Judging by the GOP candidate in New Hampshire over the meeting nothing very helpful. I address this post specifically to Jeb Bush as he will in all likelihood be the GOP Presidential candidate of 2016. Maybe Scott Walker will turn out to be his VP.
The answer that all the GOPers in NH had to inequality and stagnation-and so the answer Jeb will have-is 'let the people eat pointless personal attacks on Hillary.'
"They attacked her judgment on resetting American relations with Russia and protecting American diplomats in Libya. They slammed her as secretive for using a personal email account at the State Department and deleting messages in the face of scrutiny. They mocked her recent campaign events in Iowa as inauthentic and her unannounced lunch at Chipotle as antisocial. They even reached back to her husband’s infidelity to disparage her."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/us/gop-hopefuls-in-new-hampshire-attack-clinton-more-than-one-another.html?_r=0
Their answer to wage stagnation is to re-litigate Monica Lewisnsky. Let the people eat that. I saw a GOP operative on CNN today and she claims that the GOP candidates are all concerned about 'pocketbook issues' and they express this by attacking Hillary as a plutocrat.
Scott Walker bragged of his humble beginnings which he claims contrast with her elitism and sense of entitlement. If this is the best the GOP has-and yes it is-they are in trouble. Jeb is in trouble.
The trouble with this argument ought to be obvious-that it isn't for them shows how clueless today's GOP is. The idea that Hillary's a plutocrat conveniently ignores that Jeb is a plutocrat. Walker may have come from humble beginnings but Hillary was not born to great wealth and privilege-unlike Jeb and his big brother.
Bill Clinton is actually from very humble beginnings himself. Hillary, was not born dirt poor but she was middle class far from the life of the Bush children. Her father had to work for a living-unlike W who scarcely worked a day in his life till the SJC crowned him President. The truth is that neither he nor her husband are plutocrats where both the Bushes and Mitt Romney are plutocrats.
What Hillary has achieved she has earned unlike with Jeb and George W. In any case, the GOP shows how little they understand 'pocketbook issues' by focusing so much on personal biography in discussions about economics. Whether or not you were personally born wealthy, poor, or in the middle, is far from what counts most.
You can be born wealthy and advocate the right policies for most Americans or quite poor and yet the wrong policies for most Americans. After all, FDR came from a very wealthy, privileged background, but he his policies benefited most Americans so he was re-elected 4 times.
This whole line of focus on the personal is condescending as if Americans don't know that it's the policies not the biography of he or she who advocates the policies that really counts.
"In 2008, the campaign of multi-millionaire John McCain tried to brand Barack Obama as "elitist" and "out of touch" and "worried about the price of arugula." Four years later, Mitt Romney—the GOP presidential nominee worth at least a quarter of a billion dollars—declared that President Obama "reminded me of Marie Antoinette." Now, Politico tells us, the GOP is planning to "turn Hillary into Mitt Romney":
The answer that all the GOPers in NH had to inequality and stagnation-and so the answer Jeb will have-is 'let the people eat pointless personal attacks on Hillary.'
"They attacked her judgment on resetting American relations with Russia and protecting American diplomats in Libya. They slammed her as secretive for using a personal email account at the State Department and deleting messages in the face of scrutiny. They mocked her recent campaign events in Iowa as inauthentic and her unannounced lunch at Chipotle as antisocial. They even reached back to her husband’s infidelity to disparage her."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/us/gop-hopefuls-in-new-hampshire-attack-clinton-more-than-one-another.html?_r=0
Their answer to wage stagnation is to re-litigate Monica Lewisnsky. Let the people eat that. I saw a GOP operative on CNN today and she claims that the GOP candidates are all concerned about 'pocketbook issues' and they express this by attacking Hillary as a plutocrat.
Scott Walker bragged of his humble beginnings which he claims contrast with her elitism and sense of entitlement. If this is the best the GOP has-and yes it is-they are in trouble. Jeb is in trouble.
