Karl Rove: Why is Rand Paul beating up on Bill Clinton for old sins?

posted at 4:01 pm on February 11, 2014 by Allahpundit

He said this during a segment on Fox News in which he also insisted that Chris Christie’s presidential hopes are still very much alive. Because of course he did.

I did not realize that a few jabs at the Clenis aimed at parrying the left’s endless “war on women” attacks 32 months out from the next election might matter in deciding the presidency. Now I know better. Way to go, Rand.

Karl Rove took a shot at Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday for attacking Bill Clinton over his “predatory” behavior toward Monica Lewinsky, saying that it’s not good strategy for running for president.

“Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country,” Rove said on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.”

Right, it doesn’t. So what? Why would a week-long skirmish between Paul and the Clintons set any sort of agenda for anything? Christie attacking libertarians last year for challenging the NSA isn’t such a hot agenda either right now given the state of the polls, and unlike the Paul/Clinton fracas, that’ll factor heavily into the next campaign. Interesting that Rove seems less exercised by that than he does by this.

There’s lots of reasons for Rand to pick this fight. By punching up against a far more widely known Democratic pair, he raises his own name recognition. He also shows conservatives that he’s not afraid to get rough if that’s how Democrats want to play. Accuse Republicans of waging a war on women and he’ll remind the media that Hillary’s co-president wasn’t above exploiting his power to bother the interns. At the very least, it might make Democrats think twice about their own demagoguery; if it goes on long enough, it might make them reconsider using Bill Clinton as a campaign weapon this fall. But it probably won’t go on much longer. Judging by his brawl with Christie, Paul likes to attack in a flurry over a few days or weeks and then back away, probably for the same reason that Rove mentions. If you go too negative too often, you become known for it and it overshadows your agenda. If, like me, you think Paul’s a true believer in his libertarian-lite philosophy and its ability to win the election for him (of course he is, he’s a Paul!), that’s the last thing he wants. He’ll drop this once it’s served its purpose.

And that’s the irony of Rove’s criticism. There’s no candidate in the 2016 field on either side who’ll be challenged, by his own party and by the opposition, as much on policy as Paul will. And he knows it, which is why he’s spent the last three years trying to find a way between libertarianism and conservatism. Mainstream righties will scrutinize him to see if he’s too much like dad on foreign policy; libertarians will scrutinize him to see if he’s enough like dad, and whether he’s showing signs of backing off on domestic surveillance or drug war reforms to try to get elected; and Democrats will scrutinize him because they’ll soon be convinced by their party’s leadership that he wants to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment or something. He can call Bill Clinton a predator all he wants but the fate of Paul’s campaign inevitably will turn on whether he can somehow forge a majority coalition in favor of policies that have been marginalized in the past. That being so, why is Rove grumbling about this, unless it’s just his way of suggesting that Paul’s too tin-eared politically to take a chance on in the primaries?

Here’s Scarborough grumbling this morning about the same thing, in case you think the “centrist scold” POV isn’t sufficiently represented by Rove.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Are you frickin kidding me? I hate the GOPe, I hate the GOPe. I will never vote for any of them ever again. I think I might hate them more than the Dems. At least the Dems are doing what benefits their voters.

Architect my azz.. Trying to get another Bushie-squishie elected is more like it.

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Current!

DarkCurrent on February 11, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Smerconish Predicts Hillary’s Numbers Will Rise at ‘Mere Mention’ of Lewinsky’s Name

Asked by Blitzer if the Lewinsky issue, recently raised by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and others makes Clinton “vulnerable,” Smerconish said, “I think it plays well for a primary audience, but I don’t think it grows the tent one iota for a general election.”

“Why, if you were an opponent of Hillary Clinton, would you ever want to bring it up?” Smerconish asked. “All it does is reinforce a very sympathetic portrayal of the former first lady. I’m sure her numbers rise at the mere mention of Monica Lewinsky’s name.”

