Posted on 05/12/2016 7:38:46 AM PDT by AuntB
Here’s how Hillary Clinton plans to beat Donald Trump: She will replay the very successful 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater. That is, she will scare the bejeezus out of Americans by describing Trump as a “loose cannon,” someone who cannot be trusted with America’s nuclear arsenal. At the same time, she will convince Republicans, alarmed at the prospect of a Goldwater-scale defeat, that backing her is the sensible choice. Her surrogates in the media are already spreading this narrative, which may prove as empty as Clinton’s record as secretary of state.
Goldwater was the conservative presidential candidate who went down in flames in 1964, winning only six states, because Democrats convinced voters he might drop an atom bomb on China. The clincher for opponent Lyndon Johnson was the “Daisy” television ad, showing a young girl plucking the petals off a daisy as a male voice counts down from 10 to 1. The ad closes with a gigantic nuclear explosion filling the screen. You can easily imagine a similar ad surfacing this year, with a split screen showing Trump bellowing insults or promising to take on China while a nuke demolishes the Forbidden City.
The news media, ever faithful, has picked up the hint. Face the Nation, CNN, MSNBC and others have recently featured segments and op-eds about Goldwater, noting how his candidacy devastated the GOP. They frequently forget to mention that Hillary Clinton — yes, Hillary Clinton — worked for Barry Goldwater’s campaign. Clinton was a “proud” conservative in her youth, before she became a liberal and then a “pragmatic progressive.” Even as Trump has ranged widely over the political plains, so has Clinton.
Related: Cruz Might Restart His Campaign, But Won’t Say He’s for Trump
Hillary’s claim, of course, is that unlike Trump she will be a reliable, steady hand on the wheel. She touts her foreign policy chops and experience gathered while first lady and more importantly as secretary of state. Yet, the more we know about the functioning of the Obama White House, the more it becomes clear that she had very little authority or even influence in foreign affairs.
The disturbing piece published last weekend in The New York Times Magazine about the power and influence of would-be novelist then Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, concluding that Rhodes has been “the single most influential voice shaping American foreign policy aside from Potus himself,” confirms her marginal role.
In the specific events which led to the Iran deal, for instance, Clinton said in a speech to the Brookings Institute, “I sent one of my closest aides [Jake Sullivan] as part of a small team to begin talks with the Iranians in secret,” hinting that she was behind the overtures. However, as author David Samuels tells the story, the effort was actually orchestrated by Obama, working with Rhodes, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns and Clinton aide Jake Sullivan. Later on, of course, John Kerry became the torch bearer.
Related: Trump Running Strong Against Clinton in 3 Battleground States
Samuels’ conclusion dovetails with former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ account in his book, Duty: Memoires of a Secretary of War: “The White House staff — including Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then Bill Daley as well as such core political advisers as Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs — would have a role in national security decision making that I had not previously experienced…”
That may be why Gates, despite having some positive things to say about Hillary, has not endorsed her. Or maybe it was because Clinton offended Gates by admitting that she had opposed the successful surge in Iraq for purely political reasons. In either case, his neutrality is not flattering.
Voters should wonder: Why did Hillary play such a minor role? Was Obama’s hiring of his former opponent an example of “keeping your friends close and enemies closer?” Did Obama, like Bernie Sanders, question her judgement? We may never know, but those questions are fair game for Trump. As is: What did Hillary actually accomplish as secretary of state?
Critics on the right have ridiculed Clinton for having been unable on more than one occasion to cite any significant accomplishments while in office. Not only has Hillary whiffed on the question, so have State Department officials and also Democratic supporters of the former first lady. Don’t think Trump won’t pounce on the lapses.
Or make an issue of her temper and volatility, which have been widely reported. Trump is not the only one capable of lashing out.
Related: As Hillary Plays the Woman Card, More Men Are Being Dealt Out
Meanwhile, recent polling challenges the conclusion that Donald Trump’s nomination will ensure a landslide win for Hillary. The liberal media has been especially gleeful about the schism in the GOP, and has incessantly broadcast the most unflattering surveys of voter preferences. But, Quinnipiac just released a poll showing Trump in a dead heat with Clinton in crucial swing states Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio (where he is actually ahead.)
Given the incessant pounding that the press has given Trump, and the disarray in GOP ranks, this is a shocker. Indications of possible success might bring Republicans on board a Trump candidacy. If he begins to look like a possible winner, GOP elites will be scrambling to get a prime seat at the table. Everybody loves a winner; the Donald says so, often.
