Posted on 07/09/2018 5:13:11 AM PDT by EyesOfTX
Today’s Campaign Update (Because The Campaign Never Ends)
Hillary Clinton, the gift that just keeps on giving. To Republicans. – Oh please, let this be so. Michael Goodwin, terrific columnist for the New York Post, had a great piece on Saturday laying out the reasons why he believes that the Fainting Felon is planning behind the scenes to mount yet another run for the presidency in 2020. Personally, I think he’s right – have long thought this would inevitably be the case – and that everyone should begin prepping themselves for Hillary Part III: The Return of the Pantsuit.
And why not? Think about it – what other, truly viable candidate for the presidency does the Democrat Party truly have sitting out there for 2020? Fauxcahontas? President Trump would dispose of her with a one-liner in their first debate. Republicans would be thrilled to fund her primary campaign.
Kirsten Gillebrand? She’s Hillary, Part II: The Clone Wars. Not a genuine cell in her entire body. This is a politician so utterly fake that she spent six months running around the country tossing the “F” word and other profanities into her speeches because she had polling information that showed that cussing appealed to Millennial voters. That tactic wore thin very quickly, and you’ll note she isn’t doing it any more. She’s an out-and-out joke, which, come to think of it, would make her the Democrat Party’s perfect nominee in 2020. But Hillary Clinton is literally the Queen of political fakery. She’s been doing it since Gillebrand was wearing diapers.
Corey Booker? This guy’s closet looks like a skeleton repository. The Clinton machine would grind him into dust in a month once primary season begins.
Kamala Harris? She wants to be the Second Coming of Barack Obama, and maybe she can be. She’s certainly attractive, glib, narcissistic and shallow enough. But second comings in national politics are really hard to pull off. Just ask Jack Kemp, the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan, or John Edwards, the Second Coming of Bill Clinton, exactly how hard that is to do.
Who else you got, Democrats? No matter who raises his or her hand, you can bet the Grasping Grifter is sitting there, plotting a way to destroy them in her unending quest to attain the nation’s highest office and convert our entire country into a mob-style influence peddling operation. She’s already got her own Super PAC established and well-funded, and a small army of brainwashed boy toys like Brian Fallon and Robby Mook ready to go out and parrot talking points on her behalf.
Anyone who expected the Pantsuit Princess to just gracefully accept defeat and fade off into the sunset like a normal person doesn’t understand Hillary Clinton.
Prime Time Tonight: The world’s greatest showman nominates a Supreme Court Justice! – No one understands the power of television like President Trump does. Where past presidents announced their supreme court nominees in mid-day appearances in the White House briefing room, this President schedules his announcements for prime time in a ball room filled with his staff, congressional leaders and cabinet officials. It’s like the final episodes of each season of The Celebrity Apprentice, only now the “celebrity” winner gets to sit on the nation’s highest court for the next 30 years or so, God willing.
All the speculation on the nominee’s identity centers around four contenders: Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. They’re all great judges, all solidly conservative in their jurisprudence, and any would make a fine member of the Supreme Court.
My view is that the obvious best choice here is Judge Barrett, and yes, it’s because of her gender. But before any of you gets too upset, let me at least explain my reasoning.
The Democrats are going to either “Bork” or “Clarence Thomas” this nominee. Regardless of who the person is, regardless of that person’s gender or race or religion or education background or personal integrity, the nominee for this seat on the Supreme Court is going to either be painted as “too extreme” in their views or they will have people coming out of the woodwork to accuse them of sexual harassment or some other sorts of wrongdoing from many years ago that cannot be proven or disproven.
For this simple reason alone, the President should pick Judge Barrett to fill this seat. As we saw during the 2016 election campaign, it is just too easy for the Democrats to go out and pay a woman or ten women to claim they had affairs or were sexually harassed by a male nominee. As we saw with Clarence Thomas and with the ongoing #MeToo movement, the woman in such situations is always – always – going to be presumed by the media to be telling the truth.
Because of the manner in which our society has been conditioned to view such interactions between men and women, it will be far harder for Democrats to pay one or more men to scurry out from under the baseboards to claim they were mistreated in some way by a female nominee. Thus, all other factors being equal, Judge Barrett becomes the obvious choice.
It’s sad to be writing this stuff, and I take no joy in doing so, but these are the rules that leftwingers and radical feminists have constructed for our society. Republicans, and President Trump, would be stupid not to acknowledge those rules and take them into account. Yes, many Republicans are in fact stupid, but the President is not among them.
The other, equally obvious reason to nominate Judge Barrett is that, just last year, she was subjected to the senate confirmation process. Her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee was very contentious, and the odious Democrats threw most of their playbook at her, focusing mainly on their own inherent religious bigotry against Judge Barrett’s Catholic faith.
Most of America did not get to see the spectacle of the despicable Dianne Feinstein telling Judge Barrett that “the [Catholic] dogma lives loudly within you,” so it would be quite educational for the country if President Trump gives the California Senator a chance to repeat her display of religious bigotry to a broader national audience.
With the mid-term elections coming up and the Democrats still somehow clinging to their “gender gap” advantage with women voters, the President should let his opponents take their best shots at this highly-qualified female nominee. In fact, he should dare them to do so.
Just another day in Amy Coney Barrett is the obvious choice here America.
That is all.
Follow me on Twitter at @GDBlackmon
“Fainting Felon” is clever, but she’ll always be PIAPS to me.
Politically correct but substantively a woman Supreme Court Justice is a disaster.
Maybe Barrett will break the pattern.
Just can’t go on with all the SC women on the leftists’ side, the optics are awful, and it’s a tire iron that Democrats and their Media pals will always use to bash us.
Why can’t there be strong conservative women on the SC?
Barrett is probably good, but for this seat, “probably” is not good enough.
Three words: Sandra Day O’Connor
I so disagree. Give her time in her relatively new position to see how her conservative, pro-Constitution views hold up. As someone else on FR pointed out last week, when Ginsburg goes (one way or another) the outcry will be for a female to replace her. It’s best to save the best female for that point, who might or might not be Barrett.
She may be qualified but please tell me of one past or existing female SCOTUS justice that was not a liberal. The three existing female SCOTUS justices would, I believe, influence her enough that she would “grow in office.”
Insufficient experience...
So are FReepers who have a bias against women.
Hardiman. Has experience Barrett lacks today, but will have when Ginsberg goes. Fav of Trump’s sister, was on short list last time which is why he was not interviewed this time around. Uncontentious nomination.
This will be a tough pick to get through. Next time it will be easy.
Clinton is “leaking” her impending Presidential run (again). I hope the Democrats fall for it (again), and have her suck all of the oxygen out of their campaigns.
Trump will definitely have the opportunity to do this then.
I have been so sickened at the public attacks on conservative women — Ivanka, DeVos, Sanders, Melania — I can’t stand the upcoming spectacle if Barrett is appointed.
But perhaps Trump will enjoy the optics of all the fem libs coming to pummel her.
There are some men on FR who believe that “strong conservative women” don’t exist. They think women are, by nature, weak in principle and intellect.
I don’t know anything about this judge, but some of the knee-jerk misogyny here is laughable.
I ageee she would be the best choice but I am not sure she’s confirmable. And if she fails then there will be no time before the election for plan B.
We MUST have a strong constitutionalist on the SC.
Does she qualify?
Literally nothing else matters.
True. There will be no time. However, that could work in our favor in
a massive get out the vote in the coming election to insure we have more
Senators who can confirm after the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.