“People are acting as if this is news because she spoke ill of Lewinsky,” he added, in reference to an article from the Washington Free Beacon. “News would be if Hillary Clinton said something complimentary about the woman who carried on a relationship with her husband.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-smerconish-predicts-hillarys-numbers-will-rise-at-mere-mention-of-lewinskys-name/

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:04 PM

“Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country,” Rove said on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.”

Right, it doesn’t. So what? Why would a week-long skirmish between Paul and the Clintons set any sort of agenda for anything? Christie attacking libertarians last year for challenging the NSA isn’t such a hot agenda either right now given the state of the polls, and unlike the Paul/Clinton fracas, that’ll factor heavily into the next campaign. Interesting that Rove seems less exercised by that than he does by this.

Bingo. I’m not a fan of Rand Paul, but Paul is planting the seed of doubt in the Clinton machine by reminding people that when you vote for one Clinton you get the other, and that it’s not all smiles and sunshine with them.

That’s called “Smart Politics”, Mr. Architect.

Stoic Patriot on February 11, 2014 at 4:05 PM

The question isn’t why is Rand Paul doing this. The question is, why isn’t every republican.

And f*ck you, Karl Rove.

rrpjr on February 11, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Karl Rove: Why is Rand Paul beating up on Bill Clinton for old sins?

Why not?

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 11, 2014 at 4:06 PM

Hey, Rove. Your disastrous policies caused the country to turn against Republicans and gave us unfettered Democrat control. Forgive us if we don’t give much weight to your opinion on how we should move forward. Other than to run screaming from your recommendations.

besser tot als rot on February 11, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Our country is lucky to have Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, two Republicans willing and able to go on the offensive with facts.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

I don’t know the plan on Rand Paul’s mind but must I remind you…You don’t want the democrats rallying around Clinton this early.

You better hope another “Obama” comes along and torpedoes her campaign because as we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

I don’t know the plan on Rand Paul’s mind but must I remind you…You don’t want the democrats rallying around Clinton this early.

You better hope another “Obama” comes along and torpedoes her campaign because as we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Awww. I just love it when leftwing statists give conservatives advice on what they should do to “win.”

besser tot als rot on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Karl Rove should be spending time trying to defeat Democrats, not attacking his fellow Republicans.

Or is that rule only for conservative types?

JR on February 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Go away Karl. Nobody likes you anymore.

Nessuno on February 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

The Turd Blossom is blooming again. It’s what a status quo R does…

Gohawgs on February 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

… and people listen to Karl Rove exactly *why* again?

Midas on February 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Nothing wrong with sending a few jabs in the direction of Bill and Hillary Clinton over this issue, not something you want to build an entire campaign around, but hard to see the issue with Paul mentioning it now

Dr.B on February 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

The question isn’t why is Rand Paul doing this. The question is, why isn’t every republican.

And f*ck you, Karl Rove.

rrpjr on February 11, 2014 at 4:06 PM

If a handful of Republicans followed Rand’s lead on this, the “War on Women” meme would be greatly neutralized. If the shoe was on the other foot Democrats would be jumping all over themselves at a chance like this.

midgeorgian on February 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

i much aqua buddha are we suppose to swallow.

renalin on February 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM

we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Impeachment.

Try again.

portlandon on February 11, 2014 at 4:14 PM

There’s lots of reasons for Rand to pick this fight. By punching up against a far more widely known Democratic pair, he raises his own name recognition. He also shows conservatives that he’s not afraid to get rough if that’s how Democrats want to play. Accuse Republicans of waging a war on women and he’ll remind the media that Hillary’s co-president wasn’t above exploiting his power to bother the interns. At the very least, it might make Democrats think twice about their own demagoguery; if it goes on long enough, it might make them reconsider using Bill Clinton as a campaign weapon this fall. But it probably won’t go on much longer. Judging by his brawl with Christie, Paul likes to attack in a flurry over a few days or weeks and then back away, probably for the same reason that Rove mentions. If you go too negative too often, you become known for it and it overshadows your agenda.

