Debora Wang BHS GOPO
4 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 4/3 -- At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High (Includes PDF with full poll results, charts and tables)

BY 4/3 -- At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High (Includes PDF with full poll results, charts and tables) | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Public support for the Affordable Care Act narrowly notched a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, while criticism of Barack Obama’s handling of the law’s rollout – although still substantial – has eased from its peak last fall. Views hardly are enthusiastic: With the year’s sign-up deadline upon us, Americans split on Obamacare, 49 percent in support, 48 percent opposed. But that compares with a 40-57 percent negative rating after the initial failure of the federal enrollment website last November. See PDF with full results, charts and tables here. While still shy of a majority, 49 percent…

Via Teresa Herrin
Debora Wang's insight:

This article discusses the overall increased support of Obamacare, both by the general public and by people of the Republican party. Some reasoning demonstrated the push in Obamacare's popularity. However, the support for Obamacare has not changed a significant amount. The slow and steady growth is still playing out as any factor could ruin or aid Obamacare's popularity.

more...
Kevin Suazo's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:51 AM

1. 49% of Americans are in support of Obamacare while 48% remained opposed to it make this rating the highest one to date. Obama continues to receive criticism for the laws implementation.Views on the law have shifted disproportionately among conservatives.

2.The shift within the conservatives is very surprising to me especially the 10 points among strong conservatives and the  8 points among conservative Republicans. I think this shift is a definite plus for Obama and that he's making decent progress. 

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 7:13 PM
Recovering from a low of 40% following the healthcare.gov failure, the Affordable Care Act has reached a new high of 49%, just above the 48% opposed. Even Republicans and Conservatives have decreased their opposition. However, with a sample of only 1000, and an error of 3.5 points, I would question the accuracy of this poll.
Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:23 AM

President Obama is making a very good move in trying to create more support for the "Affordable Care Act" by trying to gain young support. By going to shows like "Between Two Ferns" President Obama gained the support he would need to reach the 7 million Americans he would need. 

Scooped by Debora Wang
Scoop.it!

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video)

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video) | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Watch the latest news videos and episodes of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. - NBC News
Debora Wang's insight:

Obama supports his ACA with pleasing statistics. However, the 7.1 million people who have signed up for healthcare is not explained, which could hold valuable information as to how the ACA will impact healthcare in the future. The President's "feisty" tone regarding the Republicans was unnecessary, especially when disputes and evaluations about the ACA is still ongoing.

more...
Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:34 PM

At this moment, president Obama is extremely pleased about the progress in the Affordability Care Act since last October. More than 7 million have signed up, and many problems, both technical and logistical, have been diagnosed since the launch. Obama sees this progress positively and accuses Republicans for obstructing progress, that history only remembers those who promote progress. Obama, like any politician, but remain confident in his own agenda, even though he may know the program is overly complicated, and has a huge potential for chaos in the coming years.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:56 PM

With 7.1 million sign-ups at healthcare.gov, it appears that Obama is recovering from his disastrous opening. It is still unclear if enough young, healthy people have signed up, in order to balance the healthcare budget. What he really needs now, though, is Democratic support.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:32 AM

Healthcare is a basic human right guaranteed by the United Nation's Deceleration of Human Rights. At the point that the United States is one of the only developed nations in the world that doesn't have a universal healthcare system, the 3 million people that got Medicare through Obamacare allows the US to reach this goal.

Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

DUE BY 3/13 @ 11:59 pm -- Feinstein Is Right. The CIA’s Out of Control.

DUE BY 3/13 @ 11:59 pm -- Feinstein Is Right. The CIA’s Out of Control. | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Five years of frustration boiled over when Sen. Dianne Feinstein flayed the CIA on the Senate floor Tuesday. She accused the agency of lying, cheating and stealing to block a 6,300-page report on the CIA’s secret prisons and torture from seeing the light of day. In essence, she said, the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s...

