Benghazi redux
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi As this was plastered all over the news through the weekend, I could only think of one thing. The spinmeisters are already at work to try and minimize Benghazi as much as possible to help Hillary in 2016. Perhaps it's just my tinfoil hat, but that's all I could think of. The other side of the story: |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? Edited by Left Brain 2013-12-30 8:46 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? I did not hear that it was false. at least not yet. Frankly I gotten to the point where I really do not care about it. Mainly a non issue for me at this point. Trouble with a story like this is it become such a big issue for many people that it almost does not mater what the facts are. If its pro for your side then its true and if its against your side it is false. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? My personal opinion is that Benghazi hurts Hillary badly, so her supporters are going to do what they can to minimize the damage. This story was really forced this weekend and was pretty much the lead story on the major network news channels with statements such as "Benghazi was because of the video" etc...
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? My personal opinion is that Benghazi hurts Hillary badly, so her supporters are going to do what they can to minimize the damage. This story was really forced this weekend and was pretty much the lead story on the major network news channels with statements such as "Benghazi was because of the video" etc...
Unfortunately, I don't see anything hurting Billary.......like Obama, she's electable with no credibility whatsoever. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi As this was plastered all over the news through the weekend, I could only think of one thing. The spinmeisters are already at work to try and minimize Benghazi as much as possible to help Hillary in 2016. Perhaps it's just my tinfoil hat, but that's all I could think of. The other side of the story: I think you mean re-re-re-re-redux. So you're convinced that the NYT report is bogus political spin, but you're perfectly ok with the FOX report contradicting it, even though it does nothing but quote a bunch of unnamed sources? Riiight... No political spin there. Fair and balanced as always. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I think you mean re-re-re-re-redux. So you're convinced that the NYT report is bogus political spin, but you're perfectly ok with the FOX report contradicting it, even though it does nothing but quote a bunch of unnamed sources? Riiight... No political spin there. Fair and balanced as always. New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi As this was plastered all over the news through the weekend, I could only think of one thing. The spinmeisters are already at work to try and minimize Benghazi as much as possible to help Hillary in 2016. Perhaps it's just my tinfoil hat, but that's all I could think of. The other side of the story: lol, Hey I'm trying to give both sides of the story. I just found it interesting to see the NYT bring this story back from the grave in an attempt to spin it favorably for Hillary. You can certainly ignore the fox article, but I thought it was pretty settled that the video had nothing to do with the attacks and I believe the Obama administration has even said as much. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I think you mean re-re-re-re-redux. So you're convinced that the NYT report is bogus political spin, but you're perfectly ok with the FOX report contradicting it, even though it does nothing but quote a bunch of unnamed sources? Riiight... No political spin there. Fair and balanced as always. New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi As this was plastered all over the news through the weekend, I could only think of one thing. The spinmeisters are already at work to try and minimize Benghazi as much as possible to help Hillary in 2016. Perhaps it's just my tinfoil hat, but that's all I could think of. The other side of the story: lol, Hey I'm trying to give both sides of the story. I just found it interesting to see the NYT bring this story back from the grave in an attempt to spin it favorably for Hillary. You can certainly ignore the fox article, but I thought it was pretty settled that the video had nothing to do with the attacks and I believe the Obama administration has even said as much. I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a living soul who hasn't, by now, made their mind up about Benghazi and ascribed whatever responsibility or lack thereof they feel is appropriate to Hillary already. I admit, I'm not one to look for policial conspiracies at every turn, and maybe I'm naiive that way, but honestly, we haven't heard about Benghazi in months-- do you really think it's politically advantageous for Hillary to have it brought up again, even in a positive light? Especially since it's been the Democrats since the beginning accusing the GOP of constantly re-hashing it for their own political purposes? Even though this article is a positive one for her, I don't see there being any real benefit to her politically in continuing to talk about it. