Romney: Keep focus on Hillary’s record at State

posted at 12:01 pm on February 17, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Should Republicans rehash the Monica Lewinsky scandal if Hillary Clinton bids to win the 2016 Democratic nomination for President, or will that distract from efforts to hold her accountable for her own record? The previous Republican nominee has some advice for his party, offered on Meet the Press with David Gregory yesterday (via The Week):

The Monica Lewinsky scandal shouldn’t be used in Republicans’ case against Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential bid, Mitt Romney said Sunday.

The last Republican presidential nominee cautioned whoever would be the next GOP standard-bearer to steer away from attacks against Bill Clinton, whom Romney said had “breached his responsibility” and “embarrassed” the nation as president by engaging in an extra-marital affair in office.

But he added, “I don’t think Bill Clinton is as relevant as Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for president.”

“She has her own record and her own vision,” Romney said on “Meet the Press” Sunday. … “I think Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee will have plenty to discuss about her own record,” he said. “I don’t imagine that Bill Clinton will be a big part of it.”

Rand Paul justified his focus on Lewinsky on an earlier show, putting it in the context of the Democrats’ “war on women” and the lack of media outrage over Bill Clinton’s behavior:

I have no illusions in determining which person would win with conservatives outside the context of this argument. In this case, though, the establishment, Northeastern, Massachusetts Republican with two losing bids for President is correct.

This was a losing argument for Republicans when Bill Clinton was on the ticket himself, in 1992, 1996, and a final time in 1998′s midterms that was defined by the Lewinsky affair and the GOP reaction to it. The “bimbo eruptions” started early in 1992, but the carefully-prepared Clintons disarmed it in a 60 Minutes interview, and went on to win a three-way race for the presidency. The 1996 election was mostly a replay with a weaker Republican challenger. By 1998, the Lewinsky affair had exploded onto the national scene, and Republicans impeached Clinton in the House while failing to remove him in the Senate for perjury and obstruction in a related lawsuit. But instead of gaining seats in Congress, as the opposition party almost always does against a President in sixth-year midterms, Republicans made no gains in the Senate and lost a handful of seats in the House.

The desire to relitigate 1998 to go back and win this argument is understandable, but it’s futile. At least at the time it had the virtue of relevance, to both the time and the person. In this case it’s irrelevant to both, unless we want to blame Hillary for her husband’s philandering. If Paul thinks that will help Republicans win the PR battle in “the war on women,” he’s going to find himself sadly mistaken. Most voters won’t even remember 1998 by the time 2016 rolls around, and those that do may be looking back fondly on the era’s economics rather than worry about its ethics. That’s not the kind of nostalgia that’s going to win Republican votes.

Romney’s right. We need to focus on Hillary Clinton’s record as an executive, which is as embarrassing as it is short. Mostly, though, we need to produce a Republican candidate with a clear record of success as an executive, implementing conservative policies that worked, and one that will expand the reach of the GOP. We’ll do that by talking about the future, not obsessing over frustrating losses of the past.


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

The GOP establishment is trying to protect her, because she’s their fallback choice in case the GOP doesn’t nominate a big gov’t statist in 2016.

Just like how McAullife in VA was the GOP fallback choice once Cuccinelli got nominated.

will77jeff on February 17, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Oligarchs/Status Quo ’14&’16

Murphy9 on February 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM

I don’t know how that posted.

Anyway, you know exactly why she stepped down. For someone, who identifies themselves as a “rank and file” Republican, you sure do use the same rhetoric as a Liberal Democrat.

kingsjester on February 17, 2014 at 1:10 PM

You didn’t understand the point of my post. You deflected, so I did as well. I know exactly why Palin quit. I can say the same thing about you. You rip on Christie and Romney the same way the people on MSNBC do. I have no problem with Palin, and if she got the nomination, I would vote for her, but the point of my very initial post about Romney not having credibility because he called Obama “a nice guy” is nonsense, because, as I pointed out, Palin did the very same thing.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM

PappyD61 on February 17, 2014 at 1:06 PM

He was the last man anyone should have considered to run against the Left (which I said in 2008). So naturally the RINOs wanted him. Perverse, but this is the truth of our time. If you want to fight and win against the left, you first must solve the Rino problem.

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM

But you’re preaching to the choir here. A Democrat and many Independents would get all fired up about privacy and consensual relationships [ And Hillary escapes. That’s not a good strategy. Hillary, on the other hand, screwed up Benghazi royally and then participated in a lie. Yeah, I think talking about Benghazi is a far better strategery than the ancient definition of “is”. I don’t like wimpy Republicans either but I don’t like stupid ones either.

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM

I don’t know why we can’t hit them on ALL fronts. Is the GOP so incompetent that it can’t walk and chew gum?

I mean Obama hit Romney on:

-homophobic high school bullying
-dog abuse
-Bain Capitol
-Binders full of women
-Rich man syndrome.

Seems Dem know to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks while the GOP is saying “no, no let’s not bring that up.”

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM

The thing is, this is an important issue, inasmuch as the libs mad the Republican War on Women™into a relentless rallying cry. Hillary’s willingness to put ambition ahead of her husband’s philandering and sexual assaults is an important counter to this meme. Unfortunately, the LSM won’t allow it. Ever.

NY2SC on February 17, 2014 at 1:13 PM

The reason the LSM won’t allow it, is because they’re all doing it too! It’s not rocket science. Of course it’s an important issue but when making the case to people who AREN’T JUST LIKE US a better strategy might be employed.

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM

So which one is which?

That’s all I need to know.

Romney was destroying Obama. Some people thought it was even a tad mean-spirited.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Little Davie Brookes doesn’t count.

sharrukin on February 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Memo to all of you folks hijacking this thread: it’s about how to defeat Hillary in 2016, not about blaming Romney for his loss in 2012.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled argument!

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM

I can see from the comments that Mitt Romney’s excellent advice has fallen upon deaf ears. What a shame.

I suspect that Hillary is counting on the fact that CDS is an obsessive-compulsive disorder. She knows that all she has to do is ring the Monica bell and some Republicans will foam at the mouth.

I clearly remember when Newt Gingrich was leading the GOP down the path to destruction. It was clearly obvious that the American people knew that Bill cheated and lied about it. They heard every lurid detail contained in the Starr Report, but they still did not want him impeached. So the House Republicans impeached him.

