Crossfire | Weeknights @ 6:30 pm ET on CNN

Join the debate

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

Jump in the Crossfire by using #Crossfire
on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram.

In the Crossfire: playing 2016 politics
January 16th, 2014
04:06 PM ET

In the Crossfire: playing 2016 politics

Tonight on Crossfire: the battle lines for 2016. Gov. Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton, the two front-runners, already face problems. Between Christie's bridge scandal and Hillary Clinton in the spotlight for Benghazi; the upcoming fight for the White House won't be an easy one.

At 6:30pm ET. former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Democratic strategist Paul Begala join Newt Gingrich and Stephanie Cutter to debate 2014 & 2016 politics.

promo split 1.16

We want you to weigh in: Whose 2016 chances are more in jeopardy?

Vote by tweeting Clinton or Christie using #Crossfire or comment on our Facebook post. View results below or through our Poptip results page.

soundoff (17 Responses)
  1. Kurt

    Benghazi has virtually no negative impact for Hillary. Comparing Christie's situation with that is rather foolish.

    With Benghazi, we have a situation where a decision was made and it didn't turn out well. There was nothing illegal or unethical about the decision. It may even have been the logical decision to make at the time based on the intelligence availabe. But the results were not good.

    With Christie, we have a situation where an elected official may have misused government power for personal reasons. It wasn't for cash in hand (like Blagojevich) but it was still personal gain (causing pain to a political advesary using government power).

    The two resonate very differently. Benghazi in the end will be viewed by some as a mistake and some as the correct decision, but the argument will be about which choice was made... not that a choice shouldn't have been made. Clinton didn't do anything illegal... some will just not agree with the choice she made. As time passes, the negative impact will continue to fall and bringing it up will remind people that she WAS the secretary of state and is used to making decisions of great import already.

    With Christie, bringing it up will remind people that he may have been using government power for personal gain... and will always raise quesions that he may do the same again. Will he send the FBI to investigate political enemies as president? Would that be much different then what he's done as governor?

    Much different animals. I would be shocked if Benghazi has any negative impact for Hillary in 2016.

    January 17, 2014 at 8:59 am | Reply
    • Carol

      The Republicans initially cut the security budget before Benghazi.

      January 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  2. ProtectAmericanJobs

    Can either one of them actually help America and the American People bounce back from all the stupid, traitorous, nonsense and damage done to the Real American Economy over the last 2-3 decades?

    Unfortunately most of our politicians are joke – Only it's not so funny, because over the past several decades, all they've been doing is screwing the American people, by stalling, spending, removing protections and allowing illegal aliens to continue to pour in and American jobs and industry to pour out, and all while collecting their American tax-payer funded pay checks, benefits and whatever else they get on the side from their various lobbyist friends.

    It seems to me that over the last 2-3 decades that both parties were always able to distract and polarize voters with insignificant peripheral BS, which get's most voters so caught up in the BS that they lose sight of the bigger picture.

    We'd really all be better off by just cutting through the BS and all the my team vs your team name calling nonsense and really focus on America and improving the future of the American people.

    Once they're elected, our leaders should be working together for the good of the our country and our citizens by using combinations of the best ideas from both sides versus just trying to make the other side look bad so they lose the next election. – How's that been working?

    All the nonsense just allows the puppet-masters to continue to do what's best for them at the expense of the American people while we're polarized and distracted.

    But, let's face it – Neither party is actually running our country – Powerful puppet-masters play both sides to make sure that they get what they want. Unfortunately what they want is not usually in the best interest of the majority of the American people. (American citizens)

    Foreign Lobbyists here in the US promote sending US jobs to countries like China, where they work for slave wages, no benefits, no OSHA safety standards or no real environment regulations. It also doesn't help us compete when these company's factories are subsidized by China's communist government. Just check out the current Chinese extreme pollution issues – We all live in the same world, but not every country plays by the same rules.

    The so called "Global Market Place" is not a level playing field. Companies may have made higher profits by "out sourcing", but they've been putting middle class Americans who are a good part of the world's customer base out of work.

    The American people need American leaders who will start putting some sensible measures in place to stem the tide or this is going to continue to have a devastating effect on the United States of America and the American people.

