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
So if Hillary accuses nominee Cruz, during a debate, of calling the Supreme Court satanic because Cruz’s father said the gay marriage decision was of the devil, in your view would it be okay, or not okay, for Cruz to respond, “Well, I suppose all families have a little baggage. My dad is an evangelical who believes God plays a real role in the world, and your husband is an accused rapist. I guess the American people will have to decide which is more consequential.”?
I am skeptical of this Justice Department period. They spend more effort going after cops than crooks.
This is actually the more significant issue. The performance of the Justice Department with respect to ‘rule of law’ issues, in general, and enforcement evenhandedness, in particular, is more important. There is probably not much left out there not yet used to communicate Clinton’s willful wrongdoing. If the FBI folds on this, we have bigger problems.
I actually think in the end that Obama is going to realize that letting Hillary off the hook is not in his own interest. Remember, he actually dislikes her and the rest of the Clintons. He is going to conclude somewhere along the way that if DOJ fails to pursue Clinton following an FBI report that recommend indictment, the Dems would get routed in November by both the Trumpers and the those Feeling the Bern, both of who would completely bail on the Dems. Maybe they won’t vote for Cruz, but they would not show up for Hillary. His best play will eventually be to negotiate a plea deal with Clinton, part of which is her agreeing not to run, and then slotting in Biden at the convention or before. The big “if” on this is that its only if the FBI wants an indictment and sticks to it.
He could not campaign for Hillary if his own FBI is recommending an indictment as that would have seriously negative effects on his legacy – and that he cares about.
I agree with the title of this post. Open-toed footwear is no strategy for winning an election. Besides being an impractical choice during the cool weather months of campaigning, it opens candidates up to scrutiny of the hygiene they practice with their nails. Then there is the question of whether to use polish or go natural. Would polish mean you are trying to hide something? Do natural nails say you’re more authentic?
There is no doubt footwear will play a role in determining this election, but the design of beer coozy campaign swag and final four picks for March Madness will need to be carefully considered as well.
So no, sandals will not be enou … wait … is there a “c” in there?
…
Nevermind.
Brian S.,
You are right that negative works – in a campaign advertisement sort of way. When turning the wheels of justice, you want to look calm, fair. That is why Goudy keep trying to make the Benghazi hearings fair, factual and without leaks, while Elijah Cummings kept trying to portray it as a dead end, vindictive, witch hunt. Goudy was carrying the day until Kevin McCarthy tripped up.
Over playing the cards, showing bias, putting partisanship before the nation, . . . is also why the public recoiled from the Clinton impeachment trial – at least in part. When the halls of justice and police powers are involved, most conservatives want to live under the rule of law, as do most independents and partisans. Few conservatives by definition, are “extreme.” A conservative that chooses to exceed conservative principals starts to look a bit hypocritical or extreme. The extremists tolerate a lot more negative, are willing to speak without thought, and adhere to ‘the ends justify the means.’ This is part of what defines extremism – not understanding appropriate limits for the more normative categories, conservative, libertarian, etc. (whatever normative means?).
This does not mean she is not guilty – it means present this in a careful, thoughtful way.
Brian W.
You make very good points. From reading what you have written elsewhere, I think you know how such information should be used to avoid alienating the important audience – the middle – or as George W. might call them, “the deciders.” Tricky, especially with the media, pols, and pundits working their voodoo to twist the message. Recall Peter Robinson’s post, The Grey Lady, in Fibrilation. Our message is delivered by “us” and “them.”
Naudious is right to preach caution; the Brian’s are true to preach pressure. Steady. Smart. Pressure. My only hope (caution) is make sure the fight is taking us where we want to go. We have lots of ammo. We can’t send her to jail, Loretta Lynch can. We can only want to send her back to Chappaqua to slouch about with a randy Bill. So let’s make that happen!
Some people want someone to break the law on their behalf to get what they want done. This seems to describe Clinton supporters more than any other single characteristic – complete comfortability with ‘realpolitik’.
The problem with Hillary’s ‘problems’ is that none of her supporters care – AT ALL. Point out to a Clinton supporter all of the crooked or shady dealings of the Clintons stretching back to Whitewater in the 1970’s and they simply DO NOT CARE; neither Bill nor Hillary’s crooked dealings are any impediment to their continued support – only the promised outcome. The REAL problem for a Clinton supporter, particularly Hillary supporters, is the fact that Hillary [in particular] can’t be trusted to do anything that isn’t in her own political interest at any given moment. So for a Clinton supporter its a kind of ‘vote and pray’ situation.
It’s the nakedness of this situation that bothers me most. I’ve been saying the same thing about Hillary [in particular] for over twenty years now – AND NONE OF HER SUPPORTERS CARE.
w^3
Bryan with a Y.
So, what you’re saying is that this might be a bit over the top and I should hold off getting crowd funding for mass production: