It's Open Season On Hillary

 

Hillary hasn't thrown her chapeau into the 2016 campaign ring yet and already the Republicans are in panic mode.

That's really what the  Benghazi witch hunt is all about.  Forget about Obamacare. The GOP has lost on that one.  Besides Obama's a lame duck.  But Hillary's in aerial ascent. And fair game for the Right.

So House Select Committee Numero 8 is underway to clip her wings.  Meanwhile Fox News has launched a  daily reverberating barrage of Hillary potshots.  It's all-out war in the Right-Wing Bubble.

Hidden in the weeds,  GOP strategist Karl Rove , the architect of the Romney fiasco, has been homing in on Hillary.  Rove now is stalking  Hillary using her  fall in December of 2012 as ammo. It may have permenantly affected her mind, he suggests.    Brain damage?  Who said 'brain damage' ? Rove asserts.     He'll let you connect the dots.

Conservatives like Fox's Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Megan Kelley, as well as the cartoonish Rush Limbaugh, are trying to make Hillary the whipping postergirl for the kidnapping of the Nigerian  school girls.   Hillary failed  to alert the world that these ruthless abductors, Boko Haram, were terrorists.  Somehow, she gave them a 'green light'.

Even the usually decent and fair Conservative pundit George Will is taking  cheap shots at Hillary.  On Fox last Sunday he derided the 'BringBackOurGirls' hashtag campaign that millions around the world have joined, including our First Lady, Michele Obama, and Hillary Clinton.   Will agreed it was a craven and  toothless example of  "hashtag diplomacy".

Yes, those Elmer Fudd shotguns are blasting away.  And the Republicans aren't hunting rabbits.

 

 

Filed under: politics

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I don't think that Hillary gets off with "I take full responsibility, and I resign." There should be some sort of investigation on what really happened and why we were fed bull that it was only protesters over some movie.

    And if you want to talk about political attack dogs, the Tribune had a story that some Emanuel political operative had an attack piece telling newspapers to investigate Preckwinkle, who apparently isn't running for mayor.

    Then the Sun-Times had a story that an Emanuel political operative with, surprisingly the same name, on the principal who said that Emanuel is stifling dissent.

    And, I mentioned before Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

    Maybe you can be Diogenes and find the one honest politician (or at least one that doesn't have an attack dog), but I doubt that you can.

  • In reply to jack:

    I agree, Jack, about Benghazi. More light should be shed on it. But is that the Republican goal? If that were so, they would conduct the hearing in a collegial manner with the Democrats which means not withholding any information from their colleagues and allowing them equal voice in the proceedings. Otherwise, the hearing will again turn into the just another Republican political kabuki theater.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I don't think one can predict the result of the hearing in advance.

    It also appears that the administration has not been forthcoming with information.

    Going back to when Bobby Kennedy had all sorts of mobsters before Congress saying "I refuse to answer on the ground that it might incriminate me," I was told that Congressional hearings had some legislative purpose.

    Since it doesn't appear that the hearing will be secret, or that the minority would be prevented from filing a dissent, I'm not willing to go as far as you already have. And I still think someone at State has some questions to answer, including the former Secretary of State who dodged them the last time.

  • Here is link to snopes.com weighing in on the speculation that Ambassador Stevens was raped and murdered by terrorists or died by smoke inhalation.

    Obviously both parties will use anything for their own selfish agendas and that should be kept in mind, but that fact is not all of the story.

  • In reply to 4zen:
  • In reply to 4zen:

    You've set up a false equivalency. Take for example a living minimum wage. Liberal Democrats see the justice of it. Conservative and reactionary Republicans instead favor the economic benefits of unregulated greed and the gross concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a privileged few. A point of view offensive to the moral sensibilities of humanity in general.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    That also seems to be an unfair comparison.

    The $15 people were out today, but all the signs said Lucha por 15. If that's in fact who works at McDonalds, and I think it is, since the last time I was there I said "I paid for the medium and got the small" and she threw the small into the garbage, maybe that's what their productivity is. Of course, the question is whether you want to shop somewhere where they no comprende el cliente, or boycott Chik-Fil-A because of the owner's religious beliefs, or go somewhere for a $10 burger without the assurance that that proprietor pays minimum wage.

    I subscribe to that companies that want better help pay better wages.

    And the hero of Liberal Democrats, Amoeba Quinn, declared some sort of victory due to a statistical glitch in the unemployment rate, which is still worse than in any adjoining state. Were all the new jobs you claim were created at $15.00/hour, Pat? Or were they created at all?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Speaking of Kim Jung Madigan, how about this cynical ploy?

    Instead of the b.s. advisory referendum, why doesn't the "Democratic" majority pass the bill, since they have enough votes?

    Your Illinois Democrats really care about the people. That's why I suppose they put this type of meaningless advisory referendum on the ballot, while suing to keep term limits and prohibiting gerrymandering off the ballot, even though the people signed those petitions.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, let me set the record straight. I reject the power-broker Democrats in Springfield too. Progressives, like myself, are for reform in politics on all levels, including term limits and the elimination of gerrymandering. We're for a living wage not only because someone working 40 hours a week should not have to be on public assistance, but also because it would stimulate the economy----the increase in wages would flow back with the buying of more goods and services. But even more importantly a living wage is in keeping with the recognition of human dignity and the integrity of the family.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Quinn was a "progressive," while out of office pushing for such things as eliminating cumulative voting, thus enabling the dictators in the legislature, CUB, the "Cardinal Benandin Amendment" that Cardinal Bernadin did not endorse, etc., but now he is only a liar.

    If the signs I noted in the $15 protest are correct, maybe the federal government should be enforcing the immigration laws, which would improve things for people willing to work but unable to find it at a decent wage.

    Finally, your human dignity point didn't answer the question whether you support buying only $10 hamburgers, or shop only at union grocery stores that charge twice as much as the ones that do not pay union scale, and also apparently are also using illegal immigrant labor, or certainly labor that has no intention of assimilating in this country. After all, employers can't pay the wages unless the customers pay them. Ask the former employees at Dominick's. Not all of them are working at Jewel or Mariano's.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    No!......Aquinas stop projecting our dear Lord on to mortal selfish human beings. The best we can do is select politicians, that while fulfilling their selfish wants, so happen to result in what's best for all. That is the art of a select few.

  • Nope, didn't work. :-(

  • Politics is a dirty game, and because we don't anoint presidents, with the exception of Barack Obama, Hillary is a big girl and knows that the dirt will fly.

    I'm still watching for a rope-a-dope move by Lord Mayor Rahm and David Axelrod to have Rahm dance into the position of Dem front runner. If this is the plan, you can expect the dirt to fly from the Dem side, as it did when Obama ascended --i.e., "Bill Clinton is a racist"-- fast and furious to take Hillary out.

    This is how Obama has won every election: by dipping the opposition in so much dirt they never clean up, starting with Jack Ryan years ago. Axelrod is churning the political dung now, just wondering where to fling it.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    I think that Rahm is too over his head, both in the perception that he is a hot headed autocrat, and substantive matters like schools, pensions,. taxes, transit, airports, etc. to be thinking that he has a chance for President this time around.

    But as I noted above, he has a dirt thrower who got implicated in both newspapers today. I don't think that the dirt thrower's agenda is simply dumping on a couple of principals.

    I agree that by now Hillary is a big girl, I just didn't use that term first. Hanging around Bill all those years should have taught her something. Rumor has it that she at least once had sex with Bill.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Politics ain't mumblety-pegs said a former mayor. But for mudslinging, the Republicans take the cake.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    So, how do you explain Rahm's hatchet man? Or is Rahm, like his buddy, a Republican?

    And certainly, how do you explain Kim Jung Madigan, and his stepdaughter Lisa?

  • In reply to jack:

    Our dear Aquinas sees only sainted behavior when it comes to Democrats and only the dark angels on a sea of pinheads when it comes to Republicans and mudslinging. Argument, no matter how factual, logical or true, will not change this; it is in his DNA, apparently.

    Hillary is not only a "big girl" when it comes to political dirt, but a sorceress when it comes to the black art. Wasn't it Hillary who had a hand in the FBI files disappearing and then magically re-appearing? Do you suppose she had them copied by scribes to use for future mudslinging?

  • Richard, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr did clear Hillary of any wrongdoing in the Filegate controversy. And the last lawsuit about it was tossed out in 2010.

    BTW, wasn't Starr a Republican?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Did Bill commit perjury in some court case? He did enter a plea bargain on leaving office.

    BTW, weren't Democrats all in favor of the Special Prosecutor, until one was used on them, at which point they thought it was a good idea to sunset it? Hypocrites.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Being cleared can only mean the evidence was not there to indict. Anyway, it is just an example that you cannot, will not, have never, to the best of my knowledge, admitted that a Democrat is less than worthy of sainthood. It's a ridiculous position, as politics breeds corruption in all men and women.

    Starr was a Republican, yes. Now, climb into the Wayback Machine and recall how Starr was ripped to shreds by the humble, saintly Democrats.

    Don't you worry about Hill-Bill. They are already running to the right, which should depress you, as Hillary is nearly as radical as Obama.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    I have never been a blind supporter of the Democratic Party. Its leaders certainly are not without their human failings. And sometimes they don't completely live up to promises and expectations, as in Obama's case. Under our system of two major, viable political parties, one often votes for the lesser of two evils. And until a real progressive candidate (Elizabeth Warren?) comes around, that's usually what I will do.

Leave a comment