    Aren't there at least a handful of these powerful puppet-masters that are fellow Americans with enough of a conscience, guts and loyalty to America and their fellow Americans to start trying to turn this trend around?

    If there aren't any, we're screwed.

    The bottom line is that "Our Government" has to protect domestic industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

    The so called "Global Market Place" is not a level playing field. Companies may have made higher profits by "outsourcing", but they've been putting middle class Americans who are a good part of the world's customer base out of work.

    Bringing manufacturing back to the US not only gives jobs to the US citizens who would be working in those manufacturing facilities, but to the people that would be working in the businesses that would spring up all around them. This should also include the safe harvesting, production and distribution of our own natural energy here in the USA, rather than paying for fuel from countries where they hate us. Let's keep that money and those jobs here in the US.

    The ONLY REAL FIX for our great country is to RAISE REVENUE, by Bringing Back Businesses and Jobs to TAX-PAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    The lack of businesses and good jobs in the USA is what's really going to rob us, our children, grand children and great grand children of the potential of a prosperous or even decent future.

    It's all happened because, over the last 25-years, our government has allowed our country's industries to get sucked out to China, India, Mexico, etc and allowed illegal aliens and H-1B foreigners to come into our country and take away tax-paying Americans jobs and drive down prices and wages.

    That's where our government leaders have to step up and put some sensible measures and incentives in place to keep jobs here in the USA or the real economy and infrastructure of the country we love will be destroyed along with the future of the American people.

    Nowadays it's obviously not about being either lazy or uneducated as many try to profess, but about wages, expenses and regulations that are not even remotely close to the wages, expenses and regulations in our country.

    Regardless of what the Free-Traitors keep trying to sell us, we can see what's real. The American People need to just trust their own instincts, common sense and what they've seen actually going on all around them versus all of the nonsense that the free-traitors are still trying to sell us.

    Wouldn't we be better off if Our Elected Leaders Started Working Together as AMERICANS for AMERICANS and AMERICA, instead of just bickering, stalling and posturing for the next election as democrats and republicans/tea-whatevers! The American People have had it with this unproductive BS! The way that both parties having been operating for years just stinks! Neither party has really been looking out for the best interests of the US Citizens who elect them and who they're supposed to represent.

    Let's face it – Over the past 2-3 decades, both parties have sold out the bulk of the American citizens, who they're supposed to represent, by allowing the incursion of illegal aliens (cheap labor) and the "out-sourcing" floodgates to open wider and wider without taking any sensible measures to stem the tide.

    Our leaders are elected by the Citizens of the United States of America to represent the interests of those citizens and the country itself. – They are NOT elected by the Global Market Place or foreign citizens!

    It shouldn't be all about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and its citizens. All the single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull has got to go!

    The Citizens of the United States of America need our elected leaders from both parties to start working together to actually start trying to fix the real problems in our country like "out-sourcing", illegal immigration, the out of control costs of health care insurance and our reliance on foreign fuel.

    Fix them together as Americans! – Because united we'll stand, but divided we'll fall.

    January 16, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Reply
    • ProtectAmericanJobs

      Before Hillary Clinton runs for president, Americans need to remember that it was her "husband" that got us into bed with China in the first place. – How's that been working us?

      And what about that whole White-Water/Vince Foster deal?

      I don't trust the Clintons at all.

      January 16, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Reply
      • steve hamilton

        What on God'e green earth does the fact that Bill Clinton negotiated a deal with China have to do with the fact that Hillary is probably going to run in 2016? you must be hard up for dirt to throw at the Democrats – that's the biggest stretch since bungee cords were invented. don't you think that Hilary, a graduate of Yale Law School, and a former Secretary of State has the chops to make her own decisions? This is not life in the trailer park, where a wife might get beaten if she didn't do exactly what her husband wanted.

