C-SPAN has jumped on board the 2016 bandwagon already and created their “Road to the White House” series looking at the next Presidential Election. The first series featured Vice President Biden and Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

C-SPAN Road to the White House 2016

Report from the Washington Times:

It will be three very long years until many Americans are in presidential election mode, and eager for talk of their favorite candidates or horse race politics.

But it is never to early in some circles to get a start on things. As of Friday night, C-SPAN will begin airing “The Road to the White House 2016,” firing up its traditional presidential programming that last covered President Obama’s victory speech in November.

The fair-minded public affairs channel journeys to South Carolina for dueling appearances by Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. Both have some presidential buzz going for them, both will appear at significant events in the company of Palmetto State power players.

Cruz I can understand, he’s a definite contender for the GOP in 2016. However, I’m a little baffled at Biden but I guess since he hasn’t stated he isn’t running, it’s fair to assume the Vice President of the term-limited President will indeed pursue the next highest office.


  1. Oh three years before hand the media is starting to propp up the candidates of the republican and democratic party. Easy to understand why there is no arena for a third candidate.

  2. Nate: I’d go the other way.

    Biden has run for president several times, was a US Senator for 36 years, and was taken seriously enough to become veep. Twice. He has been visible in his job, and pushed Obama on issues he didn’t want to touch–such as gay marriage, which will not be forgotten by the left.

    At this point, the Dems only have two candidates, and Hillary is sure not taking Biden lightly. Most people see him as a goober, but W was able to turn such low expectation into two terms.

    Meanwhile, you really think this good-ol-boy Bush buddy is going to be taken seriously among the 20 or so serious GOP prospects? A guy who has won, what, ONE election–beating a Democrat in TEXAS (big whoop)–and has been a senator for exactly three-and-a-half months??

    • Ok, I concede on Biden.

      However, given the fervor in GOP circles after two losses, could you not have argued the same about a one-term Senator from Illinois somehow beating the Democratic establishment to become the nominee? ….

      If Obama could be the Dem nominee, surely if Cruz resonates, he could become the GOP nominee. The precedent is set.

      • Somehow, I stopped getting notices.

        The difference is that there was visceral energy among Dems after Bush PLUS broad dissatisfaction and disappointment among independents PLUS disgust among much of the GOP. The Dems could have elected a ham sandwich, and so they were willing to go for an unknown. This time around, I don’t see as much hostility among the GOP, independents are split, and the left is tolerating Obama–AND there’s a popular and accomplished heir apparent. The GOP is not going to want to pick a nobody like Cruz.

        After all the furor by the birthers, I can’t believe Cruz is even being discussed. He’s a fricken Cuban born in Canada, for crying out loud. Why not nominate Mork from Ork if you want an alien?

  3. Ted Cruz, born of Cuban parents, in Calgary, Canada, holds dual citizenships in the U.S., Canada, and Cuba. Dual citizenship is extended to those born on foreign soil if one parent is a U.S. citizen. U S Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 : “No Person except a natural born Citizen, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen years a Resident within the United States”. Ted Cruz is a senator of 4 months, and in that short time has certainly given us a chance to views his moral stature by voting No to the Violence Againt Women bill, No to the Diaster Relief bill for victims of Hurricane Sandy, No to the bill to Ensure Complete & Timely Payments of Obligations of the U S Government and there are many more “No’s”. It is like the ghost of Eugene McCarthy has risen.

  4. I would venture to say that he voted against said bills because they are, like many, loaded with a bunch of junk nobody wants. That’s what congress does these days to make pretty sounding titles for their bills so they can use them as political weapons. For example, the ‘Affordable Care Act’ actually had nothing to do with making healthcare affordable.

    For the violence against women act, i suggest you read: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/254678/

    For the other 2 spending bills, the votes against came at a time when the federal government went from an average 3-400 Billion/year deficit with Bush, to a 1.3 Trillion+ / year deficit. Effectively quadrupling the Bush deficits. So someone had to say no at some time. I would call his act courageous, considering that he voted against things with such pleasant and acceptable names.

