ADVERTISEMENT

Hillary to announce on Sunday

BENGHAZI!

I know many in the GOP see Benghazi as Hillary's Achilles heel. It isn't. Benghazi is her shield. Her sycophants will point to the months and months of congressional investigations, thousands of pages of sworn testimony, and the seemingly exoneration by the house intelligence committee as reasons to say that is old news and it's time to move on. They would be wrong because Benghazi is exhibit "A" in the Clinton obsession with concealment and deception. However, they would be right, because the public is so over Benghazi.

The real problem with Benghazi would be if the GOP focuses on that and overlooks Hillary's horrendous lack of vision, goals, and absence of strategy in foreign policy as well as in everything she does. Hillary is a war hawk. She'll bomb anybody and anything "for the children" or for "human rights". Her husband's bombing of Belgrade was because of her belief that genocide was about to take place in Kosovo.. The bombing of Libya was because of her belief that Gaddafi was about to commit genocide (never mind that he had no effective armed force at the time). Her support for the "Arab Spring" was to get rid of bad acting dictators with no thought of what would happen next (Iraq anyone?) . Hillary totally disconnects US power from US strategic interests. Instead she is totally connected to her moral view of how things ought to be in the world.

This is just one of many rants you might expect from this demented old white-guy conservative. I'll try to find the time to post about Hillary when I'm not yelling at kids on my lawn.
 
blah, blah, blah

I seldom write about other posters here. You, however, are a conspicuous exception. I guess that's cuz you seldom post substance. But I readily admit to giving the "business" to liberals and their antics in general and specific liberals who are public figures.
 
She's A Teflon Con - Survives Everything

hillary_and_P'Lod.jpg

This post was edited on 4/12 6:24 PM by MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
 
But will he be perceived that way?

Perceptions vs. reality are difficult for Americans.
 
I doubt it . . . Jeb has a particularly difficult row to hoe . . .

in defining himself, with both the legacy of his brother's presidency attached to the family name and all the other GOP candidates - and SuperPACs - forcing him to pander to the right wing of the GOP.

I think Jeb will be given treatment something similar to the treatment that Hillary will get; fair or not, surely somebody other than a Kennedy, Bush or Clinton is qualified for the job, and it's time to move pasts those political "dynasties" . . . .
 
sounds like a losing circumstance for the GOP

Dragging Jeb thru Romney treatment.
 
LOL


That was predictably incoherent, but it's only you old white guys who are still talking in tongues about Benghazi! Outside of the bubble, Benghazi! isn't a sword or a shield or even a chafing dish. It's just a wingnut Bigfoot. Knock yourself out, numbnuts.
 
Yeah, but the difference is that Jeb . . .

doesn't voluntarily wear a "kick me" sign on his back like Romney did.

Still not sure whether Jeb can beat the whole pander to the far right thing.

I can't imagine Rand, Cruz, Santorum or Walker winning a general election . . . Christie's still hanging around, Rubio might be an interesting candidate too. Despite my negativity about him, I still think Jeb is the presumptive GOP candidate for 2016.
 
I can't see Jeb as the presumptive GOP candidate

IMHO, it's far too early for that on the GOP side of the aisle. But, if there was somebody whose race it was to lose, I'd say that candidate is Walker. He's got establishment financial backing without the establishment baggage. I think the didn't graduate from college thing will help him more than it will hurt him in a Reagan anti-elitist way. He seems to have some pretty decent political instincts that others like Paul, Cruz, and Christie seem to be lacking. And he's already got one thing that Jeb is lacking - enthusiastic interest from the farther right quadrants of the party. I don't like Walker's politics, but he seems to be a realistic candidate to me.
This post was edited on 4/12 7:33 PM by hoosboot
 
Although I'm not jazzed about Hillary, I think she's a great politician.

And she has....probably...the greatest politician in recent times to campaign on her behalf.