        BTW, it's the fact she is a women that is going to get her elected. Why? Because women comprise 53% of the voter pool, and virtually no women will vote for the party that vetoed protecting women from violence. That will leave only 47% of the pool from which the GOP can solicit votes. Seventh grade math will convince you that it isn't possible to get from 47% to 54%. The other factor is that none of the potential GOP candidates that have been rumored about have any where near the gravitas of Hillary. Paul? Looks and talks like Alfred E Neuman. Cruz? DOA with the business community and all moderates. Christie? Dead man walking on the national stage. Rubio? Smarter version of Cruz. Forget the rest of the Elmer Fudd clones, as well.

        January 17, 2014 at 12:01 am |
      • O'drama ya Mama

        H.W. Bush came up with and negotiated NAFTA. The final deal was not made until after Clinton took office.

        January 17, 2014 at 9:17 am |
      • ProtectAmericanJobs

        Steve, Personally I think both parties stink, because over the past several decades, all they've been doing is screwing the American people, by stalling, spending, removing protections and allowing illegal aliens to continue to pour in and American jobs and industry to pour out, and all while collecting their American tax-payer funded pay checks, benefits and whatever else they get on the side from their various lobbyist friends.

        But, it was President Clinton who got us into bed with China in the first place. Nixon only restored normal diplomatic relations between the US and China, but Clinton is the one who opened up the trade floodgates with China. And both Bill and Hillary were actively involved during their visit to China.

        Under Clinton jobs to China, Under Bush I & II influx of illegals/cheap labor into the US and jobs to Mexico/NAFTA – Bush started it and it was signed into effect by Clinton. I loved President Reagan at that time, because he brought pride and respect back to our country after those embarrassingly weak Carter years, but unfortunately his shortsighted economic policy sent us down the wrong path. Reaganonomics was a huge mistake. Jeez and the wizards on Wall Street wonder why the American people aren't putting as much money into savings and their 401k plans anymore. Maybe it's because the shortsighted economic policies, from the 1980's to the present, have come back to bite the hands that feed them. I guess the thought of changing from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy of smoke and mirrors is working out just great? Not!

        Let's face it – Neither party really controls our country.

        If Ross Perot had been elected president in 1992, the American people and the real American economy would have been much better off today! I and many other people, who were able to see through all of the left vs right BS, did vote for Perot, because he was straight forward and just used common sense. He cared about his country and the American people.

        January 17, 2014 at 11:46 am |
      • Carol

        Your comment is irrelevant.

        January 17, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
      • ProtectAmericanJobs

        Actually Carol – It's very relevant to most Americans, who like me are angry and frustrated with both parties.

        It seems to me that over the last 2-3 decades that both parties were always able to distract and polarize voters with insignificant peripheral BS, which gets most voters so caught up in the BS that they lose sight of the bigger picture. It's obvious, isn't it? – But some people just keep trying to keep us distracted and polarized, so they can continue to sell us out.

        Both sides are still trying to get us to drink their brand of Kool-Aid, but it's just different flavors of the same thing and in the long run both brands are making us sick.

        January 17, 2014 at 4:19 pm |
    • Hector Slagg

      Well guess what?
      Some time back people went to congress and complained they couldn't qualify for a housing Loan. Now mind you there are regulations that banks has to follow to protect all the people that deposit their savings when put in a bank. Well! The Liberal's decided they would change the rules so those people could now qualify for a housing loan, qualified or not. As a result we had the Housing Mess. And guess who is going to pay the freight? You. Now we have Obama Care. Also a huge mess. When the dust settles guess who is going to pay the freight? You. In the mean time jobs have hit bottom. A long time before any jobs return. Except for part time jobs.

      January 20, 2014 at 1:12 pm | Reply
  3. JT Shroyer

    Republicans are hypocritical on Benghazi:
    Republicans didn’t care when Bush lied about WMDs, nor did they express outrage over 9/11/2001, the Iraq War, or the 13 embassy attacks with 50+ dead under Bush. Their outrage over Benghazi is phony and they are essentially spitting on the graves of those lost in Benghazi for political gain. If Republicans cared so much about embassy security, why did they cut funding for it by millions of dollars? Why didn't they express outrage over the 13 embassy/consulate attacks under Bush?

    Here are some FACTS for those that attack Hillary Clinton on Benghazi:

    1. The nonpartisan Accountability Review Board did not find Hillary Rodham Clinton responsible for the Benghazi attacks. Hillary never received the cables requesting more security from Benghazi.