Brilliant analysis, AP.
This is why you make the big bucks. :)

itsnotaboutme on February 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM

I don’t see it a bad thing to spend the next 32 months pointing out that the gal that seems to be destined for the Dem nomination was not only aware up but an abetter of Bill Clinton’s serial rapes and assaults. It will taint the whole “you can’t attack me on women’s issues because I am one.” Nothing says war on women more than standing by your man as he screws an intern with your full knowledge.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Rand Paul is just pointing out that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and also a beloved Democrat, which, according to the media, can’t be the same person.

JR on February 11, 2014 at 4:16 PM

“…why is Rove grumbling about this, unless it’s just his way of suggesting that Paul’s too tin-eared politically to take a chance on in the primaries?”

I think Rove sees Christie weakened and he’s lashing out at the guy who hasn’t been afraid to call Christie out, the guy who just might upset the GOP Establishment applecart. Rove is afraid of Paul and the possibility that the party base may be in the process of showing him and the rest of the current party establishment the door.

novaculus on February 11, 2014 at 4:17 PM

we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Might want to check on ol’ Bill’s success ratio campaigning for other democrats. It ain’t good.

Lanceman on February 11, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Nothing says war on women more than standing by your man as he screws an intern with your full knowledge.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM


THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ladyingray on February 11, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Is Karl stupid? Doesn’t he get that Rand is pestering the dems about the war on women meme? Yikes, what a jerk.

djl130 on February 11, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Tell Rove to take a hike. Reminding people of how crude, immoral and dishonest Bill Clinton is may awaken Americans to the dangers of Hillary. Everything possible must be done to keep that disgusting woman out of the White House. As for Rove . . . screw him.

rplat on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

I don’t know the plan on Rand Paul’s mind but must I remind you…You don’t want the democrats rallying around Clinton this early.

You better hope another “Obama” comes along and torpedoes her campaign because as we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Yeah, thanks snowflake. You want me to dish out advice on what the Dems should be doing? Hint: It involves dumping Killary.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Things Karl Rove will not say:

Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in jail for Benghazi, if not Vince Foster?
Why isn’t Barack Obama being impeached?
Mitt Romney lost because he is a RINO squish.
The Tea Party is helpful to the cause.

Etc, etc, etc

SouthernGent on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Hillary has the charisma of a damp rag. The inevitability of her election (and nomination for that matter) have been greatly exaggerated.

midgeorgian on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Yeah, thanks snowflake. You want me to dish out advice on what the Dems should be doing? Hint: It involves dumping Killary.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Shhh.

davidk on February 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM

If Newt’s marital/sexual past was important enough to keep hammering on last election cycle, than so are the pasts of misogynistic dix like Clinton, and John Edwards. Period. And taking Rove’s advice is about as smart as trusting Jug Ears.

waterytart on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

“Frankly, Rand Paul Karl Rove spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill ClintonRand Paul does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country,” Rove said on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.”

I really don’t understand Rove’s obsession with attacking conservatives who go after liberals. It’s the John McCain strategy, and it fails.

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Nothing says war on women more than standing by your man as he screws an intern with your full knowledge.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM

I thought it was a cigar.

davidk on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Karl Rove: Why is Rand Paul beating up on Bill Clinton for old sins?

Rand Paul: Why is Karl Rove such a douche?

redguy on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

don’t know the plan on Rand Paul’s mind but must I remind you…You don’t want the democrats rallying around Clinton this early.

You better hope another “Obama” comes along and torpedoes her campaign because as we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Don’t know much about History. He lost a congressional race in Arkansas and the the govenors race to Frank White.

celtic warrior on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Oh I can’t wait until your primaries. It is going to be a blood bath with Biden taking shots at Clinton because it knows they fight dirty.

Can’t wait to grab my popcorn with gleeee.