Newt lost his job. So did the guy who replaced him. Bill Clinton survived and eventually left office at the end of his term with high approval ratings.

Hey, I know! Let’s try that again!!

myiq2xu on February 17, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Of course it’s an important issue but when making the case to people who AREN’T JUST LIKE US a better strategy might be employed.

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I agree. It’s just that bringing this up now has brought forth years of pent up frustration over the whole “it’s only about sex so who cares” thing.

NY2SC on February 17, 2014 at 1:25 PM

I can see from the comments that Mitt Romney’s excellent advice has fallen upon deaf ears. What a shame.

Again, please give Mitt’s qualifications to advise ANYONE on how to win an election

I mean this is a man who let himself get tarred with Binders full of women while is challenger paid the women in his own administration markedly less than the men.

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 1:26 PM

I like Romney, I wish he would have won the last election and become our President.

He lost though. He lost because he didn’t have a good campaign. Why should we listen to him on how to win when he’s a loser?

I have an idea, let’s ask the coach of the Bronco’s how Seattle can be a better team this year.

Baggi on February 17, 2014 at 1:26 PM

That’s all I need to know.

Precisely. The reason why I asked was because whichever side you think Palin falls on, it makes almost invalidates your point. If you think she was just saying it to be polite (meaning she was basically being dishonest), it undermines the point about Palin not being a typical politician, and that she won’t pull any punches when it comes to Obama. If you think she falls on the side where she honestly believes Obama is a “very nice man,” then the point stands on its own.

Little Davie Brookes doesn’t count.

sharrukin on February 17, 2014 at 1:19 PM

Once again, you proved my point. The only people who were saying that Romney was being too much of a bully were the people in the establishment and liberals. Conservatives loved how Romney was debating, and was actually winning that debate until Crowley decided to assist Obama. The point was…it’s hard to say that Romney was agreeing with Obama on everything, when many people thought he was being too much of a bully.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Thank you. Sometimes I feel like people are here to make sure Romney is silenced rather than actually beating Hillary. In a post where Romney actually criticizes Hillary, there are more posts on here ripping Romney than actually ripping Hillary.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM

I have an idea, let’s ask the coach of the Bronco’s how Seattle can be a better team this year.

Baggi on February 17, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Bwwwaaaahhha.. Exactly!

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Did he really lose? We should ask the IRS or the NSA. They’d know for sure.

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 1:29 PM

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Replace Romney with GOP in what you wrote and you’ll be even closer to the mark.

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Romney was debating, and was actually winning that debate until Crowley decided to assist Obama.

Romney won a single debate and lost everything else.

One brief shining moment does not make a campaign.

The point was…it’s hard to say that Romney was agreeing with Obama on everything, when many people thought he was being too much of a bully.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:26 PM

No, it really isn’t that hard at all. The leftists in the GOP and media will ALWAYS say you are mean regardless of what you say or do.

They want the Democrats to win so they will say anything to make that happen.

That doesn’t make it reality.

sharrukin on February 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM

Focus on Benghazi.

But…..Lewinsky, whitewater, vince foster, troopergate are all back on the table.

If Preibus doesn’t have these ads ready to go the day after she announces, then he truly is incompetent.

nazo311 on February 17, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Thank you. Sometimes I feel like people are here to make sure Romney is silenced rather than actually beating Hillary. In a post where Romney actually criticizes Hillary, there are more posts on here ripping Romney than actually ripping Hillary.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Yes, Del always makes great points….you, not so much…

Yes, there is Romney bashing, when Hillary should be the focus.

And what do you do? You head like a magnet to your favorite
Whipping girl…we get it, you don’t care for her…

ToddPA on February 17, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Hillarys will run only on the fact that it would be historic because she’s woman.

The fact she protected Bill targeting women undermines that.

the_nile on February 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM

Replace Romney with GOP in what you wrote and you’ll be even closer to the mark.

rhombus on February 17, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Heh, that works, too.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:38 PM

If Preibus doesn’t have these ads ready to go the day after she announces, then he truly is incompetent.

nazo311 on February 17, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Forget about Preibus and the RNC. The independent PACs will. I don’t believe any of us here give money to the RNC anymore. Only to individual candidates and TEA-party type PACs.

Lanceman on February 17, 2014 at 1:38 PM

If Preibus doesn’t have these ads ready to go the day after she announces, then he truly is incompetent.

nazo311 on February 17, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Forget about Preibus and the RNC. The independent PACs will. I don’t believe any of us here give money to the RNC anymore. Only to individual candidates and TEA-party type PACs.

Lanceman on February 17, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Forget about the GOP.. Any Democrat (Biden, Kerry) who runs in the primary against her is going to have the very first ad on Benghazi.. Can’t wait for my popcorn.

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Romney won a single debate and lost everything else.

One brief shining moment does not make a campaign.

Yeah, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. Romney was killing in that second debate, before Crowley intervened. Even after the handicap match, most polls showed Romney losing that second debate only by a slight margin. Had Crowley not interfered, Romney would have won that second debate as well.

No, it really isn’t that hard at all. The leftists in the GOP and media will ALWAYS say you are mean regardless of what you say or do.

They want the Democrats to win so they will say anything to make that happen.

That doesn’t make it reality.

sharrukin on February 17, 2014 at 1:33 PM

I can say the same thing about people in the Tea Party as well. Unless you’re a member of the TP, you’ll always be called a RINO or an establishment hack or a loser. Heck, a few people even called Rand Paul a RINO when he said some favorable things about immigration reform. That’s how polarized we’ve become.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Forget about the GOP.. Any Democrat (Biden, Kerry) who runs in the primary against her is going to have the very first ad on Benghazi.. Can’t wait for my popcorn.

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 1:40 PM

Yes. Also true. We need to wait to see who may come out to snatch the nomination from her. Let them waste money first.

Lanceman on February 17, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Yes, Del always makes great points….you, not so much…

Yes, there is Romney bashing, when Hillary should be the focus.

And what do you do? You head like a magnet to your favorite
Whipping girl…we get it, you don’t care for her…

ToddPA on February 17, 2014 at 1:35 PM

It’s clear reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit for you. Did you even read my first post? It wasn’t a post bashing Palin at all. It was to expose idesign’s hypocrisy and double standard. Did I rip on Palin for calling Obama “a very nice man”? Nope. Reading is fundamental.