    2. Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars in “embassy security.” Cuts that Hillary Clinton called “detrimental” to our security overseas.

    3. Over 50 people died from 13 embassy/consulate attacks under George Bush’s Presidency.

    4. The Obama Administration did not “cover-up” the Benghazi attacks. Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen told Senator Joe Lieberman that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack”. This was only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk-shows. Therefore, this would have to be the shortest “cover-up” in history.

    Senator Joe Lieberman: “Let me begin by asking you whether you would say that Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans died as a result of a terrorist attack.”

    Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen: “Certainly on that particular question I would say, yes. They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.”

    5. Hillary’s quote, "What difference, at this point, does it make" has been taken out of context. Hillary was referring to the Republican’s obsession with what Susan Rice said, not Benghazi itself. We now know the intelligence communities talking points that Susan Rice presented were incorrect. But to accuse the Administration of intentionally lying (when Counterterrorism Director Matthew Olsen called it a “terrorist attack” only a few days after Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows) is dishonest.

    6. The reason the YouTube video was cited as a possible reason for Benghazi is because violent protests had been erupting throughout the Middle East when Benghazi took place. Some of the protests had to do with the YouTube video, which is why it was originally thought Benghazi was also related to the YouTube video.

    Embassy attacks are an unfortunate reality in the world and have occurred under every administration in modern times. Security overseas is always risky business, and those who take jobs in dangerous places know the risks. Unfortunately, Republicans cut millions and millions of dollars from embassy security.

    January 16, 2014 at 4:22 pm | Reply
    • Wes

      Actually, you need to get your facts straight. Stop taking the latest Liberal one-liners at face value and do some real research. Read this and perhaps you will be enlightened on the "Republicans cut our funding" lie. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html)

      Excerpt from Congressional hearings:

      QUESTION: It has been suggested that budget cuts were responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi. And I'd like to ask Ms. Lamb, you made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?

      DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB: No, sir.

      January 16, 2014 at 6:45 pm | Reply
      • misterflibble1

        Hey Wes, were this rabid, psychotic and hypocritical about the 13 embassy attacks and 52 dead Americans when a Republican was president not too long ago? Some how I doubt it.

        January 16, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
      • Wes

        the reason no one investigated attacks under Bush/Clinton is because no one lied about what they were (terrorist attack), or refused to be clear about what their response had been.
        Neither of them gave weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And them repeated those lies to grieving parents (weeks later) or in a speech to the UN where the “video” was blamed six times ( has the UN speech slipped our memories)?
        And finally, no ambassadors died during the Bush/Clinton administrations. The figure head for the American people was still there, not being dragged through the streets as Stevens was.
        Of course attacks for Bush/Clinton didn't happen right before an election...

        January 16, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
      • Tony

        You left out this exchange from the same hearing:

        QUESTION: So there's not a budget problem. It's not you all don't have the money to do this?

        LAMB: Sir, it's a volatile situation. We will move assets to cover that.

        "We will move assets to cover that" means that there was a deficiency of assets that needed to be covered.

        Republicans cut the funding for embassy security after they won the House in 2010. They even admitted that they did it. When CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security," he said:

        "Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

        January 16, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
      • Wes

        This doesn't really counter my point – actually kind of backs it up. The State Department is not given specific funding for security, they are given a budget (Which was much higher than previous years). What they do with that budget is up to them. Obviously, the person in charge (Hillary) didn't have security as one of her "priorities" and Stevens paid the price.
        The ambassador asked for security multiple times. They had money/personnel and didn't commit them. In fact, why don't we look deeper into the article I posted and take the fact that Republicans provided much more money in 2011 and 2012 to the State Dept than the Democrats did in previous years. If anything they beefed up the State Department funding.

        January 16, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
      • Tony

        The Republican House cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by 128 million in fiscal 2011 and 331 million in fiscal 2012. After the Benghazi attack, Republicans added more than 2 billion to the budget for embassy security. If Republicans thought that the budget for embassy security was enough, why did they add 2 billion?

        January 17, 2014 at 11:25 am |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.