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.
“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...”
Don’t forget the media. She has the media.
Someone who was there please tell me, did Goldwater ever have a chance in 1964? There had to be the ‘Wellstone Memorial’ feeling for the Dems after Kennedy’s death.
No president ever ordered the dropping of nuclear bombs. Atomic bombs use fission. Nuclear bombs use an atomic bomb to ignite another bomb that uses fusion to do its damage. Huge difference. Truman ordered Atomic Bombs to be dropped...
And, as in many cases when it comes to old Democrats, I'm in complete agreement with him on that particular major decision. I'm also on board with JFK's "ask not what your country can do for you", MLK's "I have a dream that one day my four little children will be judged based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin", and the 1994 Dem Party Platform talking point that said "the era of Big Government is over". Don't be so blind as the Left as to castigate every word and choice of every person, just because of a label they have been given.
Goldwater ran an honest campaign, LBJ a dishonest one based on making his opponent look like a dangerous Gen. Jack Ripper.
But the bottom line was that America wasn’t ready for three Presidents in less than a year. Johnson pretended to offer continuity to JFK’s New Frontier, and the voters responded.
The following year we were up to our @zz in Vietnam.
+1
I was told voting for Goldwater meant we would have riots in the streets and get into a long un-winnable war. Well I voted for Goldwater, and darned if they weren't right.
You barely touched on the myriad of reasons. She’s going down in flames, it’s not even going to be lose. Yay!!
But in our hearts we knew he was right.
If the best Hillary can do is go back in time 52 years in an attempt to dredge up some supposed conservative bugaboo to use against Trump, she doesn’t stand a chance. For anybody not already old enough to collect social security a mention of Barry Goldwater is going elicit a response of, “Huh? Who is that? Was he in a band?” Not to mention that in 1964 the nation was in the hottest part of the Cold War with nuclear war a real threat, today the mention of nuclear war gets little more than a yawn or shrug...
And with confidence they will FAIL.
I think Hilary will be out of the running, and sooner rather than later. (When’s their convention?). I think the Dems will run Biden + Faucahontas as the ‘sane grown-ups.’ They’ve been keeping the lid on Biden so no one will remember the idiotic things he has said. The Dems will be thrilled to have someone to vote for who looks ‘normal’ and Obama will be thrilled to have a puppet in the office for another 8.
Hillary Clinton got her start in politics as a “Goldwater Girl” in 1964.
Ironic, ain’t it?
A semi-coherent statement that would be 100% true if only looking at the race from the politically correct angle that, in case you missed it, has NOT been an issue WHATSOEVER this election. Trump need not address anything about how he goes about his campaign. It has been clear cut enough to win the primary. It will resonate in the general as well. What we need are all the (politically correct, poll driven, establishment jackboot licking) armchair quarterbacks to shut the hell up and let Trump do what Trump does best.
I actually remember the “daisy” ad. I had just turned 5. It aired on a Sunday night (as I recall) and I never saw it again. But I clearly remember seeing it. An astonishing thing, the human mind.
In order for Hillary to successfully pull off a repeat of 1964 she is going to have to get Obama to take a parade through downtown Dallas in a convertible.
It was largely the sympathy vote over JFK and Bobby’s speech at the Dem convention in Atlantic City telling America that it was what JFK would have wanted that really turned the election into a blow-out.
If that is true then wouldn’t all those donations (bribes) to the Clinton Fraudation from foreign entities have been wasted?
Of course, but if said "foreign entities" were altogether too stupid to figure out they were buying a complete "nothing burger", with Clinton "special sauce", it isn't anybody's problem but their own. Now, if they desire to recoup their loss out of HRC's hide? Far be it from little old me to stand in their way...
the infowarrior
The lesser reason is one that we have become quite familiar with in the past few election cycles: the Republican party controllers -- the GOPe if you like -- really hate anyone in the party (or calling themselves members of the party) who doesn't follow their instructions and/or dogma. Why? Such a person directly threatens their current power, possibly even for the long term. Because of this, they work tirelessly to sabotage any such person. In 1964, they pushed for Scranton, then sat on their hands when the general election rolled around.
The other, greater reason is that -- absent some extreme circumstance -- the American public will simply not tolerate three different presidents within the span of 15 months (Nov. 1963-Jan. 1965). This is not particularly rational, to be sure, but it is inarguable.
What **may** have changed in this cycle is that Trump is not, by any stretch, a traditional Republican sticking a thumb in the eye of the GOPe. Rather, he's just a man who is capitalising pretty successfully on the general loathing of the do-nothing Republican party bosses. In this, he is aided considerably by the (frankly, self-evident) fact that Clinton is an appallingly bad candidate. The result of these two circumstances is that some apparently large number of voting groups, working-class Democrats and the indifferent being two such groups, are -- so far at least -- rallying to Trump.
We shall just have to wait to see if the continuing efforts of the vermin of the Bos-Wash corridor will come through to produce a victory for the latter-day Madame Defarge. I happen to think that there is a decent shot that they will fail.
FReegards,
Goldwater had absolutely no chance in 1964. In the aftermath of JFK being killed no one would have or could have beat Johnson. Now if JFK had lived then Goldwater would have had a good chance of beating him. Something we will never know.
I believe I said as much, Captain, although phrased more generally. Still haven’t figured out why that drug-soaked mediocrity of a rich boy was such an idol. The press, I suppose. At any rate, we are certainly agreed.
She is old, old-school, and uses old ideas and tactics. No one has ever faced the likes of a Donald Trump who has rendered all traditional campaigning and "political logic" moot. She will have no clue what hit her. Trump will have to tell her to "put some ice on that" when he's done.
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.