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

I really don’t understand Rove’s obsession with attacking conservatives who go after liberals. It’s the John McCain strategy, and it fails.

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Because the establishment pays Rove millions of dollars to attack conservatives.

redguy on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Hillary has the charisma of a damp rag. The inevitability of her election (and nomination for that matter) have been greatly exaggerated.

midgeorgian on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Hillary is NOT losing to a Republican that’s a given.

Her only impediment to the Presidency is another “Obama type” figure winning the nomination.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Things Karl Rove will not say:

Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in jail for Benghazi,

Etc, etc, etc

SouthernGent on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

GOP House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon gives clean chit to Hillary and Obama Administration on Benghazi. There is a new Armed Services Committee report out today:

V. There was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. However, because official reviews after the attack were not sufficiently comprehensive, there was confusion about the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.

VI. The Department of Defense is working to correct many weaknesses revealed by the Benghazi attack, but the global security situation is still deteriorating and military resources continue to decline.

“Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.

Between this report and Petraeus endorsement, Hillary can repel Benghazi attacks easily.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Is Karl stupid? Doesn’t he get that Rand is pestering the dems about the war on women meme? Yikes, what a jerk.

djl130 on February 11, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Rove would rather see another Clinton in the White House to keep his cushy job with the establishment. If conservatives win – well – the gravy train would be over for Rove…..

redguy on February 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Rand Paul shouldn’t have gone there because it makes her look good. The initial segment where this came up, which I saw, was a hot mess and I’m not sure why Paul, who is a good politician, is doubling down. Really, Republican politicians should have stock answers on the War on Womenz (as well as abortion/ rape); they always make fools of themselves. Here is an answer for the War on Womenz.. “Republicans respect women enough to know that they are concerned about more than just sex. Democratic economic policies, especially Obamacare, have harmed many women. For instance, (insert example of working mom who lost health coverage here.)”

Illinidiva on February 11, 2014 at 4:26 PM

I’m also reminded that Rand Paul called out Hillary for ignoring security requests in Benghazi and correctly observed she should have been fired for incompetence.

rhombus on February 11, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Karl Rove Obama

or

Karl Rove Clinton

22044 on February 11, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Go away Karl. Nobody likes you anymore.

Nessuno on February 11, 2014 at 4:11 PM

This.

I am so tire of Karl Effing Rove. Someone get the hook this guy needs to pulled off the stage.

magicbeans on February 11, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Electing Hillary means that ObamaCare would be a Frankenstein on steroids…..

Forget the war on women and Benghazi…..

It would be a war on what is left of conservatism……

redguy on February 11, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Hillary is NOT losing to a Republican that’s a given.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Translation: “LALALALALALALA I can’t hear you! LALALALALALA Hillary’s not losing!!!”

Don’t forget to stamp your feet.

Lanceman on February 11, 2014 at 4:27 PM

You might want to put some ice on it

Megyn Kellys Lipstick on February 11, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Oh I can’t wait until your primaries. It is going to be a blood bath with Biden taking shots at Clinton because it knows they fight dirty.

Can’t wait to grab my popcorn with gleeee.

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Don’t forget that Kerry is sniffing around as well. In other words, you might want to look into bulk popcorn sales.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Rove would rather see another Clinton in the White House to keep his cushy job with the establishment. If conservatives win – well – the gravy train would be over for Rove…..

redguy on February 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM

You may be correct about the former but you lost me on the latter. Rove will find a gray train, regardless. But who cares? Electing a conservative isn’t about cutting off Rove’s oxygen. If FoxNews doesn’t keep paying, he can always end up like Buchanan or Scareborough and be the left’s pet conservative. He’d probably make even more gravy that way.

rhombus on February 11, 2014 at 4:31 PM

I see Illinidiva, aka Rove’s paid puppet, is bashing Rand’s move. Big shock. What makes me laugh is how bringing up Bill’s infidelity makes her sympathetic. Since when is gaining sympathy a major trait for a presidential candidate? Kind of cuts against the need to be tough and bold. If anything, she looks weak because she continually looked the other way at Bill’s womanizing.