I was in Vegas over the weekend with my friends, all of whom are on the right. Not a one of them has any interest in the Republican candidates. They don't think Rand P is actually a libertarian, they think Ted Cruz is a nut, they think Chris Christy has WAY too much baggage and they think Jeb is a bore. They think they all suck.

Hillary will win. I'm not even sure it will be close.
 
Terry Schaivo.....that's all there is to say about Jeb's centrist...

...credentials. That whole episode was beyond weird.
 
Whenever I see Jeb interviewed, I get the feeling his heart isn't in it...

He just seems like a guy who is "supposed" to run because he's a Bush. I don't see any desire to actually become president. I see him as someone people WANT to run.

I'm probably WAY off.
 
Besides the made up "scandals", what baggage does Hillary have?

Just curious.
 
The GOP was always on the wrong side of the Terry schaivo case

While reasonable minds might differ about how her end of life was to be handled, the intrusion by the Florida legislature, Governor Bush, and the US congress was abominable. These were classic cases of violation of the important distinctions that the doctrine of separation of powers provides.

In a larger sense I think Jeb Bush would be an outstanding president. He has the right temperament and experience. He knows how and has demonstrated that he can bring opposing points of view together for a common purpose. But there is that dynasty thing. That is a problem. I haven't resolved it in my own mind.
 
I call that presidential temperament

I don't think a POTUS should have partisan and ideological fires in their bellies.














This post was edited on 4/12 9:56 PM by CO. Hoosier
 
Shorter CO. Hoosier

Jeb shat the bed on the Schiavo debacle, so I think he'd be a great President.
 
She's beaten no one

I'll be happy (sort of) if she wins, but she's never beaten anyone of consequence, and her skills remain to be shown. I'm not seeing it.
 
if you voted for obama

Then turn around and vote for a 70+ year old woman just cause she didn't leave her husband for banging everything you really don't like this country. Think about it if she picks up Chelsea and leaves the white house like a woman with class would have done the clintons would have been over and the dem party would have been ruined. The only reason they are considering her is because the owe her. That's it. Nobody respects her.
 
Sadly, I too agree

I was pleased Obama challenged her in 2008. Furthermore, all things considered, Obama hasn't been a big disappointment. I am glad he stepped in.

As I look ahead, the country has a good many problems to resolve both domestically and abroad. I just don't see any easy solutions.

To make matters worse, the country is so divided. It is hard to picture any of the available candidates bringing us together. In respect to bringing us together, Bush and Rubio might appeal to voters looking for someone whose demeanor lends itself to doing this.
 
No one respects her

Why is she always on the list for most respected women in the world? And good to know that you are inside the marriage and know what a " woman of class" would do. What a ridiculous post. There are valid reasons to think Hillary would not be a good candidate , but what she chose to do with her marriage is most certainly NOT one of them. How about if every single man that was an elected official was banned from running for office if he had messed around? Might be hard fielding candidates period. But blame it on the wife. Nice...
 
CoH, I think a good many voters would agree with you...

...which in my view makes the style of a Rubio or Bush appealing on a scale of who is the less abrasive..
 
Exactly . . .

that's why you're a staunch Sarah Palin advocate on this board, her presidential temperament, lack of partisanship and ideological neutrality.

rolleyes.r191677.gif


This post was edited on 4/13 11:14 AM by Sope Creek
 
Is Walker really on the same level as Cruz and Santorum?

I honestly don't know, though I should given all of the work we do in Wisconsin. I figured he was probably moderately conservative and not quite to the same degree socially, but that is just an assumption and you know what they say about those.

I will say this, business owners and executives in Wisconsin are loving Walker.
 
Darn it Sope

Just when CoH and I were about have a love in, you bring up that feisty woman with all the clever partisan put-down one liners
wink.r191677.gif
.
 
She got approved as Secretary of State by the Senate in a 94-2 vote

If she really was a complete empty suit as you claim, there would have been a lot more nays. She was respected by her colleagues in the Senate and respected as Secretary of State.

