Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Scandals Won’t Be Enough Against Clinton
Hillary Clinton is a horribly corrupt human being. Conservatives know it. Liberals know it. The Clintons know it. It’s an important issue that should be part of the campaign against her.
That being said, it would benefit Republicans to tone-down the criticism of Clinton’s scandals. It may seem difficult to do, considering just how awful she really is and how tempting it is to lay out all her devilish activities from Arkansas to Benghazi. But talking about her scandals as much as Republicans do — and in the way we do it — dilutes the actual significance of her corruption and takes away from our vision.
Again, I’m not saying we should ignore her scandals. Rather, we should bring them up when they’re relevant — and on sparse occasion — so people know about the issue and get how corrupt she is. Basically, we should use them as a push factor away from the Left to complement a strong pull factor from the Right.
This is opposed to some people’s tendency to only talk about her scandals, and make the election about how bad she is. The irony is that this causes many people to think that conservatives are obsessively anti-Clinton in an off-their-meds way, which leads them to tune-out the scandals. It also uses up scarce time that could have been used to present an alternative vision for America. We can’t just say the boat’s leaking; we have to offer a sounder ship.
I’m not calling out anyone in particular here. Just a general trend among the Right to get so worked up over a scandal, that we go overboard, make the scandal irrelevant, and waste valuable messaging time.
A push factor is great, but not when it is abusive, or comes at the expense of your pull factors.
Published in Politics
I think I agree with you to an extent.
Republicans don’t need to broadcast the Clinton scandals.
They need to counterpunch with the Clinton scandals.
So on any subject on which Hill is going to announce a pious, self-satisfied, moral-preening position that in any way intersects with one of her scandals, yes, counterpunch with the scandal.
But don’t pull the punch. Don’t dilute it, don’t bandy about, don’t be afraid to throw it out in the unmitigated strongest terms possible.
Example: Anything about foreign policy, “this is the woman who got a US Ambassador and three other Americans killed, their corpses defiled, and then lied to their families.”
Similarly strong statements can be made about her performance in any dimension of governance.
Anything less will be the typical Republican pussyfooting that has lost us elections and lead to the rise of one such as Trump.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
There is ample and recent evidence that Hillary Clinton has violated the law. The most recent is that she instructed a subordinate to strip a classified message of its classified markings and send it through unsecured methods. This would land any other offender in court and ultimately serving a prison sentence. And it only gets worse. There is mounting evidence that she committed perjury and transmitted hundreds of secret, top secret and sensitive information in clear violation of standing secrecy laws.
We shouldn’t care what in-the-tank Clintonistas think of us. Or the MSM for that matter. The law and upholding the law is all that matters. What should happen is that increased pressure should be put on the DOJ to indict Clinton from the public and from representatives in Congress.
I’d love to see a grassroots movement arise, like the Tea Party, calling for Hillary Clinton’s arrest. The evidence to justify arresting her is overwhelming.
Concur, but I’m still in favor of making the presentation a counterpunch. Make her the one that has to do the talking. When she makes any statement about transparency, the rule of law, equality, effective policing, nepotism (etc., etc…) hit her hard with what’s in your comment. Don’t through it out as an allegation, throw it out as a statement of fact.
Now, if the DoJ doesn’t indict? First, see what the FBI does (I have an informed suspicion that the FBI would revolt; we’ll see), and then play it by ear. Agree that we should start sowing the seeds of a grass roots movement to either bolster or cast aspersions on the FBI and DoJ, as appropriate.
You should care about what the public thinks.
The whole point is that by putting your own message on hold, so that you can talk about the most recent Clinton Scandal minutia, eventually leads to people think of the Clinton Scandals the same way they think of Tabloids. “There may be some truth in there, but its not worth my time.”
If you want the Clinton Scandals to matter, don’t pump it out so much that people become numb to the sting of her Depravity. She won’t be going to jail if she’s elected President.
She has already proven that she will lie through her teeth whenever given the opportunity on camera. So, why listen to her lie again? We’ve gone well past allegations. There is hard evidence that she has violated the law on several occasions. The DOJ is now backed into a corner based on the most recent revelations. If they don’t bring charges, there will be a revolt in the FBI and agents will resign in protest and make their views known publicly. That’s why Republicans in Congress need to call for her indictment after reading through specific violations and citing corresponding evidence. It would help if the Republican candidates also called for her indictment and/or promised to have their AG pursue proper justice that could lead to her indictment if elected president.
Can you be more specific than that, in a comment on the updates thread?
This isn’t minutia. And frankly, I don’t care what the public thinks at any given time. What matters is the law. We don’t pursue justice based on public polling.
Responded. See comment in the Updates thread.
Given the last 7 years, this s a noble but ultimately irrelevant sentiment.