Bitter Clinger on February 11, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Her only impediment to the Presidency is another “Obama type” figure winning the nomination.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:24 PM

You mean an unaccomplished, platitude-spouting, incompetent, lying, leftist gasbag who couldn’t wash their own car without somehow burning down half the neighborhood in the process?

Killary would have to lose to herself….how is that even possible?

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 4:33 PM

AP – call off your sock puppet. Please!

22044 on February 11, 2014 at 4:34 PM

No question, it’s pretty dumb. Clinton left office with high ratings, partly because of jughead Rs hounding him mercilessly over this women nonsense. Why not bash Clinton for all his support of Obamacare in the last few years. Wouldn’t that be more effective?

cimbri on February 11, 2014 at 4:35 PM

we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.
liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

They just lose to dog eating, wannabe Marxist kings who wear mom jeans.

jawkneemusic on February 11, 2014 at 4:35 PM

I agree with Rove: we need to present more sunny white papers to an electorate that reelected a president out of fear of birth control prohibition.

crrr6 on February 11, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Why is Rand Paul beating up on Bill Clinton for old sins?

Gosh, could it be that Hillary is going to be the Donk nominee and that because the lapdog MSM will never say One Bad Thing about her Rand feels he needs to start doing Battlespace Preparation for the clueless GOP, particularly with the low-information voters who get their news from tabloids and if THIS INFORMATION is in the tabloids they might not think Hilary is The Greatest Woman in the World?

Just a guess on my part, Turd Blossom.

Bruno Strozek on February 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Oh I can’t wait until your primaries. It is going to be a blood bath with Biden taking shots at Clinton because it knows they fight dirty.

Can’t wait to grab my popcorn with gleeee.

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:23 PM

Don’t forget that Kerry is sniffing around as well. In other words, you might want to look into bulk popcorn sales.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Hillary is the one eating popcorn today after GOP House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon released Benghazi Investigation report that gives her a clean chit.

No post here so far on that important Benghazi report.

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM

I’m also reminded that Rand Paul called out Hillary for ignoring security requests in Benghazi and correctly observed she should have been fired for incompetence.

rhombus on February 11, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Allah alludes to it but IMO, Rand (who has daddy problems of his own) has decided the way to attack Killary is to subtlely demonize her for the next three years. At this point you’re not attacking her because she’s a girl You’re attacking her because she was a lousy SecState. You’re attacking her because she put aside the fact that her husband was a serial rapist and sexual predator to work on the team that came up with the political strategy to spin these facts.

In short, character assassination bit by bit to take even more of the luster off the “smartest woman in the world” absurdity. It’s not a bad plan. The Killary Klinton Kamp really can’t respond the way they could if it all comes out during the campaign. Now is the time to establish that she was not a friend to women, she was not a good SecState, and she’s not all that bright. Drip. Drip. Drip.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Her only impediment to the Presidency is another “Obama type” figure winning the nomination.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:24 PM

No, her only impediment is that she is an idiot. She wants to be considered a strong woman, but will use her status as the “little woman” and right the coat tails of her husband for years. Furthermore, she made a big deal about the big, bad GOP coming up into her space during a debate. She makes REAL strong women look bad.

And Biden, and possibly Kerry will do worse that Paul is doing. Bring on whitewater again, Fostergate again, Benghazi etc. I am going to love the Dem primaries. Bloody, bloody, bloody.

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:37 PM

Jocking to be Ted Cruz’s VP. Go, go attack dawg, Rand!

Jeddite on February 11, 2014 at 4:38 PM

right the coat tails

Ride the coat tails. Freudian slip.. I didn’t want to put ride and Bill Clinton in the same sentence.. Ugh..

