What Do Republicans Do About Hillary?



What Do Republicans Do About Hillary?  Jay Cost writes for The Weekly Standard on 3/24/14 that the Republicans may not be ready for Hillary.  As he usually does, Mr. Cost cuts right to the point in a clear, uncluttered fashion.  His larger point is that the GOP has had three at bats with the Clintons and is currently standing at “O’fer”.  They need a new approach.  Now I am not totally convinced that Hillary will actually run for the Democratic nomination.  She will be at or near 70 years of age when the election is held and she is certainly still remembering the sting of defeat at the hands of the One.  At this point in that election cycle, she was riding the same celestial hype of coronation from the Dem establishment and the media at large and we all know how that turned out.    Could she stand a second defeat of that magnitude at this stage in her life?  She may not be able to resist the temptation, but then again…she may.  Even though she is an uber-liberal to the bone, she is ruthlessly pragmatic when it comes to politics.  For the sake of discussion, let us assume for the moment that she pursues and captures the Democratic nomination for President in the coming election.  Are the Republicans truly, as Mr. Cost would say, “not ready for Hillary”?

Money will not be an issue in the upcoming Presidential race.  There are more than enough idealist billionaires on both sides of the aisle to fund adequate campaigns.  The hardcore supporters on each side of the political aisle readily recognize that this will be a watershed national election.  The quest for Senate control will require huge expenditures from each party in down ticket races, so the field should be roughly level when it comes to dollars.  Hillary’s PAC “Ready for Hillary” will certainly give her a leg up on her competition, both Democrat and Republican; but that advantage will be rapidly diminished when the final two competitors are decided.  The bigger question is “who gives the Republicans the best chance for victory”?  Mr. Cost gives us several qualifiers for that person and they all make sense.  Who fits the bill? 

First, let us examine the possible chinks in Hillary’s armor. Experience tempered with success tends to diminish one’s capacity to dream; youth dreams easier than age.  Once one discovers the value of controlling that which you can and disregarding that which you can’t, it becomes abundantly clear that much more is within reach than ever seemed possible.  Hillary knows this.  Romney knew this.  This lack of this dreamer quality is transparent; it is the root of pragmatism.  The presence of this dreamer quality in a less-accomplished (and younger) individual is also apparent, and voters tend to like this.  Hillary’s age needs to be contrasted with a vibrantly young candidate; one whose youth is obvious both in appearance and speech.  Now the dreaming must be tempered with realism and experience, but more like a seasoning and not a blanket.  Hillary’s resume is thin gruel (what has she really ever accomplished?), but it looks good on paper.  The Republican’s youthful candidate must have something of note to stand on; they must be demonstrably competent.    When Hillary gets on the stage for the presidential debates, no amount of make-up will mask her physical age.  The Republicans must contrast this with a vision of youthful promise that can be taken seriously.  Per Mr. Cost, the younger candidate has won the popular vote in the last 6 elections.

There are at least five different issues that Hillary has never fully and adequately responded to.  Remember: Many voters will not remember all of these issues; many were too young to be paying attention at that time.

1.    HillaryCare.  This is the father of Obamacare and if anything, was more liberal in nature than what we have seen in Obamacare.  This was her child and that bond must be made apparent to all.

2.    TravelGate.  Perhaps more than any other action, this episode demonstrates Hillary’s ruthlessness.  Her complete and total disregard for the lives of seven people, who were destroyed by her accusations and commensurate legal bills, is unforgiveable and should never be forgotten. 

3.    Whitewater and Pork Futures.  Hillary and Bill’s record is replete with crony capitalism escapades and these are two of the most revealing.  Personal gain from political power is detested by the American voter and these stories need to be retold over and over.

4.    Russian Reset.  Hillary eagerly assumed control of the Obama administration’s affairs with Russia.  She and the One heaped scorn and disparagement on previous Administrations over their Russian foreign policy initiatives.  She gleefully embraced the Russian reset of the Obama administration and handed over the reset apparatus to the Russian official.   One statement sums up this effort by the One and Hillary…”The 1990’s called and they want their community organizer back”.

5.    BenghaziGate.  The jury is still out on this one, but it is hard to see how this can be anything but damning as far as SOS Hillary is concerned.  Further complicating her perceived guilt in the actual events is her shameless efforts at stonewalling and cover-up.

