Scandals Won’t Be Enough Against Clinton

 

640px-Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziHillary 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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 69 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Naudious:

    Brian Watt:@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 on engaging the enemy. It’s just an advocacy for weakness.

    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

    Sorry, but you’re wrong. Socialism has gained popularity because of other more deep-seeded, decades long cultural and insidious reasons — the PC and Marxist inclinations of those in the K-12 school systems and in higher education, the socialist sympathies of those in entertainment and the media and much more, not solely because of the weakness or Republican rhetoric or the weak representation we have had in Congress, lo these many years even as that has been a contributing factor.

    It will take someone who is adept at articulating restoring the American idea and conservative principles and to follow through with them to begin to change hearts and minds after they are elected and there are really only two Republican candidates who are qualified to do that right now.

    Publicly insisting that the DOJ do their duty and enforce the law is not “wailing”, nor is it engaging in tabloid-like tactics. It is based on factual evidence not wild, unsubstantiated claims that are somehow insignificant or “minutia”. Your characterizations are beginning to get quite absurd.

    • #31
  2. Naudious Inactive
    Naudious
    @Stoicous

    RushBabe49: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.

    It isn’t the Liberals you want to convince. It is the Moderates. And those people aren’t going to jump the Clinton ship is you offer no alternative Ship to jump on.

    • #32
  3. Naudious Inactive
    Naudious
    @Stoicous

    Brian Watt:

    Naudious:

    Brian Watt:@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 on engaging the enemy. It’s just an advocacy for weakness.

    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

    Sorry, but you’re wrong. Socialism has gained popularity because of other more deep-seeded, decades long cultural and insidious reasons — the PC and Marxist inclinations of those in the K-12 school systems and in higher education, the socialist sympathies of those in entertainment and the media and much more, not solely because of the weakness or Republican rhetoric or the weak representation we have had in Congress, lo these many years even as that has been a contributing factor.

    It will take someone who is adept at articulating restoring the American idea and conservative principles and to follow through with them to begin to change hearts and minds after they are elected and there are really only two Republican candidates who are qualified to do that right now.

    Publicly insisting that the DOJ do their duty and enforce the law is not “wailing”, nor is it engaging in tabloid-like tactics. It is based on factual evidence not wild, unsubstantiated claims that are somehow insignificant or “minutia”. Your characterizations are beginning to get quite absurd.

    Excuse me. But don’t complain about straw men, then construct your own.

    Again, my warning is to the Right in General, not just presidential candidates. And my warning is not to stop talking about Clinton Scandals, its to not spoil the scandals significance by obnoxiously putting quips about Clinton’s scandals at the top of the agenda.

    Your proposal, that the #1 objective of Republicans should be to talk about the Clinton Scandals and assault Clinton when ever possible, sets back everything else that matters much more.

    It is why Benghazi doesn’t matter anymore. It is why the emails don’t matter anymore. These things stopped mattering because they became all Republicans talked about for months, and eventually people stopped caring.

    And if it isn’t your proposed #1 objective, please enlighten us with when you think it should be brought up.

    You seem to think you can change everyone’s mind and win the election because Hillary Clinton deleted some emails. And that talking about anything else will distract people from the scandals.

    Well, we don’t remember Thomas Jefferson because he called John Adams a “Blind, Bald, Crippled, Toothless Man”, we remember him because of the vision he had for America.

    • #33
  4. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Naudious: It is why Benghazi doesn’t matter anymore. It is why the emails don’t matter anymore. These things stopped mattering because they became all Republicans talked about for months, and eventually people stopped caring. And if it isn’t your proposed #1 objective, please enlighten us with when you think it should be brought up.

    Not to flog this analogical horse to its demise, but disagree.  I think all of it–Benghazi, e-mails, Clinton Foundation shenanigans, Huma & Carlos Danger, Bill’s sexual harassment/assaults/rapes–can all be brought to bear with devastating effect.

    But we don’t bring it up first.  We let them bring a related topic up and then hammer them like John Henry trying to beat the steam machine.

    • #34
  5. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Naudious:

    It is why Benghazi doesn’t matter anymore. It is why the emails don’t matter anymore. These things stopped mattering because they became all Republicans talked about for months, and eventually people stopped caring.

    It’s a good thing that you’re trying to advance opinions that are likely to be unpopular here.  It’s a bad thing that you’re inclined to do so by advancing what’s essentially a Democratic talking point such as the above.