It’s also sad that you think that I only rip on Palin, when just a few weeks ago, you gave me props for actually defending Palin. Tsk tsk.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:44 PM

I agree and disagree. I agree in that Republicans should focus like a laser on Hillary’s “accomplishments” cause that is where she is weak. I can only imagine the interviews and debates where she is asked what she has accomplished and she stammers “Well, I flew so many miles as Secretary of State.”

On the other hand, if Hillary et al come out and go “The Republican nominee wants to wage a war on women.” I think it would be good to say “Oh really? The party who allowed its leader to prey on innocent interns and then defended him tooth and nail is now the party of women?” I can see this as a way to quickly shut down that line of attack before pivoting back to message.

Let’s be honest, the GOP sucks when it comes to messaging when they are accused of being racist, sexist, etc. When accused, the GOP usually shrivels despite having great policies for women. I think Rand Paul’s response is exceptional (because it is bold and doesn’t take Democratic BS) and something that Republicans should be more than ready to trot out in response to put Democrats on the defensive. Again, I am not saying the GOP needs to make this a central plank or message (I very much agree no one is going to want to relive the 90s), but it can be a useful tool if used appropriately.

BobSagetsRevenge on February 17, 2014 at 1:47 PM

The fact that Hillary plotted together with her husband on the political responses to his extramarital affairs should tell you something about her character. She has none and is a ruthless political opportunist of very little skill and moral persuasion.

Mrs Clinton was directly involved in her husbands administration. I don’t think anyone will forget her foray into health care- she was for Obamacare and even worse before she was, err, against it? How popular is that now with the electorate.

The bottom line is that most of Mrs Clinton’s action would have destroyed the presidential aspirations of almost every other candidate. But because of her gender, people tread lightly and fail to address her many shortcomings.

I have no doubt, the more people are exposed to Mrs Clinton’s horrendous record, unethical dealings and destructive policies- the less they will like her.

We’ve already had one unskilled president elected based on fiction, false hero-worship and fictitious tales. We certainly don’t need another.

Marcus Traianus on February 17, 2014 at 1:56 PM

It’s clear reading comprehension isn’t a strong suit for you. Did you even read my first post? It wasn’t a post bashing Palin at all. It was to expose idesign’s hypocrisy and double standard. Did I rip on Palin for calling Obama “a very nice man”? Nope. Reading is fundamental.

It’s also sad that you think that I only rip on Palin, when just a few weeks ago, you gave me props for actually defending Palin. Tsk tsk.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Thanks for the Constructive critique…I’ll make a note of it…

you defended Palin against Nicole Wallace….Please, do archive that.

If there were a Palin thread 365 days a year on here, you
would be critical of her 365 days that year….

you know it, I know it…I read your first post on this thread,
I’ve read your last…..Yes RIF.

Now to complete your RDA of Palin bashing, please post her
polling against Begich……

ToddPA on February 17, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Thank you. Sometimes I feel like people are here to make sure Romney is silenced rather than actually beating Hillary. In a post where Romney actually criticizes Hillary, there are more posts on here ripping Romney than actually ripping Hillary.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Yes, Del always makes great points….you, not so much…

Yes, there is Romney bashing, when Hillary should be the focus.

And what do you do? You head like a magnet to your favorite
Whipping girl…we get it, you don’t care for her…

ToddPA on February 17, 2014 at 1:35 PM

lol, I see everyone has taken my advice…

/

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2014 at 2:07 PM

Had Crowley not interfered, Romney would have won that second debate as well.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Interesting remark. It’s sort of like saying, “if the sun hadn’t risen this morning…” That is, it forfeits control of one’s fate to some natural, ineluctable event. Because the media will ALWAYS intervene. In fact, such a remark, if widely acknowledged as a truth, would only compel the media to intervene.

But let’s take it one step further. (Dare we? Do we have the imagination?) What if Romney (gasp, clutch pearls, get the smelling salts) had, in media res, directly confronted Crowley on her comment, smacked her down, run right over her, and made her intervention an issue in the debate in addition to hammering home his point? What was stopping him?

Yes, what if?

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Now to complete your RDA of Palin bashing, please post her
polling against Begich……

Speaking of Palin,

Suddenly people are noticing that food inflation is a happening and a big problem.

Sarah Palin warned us, and the MSM told her she was a liar.

Here you go you big dopes!!

portlandon on February 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Unless you’re a member of the TP, you’ll always be called a RINO or an establishment hack or a loser.

You poor child. Has the Tea Party been mean to you?

When you decide to crawl down off the cross, try to land on your feet. You’ve been up there a long time.

will77jeff on February 17, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Romney’s right. We need to focus on Hillary Clinton’s record as an executive, which is as embarrassing as it is short.

Why is this a controversy? Can’t everyone say whatever they like? We will all be at home saying we don’t want Bill anywhere near the oval office for the reason of Monica Lewinsky, disrespect of the oval office and his impeachment and disbarment because of perjury. And if you recall, the backlash if you blame Hilary for what he did and her declaration that it was all a right wing conspiracy…well you would think you were Lazio and waving a paper in her face! They will drum up female tears over terrible treatment of Hilary.

Who is not sick of Hilary. I am. At this point I think she should just go away. Benghazi was all her fault and her cover up.

Fleuries on February 17, 2014 at 2:12 PM

Thanks for the Constructive critique…I’ll make a note of it…

you defended Palin against Nicole Wallace….Please, do archive that.

If there were a Palin thread 365 days a year on here, you
would be critical of her 365 days that year….

you know it, I know it…I read your first post on this thread,
I’ve read your last…..Yes RIF.

Now to complete your RDA of Palin bashing, please post her
polling against Begich……

ToddPA on February 17, 2014 at 2:00 PM

That was just one example of my defense of her. I’ve also defended her against the idiots of MSNBC, bluegill, libfree, and I’ve always said that I would have no problem voting for if she became the nominee (I did it in this thread, in fact). You live in a bubble, so you assume that I always rip on Palin. Your love of Palin is no different than Obamabots’ love of Obama. It’s okay to be critical of her sometimes. I was a Romney guy, and I’ve had no problem criticizing him. I’ve been also very vocal that I don’t think he should run again.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 2:15 PM

One song said it all. Only able to find the lyrics so far:
It’s Jello!
I sing it to myself every time I see or hear her.