I'm not going to claim she was a best Senator ever or the best Secretary of State (Kerry seems to be a better one so far under Obama), but she's quite competent and would be a good President if elected.
 
I've never been big on bold predictions. But....

...I'll go ahead and make two here:

1) Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic nominee. Gov. Martin O'Malley will.
2) Jeb Bush will not be the Republican nominee. Gov. Scott Walker will.

I've long suspected #2. I'm coming more and more to suspect #1.

In 2012, Republican primary voters looked desperately (and ultimately in vain) for a viable alternative to Mitt Romney. At various times, either polls or actual primary results showed surges of interest in candidates ranging from Herman Cain to Rick Perry to Newt Gingrich to Michele Bachmann to Rick Santorum. All of these were, obviously, non-starters. And it didn't take long for voters to figure out that, despite very full stages at the Republican debates, they didn't have any viable alternatives to Mitt Romney.

Romney 2012 and McCain 2008 both won by default -- as the "anybody but (McCain or Romney)" vote was split between minor candidates...none of whom garnered any broad, sustained interest.

I'm sure that Jeb Bush is counting on that happening once again. And it well could. I don't think Paul, Rubio, or Cruz stand any realistic chance (let alone any of the even longer shots like Ben Carson). But I have long thought that Scott Walker could, if he gets the right advice and polishing. And, for Walker, so far so good.

As for the Dems, it's no secret that many liberals have been hoping for a viable alternative to HRC's left -- with Elizabeth Warren being their favorite target. But while Warren has stood by her refusal to get in, it looks like Martin O'Malley is going to try to fill that void. And, thus far, I think it's fair to say he's generating some favorable buzz with his populist stemwinders.

It wasn't long ago that Hillary was upended by a younger, more exuberant upstart. And I think there's a good chance it could happen once again. O'Malley's got some mojo.
This post was edited on 4/13 12:14 PM by crazed_hoosier2
 
The country isn't going to be 'brought together'

In fact, I think we ain't seen nothin' yet. The pols haven't even yet gotten serious about addressing our structural fiscal imbalance. Eventually, they're going to have to. And if you think people are divided now...

I don't know what the resolutions to this problem are going to look like. My hope is that, once they're set in place, we can move on to less divisive things. But my fear is that the furor won't be short-lasting and will only exacerbate the division. I'm guessing that, when the rubber meets the road, we'll get a heavy dose of both tax increases and entitlement cuts -- plenty there to piss off just about everybody.

The only way any prospective candidate -- and not just the ones who are currently or considering running -- can "bring us together" is (a) for them to lie to us, and (b) for us to believe it. And even that will only last as long as there's no actual legislative action taken.

You're right: there are no easy solutions. The solutions are going to be painful, which is why they can muster the will to do little but talk and kick cans down the road.
 
She is the most well known

I hope that people look hard again at her past. Trust is key for a President. She always seems to be in the middle of shady deals and actions. The email issue would bother me less if were someone without her past.

It may come that 49.5% hate Hillary and 50.5% would vote for her regardless of her flaws. Can't the Democrats find someone that could unite the country? Evan Bayh, or a number of sitting governors would gain more support.

I just want a trustworthy person that wants to be "my" President. Obama called the GOP "the enemy" in a speech. He lost me. Apologies won't change what is in his heart. Winning elections doesn't make you a leader. Hillary could win, but she is so polarizing that she will struggle to lead.

I would rather have her husband for another 4 years. Despite all the controversy, he still found a way to work with both parties.
 
Re: The country isn't going to be 'brought together'

I think it should be the responsibility of the voters to pick a candidate that will not alienate half of the country. There are a number of Democrats that would be better than Hillary. At least the GOP will have a choice.
 
Everything is relative

When you mention Palin in the same sentence as Pelosi, Reid, Biden and Obama, she is very smart and accomplished.
 