So, is Hillary as bullet-proof as the mainstream media and Dem supporters would have us believe?  It would be foolish to underestimate the ability and willingness of the MSM to carry Hillary’s water and attack her opponent.  But if the Republicans can manage to remember they have several issues that, taken in total, cast very serious doubts on the wisdom of having Hillary Clinton as President, they have a very good chance to win the White House.  They must avoid obsession with a single issue (did you notice I never mentioned “sex”?)  and expose Hillary on multiple fronts.  I would submit that if a reasonable adversarial approach is taken to Hillary, we may find that she is actually experiencing her high-water mark in popularity right now.

So, who best fits the role of Hillary opponent?  There is one person who fits Mr. Cost’s entire list of qualities except one…he is associated with WDC, though not too extensively due to his youth.  That candidate would be Marco Rubio.  He is youthful, accomplished, experienced with the presidential process, from a critical state in the political process, a clear visionary, and a person who can appeal to those of Hispanic origin in this country.  He is a dreamer and can tell a life story that is nothing short of inspiring.  He is a fiscal conservative that is not overly rigid in his social views.  Even though the GOP has little hope of claiming a significant percentage of the African-American vote, they must claim a significant portion of the Hispanic vote to harbor any hope of victory.  Team Mr. Rubio up with an intelligent, competent, and accomplished female (Kelly A. Ayotte anyone?) and you will have effectively parried the “war on women” strategy of the Democrats.   It is long way to the next presidential election, but as of today, it would look to me that a bet on Marco Rubio as our next president might be a decent proposition.

The Reverse Logic Of Liberalism.



The Reverse Logic Of Liberalism.  So much going on in the world... so little understanding to write about.  But let us begin….

One aspect of liberal governing (some may substitute weakness for aspect) is the fact that they are motivated first by ideology and not pragmatism. Up until this week, the best example of this was Obamacare.  The Dems were so excited by the prospect of passing something akin to national health care that they utilized extraordinary legislative means to pass Obamacare.  Once the headlong rush had proven to be successful, Ms. Pelosi, in a moment she and her party rue to this day, made the revealing confession that they had to ”pass it to find out what was in it”.  With 30 some odd executive changes to the “settled law” and counting, it is pretty clear that what was in it did not make a whole lot of sense. 

But now we have a new example of the liberal “I always know better what is good for you than you know for yourself” attitude; it is Obama’s run at increasing overtime pay for many folks.  In this president’s typical approach, what he cannot accomplish legislatively (remember…he had two years with control of both houses and has always controlled at least one), he now seeks to unilaterally expand overtime pay for many salaried workers.  Now there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue and any reasonable person could be swayed either way; it is a complex issue.  However, the classic giveaway to liberal ignorance is the fact that the president does this with executive power and then, after the lights go off and the pens are distributed, he states that he will be conferring with the business sector to discuss the impact of the regulation change.  What is wrong with this picture?  Any practical-thinking individual would recognize that the proper place for consultation with those who are to be affected by regulation changes is BEFORE the regulation is changed.  But in the bizzaro world of liberal politics, the idea rules the day.  The degree of liberal certitude that their ideas about governance, and life in general, are correct is so high that they are totally comfortable in changing the regs or the laws and then letting the chips fall where they may.  The true challenge for them is achieving the “change”, not implementing the “effects”. 

This one particular aspect of liberal philosophy is what maddens me most about them.  Now in all fairness, it must be recognized that conservatives all too often are driven by principle with insufficient heed of collateral impact.  But I do believe that any objective observer would concede that conservative philosophers promote their positions on the basis of real change much more often as compared to the liberal selling points of a better world.  I honestly think that liberals many times hurt their causes by the way they promote them.  Their self-righteous and arrogant attitudes sometimes serve to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; even when their position on the issue might be superior to the conservative alternative.   There ARE legitimate roles for government in our lives; but government is not the be all and end all for this nation’s problems.  The Democrats’ constant allegiance to this mantra exposes them for the blind zealots that they so often become.