    The reason these episodes of malfeasance “don’t matter any more” (assuming that’s in fact the case) is that a significant portion of the media–at the behest of the Clinton spin machine (say, David Brock) has convinced some  that drawing attention to them on a regular basis is somehow wrong.  There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that both episodes should disqualify Clinton from the presidency.  Focusing on that is wrong?

    There are two points worthy of consideration.  The Republican nominee should advance the party’s agenda concurrently with attacks on HRC.  And, it’s the skillfulness of the message on Benghazi and the private server that matters, not its repetitive content.  If we don’t see video of HRC saying “what difference does it make?” against the backdrop of headlines recounting the deaths in Benghazi, the RNC needs to pack it in.

    • #35
  6. Naudious Inactive
    Naudious
    @Stoicous

    Hoyacon:

    Naudious:

    It is why Benghazi doesn’t matter anymore. It is why the emails don’t matter anymore. These things stopped mattering because they became all Republicans talked about for months, and eventually people stopped caring.

    It’s a good thing that you’re trying to advance opinions that are likely to be unpopular here. It’s a bad thing that you’re inclined to do so by advancing what’s essentially a Democratic talking point such as the above.

    The reason these episodes of malfeasance “don’t matter any more” (assuming that’s in fact the case) is that a significant portion of the media–at the behest of the Clinton spin machine (say, David Brock) has convinced some that drawing attention to them on a regular basis is somehow wrong. There is clear and incontrovertible evidence that both episodes should disqualify Clinton from the presidency. Focusing on that is wrong?

    There are two points worthy of consideration. The Republican nominee should advance the party’s agenda concurrently with attacks on HRC. And, it’s the skillfulness of the message on Benghazi and the private server that matters, not its repetitive content. If we don’t see video of HRC saying “what difference does it make?” against the backdrop of headlines recounting the deaths in Benghazi, the RNC needs to pack it in.

    Again. I am not talking specifically about what the Republican nominee should focus on, I am talking about what the whole Right should focus on.

    It is not a Democratic Talking Point to say the the Right should concentrate on providing a vision for the future, instead of using every opportunity to attack Clinton as scandalous.

    For instance, if Marco Rubio were the Nominee, and someone said they think his Foreign Policy is going to result in more dead Americans in the Middle East. The Knee-Jerk reaction of Conservatives is to say “Oh Yeah, What about Benghazi! Hillary Clinton got an Ambassador killed and lied to America!”

    That’s not to say Benghazi isn’t important, but that person probably isn’t going to change their mind on Foreign Policy, and they probably won’t think much about Benghazi anyways because so many Republicans will be saying the same thing.

    What the actual Candidate says isn’t as important as it may seem, considering it’s mostly canned anyways. Though I would encourage that canned message to be more about the vision they have than Hillary Clinton.

    And yes, focusing on Clinton’s Scandals is a bad idea because you should be focusing on why your position is the correct position. And yes, shoe-horning in jabs at Hillary Clinton where it doesn’t naturally belong does detract from your well-reason arguments, because it too often leads down a rabbit hole about Clintonian Scandals in the 1990s, and that is time that could have been spent telling them why their position is wrong; something that is much more likely to change minds than things that sound like tabloidic political drama.

    • #36
  7. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Naudious:It is not a Democratic Talking Point to say the the Right should concentrate on providing a vision for the future, instead of using every opportunity to attack Clinton as scandalous.

    We seem not to be communicating.  It’s true that I accused you of regurgitating a Democratic topic point in my post above, but not that one.  I’d appreciate it you’d read what I said; typing is hard enough without having to try a do-over.

    Your thesis that over-emphasis on HRC’s failings as Secretary of State is wrong is a Democratic talking point designed to discourage focus on her “issues.”  That fact that the media has repeated it as if it was fact is irrelevant.  I don’t want  to presume too much, but is it possible that you’ve been overly exposed to the perspective of liberals who buy into that view?

    If you read the latter part of my post, it would be fairly evident that I thought a balanced campaign –part conservative vision, part HRC as unworthy–is the way to go.

    • #37
  8. Naudious Inactive
    Naudious
    @Stoicous

    Hoyacon:

    Naudious:It is not a Democratic Talking Point to say the the Right should concentrate on providing a vision for the future, instead of using every opportunity to attack Clinton as scandalous.