P. Logan on February 17, 2014 at 2:19 PM

But let’s take it one step further. (Dare we? Do we have the imagination?) What if Romney (gasp, clutch pearls, get the smelling salts) had, in media res, directly confronted Crowley on her comment, smacked her down, run right over her, and made her intervention an issue in the debate in addition to hammering home his point? What was stopping him?

Yes, what if?

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM

You miss the point of why I pointed this out in the first place. The initial comment was that Romney basically agreed with Obama on every point. This is nonsense. I don’t know of anyone, after watching that second debate, thought that Romney agreed with Obama on…well anything. There were many things Romney was criticized for after that second debate (mainly by the establishment and liberals). Agreeing with Obama was not one of them.

In fact, you unintentionally helped me make my point. That point in the debate is a perfect illustration of how Romney didn’t agree with Obama. If Romney and Obama agreed, there would not have been a need for Obama and Crowley to tag team to take Romney down. Whether he responded adequately or not doesn’t address the reason why I raised that point in the first place.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM

I have no illusions in determining which person would win with conservatives outside the context of this argument. In this case, though, the establishment, Northeastern, Massachusetts Republican with two losing bids for President is correct.

I laughed out loud when I read this. I knew when I saw the headline that Mr. Morrissey would tilt the argument this way. C’mon, Ed, she’s fair game from every angle one can put forth. If she can’t handle the heat, she needs to stop baking cookies and get out the kitchen.

SouthernGent on February 17, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Expect Bill Clinton to pull out all the stops on getting Hillary elected.

He is salivating over a new crop of interns to prey upon.

Another_Concerned_American on February 17, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Whether he responded adequately or not doesn’t address the reason why I raised that point in the first place.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM

You are right. My apologies. I was really striking out on a tangent of my own, which did not relate to your comment as much as I thought.

My point is simply that we too easily accept the world that the left and media create for us. Romney had every opportunity to challenge this world, even to shake it to its corrupt foundation. Indeed, Crowley actually offered him a huge gift and opening to do so. Just as his Benghazi press conference and the blowback offered him the ideal opportunity to make the media an issue in the campaign. But he could not; he was never capable of doing so. No RINO is. It’s why they are RINOs in the first place. This campaign was a tragedy — a giant black hole of wasted opportunity. The lessons for the media were that their strategies work. Romney’s shameful derelictions and weakness just made it that much harder for all of us.

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Headline:

Romney said Bill Clinton Breached Responsibility and Eembarrassed the Nation as President by engaging in an extra-marital affair in office.

Fleuries on February 17, 2014 at 3:13 PM

Ed, I don’t think anybody is desirous of ‘relitigating’ 1998. However, as Kathleen Willey said this weekend, it was Hillary’s idea to use the ‘slut strategy’ against all the women who were involved, even Juanita Broderick(sp?), who convinced me (and NBC and lots of others) she was raped. I think Rand is right on in trying to hang that around Hillary’s neck. Not that Bill did it, but that Hillary, proto-feminist, achieved power not on her on, but through her husband (a MAN!!!!), not through herself, and would do anything, including lying about other women, to keep it.

Additionally, taking the advice of the man who would not hang Bengazi around Obama’s neck, and who probably lost because of it, is very clearly not the best advice to take. NBC is dragging Romney out of retirement to pour water on any fire Rand Paul could start.

jclittlep on February 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Amazing even conservative commentators won’t mention Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Clinton, which he never denied when asked about it in 1998. You might think it might have some bearing whether we have a rapist in the White House, particularly when the Dems want to talk about the GOP war on women.

BushyGreen on February 17, 2014 at 3:15 PM

jclittlep on February 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Right on all points.

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 3:20 PM

You are right. My apologies. I was really striking out on a tangent of my own, which did not relate to your comment as much as I thought.

My point is simply that we too easily accept the world that the left and media create for us. Romney had every opportunity to challenge this world, even to shake it to its corrupt foundation. Indeed, Crowley actually offered him a huge gift and opening to do so. Just as his Benghazi press conference and the blowback offered him the ideal opportunity to make the media an issue in the campaign. But he could not; he was never capable of doing so. No RINO is. It’s why they are RINOs in the first place. This campaign was a tragedy — a giant black hole of wasted opportunity. The lessons for the media were that their strategies work. Romney’s shameful derelictions and weakness just made it that much harder for all of us.

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 2:32 PM

You make many valid points, although I do think it’s too simplistic to say that he lost simply because he’s a RINO. Which conservative do you think would have beat Obama? Cain? Gingrich? Santorum?

Sometimes, I think we take the easy way out and simplify it as, “Hey, he lost because he’s a RINO,” or “Hey, he lost because he’s a Tea Partier.” I just don’t think that helps us any. To tell you the truth, last time the Republicans nominated a Tea Party type conservative was probably Goldwater, and we know how that turned out. Tea Partiers often invoke Reagan as their type of conservative, but with his record on taxes as Governor in California and his stance on illegal immigration, he, too, would probably be called a RINO. And this is why Democrats win elections. I’m not blaming the Tea Party for that. The establishment is just as guilty (trying to take down great TP candidates like Rubio, Rand, and Haley). Both sides are just so blinded by their own loyalty, we miss out on great candidates. I’m proud to say that I’ve voted for Tea Party candidates and establishment candidates, and I wish people wouldn’t vote for or against someone just because they’re establishment or because they’re Tea Party.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Ed, I don’t think anybody is desirous of ‘relitigating’ 1998. However, as Kathleen Willey said this weekend, it was Hillary’s idea to use the ‘slut strategy’ against all the women who were involved, even Juanita Broderick(sp?), who convinced me (and NBC and lots of others) she was raped. I think Rand is right on in trying to hang that around Hillary’s neck. Not that Bill did it, but that Hillary, proto-feminist, achieved power not on her on, but through her husband (a MAN!!!!), not through herself, and would do anything, including lying about other women, to keep it.

Exactly! This is relevant now because it recently made the news when one of Hilary’s confidant’s diary became public.

Additionally, taking the advice of the man who would not hang Bengazi around Obama’s neck, and who probably lost because of it, is very clearly not the best advice to take. NBC is dragging Romney out of retirement to pour water on any fire Rand Paul could start.

jclittlep on February 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM

+1

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 3:22 PM

This was a losing argument for Republicans when Bill Clinton was on the ticket himself…

Probably true. However, Rand Paul seems to see some advantage as staking out the position of being aggressively anti-Xlinton. And that probably helps his overall standing with 2016 GOP base voters in early primary states.