Via Teresa Herrin
Debora Wang's insight:

Senator Feinstein is a democratic senator from California. She heads the intelligence committee, and is accusing the CIA of lying about the secret prisons approved by George W. Bush in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks along with hacking into the senate databases. This is newsworthy because she used to defend the CIA, but is now claiming they are out of control. I believe that the senator is correct and more regulations need to be put on the CIA. However, I think that more information is needed to understand the CIA's true intentions.

more...
Laura Ojinnaka's curator insight, March 18, 2014 10:13 PM

Senator Feinstein is a democratic senator from California and the head of the intelligence committee. She is accusing the CIA of criminal activity in improperly searching a computer network set up for lawmakers investigating allegations that the agency used torture in terror investigations.

This is newsworthy because the CIA is over stepping their boundaries, and engaging in illegal behavior.

I agree with the senator and believe that Senate committee should have access to the CIA's files, if they are indeed committing crimes, and should be monitored. 

carly johnson's curator insight, March 22, 2014 10:47 PM

Feinstein is a senator to California and has led the intelligence committee for 5 years. She claims that CIA agents have been spying on hearings and going through their files. She believes they are using this to cover up things that they have done. Accusing the CIA of this is a big accusation, so the media is widely covering this. This could cause a big investigation, and regulations to be changed. I think when the government starts spying on itself to cover things up that the deceit and spying has gone too far. The CIA should be investigated and be held accountable.

Tiffany Sabbaghi's curator insight, March 23, 2014 3:47 PM

(Absent on 3/13 and 3/14)

Senator Feinstein is the senior United States Senator from California and member of the democratic party, she is also head of the intelligence committee. 

She has accused the CIA of lying, cheating, and also stealing to block 6300 page report on the CIA's secret prisons and torture. She has said that the agency is guilty of spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee's staff in order to cover it's own misdeeds.

This information is newsworthy because of the fact that President Barack Obama banned the prisons due to the torture. According to her, they are essentially breaking the law and working on their own agenda.

I think that Senator Feinstein is doing the right thing by exploiting the actions of the CIA, since their tactics of getting information has always been controversial due to all the senseless torturing and spying. I think she is doing her part in trying to protect her constituents. 

Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 3/10 -- Nine questions about Ukraine you were too embarrassed to ask

BY 3/10 -- Nine questions about Ukraine you were too embarrassed to ask | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Yes, the first question is "What is Ukraine?"

Via Teresa Herrin
Debora Wang's insight:

The U.S. should avoid taking military action to "help" the situation in Ukraine. Although the U.S. should be monitoring the situation as a war between Russia and Ukraine could be costly not only for their citizens but for the economy, the U.S. should refrain from taking a prominent stance in the form of military or financial aid. The EU is currently dealing with Russia and Ukraine without the U.S., and is pressuring Ukraine's government to lean away from Russia. Although Russia has begun to move troops into Crimea, elections for a new Ukrainian president will be held, who will hopefully negotiate for the better needs and wants of the Ukrainian people.

more...
Max Lau's curator insight, March 10, 2014 1:05 AM

I believe that the US should try to keep a neutral stance in the situation and continue to act as a mediator. A strong interference by pushing for one side or by using military force could easily sway public opinion against the US and leave them with enemies. This might also result in a severe case of public disorder in Ukraine or might incite Russia to outright invade. By continuing to stay neutral, the US will avoid a major crisis.

Weiyi Wang's curator insight, March 10, 2014 1:27 AM

Based on the strict cultural and political divide of the eastern and western portions of Ukraine, conflicts like these are to be expected. Foreign meddling is what caused the conflict in the first place, so it probably won't be the solution. US intervention would put even greater strain on the US-Russia relationship, and will probably be unnecessary seeing how the Yanukovych has not used military force against the protesters as of yet. Since the deal with the EU was so important both economically and politically, the unrest was inevitable, but will probably play out without instigating a civil war.

Colin Shi's curator insight, March 10, 2014 2:35 AM

This article has shed light on the historical and cultural context that served as the backdrop of this current conflict. The US has been put in a rather difficult situation: to either intervene on the West's behalf to protect its own interests while risking sour foreign relations and perhaps outright conflict with Russia, or to watch Russia attempt to regain its fallen empire, as Russia would gain valuable natural resources and a strategic coastline along the Black Sea. Thus, I believe that to best preserve US intentions, the US must not immediately deploy troops into this hotly-contested nation, nor should it merely watch the situation unfold. Through the UN, NATO, or other global and western alliances, the US should hope to limit Russian encroachment through sanctions, compromises, or treaties. Seeing the obvious dichotomy of the nation, I don't mind seeing Ukraine split, an action that would reduce tensions in either half. Military force should be used only as a last resort in case the established agreements are violated.

Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

9 questions about Ukraine you were too embarrassed to ask

9 questions about Ukraine you were too embarrassed to ask | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
Yes, the first question is "What is Ukraine?"

Via Teresa Herrin
more...
Max Lau's curator insight, March 10, 2014 1:05 AM

I believe that the US should try to keep a neutral stance in the situation and continue to act as a mediator. A strong interference by pushing for one side or by using military force could easily sway public opinion against the US and leave them with enemies. This might also result in a severe case of public disorder in Ukraine or might incite Russia to outright invade. By continuing to stay neutral, the US will avoid a major crisis.

Weiyi Wang's curator insight, March 10, 2014 1:27 AM

Based on the strict cultural and political divide of the eastern and western portions of Ukraine, conflicts like these are to be expected. Foreign meddling is what caused the conflict in the first place, so it probably won't be the solution. US intervention would put even greater strain on the US-Russia relationship, and will probably be unnecessary seeing how the Yanukovych has not used military force against the protesters as of yet. Since the deal with the EU was so important both economically and politically, the unrest was inevitable, but will probably play out without instigating a civil war.

Colin Shi's curator insight, March 10, 2014 2:35 AM

This article has shed light on the historical and cultural context that served as the backdrop of this current conflict. The US has been put in a rather difficult situation: to either intervene on the West's behalf to protect its own interests while risking sour foreign relations and perhaps outright conflict with Russia, or to watch Russia attempt to regain its fallen empire, as Russia would gain valuable natural resources and a strategic coastline along the Black Sea. Thus, I believe that to best preserve US intentions, the US must not immediately deploy troops into this hotly-contested nation, nor should it merely watch the situation unfold. Through the UN, NATO, or other global and western alliances, the US should hope to limit Russian encroachment through sanctions, compromises, or treaties. Seeing the obvious dichotomy of the nation, I don't mind seeing Ukraine split, an action that would reduce tensions in either half. Military force should be used only as a last resort in case the established agreements are violated.

Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

2014 Elections: Poll shows incumbents in trouble

2014 Elections: Poll shows incumbents in trouble | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
While an anti-incumbent attitude is prevalent among Americans, Republicans have the upper-hand in the midterm Senate elections, according to a new poll. In the 34 states with Senate elections this fall, 50 percent of voters favor Republicans while 42 favor Democrats, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll released Tuesday. In the House, voters were...

Via Teresa Herrin
more...
Matias Kopinsky's curator insight, March 6, 2014 2:56 PM

I really feel that the people are tired of gridlock. Therefore, people are blaming the President and the democratic party.

Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The White House has recruited more than 40 celebrities, and some of their moms, to encourage Americans to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. These celebs sold it best.

Via Teresa Herrin
Debora Wang's insight:

Recruiting celebrities to promote Obamacare was a smart decision because they were able to reach a bigger audience. The use of a variety of celebrities appeals to the general public to spread awareness of Obamacare and the advantages of utilizing it. Although it is up to the public to sign up for Obamacare, the use of celebrities generated millions of people's interest.

more...
Colin Shi's curator insight, April 5, 2014 4:23 PM

These five celebrities have successfully promoted the Affordable Care Act. While effective, these means are often frowned upon because they seem more like doing a commercial for a piece of government legislation, and should be counted as propaganda. You should be going for the product, not the celebrity name.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:53 PM

This is a very intelligent and effective way for the President to endorse healthcare.gov and the Affordable Care Act, as well as gain the public's admiration. This reaches out to the young demographic, especially.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:53 AM

President Obama's attempt to gain support for the ACA by having famous celebrities like Ellen and Jennifer Hudson support it, help the ACA reach its goal. As the younger generation would be the population that would pay the most in the system for the proportion that they take out, then President Obama aiming to have the younger generation join with the support of celebrities is very strategic.

Scooped by Debora Wang
Scoop.it!