  5. I have read a couple of books by Wendy Kaniner, an agnostic social critic. Her point in the above article seems to be that a man accused of rape is placed at an unfair disadvantage. This could only be true if he is innocent. Which is why we have a court system.

    I take it you have not read the entire Affordable Care Act. It ends the overpayment of tens of billions of dollars to insurance companies, saves thousands of dollars in drug costs, and insurance companies will no longer be able to deny or cancel coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, The Act reins in waste and abuse by imposing disclosure requirements to identify high-risk providers who would defraud.

    It is not courageous to refuse to pay a past due payment. These bills were the results of Congressional spending.

  6. Not denying that there may be good things in the bills. However, rat poison is 99% good food and only 1% poison – general estimates. The question for him voting against the bills is, not if he’s against the good things, but what are the bad things he was voting against.

    But really, think through your written statement….”Her point in the above article seems to be that a man accused of rape is placed at an unfair disadvantage. This could only be true if he is innocent.” You are agreeing that the bill puts an innocent man at a disadvantage…so, why should anyone vote for that?

    Why would anyone vote for something that puts an innocent person (regardless of gender) at a disadvantage when defending themselves against any criminal accusation? And that’s just 1 item in the bill, if it has something that obviously bad in it, there are likely other things because the writers evidently left off of common sense and constitutional principals (innocent until proven guilty to think of just one).

    As for the spending, they were obviously not for actual spending, but promised spending, or desire to spend. You can’t vote against spending you’ve already spent..

    Considering the title of the bills, it was very courageous for him to vote against them because he knew he would face the accusations of…you don’t care about the people hurt by the hurricane. He was courageous in standing up to peer pressure political tactics of the “Ensure Complete & Timely Payments of Obligations of the U S Government” bill.

    If i read the ‘we will pay on time’ bill correctly, it was increasing the debt limit…again. I would think that they would be able to find some wiggle room given the annual deficit has gone up by $1 Trillion since Bush. Jr. How many people in the USA have had to take a cut to their spending in the past 6-7 years?

    Why is it that the federal government can’t find a way to do with less? How many studies do you think the federal government pays $100 millions for to find out the effects of different colors of cool-aid on colors of baboon excrement?!? Seriously, they could do with less and should.

    How about a bill from the US Congress promising to spend only what they receive in tax revenue?

  7. Also, for the affordable care act…none of the things you stated will make it easier for insurance companies to do business, or lower their cost of doing business. All of the things you stated will increase the cost of doing business and also increase the difficulty of doing business. The burden of those costs will fall on the customers and the owners of the insurance company…the citizens of the USA, both the customers and the shareholders of the companies.

    According to what you said, 10’s of billions of dollars will be taken away from the insurance companies. But they still have to stay in business, so how will they recover that money? By increasing rates, by decreasing payments to stockholders, laying off workers, reducing services in other areas…etc.

    Also, you mentioned that they are denied a right to refuse service to those who have pre-existing conditions. I would say this is an unconstitutional requirement, people have the right to refuse service to anyone. People have the right to say ‘no,’ and that line says they do not. As a person who has pre-existing conditions in my family, i understand the desire to try to force someone else to sell me a service, but being a person with a conscience I could not see using the force of guns to make someone sell me a service they don’t want to sell. The force of guns is used because that’s the way this will be enforced if someone says they don’t want to comply. Somebody with a gun will show up on their doorstep to arrest them and put them out of business, charge fines (enforced at gunpoint again)…etc

    So this ‘Affordable Care Act’ really had nothing to do with making things affordable. It was misnamed and misrepresented like many other bills that pass through congress with politically attractive names, but socially destructive contents.

  8. sounds great in proposal!! today i am, and as of january 2011. sans cable television.
    a goal now, is to screen channels.(what company cable-wise?)
    i think television is potential-education– now i must shop.
    i like cspann muchly. earlier, i enjoyed the politics. the coverage of additional interviews with current authors is recalled fondly– to say nothing of the treat-tours in older buildings, precious history of founders and so on.
    was any president a school teacher?? (i am not- one of my parents was!)thank you–my plan is to KEEP WATCHING
    [email protected]

Comments are closed.