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Hillary is going to be extremely difficult to beat. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

I have no idea if Paul’s decision to bring up Bill is a good one. I can see it working several different ways. I do know that Karl Rove needs to butt out. His time has passed.

DisneyFan on February 11, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Rove is clearly working for the Democrats or more likely the Clintons.

crankyoldlady on February 11, 2014 at 4:40 PM

I didn’t want to put ride and Bill Clinton in the same sentence.. Ugh..

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:39 PM

That’s because Bill done us just like he did Monica. He was ridin’ dirty.

Lanceman on February 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Hillary is the one eating popcorn today after GOP House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon released Benghazi Investigation report that gives her a clean chit.

No post here so far on that important Benghazi report.

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Of course they did, because the GOP has NO balls, but I can guarantee you that the Dems have no compunction about going for her throat. You will see Benghazi family members in a commercial blasting Hilary and it will come from Biden’s camp. You mark my words.

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM

I don’t know … ’cause he’s thinking of running for president and thinks he needs to weaken Hillary maybe? Here, I have a better question: Why is Karl Rove talking?

doug.whatzup on February 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM

That’s because Bill done us just like he did Monica. He was ridin’ dirty.

Lanceman on February 11, 2014 at 4:41 PM

LOL– true that.. And given the mental images of Bill’s red face… I can never put cigar or knees in a sentence with his name either.

melle1228 on February 11, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Oh Karl,didn’t you get the memo.You have become irrelevant.No conservative is going to take advice from you,your brand is sorely tarnished.Best stick to playing the Pillsbury Doughboy or is it the Michelin Tire guy?Those ads must be quite lucrative for you!

redware on February 11, 2014 at 4:46 PM

as we all know the Clinton’s don’t lose to Republicans.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:09 PM

Except for the 2 times Bill Clinton lost to Republicans in Arkansas. In fact, he became the youngest ex-Governor in U.S. History after losing to Frank White in 1980.

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2014 at 4:48 PM

You mean an unaccomplished, platitude-spouting, incompetent, lying, leftist gasbag who couldn’t wash their own car without somehow burning down half the neighborhood in the process?

Killary would have to lose to herself….how is that even possible?

Bishop on February 11, 2014 at 4:33 PM

That’s part of the rub here. The Killary Klinton Kamp is still sore that Killary lost. It’s not that Obama ran a better campaign, it’s that they ran a lousy candidate whose weaknesses only became apparent when she didn’t sweep to victory in 2008.

The KKK’ers are trying again by trying to quash all competition (as they did in 2008). At some point they’re going have to admit that they don’t have a great candidate, they have somebody that (at best) can be sold as “irregular” at the Dems factory outlet store for lesser offices than President.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Put Felonious Bill on a split screen with Shrillary and show the videos:

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski.”

“What difference does it make?”

And run it over and over and over again. 24/7/365. That ought to do it.

RobertMN on February 11, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Hillary is NOT losing to a Republican that’s a given.

Her only impediment to the Presidency is another “Obama type” figure winning the nomination.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:24 PM

What are her “qualifications” for the job?

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Her only impediment to the Presidency is another “Obama type” figure winning the nomination.

liberalrules on February 11, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Wasn’t there some talk about Pocahontas getting into the race?

Oh, and your concern for conservatives is quite touching
/

Shay on February 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Between this report and Petraeus endorsement, Hillary can repel Benghazi attacks easily.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM

What are her “qualifications” for the job?

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Hillary is going to be extremely difficult to beat. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

DisneyFan on February 11, 2014 at 4:39 PM

So were you in a coma for all of 2008 or just the last half?

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Hillary has the charisma of a damp rag. The inevitability of her election (and nomination for that matter) have been greatly exaggerated.

midgeorgian on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Indeed. She got kicked to the curb, by an unknown (on many levels) one term, unaccomplished senator. Hillary can be beat.

Though, now that I think of it, both Hillary and Obama do share the whole empty suit thing.

