Benghazi redux (Page 2)

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

Originally posted by powerman

Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy

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.

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!

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.

I'm with Powerman on Christie.  He's an idiot and there's no way in heck he even gets close to the nomination.  If he did, he would be destroyed in the general election.

I always look at who the media tells me that I'm supposed to be voting for, and I know with certainty that is the last candidate that I want to vote for.  lol

CD, as for conservatism shrinking, there's no question that aspects of conservatism such as Marriage and Bibles in school type stuff that are shrinking.  However, there are aspects of Liberalism that are dying as well.  The war on women, and race baiting type things are becoming more and more of a joke in politics, and entitlements are not as en vogue as they used to be.

As a nation, we are primarily Conservative overall, and people who identify themselves as moderate make up the next biggest chunk.  Self described liberals are a distant minority in America.  So, from a math/population standpoint moving further to the left is not a good strategy from a political standpoint.

I'm still confident that a person who is fiscally conservative and Libertarian overall about social issues will absolutely crush it in the general election.  The closest people to that are Paul and Cruz, with an edge to Paul on the Libertarianism.  I'm not saying they're perfect, because they're not.  However, Hillary, Bush, or Christie would be nothing more than continued big spending Cronies and nothing would change.

I'm not saying Cruz or Paul wouldn't be corrupted, but they have a better shot than the establishment folks.