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
With a Twitter-savvy president and their own ailing media companies, Lloyd Grove finds the boys in the briefing room more depressed than ever.
Debora Wang's insight:
4/3/10Press corp – Media correspondents of the white house.Filterless Presidency – The president is presented in media coverage to the public in a candid, unfiltered matter.Obama has 42.3 million Twitter followers and 39 million Facebook followers.The author’s concern regards the usage of social media and its effect on traditional media outlets. Because of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, the press corp is facing the threat of obsolescence. Although one outlet is thriving, the author is clearly concerned with the future of the press corp.Although social media is becoming prominent in presidential coverage, the press corp is still important to the issue of new coverage. Social media is a great tool to cover live news regarding press events and other events designed for publicity. However, the press corp is a more reliable and extensive choice of coverage of presidential events. On a scale of 1-5, I would place my concern as a 2 because I feel as though press corp media will never die. With correspondents working for large news corporations that reach most households with a TV, press corp coverage will continue.
more...
Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:09 PM

1. April 3, 2010

2. The white house press corps is the group in charge of media coverage of the president, that interprets and presents the president's image to the public.

3. The president can directly present himself to the public without a middleman that filters and interprets the information.

4. 42.4 million followers on Twitter, 39 million likes on facebook

5. The author is concerned that the job of the white house press corps is going obsolete. This trend may have significant consequences because the president will likely present himself with a personal bias, sometimes even called a "hagiography". Not having press conferences also presents a problem because it will no longer give the public a clear picture of the president.

6. I am pretty concerned about an age in which the president is able to present himself freely to the public. I feel that the president's use of social media outlets to communicate often gives us an attitude of insincerity. With this lack of professionalism, traditional values unravel, and the general public loses trust in the president. One may argue that the media filter distorts his message, but provided that they have reliable expertise, they should still be able to do the job better than the president himself. Although bias is prevalent regardless of who presents the president in the media, having an outside source should mitigate bias to some extent. Score: 3.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:44 PM

1. 4/3/14

2. Media correspondents and journalists deployed in the White House who's job is to cover events and announcements by the POTUS.

3. A filterless Presidency is when the Whitehouse can directly communicate with the public without a 3rd party in media.

4. Obama currently has 42.3 million Twitter followers, and 39 Million Facebook Followers.

5.The Author's concern is that the Press Corp's niche is dissapearing due to social Media such as Twitter and Facebook. This means that the President can dictate the direction of the conversation, instead of being asked questions by the media. The author fears that this will lead to the President becoming too favorably viewed and unquestioned.

6. I am a (2), only somewhat concerned. A very large part of Obama's appeal is his charisma. The Press Corp will be the most upset about it, and that is fine by me. I believe this will at least be positive in the sense that the President will have a more personal dialogue with the American Public. This is an adaptation of the Obama Administration to keep up with the times.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 11:10 AM

1. 04.03.10

2. Members of President Obama's staff that would typically cover his actions and deal with public relations

3. A Presidency where there is an unprecedented level of transparency

4. Facebook: 39,767,002

Twitter: 42.4M

5. President Obama is a unique President in how he addressed social media. Not only does he want to a lot of PR himself, but this puts his Press Corps  in danger. He strays away from the norm of other presidents.

6. (1) President Obama was elected for his first term for his connection that he made with the youth. Not only was he able to have the youth come out and vote, although they typically wouldn't, but he also gained the support of African Americans to vote as well. This is extremely strategic in how he was first elected. This trait if being personable is a trait that wouldn't necessarily be something needed by other Presidents, thus the need for the Press Corps to exist. However just because they roles and jobs may be in danger doesn't mean that any concern should exist. 

Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Unit 4 -- BY 3/11 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin
Debora Wang's insight:

This video describes the practice of Gerrymandering and how destructive it is towards the government. Gerrymandering can be seen as the cause as to how congressional members are picking the voters rather than the voters picking the congressional members. Both parties do this to try and gain power in the House. Although Gerrymandering can be seen as a huge problem, those who are easily winning have a reason to be winning: the people in that district elect them. People have the option to vote for who they want. When redistricting occurs, the solid outcome of someone running for House is unknown. Ultimately, if the people of that district want to have someone Republican, then they can vote for someone Republican. If they want a Democrat, they can put a Democrat in office. 