The trouble with this argument ought to be obvious-that it isn't for them shows how clueless today's GOP is. The idea that Hillary's a plutocrat conveniently ignores that Jeb is a plutocrat. Walker may have come from humble beginnings but Hillary was not born to great wealth and privilege-unlike Jeb and his big brother.
Bill Clinton is actually from very humble beginnings himself. Hillary, was not born dirt poor but she was middle class far from the life of the Bush children. Her father had to work for a living-unlike W who scarcely worked a day in his life till the SJC crowned him President. The truth is that neither he nor her husband are plutocrats where both the Bushes and Mitt Romney are plutocrats.
What Hillary has achieved she has earned unlike with Jeb and George W. In any case, the GOP shows how little they understand 'pocketbook issues' by focusing so much on personal biography in discussions about economics. Whether or not you were personally born wealthy, poor, or in the middle, is far from what counts most.
You can be born wealthy and advocate the right policies for most Americans or quite poor and yet the wrong policies for most Americans. After all, FDR came from a very wealthy, privileged background, but he his policies benefited most Americans so he was re-elected 4 times.
This whole line of focus on the personal is condescending as if Americans don't know that it's the policies not the biography of he or she who advocates the policies that really counts.
"In 2008, the campaign of multi-millionaire John McCain tried to brand Barack Obama as "elitist" and "out of touch" and "worried about the price of arugula." Four years later, Mitt Romney—the GOP presidential nominee worth at least a quarter of a billion dollars—declared that President Obama "reminded me of Marie Antoinette." Now, Politico tells us, the GOP is planning to "turn Hillary into Mitt Romney":
Republicans are readying a familiar template: The out-of-touch plutocrat who lives in a world of private planes, chauffeured vehicles and million-dollar homes."But the Republicans' pathetic populist ploy is backfiring. After all, the now-wealthy Clintons have long supported policies to help working Americans. And while Hillary Clinton has put her money where her mouth is by backing increases in the taxes her family pays, the GOP and its 2016 candidates are—as always—calling for a massive, Treasury draining, tax cut windfall for the wealthy."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/15/1377982/-GOP-s-One-Percenter-attack-on-Hillary-Clinton-comically-backfires
The idea that the GOP will Mitt Romney Hillary is a joke of the highest order: after all, Jeb Bush is Mitt Romney; if anything, he does the impossible as he comes from a background even more privileged than Mitt Romney's.
Karl Rove is supposed to be all about this brilliant strategy where 'Your strength is your weakness'-it did seem to work against John Kerry after Rove and Bush swiftboated him or even with Gore where his three digit IQ vs. Bush's two digit was used against Gore. What a smarty pants! Thinks he knows everything! We want someone nice and stupid to be President.
If the GOP wants to Mitt Romney Hillary this will be a case of saying 'My own weakness is your weakness' which is a far more dubious strategy. The GOP has never let the fact that what they're doing makes no sense stop them before and why would they do so now? I have no trouble with it-this ploy is very misconceived and the more they use it the more they will hurt themselves. It's like throwing pies in your own face.
P.S.
Rand Paul seems to think he can attack her as an anti-feminist.
"Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky made a robust argument against Mrs. Clinton on Saturday over the disintegration of Libya, her State Department email and the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of contributions from foreign nations, including some with poor records on women’s rights. But he was especially harsh when he talked about the insurgent attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 that led to the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."
I wonder how Senator Paul can explain Darrell Issa closing his own 2 year Benghazi witch hunt-I mean legitimate investigation-and found no one guilty of any wrongdoing.
As for attacking Hillary as an enemy of women's rights-these folks are simply shameless; if a rape victim ran for office they'd attack her as opposing the rights of rape victims-maybe he can show us something establishing himself in any way doing anything positive on womens' rights so as to establish he's not just a total phony. I mean if he supports women's rights does he think that rape victims should have the right to an abortion? Name me one aspect of women's rights he's supported.
No comments:
Post a Comment