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-12-30 1:31 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a living soul who hasn't, by now, made their mind up about Benghazi and ascribed whatever responsibility or lack thereof they feel is appropriate to Hillary already. I admit, I'm not one to look for policial conspiracies at every turn, and maybe I'm naiive that way, but honestly, we haven't heard about Benghazi in months-- do you really think it's politically advantageous for Hillary to have it brought up again, even in a positive light? Especially since it's been the Democrats since the beginning accusing the GOP of constantly re-hashing it for their own political purposes? Even though this article is a positive one for her, I don't see there being any real benefit to her politically in continuing to talk about it. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood I think you mean re-re-re-re-redux. So you're convinced that the NYT report is bogus political spin, but you're perfectly ok with the FOX report contradicting it, even though it does nothing but quote a bunch of unnamed sources? Riiight... No political spin there. Fair and balanced as always. New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi As this was plastered all over the news through the weekend, I could only think of one thing. The spinmeisters are already at work to try and minimize Benghazi as much as possible to help Hillary in 2016. Perhaps it's just my tinfoil hat, but that's all I could think of. The other side of the story: lol, Hey I'm trying to give both sides of the story. I just found it interesting to see the NYT bring this story back from the grave in an attempt to spin it favorably for Hillary. You can certainly ignore the fox article, but I thought it was pretty settled that the video had nothing to do with the attacks and I believe the Obama administration has even said as much. I tend to agree with you, which is why I thought it was really weird for it to be plastered all over the airwaves this weekend. Ultimately you're right though I don't see too many people going "oh, well it really was the youtube video so now I'm going to vote for Hillary" |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by tuwood New York Times report casts doubt on al Qaeda involvement in Benghazi As this was plastered all over the news through the weekend, I could only think of one thing. The spinmeisters are already at work to try and minimize Benghazi as much as possible to help Hillary in 2016. Perhaps it's just my tinfoil hat, but that's all I could think of. The other side of the story: Really, what difference does it make? |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Funny (well not funny, but odd...) how we lose a handful of American lives to terrorism in a foreign country on the Democrats' watch and it's a non-stop blame game for the Republicans hoping to disrupt Hillary's chances. We lose a few *thousand* lives on U.S. soil on 9/11 and G.W. reaches 90+% approval rating. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() Originally posted by spudone Funny (well not funny, but odd...) how we lose a handful of American lives to terrorism in a foreign country on the Democrats' watch and it's a non-stop blame game for the Republicans hoping to disrupt Hillary's chances. We lose a few *thousand* lives on U.S. soil on 9/11 and G.W. reaches 90+% approval rating. Well, for one, I'm not a Republican. The lives lost are tragic yet magnified by the lack of an investigation and the lies told to the American people by those in charge. The only reason this lives on is due to the lies and cover ups by the current administration. But I love your one more time of the invoking the but but but but Bush!!!!! |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ya know what.... never mind Edited by ratherbesnowboarding 2014-01-06 12:43 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/politics/benghazi-attack-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Even the Republicans say they were wrong! Can we FINALLY put this to bed. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? My personal opinion is that Benghazi hurts Hillary badly, so her supporters are going to do what they can to minimize the damage. This story was really forced this weekend and was pretty much the lead story on the major network news channels with statements such as "Benghazi was because of the video" etc...