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Unit 4 -- DUE 3/10 -- Young Guns gear up for next fight

Unit 4 -- DUE 3/10 -- Young Guns gear up for next fight | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The Republican “Young Guns” are ready to rule, if they get the chance. Since they first got the name seven years ago, allies and enemies of Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy are now beginning to jockey to prepare for potential changes at the top of the Republican power structure in the House. Though publicly Speaker John Boehner...

Via Teresa Herrin
Debora Wang's insight:

This article gave thorough analysis of the "Young Guns" and their current/future status. Each of them had a break down of their power and possible threats, which reveal their current/future standings in the Republican party. Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy are ready to lead the Republican party with Cantor in the talks of replacing Jon Boehner and Paul Ryan possibly running for the presidency. The three are driven and have the resources to change/create policy. Even with competition in the Republican party, Canter, Ryan, and McCarthy seem prominent and secure for leadership positions.

more...
Colin Shi's curator insight, March 10, 2014 2:58 AM

Speaker John Boehner and his other Republican leaders of the House, dubbed the "Young Guns", plan to revamp the party power structure. Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader, is from Virginia, and he is the next most powerful man in the House. The right respects him as he's taken serious action on fiscal matters, yet has garnered criticism from the party as well. Meanwhile, McCarthy, the Majority whip, is an affable leader, able to unite a divided GOP, and is confident that the party is headed to a more effective future. The last of the three, Paul Ryan, has risen the fastest, planning to either lead the Ways and Means Committee or run for the presidency in 2016. He's young, motivated, and well known, which should give him a strong support base against opponents. These "Young Guns" pledge loyalty to Boehner, and are willing to serve as long as Boehner remains speaker.

Matt Philipps's curator insight, March 10, 2014 11:30 AM

The article talks about the future of these 3 promising republicans who are referred to as the Young Guns. Gives insight to the future of the 3 and what the possibilities of their next move  may be . If Boehner leaves office, Contor is a shoe in for the Speaker spot. Kevin McCarthy may become majority leader and Paul Ryan may take the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee or take a run for president. This article gives a great look at their current positions in the ranks of the GOP and gives an excellent and accurate look of what the future for these young men holds.

Ashley O.'s comment, March 11, 2014 11:00 PM
Oops... I didnt realize this till now but two of them are currrently ymajority leaders. That picture quiz helped me realize that.
Rescooped by Debora Wang from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Young Guns gear up for next fight

Young Guns gear up for next fight | Debora Wang BHS GOPO | Scoop.it
The Republican “Young Guns” are ready to rule, if they get the chance. Since they first got the name seven years ago, allies and enemies of Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy are now beginning to jockey to prepare for potential changes at the top of the Republican power structure in the House. Though publicly Speaker John Boehner...

Via Teresa Herrin
more...
Colin Shi's curator insight, March 10, 2014 2:58 AM

Speaker John Boehner and his other Republican leaders of the House, dubbed the "Young Guns", plan to revamp the party power structure. Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader, is from Virginia, and he is the next most powerful man in the House. The right respects him as he's taken serious action on fiscal matters, yet has garnered criticism from the party as well. Meanwhile, McCarthy, the Majority whip, is an affable leader, able to unite a divided GOP, and is confident that the party is headed to a more effective future. The last of the three, Paul Ryan, has risen the fastest, planning to either lead the Ways and Means Committee or run for the presidency in 2016. He's young, motivated, and well known, which should give him a strong support base against opponents. These "Young Guns" pledge loyalty to Boehner, and are willing to serve as long as Boehner remains speaker.

Matt Philipps's curator insight, March 10, 2014 11:30 AM

The article talks about the future of these 3 promising republicans who are referred to as the Young Guns. Gives insight to the future of the 3 and what the possibilities of their next move  may be . If Boehner leaves office, Contor is a shoe in for the Speaker spot. Kevin McCarthy may become majority leader and Paul Ryan may take the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee or take a run for president. This article gives a great look at their current positions in the ranks of the GOP and gives an excellent and accurate look of what the future for these young men holds.

Ashley O.'s comment, March 11, 2014 11:00 PM
Oops... I didnt realize this till now but two of them are currrently ymajority leaders. That picture quiz helped me realize that.