I remember when war-hawk New York RINO Peter King boisterously boasted that Hillary Clinton (who he seemed to be virtually campaigning for, like a blushing young teen in the throes of a crush) would “cream” Rand Paul or Ted Cruz in a race. We have seen the same boosterism from other possible Republican 2016 candidates. As far as I can tell, the media treats their predictions of a Clinton victory against a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz presidential candidacy as they are sober and realistic calculations.
But wait! The mainstream media’s perspective shifts when they are not out there allowing GOP internationalists to pile on Rand Paul. It turns out that mainstream Republicans might not be able to defeat Hilary Clinton. In fact, to even speak against her has “the potential to backfire.” They quote Democrat operative Ben Tulchin.
“Tulchin argues the attacks will only help Clinton, already a powerful fundraiser, because supporters will put up money to defend her in the media. Tulchin argues the early attacks will likely weaken anything Republicans try in the general election, when it might matter most.”
Uh, right. So Republicans can only campaign by… never campaigning against Hillary?
I have a better idea. If the GOP doesn’t want to be defeated by Hillary (and at this point, I think a number of prominent Republicans are already planning on voting for her) why don’t we stop campaigning for her? Peter King, John McCain, and Chris Christie have all virtually endorsed her international policies and abilities (Christie, I think, stuck with Obama, but it has the same effect). And then we attack marginalia while overlooking insanely large crimes:
“Capitol Hill Republicans appeared to zero in on Clinton even before she stepped down as secretary of state, insisting she testify about the September 2012 terror attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans were killed. Republicans show no signs of dropping that course of action, with potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul telling Fox News on Tuesday that Clinton ‘needs to be deposed again.’ Democrats appear convinced the Republicans’ efforts are a clear attempt to tarnish Clinton.”
No, they are providing cover for her. Rand Paul is playing nice by limiting himself to Benghazi because something stinks about it. But how can anyone get outraged over Benghazi and ignore the overall crimes Obama and NATO committed in Libya? We openly sponsored Al Qaeda mercenaries to turn a secular dictatorship that was at peace with us into a jihadist/terrorist playground. We overlooked torture and murder and pretended we were on a humanitarian mission. And in 2012 Romney never breathed a word against this homicidal madness, even though we had used Kaddafi as an example of how we would work with a government that renounced terrorism. Before the world we showed the nations (like, say, Iran) how we would break agreements and use psychotic, American-hating terrorists to inflict Hell on a country so we could change up oil leases.
We are doing the same thing now with Syria, getting Christians and others tortured, raped, killed, and cannibalized. We need a candidate who will firmly oppose all of this, not another Romney who will lie about us having “friends” in Syria that we can support.
Yes, if the psychotic, terrorist-sponsoring, Sunni-Jihadist-supporting Establishment Republicans keep Rand Paul out of the race, Hillary will win.
She will effectively be the actual GOP nominee.