Hillary’s greatest accomplishment is, that old feminist trope of standing by her powerful, cheating husband. And getting fired from the Watergate committee for ethical reasons…

I can never understand why any person would look up to her.

Sharr on February 11, 2014 at 4:52 PM

“Liberalloser” a new troll from the Opening of the Gates?

If so, congrats on being a full-on idjit.

Paul is the only candidate who can kick the Clinton’s arse all day and night.

So take your own advice – you better hope someone else comes along without their baggage.

Just take this argument.

Hillary wants to campaign on Women’s equality.

Where’s Bill? Hiding?

So what’s her answer when he’s nowhere to be found? A shrill “Bill’s not running for President, I am”.

In one move, her “Remember the 90′s” nudge-nudge, wink-wink, A vote for me, is a vote for Bill’s Third Term”, has been undermined.

So then it becomes a media game where her surrogates try and reassure white males “you’re still voting for Bill”, while she says the opposite.

And what issue does that raise?

Double-Speak. Lying. Bill Clinton. Senator Clinton lying. Sec State Hillary lying.

And the whole campaign unravels. Because they’re born liars. And after 0Care, no one wants to hear that emo-sentimental BS anymore.

As for Rand? He’s got his record, and by all means – let them bring Ron into the mix. Nothing better than a guy who called it all under Bill and W to put a pox on both houses.

And that’s what Karl’s nervous about. If Rand can go head-long into Lewinksy talk now and not be rebuked, then he sure as hell will go after 43 if Jeb enters the race.

Scorched Earth time, kids. Let It Burn.

budfox on February 11, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Rove doesn’t know anything about an agenda for the future. If he did – he’d get his face off the television and disassociate himself from Republican politics. The left hates the man … the right – hates him too. He’s one of the few guys in America with a lower “favorability” rating than Obama or Boehner. His very FACE jeopardizes the chances of any Republican he gets behind. The man is roundly hated – and not a good messenger for the GOP – and that’s an understatement.

But he won’t get his mug off TV because he’s a damn narcissist and ego-maniac. It’s all about him. Let’s assume he’s right (which is NOT) … he’s more negatively stigmatized than Sarah Palin or Christine O’Donnell could ever hope to be – COMBINED.

What are rich cats giving him their money? He’s a bad investment.

HondaV65 on February 11, 2014 at 4:55 PM

That sounds like the same advice someone gave to Mitt Romney about fighting Obama. Based on what Obama’s done, since he was elected, he didn’t deserve to get re-elected, yet the Republicans couldn’t beat him. They were too afraid. Rand Paul, to his credit, isn’t afraid and Clinton and the Democrats, should have been called on this a long time ago. Why they weren’t probably has more to do with guys like Rove, than guys like Paul.

bflat879 on February 11, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Hillary is the one eating popcorn today after GOP House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon released Benghazi Investigation report that gives her a clean chit.
No post here so far on that important Benghazi report.
Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Findings
I. In assessing military posture in anticipation of the September 11 anniversary, White House officials failed to comprehend or ignored the dramatically deteriorating security situation in Libya and the growing threat to U.S. interests in the region. Official public statements seem to have exaggerated the extent and rigor of the security assessment conducted at the time.
II. U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.

Evidently Hill was not a “White House” official nor did she have any relationship to the Department of State, right?
This is the majority report (all Dem Senators) and even they realize that there is plenty of blame to go around an place some squarely on the State Dept. that was led by HRC. How’s that clean chit?

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Karl Rove is summed up by a John Cougar Mellencamp
song..

“Some people, Ain’t NO DAMN GOOD”!

ToddPA on February 11, 2014 at 4:57 PM

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 4:55 PM

My mistake on the Majority report. It was from the house, so it was gop congressmen. It still wasn’t flattering for the State Dept either way

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Between this report and Petraeus endorsement, Hillary can repel Benghazi attacks easily.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Yeah. That Petraeus endorsement holds a lot of credibility.