Rand Paul would be smart to keep hitting at her lackluster record as SoS along with the general sleaziness of the Xlinton regime.

Toocon on February 17, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Ed, I don’t think anybody is desirous of ‘relitigating’ 1998. However, as Kathleen Willey said this weekend, it was Hillary’s idea to use the ‘slut strategy’ against all the women who were involved, even Juanita Broderick(sp?), who convinced me (and NBC and lots of others) she was raped. I think Rand is right on in trying to hang that around Hillary’s neck. Not that Bill did it, but that Hillary, proto-feminist, achieved power not on her on, but through her husband (a MAN!!!!), not through herself, and would do anything, including lying about other women, to keep it.

Additionally, taking the advice of the man who would not hang Bengazi around Obama’s neck, and who probably lost because of it, is very clearly not the best advice to take. NBC is dragging Romney out of retirement to pour water on any fire Rand Paul could start.

jclittlep on February 17, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Yup, I think the establishment has dragged out Rove to protect Clintons too.

the_nile on February 17, 2014 at 3:27 PM

I am in complete agreement with all the conservatives who say we should ignore Romney because he is a loser.

I will also ignore the following individuals, who are also losers:

Sarah Palin: Loser VP candidate for loser Presidential candidate John McCain. Also a quitter.

Paul Ryan: Loser VP candidate for loser Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Also lost his home state!

Mike Huckabee: Primary loser.

New Gingrich: Primary loser.

Rick Santorum: Primary loser.

Rick Perry: drug-addled Primary loser.

Also glad I ignored two-time loser Ronald Reagan in 1980, and that loser Nixon in 1968 (well, I was only three).

The Democrats are certainly being smart this election cycle by ignoring that big loser Hillary Clinton.

Joseph K on February 17, 2014 at 3:32 PM

And we should take the advice from this loser?

MoreLiberty on February 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Yes it is a fact that President Obama won and Mr. Romney lost, but I personally do not see him as a loser.

He came and ran an organization whose largest supplier of services was the company I was also a Director. The business Mitt was a totally different person than the Mitt than ran for office. I never understood why he surrounded himself with a 2nd rate political team. It was not like him. From my viewpoint he was a good man and would have had a chance at being a good President.

I know some folks here bash him, I started lurking in 2007, but I don’t think they saw him in action.

2008 was interesting for me as I saw Mitt in action many years before and I helped train Dan Cathy so many years ago. What are the chances I would, in a business sense, get to know both.

I found both to be honest hard working men who, in a non-direct way, were a positive influence in my business career. Dan’s dad was nice to me and I liked to race him on motorcycles many moons ago.

Finally, until Bish promises to respect me in the morning no matter my answer….don’t ask who I voted for. Chuckle!!

HonestLib on February 17, 2014 at 3:34 PM

Sarah Palin: Loser VP candidate for loser Presidential candidate John McCain. Also a quitter.

Paul Ryan: Loser VP candidate for loser Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Also lost his home state!

Mike Huckabee: Primary loser.

New Gingrich: Primary loser.

Rick Santorum: Primary loser.

Rick Perry: drug-addled Primary loser.

When NBC touts them as an expert on the GOP strategy, and has them on Meet the Press; I won’t be listening either. AND if they start bagging on another GOPer’s strategy; I won’t be listening to them either.

Romney went on NBC and scolded a strategy another GOP was using. I wish our “former nominees” would stop carrying water for the Dems.

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 3:47 PM

And we should take campaign advise from you, because ……..????

stenwin77 on February 17, 2014 at 3:58 PM

I do think it’s too simplistic to say that he lost simply because he’s a RINO. Which conservative do you think would have beat Obama? Cain? Gingrich? Santorum?
GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 3:21 PM

I’m not saying he lost because he was a RINO. He lost because he was Mitt Romney. But being a RINO made the ability to imagine the type and style of fight and terms of battle I described as next to impossible. In other words, how would or could a RINO have dealt with the imposition of Candy Crowley? How could or would a RINO have taken on the media at all? It’s a tautology. Part of the definition of RINO, behaviorally speaking, is a crippling fear of the media and/or denial of the media’s influence and the need to confront them. The RINO operates on the premise that Republicans must ingratiate themselves with the media, i.e., avoid roiling the waters of moderation in which they swim (or have delued themselves into thinking they swim).

And I am not arguing that any of the other candidates would have won (though I question how they could have done worse). Winning or losing involves far more considerations than whether one is or is not a RINO. I wonder if any of the other candidates had the mettle to take on the media in the sort of balls-to-the-wall way that the media should be taken on. I certainly wanted someone else to have the chance (knowing since 2008 of Romney’s total toothlessness. I mean, my God, the man couldn’t even look John McCain or Mike Huckabee in the eyes in those debates).

Because of RINOs and their long legacy of political non-combat, of their prissy misapprehensions of the Left and seething passive-aggressive contempt for those on the Right who would dare to do what they will not, the task of fighting the Left or finding a candidate who can has become more difficult. At the same time, there is always the chance a leader may emerge — someone who proves how incredibly easy it actually is to challenge the media and the Left, that all it ever took was guts, self-confidence, clarity, straightforwardness, faith in the people and love of America, and refusal to be intimidated (which comes under “guts).

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 3:59 PM

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 3:59 PM

I just want them to name ONE former Democratic Presidential hopeful that goes on Fox and criticizes the way a Dem Senator/Rep is campaigning.

melle1228 on February 17, 2014 at 4:10 PM

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Chris Christie is a RINO, and no one fights hard or takes the media on harder than Christie.

You believe that Romney lost because he’s Mitt Romney. Fair enough. I would just posit that the only reason why the Republicans lost by only 4-5 points was because it was Romney, and not someone like Gingrich, Cain, or Santorum. Every poll had Cain losing GA for goodness sake.