The fact that most polls show this nation to be a bit more conservative than it is liberal says to me that Democrats are (a) much better at elections than are Republicans and (b) there is some real substance and value to many liberal positions.  But the continuing practice by Democrats, so exquisitely demonstrated by the president, of thinking ideology first and practical impact second continues to leave space for the Republicans to be a dominate party in opposition, if not in political savy.

America. The Final Frontier.



America.  The Final Frontier.  These are the misadventures of the administration Obama.  Its 8 year mission…To push the limits of executive privilege…To seek out new bureaucratic  programs and expand regulations…To carelessly go where responsible government has never gone before.

Led by B Hussein Kirk, the uniformly ideological crew of the administration Obama flounders through time and politics, seeking always to promote the prime directive: Liberals always know best.  Early on in the voyage, that alien-like figure of Spock Emanuel came up with that alien-like national health care plan that a previous crew had attempted and failed.  This time, however, the federation controlled all three houses of the universe and the stars and planets were truly aligned.  With the wind at her back, Sebelius McCoy joyfully threw herself into the challenge with vim and vigor.  It is rumored that in future episodes, she may have a new assistant named Chapel.  Don’t sweat the tech; they got that covered...don't they?

In the background,  EPA’s Scott and Sulu made certain that all of that magical and reliable equipment in engineering was discontinued, outlawed, regulated into obscurity, and replaced with solar windmills.  Now there is a propulsion system!

There was much concern that a journey of this import and complexity might be rift with dissension and independent-minded crew.  Not to worry.  Security chief Pavel Holder will run a tight ship; making certain that secrets are kept secret, that troublemakers are singled out for very special attention, and that all of the crew are thinking correctly.  Wonder if Pavel could help Yeoman Hagel out with that Russia thing?  What’s their commander’s name…Kahn?  And as to those rumors that as we approach the later stages of the 8 year voyage, Kirk is really only a figurehead and the real power behind the comm is Valerie Uhura…Well, those are simply unfounded.   B Hussein Kirk remains the master of chaos and if none exists, that is only a pretax for creating new episodes. 

So beam me up, Lord.  This is one vessel that is truly messed up and it is difficult to see how we will navigate through the meteor field that lies directly ahead.   There may be a Janice Rand out there somewhere that is ready, willing, and able to step up and save the ship; but he or she certainly doesn’t stand out from the crowd at this time.  

Rethink: 4 Might Even Be Better Than 3.



Rethink: 4 Might Even Be Better Than 3.  Recently, I wrote about the possibility of a third national party.  I wandered into this area of thought because of the clusterf’s that are more generally known as the Republicans and the Democrats.  I suppose far greater thinkers than I have grappled with this question before and written intelligent arguments against it; if so, I have not read them.  In fact, the only argument I have ever heard is that it would make it much more difficult to achieve a majority opinion on an issue.  Now I really like a lot of what I read about the Libertarians; but the one thing that keeps me from embracing their philosophy in total is the fact that several of them are anarchists.  Me?  I happen to believe that there is a place in this nation for government involvement.  There are areas of our lives that are best governed by a federal entity, there are areas of our lives that are best governed by a lesser entity (state, county), and there are areas of our lives that need no governing presence from outside the individual.  Where these lines are drawn, how long and bright they are, and exactly who does the drawing…well, that is the question, is it not?

Now, I am thinking that the Republicans and the Democrats have clearly demonstrated over the last couple of decades that they tend to stake out extreme and polarizing positions on most every issue of import.  I floated the idea of a third option somewhere between the radical ends.  But why stop there?  Should we shy away from 4…or 5…national parties because it will make governing a messy affair?  My god, the government we have now has made our country a messy affair.  Is it inevitable that any national political party will evolve to the current state of corruption and dysfunction that we find in the Dems and Republicans?  Perhaps so…but…

When there are only two parties to divide the power, the wealth, the corruption, and the dysfunction…they seem to have more than an adequate supply of each to survive the periods of minority status without any compromise.   At least if we divide that power, wealth, corruption, and dysfunction into more and smaller parts, their respective overall imprint will less significant.  They will have to negotiate with others to become a part of a larger voice or face irrelevance.  Irrelevance; now that is something that all politicians of all stripes fear and loath.  I do believe I prefer to move the mess from our streets, our paychecks (for the lucky few who have a job and the noble few who want one), our tax system, our courts, our military (that’s right; no baseball/mom/apple pie exemption from this man.  Not the soldiers, the corporate cesspool that is military spending), and the universe of regulatory law and put it into the government.  Let them shout, flaunt their principles, bloviate in their self-righteous ways, and behave like total hypocrites; at the end of the day, a few of them will agree on something and it will become part of our lives.  I’m not sure, but I am thinking the compromise of many might be a better legislative product than the dictate of one ruling party.