I’m not saying the DOJ shouldn’t indict her. I’m saying the Republicans shouldn’t make the core of their campaign how awful she is. If that happens, it begins to look like it is the only thing Republicans have to talk about. The Republican Presidential Nominees are running for President, not running to be Chief-HRC-Prosecutor. I think it’d be better to leave it to Congress, the DOJ and FBI to deal with Clinton. The Presidental Candidates have nothing more to do with it than we do
And to clarify, I’m not saying the eventual Nominee should pretend Hillary Clinton is innocent; but rather not obsess over her decades of depravity at the expense of their own message
Republican candidates have been attacking Clinton on a number of fronts (her deplorable record as Secretary of State, her hypocrisy about the war on women, gun control, taxation, etc, ad nauseum.) So to imply that they are only focused on Clinton’s violations of law or that anyone is advocating that that is all they should focus on is inaccurate and misleading. Ratcheting up the pressure on the DOJ is something that Republicans in Congress and the candidates should be doing. By not doing so, they let the MSM control the Clinton narrative and the narrative of the presidential campaign in general. It smacks of cowardice to back off.
See my previous comment. No one is advocating that and to suggest that they are is a strawman argument.
Not back off. Know where and when to slip the blade in most effectively. Apparently we differ.
All you’ve advocated for, thus far, is asking Hillary publicly about the violations of law that have come to light. Given that the Secret Service around her is now shielding her from reporters questions and she mostly hides from the media, and when she does grant audiences then lies through her teeth or laughs off the charges, how effective do you think this is likely to be?
Talk about slipping in the blade most effectively sounds impressive but I don’t see any substance behind that sentiment.
I’m not really talking about the Republican Candidates now, though you brought it up, and I don’t think their criticism really changes anything besides their own campaign. The DOJ isn’t going to act because John Kasich asked them to on his website, or because of Twitter Outrage.
My point is more for the general campaign, and everyone on the Right. That if you constantly wail on Clinton’s Scandals, people are eventually going to stop caring about Clinton’s Scandals. Just like they ignore Tabloids at the Super-Market, no matter how outrageous the cover is. And that time spent pumping out attacks on Clinton, could have been used laying out our vision.
If people are ignoring Clinton Scandals out of hand, then the “Mainstream Media” has free reign over Clinton’s message anyways. And worse yet, they have free reign over our messaging because we will have sunk all our resources in Clinton-attacks, and failed to present the Clinton-Alternative to the public.
Spamming a Message, no matter how important or righteous that message may be, doesn’t make people more likely to believe it, or make it more likely to be acted upon. It just irritates people, and eventually they tune it out.
Again more strawman arguments. If you’ve taken the time to listen to any of the candidates on the trail then it’s clear that many of them are fleshing out there specific policies and goals. Rubio for example has called for a very specific Constitutional convention to support term limits for Congress as well as saying he’d be happy to shut down the Dept. of Education.
When you speak of “our resources” I’m not exactly sure to whom you’re referring. The various campaigns are not coordinated and there is not one huge consensus on what the topics should be that should dominate over others. In addition, there are SuperPacs that by law put out messages without coordinating with specific candidates or campaigns.
Spamming? Again another strawman. Who is advocating spamming? Try discussing this on a more factual level please and stop making false claims that I or others support spamming. Putting pressure on the DOJ is not spamming. Putting more of an emphasis in the public arena on Hillary’s specific violations of law is not spamming.
Your conflating my warning for the Right in General, meaning people on Twitter, Talk Radio, the News, ect. With my statement on the Republican candidates now, which I made since it was brought it up.
My warning for the Right in General is to focus on their ideas and beliefs, and only to bring up Clinton’s Scandals on the sparse occasion that it is relevant to that topic. For instance, if the topic is Clinton’s Foreign Policy Experience, bring up Benghazi. But if the Topic is Foreign Policy in General, try to sell your (or your Cnadidates) Foreign Policy.
With regards to the Republican Candidates now, I never said that they were criticizing Clinton too harshly, or that they were going overboard at the moment. But I was responding to the idea that they should really be putting more pressure on Clinton. I contend that it really doesn’t matter, because the DOJ isn’t going to respond to that. and that they should focus on their own messages.
I didn’t even say they weren’t focusing on their own messages now. I just said that they shouldn’t waste their time attacking Clinton, that doesn’t entail that they are attacking Clinton too much now.
Let me be absolutely clear. Confronting Hillary Clinton to respond to the revelations and evidence that has shown she has violated numerous laws has been ineffective.
This is no longer a matter of optics, or press conferences or gotcha moments that aren’t likely to happen.