[snip] Liz Peek was one of the first women on Wall Street to earn that most hallowed of titles --Partner. After graduating with an Honors Degree in Economics and as a Durant Scholar from Wellesley College, she joined a research boutique on Wall Street where she developed an improbable expertise in backhoes, mining equipment, oilfield wireline services and drilling fluids. She became a CFA and in 1975 she moved to Wertheim & Company, a leading equities house which subsequently was bought by Schroder, Inc. and then by Citigroup. During almost two decades with the firm, Liz became a top-ranked analyst covering oilfield services companies, co-head of investment research and head of the firm’s international research department. ....In recent years Liz has been a columnist with The Fiscal Times and FoxNews.com. For several years she was the business columnist for The New York Sun; she has also written for The Huffington Post, The Motley Fool and published a weekly column on Women on the Web (wowOwow.) She has also contributed articles to Trends, a business periodical in the Middle East, Avenue and The New York Observer. She is a regular guest on FoxNews.comLive and has appeared on other TV programs including Larry Kudlow and Fox and Friends. She has been twice nominated for a Loeb Award. http://www.lizpeek.com/index.php/site/about/
Trump isn’t Goldwater.
Goldwater wrote the book on how to be the designated loser.
“Trump isn’t Goldwater.”
We know that. The point of the article is that THEY will try to make Trump seem like Goldwater with fear mongering.
Here’s why Hillary Loses:
1) Obama recession and she represents a continuation of Obama
2) People are saying they are mad at Government and she represents a government insider
3) She is crooked and untrustworthy
4) No accomplishments, no passion,
5) She has never been challenged and she is going to get one heck of an ongoing direct challenge from Trump.
she had very little authority or even influence in foreign affairs.
If that is true then wouldn’t all those donations (bribes) to the Clinton Fraudation from foreign entities have been wasted?
Not a chance.
Hillary lives in a 100% glass house. She’s too vulnerable, and Trump will not pull any punches - you can be sure of that.
There’s only one way for her to win - she has to run on “I’m a woman and it’s time for a woman!” I can just hear that screeching voice now...
Regardless of the Goldwater history and the little girl nuke ads (IIRC), Hillary - if she attempts the “I’m the sane, responsible one who can react responsibly...blah blah”, all Trump has to do is to create a timeline of that night when Benghazi happened, where SHE was, what SHE did, where Obama was, what OBAMA did and say “3AM my ass.”
Yeah, that will work great.
All of those points except (1) and (5) were true of Lyndon Johnson back in ‘68.
With respect to (1), The US wasn’t in a recession in ‘68 (one started in ‘69).
As far as (5) goes, Johnson folded and went home when a real challenge became a possibility. I don’t think Hillary’s smart enough to do that.
Yup! Very good!
Grifters and cons are good at separating money from their owners.
The only president to ever drop a nuclear bomb was a Democrat. He dropped two of them.
The 64’election was a sympathy vote for Kennedy. To show how bad a candidate lbj was he did not even run in 68 after all of the “legislative success” he’d had.
Ha good luck wid dat
Loose Cannon indeed, and perhaps a good attribute
At the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 Admiral Lord Nelson devised a tactical device that enabled him with only 27 ships (and smaller) to defeat the 33 larger ships of the Spanish Armada.
As well as his ships being more maneuverable...his cannons, being smaller were more easily aimed for best effect.
Hillary will lose.
The scenario that worries me is, she’s indicted or drops our for health reasons and Biden-Warren is put up in her place, pulling the D party together including the Bernie wing.
However, Trump would have a heyday with those two!
Number 6: Screeching! Who wants to listen to that for the next 4-8 years?
This will NOT be an easy election to win... and Trump's loose cannon mouth is by far the biggest obstacle to overcome before he can even start taking on those juggernauts. We have a long way to go and a short time to get there, and recognizing that the candidate himself has some huge issues to deal with first is priority one, and yet many here still cannot muster the intellectual honesty required to make this small, important, and obvious admission.
I’m starting to believe Trump will be the next President. Out job as conservatives is to influence him in any way possible towards small gov’t free market positions.
“The only president to ever drop a nuclear bomb was a Democrat. He dropped two of them.”
Not only that, the number of US soldier deaths under democrats is vastly more than under republicans.
On this link is a great little meme showing the deaths of each war ...Iraq to WWI.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2015/05/for-those-who-served-thank-you-not-one.html
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.