    We seem not to be communicating. It’s true that I accused you of regurgitating a Democratic topic point in my post above, but not that one. I’d appreciate it you’d read what I said; typing is hard enough without having to try a do-over.

    Your thesis that over-emphasis on HRC’s failings as Secretary of State is wrong is a Democratic talking point designed to discourage focus on her “issues.” That fact that the media has repeated it as if it was fact is irrelevant. I don’t want to presume too much, but is it possible that you’ve been overly exposed to the perspective of liberals who buy into that view?

    If you read the latter part of my post, it would be fairly evident that I thought a balanced campaign –part conservative vision, part HRC as unworthy–is the way to go.

    Just because the Left happens to say something, doesn’t mean it is automatically false.

    In this case, they are mostly right in their mockery of Republicans. Republicans do always go overboard on these things, and end up making them seem tabloidic. Take for instance the Benghazi hearings, it became a huge deal for Republicans, and then fell flat on its face. Going back even further, we often forget Benghazi was an issue in 2012; and it fizzled because Republicans went overboard. When Bernie Sanders said “I’m sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails” at the debate, it wasn’t some fluke. He was saying what most people were starting to feel at that point, because he felt he could garner support that way.

    You say “balanced-approach”, but the point of my post is that the balance is bringing up Scandals when they are directly relevant, i.e. you are talking about Hillary Clinton’s record in the area to which the scandal pertains. Beyond that, you’re merely repeating what has already been heard, and diluting its importance.

    That means when engaging with people about the election, the Right should stick to Factual and Logical Statements and Rebuttals about the thing being discussed or about a policy they propose.

    Again, not everything the Left says is a devlish trick to make Conservative act against their own self-interest. Sometimes they are bringing up real criticisms which ought to be heard.

    Also, I was clearly not saying they don’t matter to ME, I was saying they don’t matter to most of the country anymore.

    PS. If I, possibly one of the most radical people here, is too exposed to the Liberal Media, and they are influencing me to believe that it matters to people much less than it does. Then they surely must have had far greater influence over most people in the country, which means that they will have already brainwashed everyone into not caring, in which case I am still correct.

    • #38
  9. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Naudious:

    Hoyacon:

    Naudious:It is not a Democratic Talking Point to say the the Right should concentrate on providing a vision for the future, instead of using every opportunity to attack Clinton as scandalous.

    We seem not to be communicating. It’s true that I accused you of regurgitating a Democratic topic point in my post above, but not that one. I’d appreciate it you’d read what I said; typing is hard enough without having to try a do-over.

    Your thesis that over-emphasis on HRC’s failings as Secretary of State is wrong is a Democratic talking point designed to discourage focus on her “issues.” That fact that the media has repeated it as if it was fact is irrelevant. I don’t want to presume too much, but is it possible that you’ve been overly exposed to the perspective of liberals who buy into that view?

    If you read the latter part of my post, it would be fairly evident that I thought a balanced campaign –part conservative vision, part HRC as unworthy–is the way to go.

    Just because the Left happens to say something, doesn’t mean it is automatically false.

    In this case, they are mostly right in their mockery of Republicans. Republicans do always go overboard on these things, and end up making them seem tabloidic. Take for instance the Benghazi hearings, it became a huge deal for Republicans, and then fell flat on its face. Going back even further, we often forget Benghazi was an issue in 2012; and it fizzled because Republicans went overboard. When Bernie Sanders said “I’m sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails” at the debate, it wasn’t some fluke. He was saying what most people were starting to feel at that point, because he felt he could garner support that way.

    You’ve arrived at the point of repeating yourself, as opposed to directly responding to those who disagree.  I think we get the fact that, without any evidence other than MSM punditry and, possibly, some left-wing friends with whom you interact, you think the Republicans overplayed their hand by telling the truth.  I think we get that Bernie Sanders is your representative for what “most people” think.  Enough said.

    • #39
  10. Naudious Inactive
    Naudious
    @Stoicous

    Hoyacon:

    Naudious:

    Hoyacon:

    Naudious:It is not a Democratic Talking Point to say the the Right should concentrate on providing a vision for the future, instead of using every opportunity to attack Clinton as scandalous.

    We seem not to be communicating. It’s true that I accused you of regurgitating a Democratic topic point in my post above, but not that one. I’d appreciate it you’d read what I said; typing is hard enough without having to try a do-over.

