A Republican's Nightmare? Really? Remember 2008? Everyone thought Hillary was inevitable then.

American Thinker ^ | 05/10/2014 | Jim Yardley

[SeekAndFind]

As the 2014 mid-term elections move inexorably closer, political pundits are burning up their word processors.

They are trying to explain how (a) the political parties will fare in the battle for control of Congress and (b) who will be running for the Presidency in 2016 and (c) of those candidates, who will succeed?

Sadly each of them is also working with certain underlying assumptions that they take as if they were part of the words given to Moses, to be relayed to the people below. One of these assumptions revolves around the candidate that the Democrats will offer in 2016, that the pundits think is (a) inevitable and (b) essentially unbeatable. The candidate? Why Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course.

Should Hillary choose to run, the assumption that her election is inevitable is pretty safe, or at least as safe as any political prediction can be. Remember though, in 2008 every political pundit thought Hillary’s nomination was inevitable, too. Oops. But for the sake of argument, let’s work from the basis that she actually becomes the Democrat nominee. Then one must look at why Hillary (or any other Democrat) should be considered unbeatable.

Reason #1: She will be running against Republicans

While I abhor the ideas fostered by Democrats and their Progressive puppeteers, I will admit that I admire and envy the Democrat’s control of their members. Their party control is total, and unwavering. No matter how idiotic their proposals, every Democrat, from Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, down to the elected dog-catcher in East Podunk, Iowa all sing out of the same hymnbook and always sing in harmony. And they never vary from that same song, no matter how ridiculous

[grania]

hillary is only unbeatable if the opponent is the likes of Jeb or Christie or any other RINO. They've already compromised their position, and we need someone who will change directions for the US.

Maybe someone will emerge on the HOR Banaghazi panel who is smart, articulate, quick thinking and understands the law and foreign affairs.

[Sacajaweau]

I've been saying all along....they'll use Hillary just like they did the last time and pull another articulate communist out from somewhere...........and hammer her. Some people don't learn.

I thought the grandchild would be her excuse but now I think she's gonna get sick a couple times.

[MeshugeMikey]

I will suggest that that person is Trey Gowdy!

[PapaNew]

Well, back then we were worried about Porky Pig and got Godzilla instead. Not the greatest trade-off. Hopefully this time, whoever beats her will be smart enough to take down this $4 trillion government and replace it with freedom and the free market economy.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Problem the rats will have is differentiating Obama’s failures with what Hillary can bring to the table. She offers nothing that could change America.

It is only more of the same, except instead of Republicans being racists, they will now be sexists.

[MeshugeMikey]

Sexism will BE the New Racism come 2016!!

[Kozak]

I don’t think she gets nominated. Too much baggage. She will be as old as Reagan when he was elected, and on her the years wear harder. Look for some other woman to be the nominee. Like Fauxcahantas, the Left which rules the Rats right now would love her.

[onedoug]

hillary’s “Stolen Valor” re Bosnia.

[RIghtwardHo]

This is NOT 2008. Our has changed radically since then.

[Din Maker]

hillary is only unbeatable if the opponent is the likes of Jeb or Christie or any other RINO........Maybe someone will emerge on the HOR Banaghazi panel ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First of all: Your Point #1 is not true. Poll after poll shows that most Americans hold to Conservative ideology. We just need someone who is politically smart enough to outwit the Democrats who are a helluva lot smarter than our team, as this Article, so effectively, pointed out. Secondly......

Without using the phrase "Identity Politics", that's really what this Article was all about. As long as we keep nominating rich, old, white farts for the Presidency we will lose. What's wrong with nominating a Conservative woman or a Conservative Hispanic? IMO, Susana Martinez, Gov. of New Mexico fills the bill on both accounts. But, to hell with common sense; the GOP will nominate Rand Paul or Jeb Bush or Rob Portman or Scott Walker or some other lily white Anglo-Saxon Protestant and we will be stuck with Dems from here until eternity. I doubt that I will ever see another Republican in the White House in my lifetime.

And finally: Sad to say, the majority of the American voters do not give a sh** about Benghazi.

[Din Maker]

Our has changed radically since then.
_____________________________________________________________

Our “what?” has changed radically? Our culture? Yes. Our demographics? Yes. Our values? Yes. Just wondering what word you left out.

[TomGuy]

The Clintons have never been very ‘popular’ with the Dem-elites.

Considering how the MSM had Ms Inevitable on her way to her coronation in 2008, it was rather surprising that a young upstart who only had a short stint in the state legislature and 2 years in the US Senate managed to derail her trek.

No doubt there are plenty who would vote for ABC* in 2016 Dem primaries, too.

—

* Anyone But Clinton

==

Across the aisle, the GOP will find similar problems, especially if/when they nominate a elite. They didn’t learn anything from 1996 or 2008 or 2012.

Many on the Right have an ABB** situation and a bunch of retreads from 2008/2012 hinting they they will try again.

—

** Anyone But Bush

[dfwgator]

Clintons and Bushes are cut from the same cloth.

[grania]

It’s been said here that Gowdy supports the invasion of the US.

[TomGuy]

http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Trey_Gowdy_Immigration.htm

[grania]

I'd be surprised if anyone who doesn't 100% support ending the invasion of the US and sending home invaders could win. For a lot of us, saving the US starts there. I don't want a woman or hispanic, it looks like pandering.

The problem we have now is that no one had the instincts to rise up quickly and command issues such as Bundy (federal over-reach), the kidnapping of school girls in Nigeria (the effects of supporting terrorists), the burning of churches and Syria and Egypt (we're supporting the wrong side). Those were opportunities lost to define the issues.

[MeshugeMikey]

Well we may need to deal with his attributes one chunk at a time.

Take the benficial and innoculate ourselves against the worst.

[grania]

Thanks, TG, I read it. Gowdy's immigration position is written intelligently and clearly. He's real good about secure the borders first and enforce the laws. He didn't say anything about EVerify, which is the other necessary piece.

He did say something about "compassion for the politically oppressed". Uh....didn't the Tsarnov brothers who blew up the Boston marathon get here because they were "politically oppressed"? With all of the terrorists on the loose all over the globe (thanks, Obama), it's a real bad idea to let anyone in the US because of oppression; we just don't know what skills and passions they bring with them. What's to stop the animosities from spilling over into the US?

I will grant you that Gowdy has thought about the issue. Maybe he'll be the guy to emerge. I sure hope somebody does.

[Din Maker]

I don’t want a woman or hispanic, it looks like pandering.
_____________________________________________________________

“looks like pandering” to whom? I don’t know how old you are but have you lived your entire life worried about what people think rather than doing what’s right? If so, you must be most miserable. To hell with what it “looks like”.