Unfortunately, I don't see anything hurting Billary.......like Obama, she's electable with no credibility whatsoever. Hmm, your post got me thinking about electability. While personally, I don't see Hillary anywhere near as electable as Obama...I do see the "Billary" combination as pretty strong though. Bill Clinton is a master communicator. He will be a huge asset for the Democratic side. What Hillary lacks in the personality department, Bill makes up for, and then some. Christie's the GOP's best chance in my opinion. Cruz and Paul have no shot. BUT, all bets are off the table if we're talking major catastrophe between now and then. Benghazi's pretty much all the GOP's got on Hillary, and between now and '16, it really isn't going to have an influence on the election. Like jmk-brooklyn wrote, folks are already set on what happened. I don't see folks changing their minds one way or the other at this point. A high % of Repubs see her as either incompetent or aloof on Benghazi, and a high % of Dems see it as a tragic attack that unfortunately will result in lives lost every few years. Let's face it, Reagan was re-elected after hundreds of Americans in Beirut were killed on his watch, and W was re-elected after 9/11 and a mis-directed military response on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Until the GOP can convince lower and middle income voters that cutting taxes on high income folks is a good thing (trust me, very tough sell), '16 will not go well for the GOP. Immigration will be an interesting issue as well. The GOP must realize the corner they've painted themselves into when it comes to the hugely important Hispanic vote which was lost at about a 70-30 clip in '12. It sure will be interesting to see how it all plays out. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by Left Brain Hmm, your post got me thinking about electability. While personally, I don't see Hillary anywhere near as electable as Obama...I do see the "Billary" combination as pretty strong though. Bill Clinton is a master communicator. He will be a huge asset for the Democratic side. What Hillary lacks in the personality department, Bill makes up for, and then some. Christie's the GOP's best chance in my opinion. Cruz and Paul have no shot. BUT, all bets are off the table if we're talking major catastrophe between now and then. Benghazi's pretty much all the GOP's got on Hillary, and between now and '16, it really isn't going to have an influence on the election. Like jmk-brooklyn wrote, folks are already set on what happened. I don't see folks changing their minds one way or the other at this point. A high % of Repubs see her as either incompetent or aloof on Benghazi, and a high % of Dems see it as a tragic attack that unfortunately will result in lives lost every few years. Let's face it, Reagan was re-elected after hundreds of Americans in Beirut were killed on his watch, and W was re-elected after 9/11 and a mis-directed military response on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Until the GOP can convince lower and middle income voters that cutting taxes on high income folks is a good thing (trust me, very tough sell), '16 will not go well for the GOP. Immigration will be an interesting issue as well. The GOP must realize the corner they've painted themselves into when it comes to the hugely important Hispanic vote which was lost at about a 70-30 clip in '12. It sure will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? My personal opinion is that Benghazi hurts Hillary badly, so her supporters are going to do what they can to minimize the damage. This story was really forced this weekend and was pretty much the lead story on the major network news channels with statements such as "Benghazi was because of the video" etc...
Unfortunately, I don't see anything hurting Billary.......like Obama, she's electable with no credibility whatsoever. Not really a criticism of you CD, just talking points... On what planet is Christie's the GOPs best candidate??? Nothing about the guy is Presidential. And the Hispanic vote.... you mean if the GOP does not buy the Hispanic vote like the Dems... they are done? Because that is the only reason this is an issue at this point. Political maneuvering. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by Left Brain Hmm, your post got me thinking about electability. While personally, I don't see Hillary anywhere near as electable as Obama...I do see the "Billary" combination as pretty strong though. Bill Clinton is a master communicator. He will be a huge asset for the Democratic side. What Hillary lacks in the personality department, Bill makes up for, and then some. Christie's the GOP's best chance in my opinion. Cruz and Paul have no shot. BUT, all bets are off the table if we're talking major catastrophe between now and then. Benghazi's pretty much all the GOP's got on Hillary, and between now and '16, it really isn't going to have an influence on the election. Like jmk-brooklyn wrote, folks are already set on what happened. I don't see folks changing their minds one way or the other at this point. A high % of Repubs see her as either incompetent or aloof on Benghazi, and a high % of Dems see it as a tragic attack that unfortunately will result in lives lost every few years. Let's face it, Reagan was re-elected after hundreds of Americans in Beirut were killed on his watch, and W was re-elected after 9/11 and a mis-directed military response on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Until the GOP can convince lower and middle income voters that cutting taxes on high income folks is a good thing (trust me, very tough sell), '16 will not go well for the GOP. Immigration will be an interesting issue as well. The GOP must realize the corner they've painted themselves into when it comes to the hugely important Hispanic vote which was lost at about a 70-30 clip in '12. It sure will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? My personal opinion is that Benghazi hurts Hillary badly, so her supporters are going to do what they can to minimize the damage. This story was really forced this weekend and was pretty much the lead story on the major network news channels with statements such as "Benghazi was because of the video" etc...