    Your thesis that over-emphasis on HRC’s failings as Secretary of State is wrong is a Democratic talking point designed to discourage focus on her “issues.” That fact that the media has repeated it as if it was fact is irrelevant. I don’t want to presume too much, but is it possible that you’ve been overly exposed to the perspective of liberals who buy into that view?

    If you read the latter part of my post, it would be fairly evident that I thought a balanced campaign –part conservative vision, part HRC as unworthy–is the way to go.

    Just because the Left happens to say something, doesn’t mean it is automatically false.

    In this case, they are mostly right in their mockery of Republicans. Republicans do always go overboard on these things, and end up making them seem tabloidic. Take for instance the Benghazi hearings, it became a huge deal for Republicans, and then fell flat on its face. Going back even further, we often forget Benghazi was an issue in 2012; and it fizzled because Republicans went overboard. When Bernie Sanders said “I’m sick and tired of hearing about her damn emails” at the debate, it wasn’t some fluke. He was saying what most people were starting to feel at that point, because he felt he could garner support that way.

    You’ve arrived at the point of repeating yourself, as opposed to directly responding to those who disagree. I think we get the fact that, without any evidence other than MSM punditry and, possibly, some left-wing friends with whom you interact, you think the Republicans overplayed their hand by telling the truth. I think we get that Bernie Sanders is your representative for what “most people” think. Enough said.

    I only repeated my self because yo failed to bring up an original point.

    And yes, being obnoxious with the truth is still obnoxious. That is the whole point of my statement.

    You managed to totally misunderstand my piece, believing it to be a left-wing conspiracy to stop people talking about Hillary Clinton’s scandals; when it was actually just a warning to not make a joke of the scandals, and yourself, by obsessing about the scandals when they aren’t actually relevant.

    I ultimately can’t force you to stop embarrassing yourself. But your vitriolic reaction to such a simple proposition suggests you’ve found yourself in violation of the principle suggested. So maybe you’ll reconsider the next time you’re in a conversation and your plan for growing the economy is “But Bill Clinton Fu…”

    • #40
  11. Naudious Inactive
    Naudious
    @Stoicous

    By the way, you complained that I repeated myself.

    I am repeating the TRUTH so you obviously must be even more awe struck every time I say it. Right?

    • #41
  12. Franco Inactive
    Franco
    @Franco

    Hillary said yesterday that ” They tried it before and it didn’t work, and it won’t work this time either”.

    And I thought OUR side was stuck in the past.

    Things have changed since the mid-nineties – quite a lot. Despite continued MSM dominance it isn’t nearly as strong and there are outlets and there is a comprehensive history of the Clinton years they cannot shake.

    Hillary is doomed IMO. The sheer weight of all the allegations, and polling numbers bear out the fact that many, many Democrats don’t trust her. A lot came out in 2008 and her subsequent credentialing strategy of being Sec of State has been a wash. Yes now she has experience, and now we see how incompetent and heavy-handed she is.

    If not for the mistrust on the Dem side, there would be much less support for Bernie Sanders. Millennials today are just now learning about the sex scandals and Hillary’s role in the cover-ups and the intimidation of accusers, and, now it’s divorced from the partisan spin that the MSM created, and it’s being dropped as a comprehensive history, not as peicemeal revelations over time.

    I don’t think she will survive to the nomination. I almost hope she does because she is easy to beat.

    Should GOP candidates lead with this or over-focus on these scandals? No, but they can certainly acknowledge them.

    • #42
  13. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Naudious:By the way, you complained that I repeated myself.

    I am repeating the TRUTH so you obviously must be even more awe struck every time I say it. Right?

    Especially if it’s capitalized and in bold.

    • #43
  14. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    Franco: Should GOP candidates lead with this or over-focus on these scandals? No, but they can certainly acknowledge them.

    Absolutely.

    The scandals are the evidence the GOP needs to present to make the case Hillary can’t be trusted with power.

    In other words, present the case that Hillary lies, violates federal law, covers up crimes and therefore shouldn’t be allowed anywhere close to the White House, and her trail of scandals is proof of this.

    • #44
  15. Brian Clendinen Member
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    So why are not Republicans talking about changing the law and removing the attorney general as a presidemtal nomination. Seriously there is a huge conflict of interest so we should elect the attorney general. It has been working In most states for decades therefor if it has been proven over and over again that over the long term to work at the state level it will work at national level.

    it is yet another check on power we need in our system.