Beats me . . .

but that question can cut a couple of ways. Walker has no foreign relations experience, of course, and IMHO I think his lack of a college degree when coupled with that lack of experience is a fairly sizable hurdle for him . . .

. . . I detest Cruz' pandering and am completely convinced that Cruz' political positioning comes straight out of a daddy complex (he's still seeking approval from his father, who became an evangelical preacher in response to a bout of alcoholism, and his campaign, right down the the Liberty University kick off reflects that), but because of Cruz' educational/Su Ct clerkship background there is no doubt in my mind that the guy has enough smarts and educational background to understand and take on complex issues . . .

. . . I just wish he had better judgment than he demonstrates.

Santorum . . . enhhh, my sense is that he's got a similar complex, but it's trying to please the Catholic Church . . . nothing wrong with that per se, but it doesn't make him a viable candidate for president of the US . . . .
 
I think Hillary's presumptive victory in 2016 is an illusion . . . .

this time around. She will be 69, which I think most of the electorate will find too old, frankly, to vote for when considering a 2 term presidency for the winner of this election. Plus Jeb will have more executive experience than Hillary, and can rely on family connections to get him prepped for foreign relations issues. If it comes down to a Jeb/Hillary contest, I think Jeb wins it so long as he doesn't select a Sarah Palin VP candidate.

Hillary/Walker . . . now that's one I think Hillary could win . . . but I don't see Walker as that viable of a candidate. Most of the country will view his union busting in Wisconsin for what it is, i.e., highly divisive, and that's not what Americans have been wanting to vote for in a president.
 
Meaning....what?

Are you saying that Democratic and Republican primary voters should take into consideration what people who aren't going to vote for their nominee think about that nominee?

I mean, if either party's candidate is that off-putting to independents and swing-voters (not to mention active members of the other party) -- say a Ted Cruz for Republicans or an Elizabeth Warren for Democrats -- then it seems to me that problem would take care of itself. If Republicans were to nominate Ted Cruz, it's true that he would "alienate" much of the country....but I strongly doubt he'd have much of a chance to win. So would it matter much?

And I'd also hasten to point out, re: Hillary and "alienating" people, that despite her recent stumbles, she's still the most supported candidate/prospect from either party. So, while other candidates might be "better" than her (however you'd define that), the data doesn't support the notion that she'd be more alienating than anybody else. She's actually the least alienating, at present.
 
It cuts both ways

If she had done that to Bill, I would have no respect for Bill if he didn't leave her. And contrary to popular belief, women are guilty of adultery.

He has a point though. Hard to respect someone that only stayed with her husband for politically-motivated reasons.
 
She didn't earn anything

I may not like Elizabeth Warren, but I respect her.
 
Yeah, all those GOP candidates who won't alienate anyone . . .

like Cruz, Palin, Santorum, Perry, Walker, Bachmann and even Christie . . . heck just the name "Bush" associated with Jeb is divisive for many . . . .
 
I'm wary of Jeb, generally. But...

...I do have to say that I really, really liked his op-ed piece (which I've linked to here before) on "The Right to Rise."

It was heavy on platitudes and light on specifics. But, at least as far as political platitudes go, I think he was hitting the right chords. I particularly like that he noted that, part and parcel to a right to rise (or succeed, or prosper, or however you want to phrase it) is a freedom to fail. You really can't have one without the other. And I think, as a nation, we've exerted a lot of energy and spent a lot of money to insulate people from the burdens of their own failures, bad decisions, etc. We've essentially taxed success in order to subsidize failure -- and, as the old saying goes, if you want less of something, tax it....if you want more of something, subsidize it.

In the event that Jeb does end up in the White House, I hope that he meant what he wrote in that piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sglowrider

How to Persuade a Trump Supporter to Reject and Resist Trumpism

Replies
38
Views
4K
The Water Cooler
billyhillui
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back