Russian Reset And Retro Foreign Policy.



Russian Reset And Retro Foreign Policy.  There is little in this life that is more satisfying than seeing a smart-ass know-it-all get their comeuppance in stark terms that are both undeniable and public in nature.   That moment has arrived for our president.   It has also arrived, in not so stark terms, for his water-carrying ex-secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Rewind to the Presidential candidate election debates in 2008.  On October 22, 2012, seated side by side at a table and discussing geopolitical threats faced by America, and in response to Romney’s selection of Russia as our preeminent geopolitical threat, the One sarcastically noted…”the 1980’s called and wants their foreign policy back”.  This was widely heralded by liberals and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) as the primary zinger of the debate.  In the same breath, Obama accused Romney of pulling his economic ideas from the 1920’s.  The relish that was evident in both Obama and his disciples was so typical of his condescending, arrogant, and self-aggrandizing manner.  Fast forward to today.  Memo to the White House: The 1980’s called and you should be listening.  Romney was not only spot on with his response, but he was prophetic in how he framed it.  The naivety that Obama carries with him 24/7 makes him not only a fool but a dangerous fool.  His narcissistic inclinations led him to believe that he could…”stop the rise of the oceans and allow the planet to heal itself”.   That same ego-centricity has now led to a Russia run wild and chaos on a global scale.  If you are reading this and voted for Obama, I urge you in the strongest terms to Google this debate.  Go back and see for yourself how you were deceived.  Not only should our president have listened respectfully to his opponents views on foreign policy, it is abundantly clear that Romney could have schooled him considerably on economics as well.  How’s that “Hope and Change” working for you now?

Now let’s move on to the other point.  Upon his coronation, Obama began dismissing his predecessors as amateurs and mere charlatans in foreign policy.  Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw out the file on Russia.  Dispatched by her superior to Russia, Hillary presented her Russian counterpart with the famous RESET button.  Apparently, the healing process was going to go Siberian.  Dripping with certitude and conceit, the One and Hillary acted as if Mr. Putin would see them as the answers to all Soviet concerns and thus convert to the type of good faith diplomacy never before experienced by any American president…in all of history.  How’s that “RESET” working for you now?

The Real "Big Bang Theory"



The Real “Big Bang Theory”.  Even though the mid-term elections are eight months away, the media is replete with suppositions about how the respective parties will fare.  Upon a broad review, it seems that a majority of pundits give the Republicans anywhere from a decent chance to a slam dunk to reclaim majority control of the Senate.  No one seems to dispute the likelihood that the Republicans will retain control of the House; it is simply a question of how large a majority they will enjoy.  I have yet to read anyone’s projection that the Republicans, in their wildest dreams, will achieve anything close to a veto-proof majority in the Senate.  So, where does that leave us for the last two years of the Obama administration?

I am not ready to say that this administration has experienced more scandals than past administrations; Lord knows there have been plenty on both sides of the political aisle.  However, it is hard to deny that this administration has set a new standard for dealing with scandals in an effective and efficient way.  Using various combinations of outright untruths, misleading statements, stonewalling of information and documentation, and manipulation (willful) of the mainstream media, this administration has managed to run the clock on many areas of question and simply keep them shrouded in mystery.   But it can be argued that one of, if the not the strongest, cards the administration has held to manage their scandals has been control of the Senate.  No matter how valid (not claiming they all are),  pertinent, timely, and objective their investigative hearings are, the fact that the investigations are only occurring in the House and not in the Senate is a compelling contribution to lack of public concern and disclosure.  If, in fact, the Republicans gain control of the Senate this fall, that firewall will come crumbling down.  Put Republicans at the head of the table for all Senate committees and see what happens.  Assuming McConnell retains his seat this fall (I live in Kentucky and trust me, it is very likely…no matter what you might hear or read), the remnant resentment from the implementation of the nuclear option will be fresh in his mind.  Add to that the natural chafing that occurs when one party or the other has to endure minority status and it is an understatement to say that the Republicans will be more than eager to use their newfound subpoena positions to begin to poke and probe into Benghazi, Fast and Furious, EPA’s new appetite for regulatory control,  Obamacare, and the IRS’s newfound and selective suspicions regarding 501C4’s .

