Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON For President Barack Obama, the stark reality of the looming midterm elections is that the best outcome for his party gets him nothing but two more years of the status quo.

Two more years of a divided Congress. Two more years battling a Republican-led House that sees little overlap with the president's priorities. And two more years that are likely to pass without the kind of legacy-building legislation that has eluded the president throughout his second term.

And yet to White House aides, it sure beats the alternative a Republican takeover of the Senate.

"Who sets the agenda in the Senate matters in a big way," said Dan Pfeiffer, Obama's senior adviser. If Republicans take the Senate, Pfeiffer predicted a "doubling down on the (Texas Republican Sen.) Ted Cruz, shutdown, hostage-taking" approach to government."

The reality is that Obama's advisers have low expectations for passing major legislation even if Democrats hang onto the Senate. That's been a struggle for Obama ever since the GOP won the House four years ago and will likely get even harder as both parties turn their attention toward the 2016 presidential election and lawmakers get even more reluctant to take on tough issues.

With three weeks until Election Day, Republicans have a takeover of Congress within their sights. The party is likely to extend its majority in the House and needs to pick up just six seats to grab control of the Senate for the first time in nearly a decade.

Obama enters the campaign's homestretch with approval ratings hovering near the lowest point of his presidency, forcing Democratic candidates to distance themselves from their party's leader. Losing control of the Senate could cement the impression of a politically impotent, lame-duck president more than two years before the end of his term.

In a flurry of fundraisers this fall, Obama has cast the elections as crucial to his efforts to raise the minimum wage, institute equal pay legislation and boost infrastructure spending. "I hope that in these midterms you feel a sense of urgency," he told donors in California last week.

Beyond the long-shot prospects for major legislation, White House aides point to the impact a Democratic-led Senate would have in helping Obama to get nominees confirmed, including his upcoming pick for attorney general and potential Supreme Court openings. A Democratic Senate majority would give the president a firewall to prevent GOP efforts to repeal or scale back some of his most significant achievements, including his massive health care overhaul and sweeping financial reform legislation. And it would allow the White House to fend off any Senate investigations of the administration.

It's hardly the kind of ambitious and inspiring agenda Obama forecast in his two presidential bids. With that in mind, some Democratic strategists have speculated that both the president and the party might actually be better served if Republicans were to take control of the Senate.

Read this article:
Obama and the Midterms: What's at stake for the president's final years in office?

Associated Press

US President Barack Obama. AP

WASHINGTON For President Barack Obama, the stark reality of the looming midterm elections is that the best outcome for his party gets him nothing but two more years of the status quo.

Two more years of a divided Congress. Two more years battling a Republican-led House that sees little overlap with the presidents priorities. And two more years that are likely to pass without the kind of legacy-building legislation that has eluded the president throughout his second term.

And yet to White House aides, it sure beats the alternative a Republican takeover of the Senate.

Who sets the agenda in the Senate matters in a big way, said Dan Pfeiffer, Obamas senior adviser. If Republicans take the Senate, Pfeiffer predicted a doubling down on the (Texas Republican Sen.) Ted Cruz, shutdown, hostage-taking approach togovernment.

The reality is that Obamas advisers have low expectations for passing major legislation even if Democrats hang onto the Senate. Thats been a struggle for Obama ever since the Republicans won the House four years ago and will likely get even harder as both parties turn their attention toward the 2016 presidential election and lawmakers get even more reluctant to take on tough issues.

With three weeks until Election Day, Republicans have a takeover of Congress within their sights. The party is likely to extend its majority in the House and needs to pick up just six seats to grab control of the Senate for the first time in nearly a decade.

Obama enters the campaigns homestretch with approval ratings hovering near the lowest point of his presidency, forcing Democratic candidates to distance themselves from their partys leader. Losing control of the Senate could cement the impression of apoliticallyimpotent, lame-duck president more than two years before the end of his term.

In a flurry of fundraisers this fall, Obama has cast the elections as crucial to his efforts to raise the minimum wage, institute equal pay legislation and boost infrastructure spending. I hope that in these midterms you feel a sense of urgency, he told donors in California last week.

Continue reading here:
Obama and the midterm elections: Whats at stake?

Rand Paul at RNC Fundraiser in NYC

By: American Bridge 21st Century

Continued here:
Rand Paul at RNC Fundraiser in NYC - Video

PFPWHP: Episode 10
Ebola, Rand Paul, Ayn Rand, and other plagues, amirite? *highfives* I don #39;t know. Tune in and find out.

By: Lucy Steigerwald

See original here:
PFPWHP: Episode 10 - Video

By Ashley Killough, CNN

updated 3:21 PM EDT, Mon October 13, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- Ron Paul and Rand Paul are singing slightly different tunes on the threat of Ebola.

Sen. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist and likely presidential contender, has been generating headlines for his stark warnings about the virus, urging a temporary flight suspension from certain West African countries and suggesting Ebola is much more contagious than the government says.

His father, former Rep. Ron Paul, who's also a physician, appears to feel differently. In a column out Sunday, he sounds less distressed about the potential of the virus spreading in the United States and doesn't seem to think airline restrictions will do much good.

White House not naming Ebola 'czar'

The former presidential candidate -- an obstetrician with a strong libertarian following -- doesn't mention banning flights as a possible solution. Instead, he writes that safety concerns can best be handled by the airlines themselves, which he says would have a greater incentive to protect passengers than governments would.

"They can do so while providing a safe means of travel for those seeking medical treatment in the United States," he writes. "This would remove the incentive to lie about exposure to the virus among those seeking to come here for treatment."

Questions remain about how Dallas nurse got Ebola

Excerpt from:
Ron Paul vs. Rand Paul on Ebola