The guy says nothing as all this crap is going down, his buddy is torching UBL photos to avoid FOIA, all the while he’s acting like Bill and bonking some sycophant.

Yep. No better person to ride to Hillary’s aide than Petraeus. That photo-op will look great, too.

Bill on one side, flanked by Petraeus on the other. Nice.

budfox on February 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM

That photo-op will look great, too.
Bill on one side, flanked by Petraeus on the other. Nice.
budfox on February 11, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Hilarious visual.

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 5:01 PM

Hillary has the charisma of a damp rag. The inevitability of her election (and nomination for that matter) have been greatly exaggerated.

midgeorgian on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Damp rags may have a bone to pick with you but otherwise you are correct. As I posted above this is the Killary Klinton Kamp, the KKKers, trying to cut off any competition within the Dems by “inevitability.” How’d that work out in 2008, when they did the same thing?

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 5:02 PM

airupthere on February 11, 2014 at 4:55 PM

lol, don’t confuse the new Leftist Under-Bridge Unit with Facts. It is not programmed to respond in that area!

More from that report:

U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a.) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture, b.) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya, and c.) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.

Del Dolemonte on February 11, 2014 at 5:02 PM

I think Senator Paul’s reminding everyone that the possible “First *cough* Gentleman” is one of America’s most famous horndogs and accused rapists is an excellent idea.

But I would like to see Republicans also focus on the revelations that came out yesterday about Hillary’s role in the decision not to intervene in the Balkins earlier than we did.

And Karl Rove – shut up!

Flora Duh on February 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM

Between this report and Petraeus endorsement, Hillary can repel Benghazi attacks easily.

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Shrillary said that Benghazi was her “biggest regret.” Have you heard her explain yet in detail what her regret is?

Anti-Control on February 11, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Why is Rand Paul beating up on Bill Clinton for old sins?

The bigger question might be , why is Karl Rove, once again beating up on conservatives not selected by his bosses in the elitist GOP?
When Karl, will you call upon old Dick Cheney to toss a few metaphorical grenades at them as he did Palin and Cruz?

Don L on February 11, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Bubba Clinton came from an era when the American Media was only mostly controlled by the liberal Democrats. The remnant of real media took Bubba apart, because he was just so corrupt and it was almost fun and games to nail his lying heinies to the wall.

Then the liberals panicked and forced the take-over of 99 percent of the American media and put it under the direct management and control of the Obama State Propaganda Ministry.

The great salvation for the people of the former United States will come after 2016 when anyone connected with the Obama State Propaganda Ministry staves to death, and nobody gives hoot.

dockywocky on February 11, 2014 at 5:08 PM

Watching The Five and Bob Beckel defending Obamacare.

Bob, bless his heart, should be treated like surplus giraffes at Danish zoos. He natters on about all the people helped without ever acknowledging the far greater number of people harmed by Obamacare.

Happy Nomad on February 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Between this report and Petraeus endorsement, Hillary can repel Benghazi attacks easily.

Might_Is_Right on February 11, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Shrillary said that Benghazi was her “biggest regret.” Have you heard her explain yet in detail what her regret is?

Anti-Control on February 11, 2014 at 5:08 PM

My guess is being responsible when it blew up in the Queen of snarl’s face. The new hair and Botox won’t change your rotted soul one bit Hillary.

Don L on February 11, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Go away, Karl.

vityas on February 11, 2014 at 5:12 PM

Hillary has the charisma of a damp rag. The inevitability of her election (and nomination for that matter) have been greatly exaggerated.

midgeorgian on February 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM

…and as ugly as a rolled Yugo to boot!

slickwillie2001 on February 11, 2014 at 5:13 PM

If it’s Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton in the general, I wonder whose campaign Karl Rove would be more likely to work for ??

besser tot als rot on February 11, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Kuck Farl Rove..

Tim Zank on February 11, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3