Here is your real Big Bang Theory.   It is a bang that will likely turn up some evidence of wrongdoing in this administration.  It is a bang that will likely have more volume than substance.  It is a bang that will exacerbate the lame duck status of an already weakened president and likely bring any productive government process to a slow crawl.  In this one man’s opinion, Legislative oversight of the Executive is a good thing.  Both sides overplay their hands in this area and have diminished the true value or purpose of legislative investigative hearings, but I will take excessive Legislative oversight over Executive power abuse any day of the week; be it Nixon or be it Obama.

Why 3 Might Be Better Than 2.



Why 3 Might Be Better Than 2.  Anyone who has been paying attention to the political evolution of this nation’s two major parties must admit that they have migrated more to their extremes than to their moderates.  If, in fact, there is a silent majority in either the Republican or Democratic parties, they have been silent for a sufficient time to lose their ability to be heard and wield any claim to relevance.  The neo-con right and the uber-liberal left have managed to highjack their respective parties, dominate their policy positions, and suck all the air out of the room when reasonable negotiations attempt to transpire.

Why are we seeing so many U.S. Representatives retire; is it due to a resurgence of the “Everyman Congressman” premise that our nation was initially based upon?  Hardly.  Is it because the status of a minority party in the House is below that of a night crawler under a big, flat rock?  Hardly.  Is it because of the constant, ever-present demand of campaign fundraising?  Hardly; these folks thrive on the ego buzz that goes along with that type of activity.  The ones who are leaving, by and large, are leaving because they realize how futile it is to try to work in these conditions.  They have grown weary of pulling against the wind, swimming against the tide, and trying to reach common ground with an ever-more-elusive opponent.  They are sick to death of gridlock, of the overt influence of radicals in how business is conducted, and the inane arbitrariness of the U.S. government in 2014.  I would talk about Senators leaving WDC, but that simply is not happening in the same way.  They only seem to leave because they are convicted of a felony, caught with a minor child in a compromising situation, or are overtaken with higher ambitions to what is perceived to be a more prestigious  government post.  Even serving as a minority member of the U.S. Senate is no great ordeal for these folks.  Anyone who has ever been to WDC and walked through the halls and offices of the Senate buildings realize that this exclusive club of 100 is the closest thing this nation has to royalty.

So, if we the people are to be represented by two parties, who have taken up permanent residence at opposite ends of a spectrum, how can we expect any type of compromise or accomplishment?  We can’t.  The moderates in the middle are too few, too timid, or too inconsequential to effect the equation.  The far Left shouts to drown out the far Right, who screams back at the far Left in righteous indignation.  And the band plays on.

Pure and simple logic tells us that the only moderation between two extremes is some point in the middle.  It is time for a third party in this government.  Yes, this would have far-reaching implications for our process and system of government.  Yes, it is a valid thought to wonder how 3 might agree when 2 cannot.  Will it not simply mix the pot up more?  I submit that we now have a tie.  When the Republicans are out, they wait patiently (obstruct, delay, obfuscate) for that time when they will re-assume the position of dominance.  When the Democrats have the whip hand, they know their pre-eminence is ephemeral and feel obsessed with pushing through their agenda in the greatest volume possible by any means necessary (i.e. Obamacare).  When inevitably the roles are reversed, does anyone really think that one or the other will experience an epiphany of statesmanship and government will assume some level of efficiency, effectiveness, and respectability?  Hardly.

Right now we have two points on either end of the continuum.  It not unreasonable to expect that a point will not spontaneously arise somewhere in the middle; the thirst for revenge is too powerful for the outs to ignore once they get in.   We need a third voice in the conversation.   We need a tie-breaking vote.  We need a position in the middle between the radical right and the liberal left. 

We…need…a…third…national…party.  Let’s call it the Independent party.