    • #45
  16. Tom Meyer, Ed. Contributor
    Tom Meyer, Ed.
    @tommeyer

    Naudious: 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.

    Basically, yes.

    I’d add that a good way to handle it might be the old technique — Is it a philippic? I’m distressingly rusty on this stuff — of calling attention to it in passing and taking it for granted but then going into other stuff. Something like:

    Of course Hillary Clinton tried to cover up an assault on the US embassy facility in Benghazi and blame it on a YouTube video. But that’s not even the reason we should be upset with her. [Insert policy highlight].

    • #46
  17. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    Tom,

    Paralipsis, or perhaps proslepsis?

    Any thoughts?

    Great technique and practiced often by politicians.

    • #47
  18. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    They (Clintons) have always been knee deep in scandal and somehow it all bounces off – why? I think you make a good point in that hollering the same points gives fuel to the thought process that conservatives are just out to get her. Do both –  Getting out stronger messages about our country’s security and highlighting the instances where we’ve had major breaches in security. People forget it affects not only our country’s safety but their personal lives as well. There were so many instances last year where large amounts of personal information was hacked, in retail, on state and federal levels, banks, you could hardly keep up. A Commander in Chief needs the best security team and resources in the world – she gets an automatic F there.

    By the way, at first glance I saw your post’s on line name and thought it said nauseous – next to your featured picture and thought how fitting….funny!

    • #48
  19. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    But wait…there’s more there there. From FoxNews this morning.

    • #49
  20. dbeck Inactive
    dbeck
    @dbeck

    My greatest fear is that the fickle public will get tired of the whole business and turn it off mentally, then stay home and not vote. It has been proven time and time again that the pubic has no long term support for justice or democracy.

    We are selfish people with no staying power for long term battles. We backed out of every war since Vietnam with out sewing it up. Grenada and Panama don’t count as wars just military adventures.

    Disaffected democrats are supporting Trump but for how long? He is starting to sound nutty. I have been a Trump supporter but am getting an empty gut feeling every time he opens his mouth these days.

    It is correct to say pick and choose when to mention the glaring flaws and crimes of her-lady-ship the anointed one. The general public loses interest quickly and goes back into their shell. We can no longer be outraged as a nation because we are morally bankrupt and politically lazy. Proof is the current CiC.

    • #50
  21. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    What was the original title of this post? It had a substantially different meaning than the current title.

    • #51
  22. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    dbeck:My greatest fear is that the fickle public will get tired of the whole business and turn it off mentally, then stay home and not vote. It has been proven time and time again that the pubic has no long term support for justice or democracy.

    We are selfish people with no staying power for long term battles. We backed out of every war since Vietnam with out sewing it up. Grenada and Panama don’t count as wars just military adventures.

    Disaffected democrats are supporting Trump but for how long? He is starting to sound nutty. I have been a Trump supporter but am getting an empty gut feeling every time he opens his mouth these days.

    It is correct to say pick and choose when to mention the glaring flaws and crimes of her-lady-ship the anointed one. The general public loses interest quickly and goes back into their shell. We can no longer be outraged as a nation because we are morally bankrupt and politically lazy. Proof is the current CiC.

    Not staying in for long battles is the nature of a commercial republic. “Where’s the Outrage?” has been said for ages. Even in the great and shining example of WWII, the nation was ready to be done fighting in 1945. Those that had fought in Europe did not want to fight in the pacific.

    • #52
  23. James Madison Member
    James Madison
    @JamesMadison

    dbeck,

    People, voters, shy away from ad hominem attacks. We love it when our candidates do it, we dislike it when others do it. Such attacks have to be handled carefully. The general public dimisses such attacks as political posturing – as not factual or if factual, exaggerated.

    Naudious seems to be warning us away from making this mistake when appealing to others to take action. Overplay your hand, and you lose the audience.

    It’s worth considering, no matter how guilty we think Hillary is. “They” may not be as attuned to the ‘facts’ as we know them.

    Persuasion is a funny thing. Hard to accomplish, especially in a polarized country with 20% on both extremes absolutely certain they cannot trust the other side and a large number of partisans in the second and fourth quintile looking for reinforcement of their positions leaving a good 20% or so who are in the middle and maybe up for grabs. That is the trick- convince the middle and you can win. Alienate them or shut them down, and a just cause goes unheard.