In the end, you need someone who can strike that perfect balance. Are Palin and Cruz fighters? Absolutely, but the way they fight is the reason why they consistently poll terribly in potential presidential hypotheticals. You need a happy warrior that doesn’t turn off the masses. Rand Paul is more effective at that than Palin or Cruz. That’s why Reagan was so special. He took on the media, took it the Dems, but did it in such a way that it didn’t repel anyone. That’s a gift. No one in the Republican Party has that gift. Huckabee somewhat has that skill, but because of his social views and his liberal positions on just about everything else, he wouldn’t be viable. Pence sort of has that quality too, but he has virtually no name recognition at this point.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 4:15 PM

He lost because he was Mitt Romney.
rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 3:59 PM

.
He lost because he was rich, and hated poor people.
He lost because he killed that woman in PA with Cancer.
He lost because he never paid any taxes, like most rich people.
He lost because he hates the 47% of people- mostly blacks-who just want free stuff-and he was going to take that away.
That’s why he lost. This is why people didn’t vote for him. Why would they?
.

Most people think a RINO is what you find at the zoo.
.
Its that simple.

FlaMurph on February 17, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Ed is seriously becoming unreadable. (1) Rand is not “focusing” on this. Talking about is not the same as “focusing” on something. (2) “This” is not what was argued in 1996 and 1998. “This” was not used in 1996 and 1998 to bludgeon the Democrats over their hypocrisy in their stupid “war on women” meme. (3) How on earth did this turn into a desire to re-litigate 1998?? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? (4) How does talking about this mean that we aren’t/would be focusing on Hillary’s record? Do you even know what the word “focus” means? Buy a dictionary for crying out loud. (5) “Obsessing?” Dude, you’re out of your gourd.

besser tot als rot on February 17, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Rand Paul is the new, improved, cleaned-up-and-polished version of his father. Like Dad, he makes many good points and goes off on nutty quests in between them. Following his libertarian lead isn’t going to help the GOP.

Bill Clinton is more popular than ever, more popular than he could have hoped to be while he was a two-term plurality President. But the passage of time heals wounds and softens edges. The womanizing was among the least of Clinton’s sins, but if you talk about the foreign money now most peoples’ eyes just glaze over.

Attacking Clinton, or Hillary indirectly by attacking him, is GUARANTEED to backfire. 100%.

Judging by the urgings of many of our Hot Air commenting family, that is perceived as a feature, not a bug. They love futile gestures that end up biting us in the butts. Call it the Imp of the Perverse, if you will.

But Hillary has her own shoddy record to defend, from “reset” to Benghazi, with absolutely nothing to show for her tenure except a “miles flown” record that only underlines how little she actually accomplished.

Strike at the fighter in the ring, not the old guy in the corner.

Adjoran on February 17, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Back to the subject of the thread…some Low-IQ Dem Comedy Relief from Headlines.

As for what will Hillary run on, wait till she formally announces her run and starts her campaign. You will hear what she is running until your ear’s bleed.

Might_Is_Right on February 17, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2014 at 4:58 PM

d is seriously becoming unreadable. (1) Rand is not “focusing” on this. Talking about is not the same as “focusing” on something. (2) “This” is not what was argued in 1996 and 1998. “This” was not used in 1996 and 1998 to bludgeon the Democrats over their hypocrisy in their stupid “war on women” meme. (3) How on earth did this turn into a desire to re-litigate 1998?? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? (4) How does talking about this mean that we aren’t/would be focusing on Hillary’s record? Do you even know what the word “focus” means? Buy a dictionary for crying out loud. (5) “Obsessing?” Dude, you’re out of your gourd.

besser tot als rot on February 17, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Yup.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/17/caddell_bombshell_gop_establishment_wants_the_irs_to_go_after_the_tea_party

Caddell Bombshell: GOP Establishment Wants the IRS to Go After the Tea Party

So now, the Republican establishment has let everybody in the party know that they will not tolerate, they will not advocate, and they won’t put up with anybody attacking the Clintons’ past. If Hillary runs for president, there will be no discussion of Lewinsky and the blue dress.

There will be no discussion of the Rose Law Firm, the billing records. There will be none of that stuff from the past. “We’re not gonna dredge it up,” the Republican establishment says. “It ain’t gonna happen. We can’t win by going back and being critical of the Clintons. We can’t bring all that stuff up from the past. We’re not gonna do it. We’re gonna stay away from it.”

Sure, they can attack Palin. They can attack Palin’s whole family. They can make movies and talk about how the Republicans were so scared of her lack of intelligence, they wouldn’t even vote for her. They can do all that, but we can’t attack the Clintons. We couldn’t attack Obama, and can’t now attack the Clintons. Pat Caddell was on Fox saying the GOP establishment wants the IRS to go after the Tea Party.

Ed , why are you always lock step with the GOP establishment?

the_nile on February 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM

Adjoran on February 17, 2014 at 4:55 PM

If this is suicide for Rand that you dislike, why dont you just let him fail?

the_nile on February 17, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Why would anyone take his advise on how to run for election?

alanstern on February 17, 2014 at 5:16 PM

The whole issue is just one arrow in the quiver that can be used against Hillary; nothing more, nothing less.

Tater Salad on February 17, 2014 at 5:17 PM

I am disinclined to take much campaign advice from RINO McLoserman, whose last electoral win was before most of today’s voters were born.

Jaibones on February 17, 2014 at 5:17 PM

The whole issue is just one arrow in the quiver that can be used against Hillary; nothing more, nothing less.

Tater Salad on February 17, 2014 at 5:17 PM

You’d think so, but seeing the reaction from the usual suspects it could be a show stopper for the Clintons.

the_nile on February 17, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Ah, so Romney/GOP Establishment/Ed agree – let the Democrats establish the talking points upon which this would be debated. Ignore the clear *fact* that Paul points up in terms of leftist/media hypocrisy in terms of the ‘war on women’, and simply play the game by the leftist/media rules.

Is it any wonder the GOP is as ineffective as it is?

By all means – be sure to discuss illegal immigration, taxation, spending/debt, gun control, Obamacare, income equality, ‘job lock’, the economy and more – all in terms and context established by the left. And whatever you do, don’t point out their hypocrisy.

Sounds like a great, winning strategy. /

Midas on February 17, 2014 at 5:23 PM

I like Romney who would have been very effective president

However, I disagree with him on this one. The reason we lose. Nothing about Hillary is off the table.

Was anybody or anything ‘off the table’ with you Mitt? No it wasn’t

Clinton has enough skeletons in her closet to fill a cemetery…literally Turn up every single skeleton or she will ride into the White House…more white trash

I don’t why my party can only play dirty politics with each other; they allow Dems to destroy them in national races.