It is a legal matter and the DOJ should be publicly pressured to indict her. That should mean putting pressure on Congressional representatives to do so. Putting pressure on candidates to mention it from time to time – especially on talking head shows. Placing emphasis in public forums and on social media in a very specific way to show exactly where she has violated the law.
This is not spamming.
To shy away from this because the greater general public will get bored is irresponsible and creates a level of comfort for the Clinton campaign. If the evidence wasn’t so overwhelming, then there is an argument that backing off might be wise. But that is not the case. Members of the mainstream media need their noses rubbed in the specific violations of law more not less.
Again, I don’t place a lot of confidence in the wisdom of the American public. They elected Obama twice and are now in meltdown mode because now they feel that they’ve gotten a raw deal – this sentiment cuts across numerous ethnic and income-level voting blocs. Of course, one could also cite the popularity of Kim Kardashian, Honey Boo Boo, Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus to measure the wisdom and attention span of the general public.
Speaking of Strawmen, when did I say I didn’t want the DOJ to prosecute Clinton, or that Congress should lay off entirely?
And the resources I am referring to is speaking time. If your holding a conversation with someone, you shouldn’t instantly run to the Clinton Scandals. My point being that if the right collectively does this, people won’t really listen to you anymore when you do bring it up. Furthermore that conversation is wasted because you did not export fresh ideas and an alternative vision for America. Just a stale story they always hear.
Again, I am talking about later in the campaign, not necessarily today. But the lesson does somewhat apply today.
Filling every source you can with the latest minutia about the Clinton Scandals eventually numbs the public’s response to her scandals and hurts your chances at indictment. For the reasons I mentioned.
By piling on to much pressure, your only going to end up moving Clinton’s Scandals from a News Story to a Tabloid Story. Which one do you think the DOJ is going to act on?
@Naudious – your general thesis as expressed in the OP is frankly quite weak. Emphasizing conservative ideology to an electorate that has bought into the progressive agenda and the more extreme socialist agenda of Obama won’t be enough.
Forgive me but you seem to assume that the general electorate is inclined to believe that Ms. Clinton’s socialist policies and temperament is something that most of the public would find distasteful and that Republicans should focus on that rather than her specific violations of law when recent history has proven just the opposite.
Given the fact that the general public seems fine with bankrupting the economy to pay for stuff they believe they are entitled, then it follows that the overwhelming evidence that Clinton has violated the law several times is the strongest weapon against her to negate the possibility that she will be the Democrat nominee. To remove this weapon from the Republican arsenal is like putting restraints on soldiers engaging the enemy. It’s just an advocacy for weakness.
The FBI doesn’t really care what the public thinks. Again, your characterization of new revelations and evidence as “minutia” is indicative of your defeatist attitude.
No. My Thesis is that Socialism is gaining popularity because Republicans waste their time looking for Scandals, One-Hit Wonders and One-Liners; and ignore trying to convince people of their vision of America.
My thesis is that Tabloidic behavior is what has caused a dissatisfaction with Conservative politics, because Republicans would always put getting in an Ad Hominem over getting in a well-reasoned argument. And that deciding people don’t want Conservatism, and so we should keep wailing on scandalous activities until our faces turn blue is:
1) A Fatal Conceit in the Long Run
2) Doomed to prove a flimsy arsenal in the short run
You seem to believe that the electorate is inclined towards Socialism.
How do you plan to change that by never presenting an alternative?
And lets not have the Straw Men conversation. You read my post and know full well that I don’t want to ignore Clinton’s scandals. What your proposing is that we go beyond bringing it up only when it matters, and pump it anywhere we can get it. My point is that that is the least-effective means of making the scandals matter, and distracts people from our message.
If your not proposing to pump it anywhere we can, what do you propose?
And if the FBI doesn’t really care what the Public wants, you really are just wasting time pumping out Clinton Scandal Minutia.
Because you don’t (often) see it carried out competently. You want to see competent examples (and I will not argue that they are devastatingly effective, because the battle is not joined, yet).
Two counterpunch examples to chew on:
Let the Democrats and media ride their gang into the box canyon. Once they’re all in and feeling pretty comfy with the protection the high walls around them provide, open fire from the high ground.
Doing it your way, as we’ve seen, inoculates the Dems on the issue (Exhibit #1: Clinton impeachment) and they get away with “the only reason this is an issue is because “Republicans R H8ters.” Don’t give them that.
Everyone remember, please, that Liberals/Democrats don’t THINK, they FEEL, and we need to appeal to their emotions, not their intellect. I am not fond of being told to “tone it down”, because to me that means don’t make an emotional argument. If the ONLY way to get a Liberal’s attention is to use emotion, then that’s how you have to go about countering their arguments. We want our candidates to have “fire in the belly”, and we need to tone it UP rather than DOWN, in my opinion.