Unfortunately, I don't see anything hurting Billary.......like Obama, she's electable with no credibility whatsoever. Not really a criticism of you CD, just talking points... On what planet is Christie's the GOPs best candidate??? Nothing about the guy is Presidential. And the Hispanic vote.... you mean if the GOP does not buy the Hispanic vote like the Dems... they are done? Because that is the only reason this is an issue at this point. Political maneuvering. Powerman, no offense taken. I am just offering my personal views which I understand are definitely not "typical." I believe presidential elections are more affected by "delivery" than the actual substance of the message. It's why I said Hillary alone is a terrible candidate...but with a master communicator like her husband involved, the scale gets tipped in her favor. That said, in my opinion, Chris Christie has the best chance at delivering a win for the GOP in '16. He reached across the aisle (or at least gave the perception of doing so) when Hurricane Sandy hit. Working with President Obama was a SHREWD move. The GOP can NOT win unless they get Dems to vote for them, period. There won't be some massive conversion of Democrats to Republicans in the next 2 years. BUT, if the GOP puts someone out there who gives the perception they can meet in the middle, they can woo enough Democratic voters to get a win. Singing the praises of Christie as a GOP presidential candidate is not that off-the-wall btw. US News and World Report has him #2 on the list of possible GOP nomination winners: 1st Paul, 2nd Christie, 3rd Jeb, 4th Scott Walker. Just as Hillary is helped by Bill, Rand is hurt by Ron. Just as Hillary is helped by Bill, Jeb is hurt by W. I haven't heard enough from Walker to get a feel for his swagger...but in the limited soundbites I've heard, he doesn't sound like a natural communicator. Christie's got the every-man feel the GOP needs. Huckabee's hurt himself with his Fox show. He's done. Cruz is too extreme. Jindal's a terrible communicator. Perry is too extreme. Santorum too stiff and religious. If you're saying the Dems "bought" the Hispanic vote by supporting common-sense stances on immigration and social welfare policies, I'll agree with you. ![]() You can call it trying to "buy" the Hispanic vote, but if I was the GOP, I'd throw Rubio on that ticket as well. The Right can NOT win if 70% of the Hispanic vote goes Democratic again. Translation: a candidate who wants to stand tall, erect a wall, and deport 'em all! may do very well in the Republican Convention, but they would likely be crushed in a general election. Any thoughts? Feel free to tear my post a new one! ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by powerman Powerman, no offense taken. I am just offering my personal views which I understand are definitely not "typical." I believe presidential elections are more affected by "delivery" than the actual substance of the message. It's why I said Hillary alone is a terrible candidate...but with a master communicator like her husband involved, the scale gets tipped in her favor. That said, in my opinion, Chris Christie has the best chance at delivering a win for the GOP in '16. He reached across the aisle (or at least gave the perception of doing so) when Hurricane Sandy hit. Working with President Obama was a SHREWD move. The GOP can NOT win unless they get Dems to vote for them, period. There won't be some massive conversion of Democrats to Republicans in the next 2 years. BUT, if the GOP puts someone out there who gives the perception they can meet in the middle, they can woo enough Democratic voters to get a win. Singing the praises of Christie as a GOP presidential candidate is not that off-the-wall btw. US News and World Report has him #2 on the list of possible GOP nomination winners: 1st Paul, 2nd Christie, 3rd Jeb, 4th Scott Walker. Just as Hillary is helped by Bill, Rand is hurt by Ron. Just as Hillary is helped by Bill, Jeb is hurt by W. I haven't heard enough from Walker to get a feel for his swagger...but in the limited soundbites I've heard, he doesn't sound like a natural communicator. Christie's got the every-man feel the GOP needs. Huckabee's hurt himself with his Fox show. He's done. Cruz is too extreme. Jindal's a terrible communicator. Perry is too extreme. Santorum too stiff and religious. If you're saying the Dems "bought" the Hispanic vote by supporting common-sense stances on immigration and social welfare policies, I'll agree with you. Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by Left Brain Hmm, your post got me thinking about electability. While personally, I don't see Hillary anywhere near as electable as Obama...I do see the "Billary" combination as pretty strong though. Bill Clinton is a master communicator. He will be a huge asset for the Democratic side. What Hillary lacks in the personality department, Bill makes up for, and then some. Christie's the GOP's best chance in my opinion. Cruz and Paul have no shot. BUT, all bets are off the table if we're talking major catastrophe between now and then. Benghazi's pretty much all the GOP's got on Hillary, and between now and '16, it really isn't going to have an influence on the election. Like jmk-brooklyn wrote, folks are already set on what happened. I don't see folks changing their minds one way or the other at this point. A high % of Repubs see her as either incompetent or aloof on Benghazi, and a high % of Dems see it as a tragic attack that unfortunately will result in lives lost every few years. Let's face it, Reagan was re-elected after hundreds of Americans in Beirut were killed on his watch, and W was re-elected after 9/11 and a mis-directed military response on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Until the GOP can convince lower and middle income voters that cutting taxes on high income folks is a good thing (trust me, very tough sell), '16 will not go well for the GOP. Immigration will be an interesting issue as well. The GOP must realize the corner they've painted themselves into when it comes to the hugely important Hispanic vote which was lost at about a 70-30 clip in '12. It sure will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? My personal opinion is that Benghazi hurts Hillary badly, so her supporters are going to do what they can to minimize the damage. This story was really forced this weekend and was pretty much the lead story on the major network news channels with statements such as "Benghazi was because of the video" etc...
Unfortunately, I don't see anything hurting Billary.......like Obama, she's electable with no credibility whatsoever. Not really a criticism of you CD, just talking points... On what planet is Christie's the GOPs best candidate??? Nothing about the guy is Presidential. And the Hispanic vote.... you mean if the GOP does not buy the Hispanic vote like the Dems... they are done? Because that is the only reason this is an issue at this point. Political maneuvering. ![]() ![]() You might be right about Christie being more in the middle... but he is a hot mess. Seriously. Moderates might, but (R)s won't vote for him. Paul is enough of his own person... I like him, but not sure he can win POTUS. Hillary... no thanks. Nothing to do with her.... I'm so over two families ruling this country. Jed... see above. I have no problem with immigration reform. The "deport them" crowd are looney tunes. However... Obama could have got reform when he had control of Congress. He didn't. The ONLY reason he is using EO now is pure political maneuvering. He is buying votes for '16. He is forcing the GOP to do something... and consequently looking bad (not that they need help with that). It's wrong. Wrong to use EO and blame it on Congress not passing a bill. Pure Washington BS. Obama is a one trick pony... he can't stop blaming others for his own failures. He is a great speaker.... and a horrible leader. But hey.... Hispanics will vote for (D)s...that's all that matters. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by powerman Powerman, no offense taken. I am just offering my personal views which I understand are definitely not "typical." I believe presidential elections are more affected by "delivery" than the actual substance of the message. It's why I said Hillary alone is a terrible candidate...but with a master communicator like her husband involved, the scale gets tipped in her favor. That said, in my opinion, Chris Christie has the best chance at delivering a win for the GOP in '16. He reached across the aisle (or at least gave the perception of doing so) when Hurricane Sandy hit. Working with President Obama was a SHREWD move. The GOP can NOT win unless they get Dems to vote for them, period. There won't be some massive conversion of Democrats to Republicans in the next 2 years. BUT, if the GOP puts someone out there who gives the perception they can meet in the middle, they can woo enough Democratic voters to get a win. Singing the praises of Christie as a GOP presidential candidate is not that off-the-wall btw. US News and World Report has him #2 on the list of possible GOP nomination winners: 1st Paul, 2nd Christie, 3rd Jeb, 4th Scott Walker. Just as Hillary is helped by Bill, Rand is hurt by Ron. Just as Hillary is helped by Bill, Jeb is hurt by W. I haven't heard enough from Walker to get a feel for his swagger...but in the limited soundbites I've heard, he doesn't sound like a natural communicator. Christie's got the every-man feel the GOP needs. Huckabee's hurt himself with his Fox show. He's done. Cruz is too extreme. Jindal's a terrible communicator. Perry is too extreme. Santorum too stiff and religious. If you're saying the Dems "bought" the Hispanic vote by supporting common-sense stances on immigration and social welfare policies, I'll agree with you. Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by Left Brain Hmm, your post got me thinking about electability. While personally, I don't see Hillary anywhere near as electable as Obama...I do see the "Billary" combination as pretty strong though. Bill Clinton is a master communicator. He will be a huge asset for the Democratic side. What Hillary lacks in the personality department, Bill makes up for, and then some. Christie's the GOP's best chance in my opinion. Cruz and Paul have no shot. BUT, all bets are off the table if we're talking major catastrophe between now and then. Benghazi's pretty much all the GOP's got on Hillary, and between now and '16, it really isn't going to have an influence on the election. Like jmk-brooklyn wrote, folks are already set on what happened. I don't see folks changing their minds one way or the other at this point. A high % of Repubs see her as either incompetent or aloof on Benghazi, and a high % of Dems see it as a tragic attack that unfortunately will result in lives lost every few years. Let's face it, Reagan was re-elected after hundreds of Americans in Beirut were killed on his watch, and W was re-elected after 9/11 and a mis-directed military response on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Until the GOP can convince lower and middle income voters that cutting taxes on high income folks is a good thing (trust me, very tough sell), '16 will not go well for the GOP. Immigration will be an interesting issue as well. The GOP must realize the corner they've painted themselves into when it comes to the hugely important Hispanic vote which was lost at about a 70-30 clip in '12. It sure will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Left Brain I have not been following along....why is this coming up again? Wasn't already established that the report by the Gov't and the NY Times was wrong/fabricated? My personal opinion is that Benghazi hurts Hillary badly, so her supporters are going to do what they can to minimize the damage. This story was really forced this weekend and was pretty much the lead story on the major network news channels with statements such as "Benghazi was because of the video" etc...
Unfortunately, I don't see anything hurting Billary.......like Obama, she's electable with no credibility whatsoever. Not really a criticism of you CD, just talking points... On what planet is Christie's the GOPs best candidate??? Nothing about the guy is Presidential. And the Hispanic vote.... you mean if the GOP does not buy the Hispanic vote like the Dems... they are done? Because that is the only reason this is an issue at this point. Political maneuvering. ![]() ![]() You might be right about Christie being more in the middle... but he is a hot mess. Seriously. Moderates might, but (R)s won't vote for him. Paul is enough of his own person... I like him, but not sure he can win POTUS. Hillary... no thanks. Nothing to do with her.... I'm so over two families ruling this country. Jed... see above. I have no problem with immigration reform. The "deport them" crowd are looney tunes. However... Obama could have got reform when he had control of Congress. He didn't. The ONLY reason he is using EO now is pure political maneuvering. He is buying votes for '16. He is forcing the GOP to do something... and consequently looking bad (not that they need help with that). It's wrong. Wrong to use EO and blame it on Congress not passing a bill. Pure Washington BS. Obama is a one trick pony... he can't stop blaming others for his own failures. He is a great speaker.... and a horrible leader. But hey.... Hispanics will vote for (D)s...that's all that matters. So (R)s are going to vote for Hillary over Christie? I don't think so. Why pander to the hardcore conservative crowd? It serves zero purpose. Every year that goes by, hardcore conservatism shrinks. Far Right and far Left are automatic votes. It's the folks in the middle that are being courted in general elections. It's why every smear ad put out by both parties will paint their opponent as extreme left or extreme right. You say Obama could have had immigration reform? Perhaps, but not in the form he preferred. It's kinda funny, half the time he's portrayed as weak and ineffective...the other half he's a powerful and merciless dictator. Kinda funny. Let's not pretend the use of the EO came out of left field. Had the House really wanted to prevent the EO, they could have. They were playing politics just as much as the President was. It's been a constant game of chicken in which neither side backs down. The Republicans knew the EO was coming so instead of passing a bill they figured they could make Obama look like a bully running roughshod over the Constitution. Let's not pretend this isn't a 2-way street. It's politics. You say he's a horrible leader...we can agree to disagree. he sure did lead (and win) two decisively strong presidential campaigns. The Republicans didn't have to lose Hispanic votes. W got 40% in '04. McCain 31% and Romney 27%. Perhaps the (R)s could support policies that would endear their candidates to the Hispanic community? OR, I guess they could b l a m e the Dems for buying the Hispanic vote. See what I did there? ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() OK, that's fair about the games the GOP plays too. And yes, the GOP are being obstructionist. That doesn't change the fact Obama does not know how to work with people. I don't get the Christie thing at all. Plain don't get it. I'm sure the media would love him as a candidate... But no way in heck he gets the GOP nomination. You can quote me on that. ![]() The GOP is another hot mess. The party of exclusion. This is not the first time factions have fought in the GOP. The party is definitely moving more right. Not the first time for that either... But they used to be leaders on civil rights. They are loosing that too. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman OK, that's fair about the games the GOP plays too. And yes, the GOP are being obstructionist. That doesn't change the fact Obama does not know how to work with people. I don't get the Christie thing at all. Plain don't get it. I'm sure the media would love him as a candidate... But no way in heck he gets the GOP nomination. You can quote me on that. ![]() The GOP is another hot mess. The party of exclusion. This is not the first time factions have fought in the GOP. The party is definitely moving more right. Not the first time for that either... But they used to be leaders on civil rights. They are loosing that too. They haven't led in civil rights in my lifetime...and I'm 4 decades old. There was a time the GOP stayed out of your doctor's office too. Abortion was not a GOP issue. I will be interested to see who earns the nom. If the republicans lose again in '16, you've gotta wonder if conservatives splinter off to form their own party in '20. Especially if a middle of the roader is nominated again. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Well it's only been a few more decades since you have been alive that the Dems have "looked" like they are champions of civil rights. They were the party of slavery, and if you listen to some extremist, they still are just with a different tact. The core principles of the GOP are still relevant and valid. Where it's gone off the rails is social conservatism. That has gone against their history. Not that conservatives don't have a religious core, but limited government and legislating morals is incompatible. But... It isn't just the right trying to legislate morals... The left is most certainly pushing a moral agenda. And I don't want their brand of utopia any more than I want the extreme right'. Moderates have been pushed out of the GOP before. They consolidated power around a smaller limited government. That's a good thing for everyone. They just need to drop the big tent revival primary process to figure out who loves Jesus more. Not that there is anything wrong with that... But it has nothing to do with the federal government. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I am sure that report will not stop the overpass people from still using it. I read a lot of articles that IRS targeted potentially politically groups regardless of political leanings but I still hear people complaining about that. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() So it's cool if the IRS targets political groups, as long as they do it equally? ![]() The problem is the right tries to turn these failures into some sort of indictment of the administration. The problem with the administration is they try to cover up and pretend there is no problem. The answer as usual is in the middle. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by powerman Well it's only been a few more decades since you have been alive that the Dems have "looked" like they are champions of civil rights. They were the party of slavery, and if you listen to some extremist, they still are just with a different tact. The core principles of the GOP are still relevant and valid. Where it's gone off the rails is social conservatism. That has gone against their history. Not that conservatives don't have a religious core, but limited government and legislating morals is incompatible. But... It isn't just the right trying to legislate morals... The left is most certainly pushing a moral agenda. And I don't want their brand of utopia any more than I want the extreme right'. Moderates have been pushed out of the GOP before. They consolidated power around a smaller limited government. That's a good thing for everyone. They just need to drop the big tent revival primary process to figure out who loves Jesus more. Not that there is anything wrong with that... But it has nothing to do with the federal government. Great points and well-taken. Personally, while I'm definitely left-leaning, I'm pretty personally conservative so I hear ya lud and clear. I'm not an "it takes a village" kinda guy. btw, on the "who loves Jesus more?" competition in the GOP, I just read an article on Ben Carson. Apparently God's talking to him. Oy vey. |
|
![]() |