Redford on February 17, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Considering the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal is what made Hillary into a popular, sympathetic figure in the 1990′s and fueled her first solo campaign, I don’t see why people here are so eager for people like Rand to bring this up. It doesn’t hurt her; it helps her!

Fighting back against of the “War on Women” nonsense is a good thing, but this effort from Rand seems counterproductive, at least in terms of the campaign to damage Hillary’s reputation.

bluegill on February 17, 2014 at 5:35 PM

The whole issue is just one arrow in the quiver that can be used against Hillary; nothing more, nothing less.
Tater Salad on February 17, 2014 at 5:17 PM

More like a gift to her. All it does is evoke sympathy for her. Now, if Bill Clinton were going to be the nominee, then it would be a different story.

bluegill on February 17, 2014 at 5:38 PM

Chris Christie is a RINO, and no one fights hard or takes the media on harder than Christie. GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 4:15 PM

But how? Does he identify them as a Leftist enterprise or simply as a force opposed to him? Is it a larger challenge or a selfish one?

You believe that Romney lost because he’s Mitt Romney. Fair enough. I would just posit that the only reason why the Republicans lost by only 4-5 points was because it was Romney, and not someone like Gingrich, Cain, or Santorum. Every poll had Cain losing GA for goodness sake.

No dispute. We had a poor group of candidates — none able to identify the nature and danger of the Left and stir the public with an inspiring vision for America. But this is really the objective of the GOP — they DO NOT WANT an open ideological confrontation with the reactionary forces of the Left. They don’t want another Reagan. But all these number games go out the window as soon as you find a candidate with paradigm-busting capabilities. This could be Cruz. It could be Paul. The oppportunities for such a candidate are simultaneously enormous and perilous.

In the end, you need someone who can strike that perfect balance.

This argument often concedes too much to the media in defining what is “balance” or “likeability.” It’s true we need a happy warrior — but this fact is not lost on the media who will (witness Palin) attempt to destroy any such person before they can get off the ground. This is what they’re trying to do now to Cruz. How do we know Cruz turns off the masses? Because they keep telling us? Isn’t it a given that they’ll tell us that any effective conservative “turns off the masses”? I don’t know if Cruz or Paul is the answer or that either could ever approach Reagan’s skills or popularity, but we just have to be careful we don’t foreclose on people based on the media’s Narrative.

rrpjr on February 17, 2014 at 5:41 PM

What was this article about again? I think it has something to do with he Alaskan Moose Hunter or Seamus the Car-riding Lab…or something, judging from comments.

Oddly enough, I picked up a “Hillary in 2016″ theme in the actual article. Hmmm…oh well, not enough caffeine, I suppose.

USNCVN on February 17, 2014 at 5:49 PM

That really wasn’t my point. idesign defends all things Palin and she knocked Romney for calling Obama “a nice guy,” but of course, doesn’t seem to have a problem with Palin calling Obama a “very nice man.”
GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Interesting how some people here refused to criticize Palin for anything. She comes out and endorses pro-illegal alien amnesty John McCain and defends him against fed-up conservatives in Arizona, and her worshipers make excuses for her. She quits as governor before finishing even her first term, and they make excuses for her. She hides from challenging, live TV interview situations, and her were chippers make excuses for her. Sometimes it seems like they are members of a personality cult.

Palin does a lot of good, but she should still be called out when she screws up. I don’t like how any criticism of her here is verboten.

bluegill on February 17, 2014 at 5:52 PM

I don’t why my party can only play dirty politics with each other; they allow Dems to destroy them in national races.
Redford on February 17, 2014 at 5:34 PM

Randy says it’s not Hillary’s fault, so is it good for him to bring it up now?

“And then they have the gall to stand up and say Republicans are having a war on women?” Paul asked rhetorically. “So yes, I think it’s a factor. It’s not Hillary’s fault, but it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton and history.”

If he wants to go after Hillary and say that she took part in the campaign to smear and intimidate Kathleen Willey and others, then fine. But he’s not even doing that.

The popular notion is that Hillary was a victim of Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct, in that she was humiliated when cheated on, and that she was a “strong woman” for how she handled it, or something. It’s pathetic, but that’s probably what most people think. It would be interesting if Rand were able to puncture that popular understanding, but what he’s doing now just comes across as irrelevant to Hillary. I like what Rand is doing in calling out Democrat and media hypocrisy on the “War on Women” nonsense, but it would be more effective if Hillary were not the nominee, since she will be seen as being unfairly blamed for her husband’s crimes… and then she could do another one of her “strong woman/I let him have it” explanations in a major interview.

bluegill on February 17, 2014 at 6:25 PM

I didn’t meant to call him Randy. Haha. I am using dictation on the iPhone now, and sometimes don’t get the spelling right.

bluegill on February 17, 2014 at 6:25 PM

The gauntlet has been laid down I hope: “You Democrats want to play the war against women nonsense? Then we’ll make Bill the poster board for it!”. That’s exactly how it should be played. Rand PAul I think had that in mind but now the establishment Republicans are doing their typical back up. I’m sorry to say Romney is showing the typical reason he lost……..no guts!

artman1746 on February 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Juanita Broaddrick, people. It’s not just a question of his “womanizing,” unless you call rape womanizing.

BushyGreen on February 17, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Any GOP strategy that doesn’t include a serious review of how the Obama folks torpedoed her would be remiss.

Midas on February 17, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Republicans (who want to win) need to get into the habit of attaching epithets to their enemies every time they mention them–just like, in Homer, Achilles is always “swift-footed Achilles” Hillary should always be something like “woman knee-capping, rape-enabling Hillary.” Let them deny it; if they just cry “foul,” they’re admitting it. Just keep repeating (and varying with other epithets, like “3AM Hillary,” “Benghazi Hill”–or better ones, that people who can be paid will come up with) relentlessly. They need to be marked, tagged, targeted, by blows lower than they’re own. When there has been enough of that, maybe the Democrats will be relieved to “discuss the issues.”

prospero on February 17, 2014 at 9:00 PM

jake-the-goose on February 17, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Maybe you don’t understand that Romney is an honest man! He has said over and over and over he is not running. I wish to heck he had been elected but I see from some of the first posters they still want 0b0z0!

No matter how much he lies, no matter how much damage he does to this country and the constitution, they still want 0b0z0!

