How to Beat Mrs Clinton

The Hillary-obsessed express their disturbing fixation via multiple threads essentially about her fancied demonic nature, to the virtual exclusion of any other presidential possibility for 2016.

They may wish to focus instead, upon reality, and her most egregious blunder that already cost her the 2008 nomination: She went along with Republicans who surrendered to George W Bush, making him the "Decider" whether to initiate his bloody and divisive trillion+ nation-building fiasco (as if he had not already "decided." Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge.)

Barack Obama used it to vanquish her in 2008; Randy Paul can do it again.

With the consequences of the Bush fraudulently-pretexted fiasco now obvious to even the most obtuse, Hillary's woeful capitulation can be exploited!


Remember what the jamoke she supported was saying, and tie her to him:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." --Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." --Washington, D.C., March 13, 2002

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --interview with CBS News' Katie Couric, Sept. 6, 2006

"So what?" –President Bush, responding to a an ABC News correspondent who pointed out that Al Qaeda wasn't a threat in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded, Dec. 14, 2008

Tie Hillary to the Bush's folly, and hoot loudly when Randy does it!

.

 

Meh, there won't be any debate. They'll just devolve into calling each other racists all the time and focus on that.

 

Old news.

Better to point out how her apparent lack of critical thinking and cooperation with the Obama Gun running operation in Benghazi cost 4 American lives at the state dept cost OR her total support for Obama care.

 

NO Republican will be able to beat whichever Democrat runs for President - and won't be able to until they lose the influences of the Tea Party and the Evangelicals.

 

We can stand back and watch Hillary beat herself.

 

Can anyone actually imagine the Republicans running an anti war, pro choice candidate?

 

It is unfortunate and rather pathetic, that we will continue the feeble attack game while ignoring our weak field of candidates and complete lack of platform and message. This combined with the fading base (those we have not pushed away already)....will pretty much hand the White House over to the dems, again.

As of this writing...There is no one in the chute I can possibly vote for, and considering the ways I am treated by both the Party and the "Republicans" on this board and elsewhere....there is no reason to support those who do not want me.

 

The attempted Benghazi smear is already fizzling like the silly "She murdered Vince Foster" one. Americans have not held her immediate predecessors at State personally responsible for the much larger numbers of Americans previously killed in overseas terrorist attacks. By comparison, her record is considerably better, actually. Why would Repubs want to draw attention to the inevitable comparison that dumps all over their partisan agenda?

- - - Updated - - -

I'd defer all charges of racism to those allegedly targeted by it. They're in a far better position to evaluate the reciprocal accusations.

 

LOL, no one in the Obama administration is responsible for anything. Go figure. Who is running the clown show in DC?

The Obama administration’s just-released criminal complaint against the alleged mastermind of the Benghazi terrorist attacks provides a final contradiction to its own evolving explanations for what happened that day.

The Justice Department’s indictment spells out a calculated conspiracy by Ahmed Abu Khatallah and associates to attack the U.S. diplomatic mission and CIA annex, which killed four Americans. The indictment might be viewed as a death knell for a theory that the attack resulted from a spontaneous protest against a U.S.-produced video.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...t-in-benghazi-attack-ahmed-abu/#ixzz36JRjRGlB
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

 

Randy Paul is ideally suited to jettison the Party's pant load, as well as challenge Clinton's wanton militarism.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought they were responsible for RomneyCare.

 

LOL, yeah, something no one in their right mind would try to force on the country...

 

So the best way to beat Hillary in 2016 is hope Rand Paul is the GOP nominee...

...As sound as any other GOP "plan".

 

How to beat Bossy?

Yell "Code Blue!"

 

You might think so. It appears Benghazi was a White House/State Dept/CIA arms running operation supplying arms to the rebels in Syria, ironically the same folks who are now using them to take over Iraq. You can attempt to marginalize THAT all you want, it won't work. Hillary won't run in 2016 for the above reason.

 

Americans are well aware of TP impotence in reforming health insurance.

That is why 56% say of nationalized WillardCare, "See how it works", 10% say "Leave it alone", and 32% say "Repeal it." (How many of the 32% would wish it replaced with a version of the demonstrably far more efficient single payer, universal coverage approach was not addressed.)

Bloomberg's poll also indicated that, even if it were repealed, most Americans, even most Republicans, would want the preponderance of its reforms continued:

Rank-and-file Republicans want several key provisions retained. Sixty-two percent of Republicans want to retain the law’s ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and 57 percent want to keep the requirement that insurance companies allow children up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ policies.

Republicans are about evenly divided on the elimination of lifetime limits on medical benefits.

Even majorities of those who would repeal the law want to maintain some of those provisions. Fifty-eight percent of repeal backers favor keeping the prohibition on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and 58 percent also want to continue to allow those up to age 26 to remain on their parents’ policies. A substantial 40 percent minority of repeal advocates would keep the law’s ban on lifetime caps on insurance benefits.

Those provisions are more popular with the country as a whole. Sixty-five percent of Americans support the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, 73 percent want to let children stay on policies up to age 26, and 53 percent favor the elimination of lifetime caps.​

Realistically, it appears that the ACA, like gender equality in marriage law, is here to stay for quite a while, and that the bellywhinging of the alienated is ineffectual.

 

Yep, the monster is here to stay. Thanks Obama and Dems.

 

Don't be frightened.


The prospects of Social Security and Medicare gave timid folks the jim jams as well.

The vast majority of Americans are satisfied with the progress.

 

Taxcutter says:
...and today Social security and Medicare are the two biggest line items of federal outlay. They should have given everyone more than the jim-jams.

 

"fading base"

you may well be able to make claim to that with respect to who identifies as a Republican. That is simply a messaging issue that needs fixing.

Anyone who believes in being personally accountable, hard work, cheer success vs punish it, small govt etc cannot align with the Democrat party.

It does not matter what you claim yourself as, you certainly are not a Democrat if you believe in personal accountability. As a voter, you then decide which candidate is the lesser of evils and the Democrat is the most evil.

 

Money well spent from the perspective of the American people.

Americans want to cut the deficit, but they don’t want to cut Medicare, Social Security or education to do it, according to the new Kaiser Family Foundation/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health survey.

 

Both major parties are hellbent on running against an extreme, demonic cartoon version of the other, whilst the electorate is common-sense centrist.

There may have been more "blue" states than "red" states in 2013, but a clear majority of Americans are ideologically at the center or right of center. How do Democrats continue to win elections if so few Americans identify themselves as liberal? The answer may lie with moderates, which, as a voting bloc, are solidly Democratic. If moderates begin voting with Republicans in the near or long-term future, there may indeed be a Republican revival on the national level.​

Before the bible-humpers and corporate interests had co-opted the TPs, it had looked as if a legitimate, fiscally-responsible, less imperialistic political force that would dump the GOP's old biddy church lady agenda and submissive Wall Street forelock-tugging might emerge.

The TPs devolved into Dixiecans, of course, but the potential for a populist movement with a genuine libertarian spirit is still there.

 

Thus have I registered as an independent...after decades as Republican.

Glad the party is not driving folks away....or fading.

 

Sen. Clinton doesn't have a chance unless the media falls in line and protects her as they've been protecting Obama.

 

Exactly. The more she talks, the more demented she appears. She's not right in the head. That little fall she took was more serious that she's admitting.

 

you do know Bush has a better approval rating than Obama so it would be more prudent to tie Hillary to Obama than Bush
Also the American public has gotten very sick and tired and it has become old and stale to keep pulling the Bush card
for gods sake man he will be out of office for 8 year in 2016 let it go already