    And no, no one said the process, the media or the principles, will play fair.

    • #53
  24. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    James Madison:dbeck,

    People, voters, shy away from ad hominem attacks. We love it when our candidates do it, we dislike it when others do it. Such attacks have to b e handled carefully. The general public dimisses such attacks as political posturing – as not factual or if factual, exaggerated.

    Naudious seems to be warning us away from making this mistake when appealing to others to take action. Overplay your hand, and you lose the audience.

    It’s worth considering, no matter how guilty we think Hillary is. “They” may not be as attuned to the ‘facts’ as we know them.

    Persuasion is a funny thing. Hard to accomplish, especially in a polarized country with 20% on both extremes absolutely certain they cannot trust the other side and a large number of partisans in the second and fourth quintile looking for reinforcement of their positions leaving a good 20% or so who are in the middle and maybe up for grabs. That is the trick- convince the middle and you can win. Alienate them or shut them down, and a just cause goes unheard.

    And no, no one said the process, the media or the principles, will play fair.

    Going negative works. The people eat it up, regardless of what they say.

    Now, I think the FBI will investigate and exonerate Clinton of any wrongdoing, so that is a reason not to make a lot of hay about this.

    • #54
  25. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    FBI does not put 150 agents on a single case unless its looking to build a case that they want prosecuted.  Read this:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

    I am increasingly convinced that she won’t even be the nominee.  Regardless of what the Republicans SHOULD do, the fact is that increasingly, the only two things that will get any airtime in the campaign are (i) stories on the FBI’s progress and (ii) whatever Trump says.

    • #55
  26. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    The FBI investigation…. has expanded” are certainly not the words any candidate ever wants to see written about themselves.

    Is it really possible she’ll be brought down under the weight of her own legal violations?  I have my doubts, but articles like the one shared from Fox certainly give me hope.

    P.S. A YouTube video of the Hillary perp walk would become the most watched and most liked video of all time.  I’d have it running on a loop in my office.

    • #56
  27. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    I think Tucker Carlson said it right on Gutfeld last night.  With everything we know, how can she not be indicted?

    • #57
  28. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Red Fish, Blue Fish:I think Tucker Carlson said it right on Gutfeld last night. With everything we know, how can she not be indicted?

    Because she is a Democrat

    • #58
  29. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    James Madison:dbeck,

    People, voters, shy away from ad hominem attacks. We love it when our candidates do it, we dislike it when others do it. Such attacks have to b e handled carefully. The general public dimisses such attacks as political posturing – as not factual or if factual, exaggerated.

    Naudious seems to be warning us away from making this mistake when appealing to others to take action. Overplay your hand, and you lose the audience.

    It’s worth considering, no matter how guilty we think Hillary is. “They” may not be as attuned to the ‘facts’ as we know them.

    Persuasion is a funny thing. Hard to accomplish, especially in a polarized country with 20% on both extremes absolutely certain they cannot trust the other side and a large number of partisans in the second and fourth quintile looking for reinforcement of their positions leaving a good 20% or so who are in the middle and maybe up for grabs. That is the trick- convince the middle and you can win. Alienate them or shut them down, and a just cause goes unheard.

    And no, no one said the process, the media or the principles, will play fair.

    Uh…forgive me…but in this case, the facts – the actual emails – have been presented and are now a matter of public record. We’re not dealing with vague accusations. Actual statutes and laws have been violated. They can be cited in each and every comment about Hillary’s unsuitability to become President. And again – the FBI doesn’t investigate violations of law based on the whims and attention span of the general pubic. Publicly articulating that the FBI and the DoJ do their job and pursue justice and not consider Clinton above the law when it’s clear she has violated numerous laws is necessary to further erode her support. Backing off or going about this in a timid way doesn’t bring her support down and only enables her surrogates to crow that there’s no there there when we all know there’s so much there there that the FBI is now expanding its investigation.

    • #59
  30. Red Fish, Blue Fish Inactive
    Red Fish, Blue Fish
    @RedFishBlueFish

    Also, what’s interesting is that the public corruption aspect actually implicates Bill Clinton as well.  Recall, the payment in some cases (e.g. the approval of the Russian company acquisition of uranium mines) was a hefty speaking fee for Bill.

    It’s going to be a massive historical event if the public corruption is pursued.  I am skeptical on that part of the case though.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.