We had a business man who knows how to bring jobs to this country by lowering all the regulations that 0b0z0 has crippled businesses with, you till want 0b0z0.

The man who brings us gay marriage, pot, tax paid abortions,(and please don’t tell me that isn’t coming)felons allowed to vote, immigration with no restrictions and you still want 0b0z0!

Bambi on February 17, 2014 at 9:50 PM

Do what they should have done in the first place. Ignore Lewinsky (or at least don’t make her the focus) and focus on “Filegate” That was a blatant crime. In the original investigation the Clintons stonewalled and ran out the clock.

But Filegate and Benghazi show a pattern of actions that speaks directly to the lack of scruples that Hillary possesses.

schmuck281 on February 17, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Just FYI, your very own Sarah Palin has called Obama “a very nice man” before, but I’m sure you don’t have a problem with that.

GOPRanknFile on February 17, 2014 at 12:38 PM

I’m always amused at the Mittbots’ obsession with Sarah Palin. Their only real defense of Ropmnay was always “Palin’s a quitter!!!!11111!!!! Neener neener!!!”

Romney’s a nice guy, but his political instincts are those of a pre-schooler.

ddrintn on February 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM

* Romney, not Ropmnay (sheesh)

ddrintn on February 17, 2014 at 10:16 PM

That’s at least one Republican smart enough to know not to rehash the jughead attacks on Clinton and his girlfriends. Can’t believe Rand Paul brought that back up. I always thought of him as one of our smarter guys.

cimbri on February 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM

Heck. I would publish a paper dealing with her “issues” from her time with the Rose Law Firm on to her resignation as Secretary of State, including that horrible night in Benghazi.

kingsjester on February 17, 2014 at 12:20 PM

There’s more than enough information exposing the bad character and wrong behaviors by and of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, you’re right, you could reprint it and easily.

I think a lot of those keen on Hillary at present are too young, however, to know what happened and they’re assuming any/all criticism about them, her, him, is hyperbole from opposition and not accurate reportage instead.

People who watch Jon Stewart for news aren’t too well informed except in what’s trendy at the time. The push is on for a woman President and it’s without any curiosity as to liabilities of candidate Hillary. Unfortunately.

Which leads me to my conclusion here: reprint all the revealing information possible as to the actual character of Hillary Clinton and even Bill Clinton. Because it’ll eventually be taken seriously by some.

Lourdes on February 17, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Romney’s right about this.

And refusing to even refer to, identify, Bill Clinton’s bad deeds is the wrong thing to do. It’s important HOW it’s done, is all.

Lourdes on February 17, 2014 at 11:11 PM

Romney won something like 49 percent of the votes nationwide so I don’t think he should be dismissed too quickly.

I know what I admired about him was and is his “good manners” so dismissing his advice because he didn’t muckrake in his campaign is the wrong attitude. I agree Romney should have been more confrontational with Obama, particularly in the debate about the issue of Benghazi, and when he backed off that it showed or at least could be interpreted as “weakness” by Romney. It was also likely one incident that did a lot to lose him the election, unfortunately.

I think his advice here is sound. At least from Romney, as Romney sees things. It’d be out of character for him to be demanding blood at this point. Let someone else do that and I don’t mean Christie.

Lourdes on February 17, 2014 at 11:15 PM

Didn’t this guy lose?

Brock Robamney on February 18, 2014 at 5:34 AM

That’s at least one Republican smart enough to know not to rehash the jughead attacks on Clinton and his girlfriends. Can’t believe Rand Paul brought that back up. I always thought of him as one of our smarter guys.
cimbri on February 17, 2014 at 10:27 PM

After all, he has a success record of losing to the most vulnerable president in history. I suspect the next GOP boy wonder Jeb Bush will follow suit and get beat quite handily. After all, any criticism of Shrillary will be seen as a war on wimmin or something

Brock Robamney on February 18, 2014 at 5:38 AM

Many here seem to think that the Clinton name can be mentioned without bringing up Clinton in total. If you think for one minute it won’t be brought up you are mistaken. It will be and often. The party of R will get the blame for bringing it up regardless of whether they do or not. Come on folks, get real.

Bmore on February 18, 2014 at 8:35 AM

My take.

kingsjester on February 18, 2014 at 8:49 AM

kingsjester on February 18, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Lolz! I’m pretty sure they are already completely covered with it. ; )

Bmore on February 18, 2014 at 9:11 AM

She will be president in 2016 and still be younger than Saint Reagan.

Republican party is 1 in 6 in the last 6 popular votes.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Romney won something like 49 percent of the votes nationwide so I don’t think he should be dismissed too quickly.

He should be dismissed very quickly. Instantaneously. In a nano-second.

rrpjr on February 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Romney won something like 49 percent of the votes nationwide so I don’t think he should be dismissed too quickly.

He should be dismissed very quickly. Instantaneously. In a nano-second.
rrpjr on February 18, 2014 at 11:31 AM

+1

A guy who froze and self destructed in the middle of a campaign for a very winnable race should not be giving anybody campaign advice.

Brock Robamney on February 18, 2014 at 11:37 AM

She will be president in 2016 and still be younger than Saint Reagan.

Republican party is 1 in 6 in the last 6 popular votes.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Actually, if you do the math, she will be the exact same age as Reagan was when he took office. He was 69 when he was sworn in in January of 1981 (his 70th was the following month). And she will be 69 in January of 2017.

Now, tell us again-what is she going to run on?
She had no accomplishments as Junior Senator from New York, and none as Secretary of State. If she is going to run on nostalgia for the Clinton ’90s, then her past is fair game.

But again-tell us what she is going to run on. Being a woman? Standing up for her husband? Do tell us!

(Starts another sundial)

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Now, tell us again-what is she going to run on?
Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Unfortunately, this question is immaterial these days, at least for democrats. Obama proved qualifications and character mean nothing. She’ll run on what they all run on: demagogic emotion and lies.

rrpjr on February 18, 2014 at 12:20 PM

But again-tell us what she is going to run on. Being a woman? Standing up for her husband? Do tell us!

(Starts another sundial)

Del Dolemonte on February 18, 2014 at 11:48 AM

She hates women more than men, but she is a self-declared misanthrope.

The media will ignore and so will the sheepledom.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

She will be president in 2016.

liberalrules on February 18, 2014 at 11:25 AM

No, she won’t.

Schadenfreude on February 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3