership to do exactly what the Senator said and getting that deal signed and ratified will be one of the top foreign policy goals of my 2nd term.

Jindal: Again Mrs. President you call being tougher in a preventive faction as too aggressive when in fact it would prevent war . I also never said we should enflame tensions with Pakistan but rather to make it clear to them there would be consequences for them if they dont crack down on terrorism which would not only would help us improve relations with the 2nd largest nation but also help us in the war on terror. Also when it comes to North Korea, I have said it time and time again that nothing is more dangerous than letting that regime have a launchable nuke and I will do everything in my power to stop them and if we dont it would worsen relations with South Korea.

Clinton: Except that is exactly what we have done Senator Jindal and our policies have worked in reducing the chances North Korea has a launchable nuke and Pakistan actually cracks down on terrorism and did so without enflaming tensions. The fact is Senator Jindal this is why many former Republicans such as Colin Powell have not endorsed you and that is they view your comments as reckless and not understanding the difference between looking tough for political points and having a smart and prudent foreign policy. The fact is as commander in chief the latter is far more important and a politician who thinks the former is more important is not fit for this job.

Jindal: What I am calling for is a foreign policy of peace through strength which has been proven to be smart and prudent

Schieffer: Moving on


Iowa moves back into Lean Clinton column after Final Debate giving the President a major edge going into the final 2 weeks of campaign

Blitzer: Lets now go over to John King to see how the map has changed after the Final Debate

King: Well two states have changed and that is we can move Minnesota from Lean Clinton to now Safe Clinton and Iowa from Tossup back into the lean Democrats column. As you can see this is big as the President is now only 13 electoral votes away from being re-elected and only need around 13.5% of all the electoral votes in the tossup category to win so it tells you how good of a position she is in at the moment.




Clinton/Rockefeller 257 50%
Jindal/Romney 185 45%

[OSR stands with Israel]

House Battleground Projection:

Blitzer: 72 hours from now, not only will we be electing who will be our President for the next 4 years but also who will control congress for the next 2 years. So John how does the race to control the House look like

King: Well if we pull out our house battleground tracker we get this

Republicans: 214-232(-16-+2)
Democrats: 203-221(+16- -2)
Tossup: 18

King: As you can see while the Democrats do have a shot of taking back the house they do have a very uphill climb given Republican start out with 214 seats meaning they only need 4 more seats to take the House. So really if Democrats want to improve their chances they will probably will have to take some of these Lean Races and if you move the lean races into battleground this is how they look


Republicans: 207-243(-23 - +13)
Democrats: 192-228(-13 - +23)
Battleground: 36

King: So yes while that does improve the Democrats chances of taking the House, it also improves the Republicans chances of making gains so it does go both ways. So If I had to say how the race for the house is going at the moment, I would rate it as Lean Republican.

Blitzer: Thanks and If you want to see our ratings for individual house races please visit our website as on there we have listed out how each seat has been rated.

Battleground Senate Seats:

Blitzer: Now lets go to the Senate

King: Lets go over to the senate battleground and see how it looks

Vulnerable Democratic Seats:

Nebraska: Former Senator Bob Kerrey(D) vs State Senator Deb Fischer(R) - Likely Republican Gain

Michigan: Senator James Blanchard(D) vs Former State Attorney General Mike Cox(R) - Lean Democratic Hold

Montana: Governor Jon Tester(D) vs Representative Denny Rehberg(R) - Tossup

Ohio: Senator Sherrod Brown(D) vs Former Representative John Kasich(R) - Tossup

Tennessee: Senator Harold Ford Jr(D) vs Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey(R)- Tossup

Wisconsin: Representative Tammy Baldwin(D) vs Former Governor Tommy Thompson(R) - Tossup

Washington : Senator Jay Inslee(D) vs Governor Dino Rossi(R)- Tossup


Vulnerable Republican Seats:

Maryland- Senator Michael Steele(R) vs State Attorney General Doug Gansler(D)- Likely Democratic Gain

Missouri- Senator Jim Talent(R) vs State Attorney General Jay Nixon(D)- Tossup

Nevada: Senator Dean Heller(R) vs Representative Shelley Barkley(D) - Tossup

Rhode Island: Senator Lincoln Chafee(R) vs Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth Roberts(D)- Tossup

Virginia: Lieutenant Governor Bill Bollings(R) vs Former Governor Tim Kaine(D)- Lean Republican Hold

King: So as you can see pretty much everyone believes the Republicans will pick up Nebraska and the Democrats will pick up Maryland which would give the Democrats 46 seats compared to the Republicans 44. Now most people also believe that the Republicans are strongly favored to hold Virginia while the Democrats to hold Michigan .

Blitzer: Are those seats winnable by the other side

King: Yes they are but at this point if you see Republicans win Michigan you likely will see them win every other tossup senate seat as well, increase their majority in the House and solidly take back the White House. The same is true for Democrats winning Virginia in reverse so I would say Republicans winning in Michigan or Democrats winning Virginia will mean a wave for each party.

Blitzer: Ok so assuming those races go to the party they are favored to how does Senate control look like.

King: You start out with Democrats having 47 Seats and Republicans having 45 Seats with 8 seats still in play and as you can see 5 of those seats are seats Democrats currently hold and 3 of the seats are currently held by Republicans. This means all Democrats have to do is hold 4 of the 5 seats they currently hold and they take back the senate even if they lose another senate seat and dont pick up any other GOP one. So their path is pretty straight forward which is not true for the Republicans as even if they hold all their seats they have to pick up 3 of the 5 seats held by Democrats to take back the senate and 2 of 5 even if they win the Presidency . Keep in mind though if Democrats hold the presidency they only need to hold 3 of the 5 seats the currently hold

Blitzer: So what are the 3 most likely seats Republicans for the Republicans to take from those 5

King: Well, many people believe at the moment Mr. Ramsey is favored so that is 1 and I would say Ohio and Montana look better for them than Washington or Wisconsin so I would go with those 3. I would like to say though even if they get those 3, that does not mean the Democrats hopes are done as Democrats can counter by taking Rhode Island or Missouri which would make the balance of the senate 50/50 meaning if the President gets reelected so would the Democratic Senate Majority. Of course if they won both, they would be at 51 and Republicans then would have to take Wisconsin and Washington as well to get back to 51.

Blitzer: These races will be interesting indeed, now lets look at some key governor races

Battleground Gubernatorial Races:

King: There are 6 battleground races up this time and here they are

Vulnerable Democratic Seats:

Missouri: Governor Bekki Cook(D) vs Businessman John Brunner(R)- Lean Democratic Hold

Montana- State Attorney General Steve Bullock(D) vs Former State Senator Corey Stapleton(R) - Tossup

North Carolina: Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton(D) vs Former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory(R)- Lean Republican Gain


Vulnerable Republican Seats:

Indiana: Representative Mike Pence(R) vs Former Indiana Speaker John Gregg(D) - Tossup

Vermont: Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie(R) vs State Senator Peter Shumlin(D) - Tossup

Washington: State Attorney General Rob McKenna(R) vs State Senator Majority Leader Lisa Brown(D) - Tossup

King: So as you can see there is gonna be truly a lot at stake on Tuesday and all I can say at this point is to go out and vote given not only will the Presidency, Congress, many gubernatorial races be at stake but many local races and important ballot initiatives  as well.

Blitzer: Yup and some initiatives we will be watching are over gay marriage and recreational marijuana legalization. Here the state's that have each of those referendums up :

Gay Marriage: Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington

Marijuana Legalization: Colorado, Oregon, Washington

Blitzer: So as John said , there is a lot at stake on Tuesday so we encourage everyone to vote.