GOP tries out new fishing hole: The Clinton Foundation

[Huey Grey]

The Republican fishing trips for Benghazi and emails have left them with few catches, so they've packed up and moved to their third option. The Clinton Foundation. Will they finally catch that whopper they've promised is out there? Only time will tell. But the fact that they're down to plan C suggests that they may go hungry in 2016.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-asks-irs-to-audit-clinton-charity-finances/

 

[rocketclone]

Lets wait and see how the commercials go.......they will start on Hillary soon and they will play over and over and over about emails and lying to the public.......she is going to get Romnied............

The one I am waiting for is the families of the 4 that died in the attack.....those are going to be brutal

 

[Rifler]

Don't worry, the GOP has a never ending bag of ammunition to use against the Hillary campaign. Her recent self created problems have simply allowed them to save their powder....

 

[Huey Grey]

Lets wait and see how the commercials go.......they will start on Hillary soon and they will play over and over and over about emails and lying to the public.......she is going to get Romnied............

The one I am waiting for is the families of the 4 that died in the attack.....those are going to be brutal

I don't think this will happen. Keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation is the GOP's third line of attack against Hillary. If it was a source likely to furnish lots of ammunition, I suspect the GOP would have used it as their first line of attack. Also keep in mind that the GOP has already thrown everything they can against Hillary concerning emails. She weathered that storm and is once again on the rise. And lastly, it will be easy for Hillary to counter such attacks. She simply has to point out that instead of having ideas, all the R's can do is to go after her. The GOP already looks bad with Benghazi, so that message would be easy to craft.

 

[TexMichFan]

I like fishing.

 

[moral_victory]

Lets wait and see how the commercials go.......they will start on Hillary soon and they will play over and over and over about emails and lying to the public.......she is going to get Romnied............

The one I am waiting for is the families of the 4 that died in the attack.....those are going to be brutal

The gravity must be high around your period key.

 

[22*43*51]

They do accept a lot of foreign dollars.

I am not sure what is given in return for such generosity.

 

[Huey Grey]

They do accept a lot of foreign dollars.

I am not sure what is given in return for such generosity.

I have no idea, either. But it will take some sort of smoking gun to bring her down because of this. The GOP can't keep levying the charge of conspiracy without ever finding evidence. At some point the public will turn on these tactics. They certainly already have with Benghazi.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

The GOP needs to save their bullets. This stuff needs to come out closer to the actual election.

 

[BGHAWK]

Lets wait and see how the commercials go.......they will start on Hillary soon and they will play over and over and over about emails and lying to the public.......she is going to get Romnied............

The one I am waiting for is the families of the 4 that died in the attack.....those are going to be brutal

Are you talking about the 4 families that did not want any further Bengazi hearings?

 

[22*43*51]

If you want, you can put this in football terms. The Republican's strategy is run

I have no idea, either. But it will take some sort of smoking gun to bring her down because of this. The GOP can't keep levying the charge of conspiracy without ever finding evidence. At some point the public will turn on these tactics. They certainly already have with Benghazi.

I just know that domestic political donations always bring concessions.

I just wonder what foreign alms to a political leader purchase that is good domestically.

 

[naturalmwa]

Don't worry, the GOP has a never ending bag of ammunition to use against the Hillary campaign. Her recent self created problems have simply allowed them to save their powder....

This is why it wouldn't shock me if the R party machine wouldn't love to have a President Hillary. They could sit on the sidelines and fundraise like a champ and not have to actually do anything. If I was Reince Priebus I would be working hard to make sure she got elected.

 

[Huey Grey]

The GOP needs to save their bullets. This stuff needs to come out closer to the actual election.

I agree. If it was me, I would have waited until the general to unleash the emails and Foundation stuff. The email story has already become stale and by the time the new year rolls around, the Foundation ammo will have grown stuffy as well. Then the GOP will have to scramble to really ridiculous stuff like Whitewater.

 

[Lone Clone]

If you want, you can put this in football terms. The Republican's strategy is run

I have no idea, either. But it will take some sort of smoking gun to bring her down because of this. The GOP can't keep levying the charge of conspiracy without ever finding evidence. At some point the public will turn on these tactics. They certainly already have with Benghazi.

A smoking gun wouldn't mean a thing to dedicated Hillary apologists such as yourself, Red.

 

[22*43*51]

The GOP needs to save their bullets. This stuff needs to come out closer to the actual election.

They can just attack her record at that point.

 

[rocketclone]

There are a lot of Dems sticking their head in the sand. The Republicans learned from the Democrats the last time around and they will run the ads over and over and over again. Not sure why some of you are poo pooing this.

They will find some family members to talk and they will look good in the commercials. She will get hammered and hammered and hammered over and over again with negative ads.

Not so sure why some of you don't think this is going to happen.

 

[Huey Grey]

They can just attack her record at that point.

This could be a promising strategy. And perhaps they are saving it when it can do the most damage. Then again, when her likely opponent will be highly inexperienced, I'm not sure well you will be able to run on records.

 

[22*43*51]

This could be a promising strategy. And perhaps they are saving it when it can do the most damage. Then again, when her likely opponent will be highly inexperienced, I'm not sure well you will be able to run on records.

You can speculate about how someone with no resume will perform.

You can prove how someone with a resume did preform.

 

[Huey Grey]

There are a lot of Dems sticking their head in the sand. The Republicans learned from the Democrats the last time around and they will run the ads over and over and over again. Not sure why some of you are poo pooing this.

They will find some family members to talk and they will look good in the commercials. She will get hammered and hammered and hammered over and over again with negative ads.

Not so sure why some of you don't think this is going to happen.

Ok. I'll bite. What's the narrative of this message?

With Romney, it was that he only cared about rich people. And practically everything he said supported this narrative. From his tax plan, to his lifestyle, to his 47% speech. It was a simple message. It was well supported with concrete examples. And on the heels of the recession, it was a message that really resonated with voters.

What is the message against Hillary? Is is well supported? And is it something that will resonate with voters?

 

[Jan Itor]

I don't think this will happen. Keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation is the GOP's third line of attack against Hillary. If it was a source likely to furnish lots of ammunition, I suspect the GOP would have used it as their first line of attack. Also keep in mind that the GOP has already thrown everything they can against Hillary concerning emails. She weathered that storm and is once again on the rise. And lastly, it will be easy for Hillary to counter such attacks. She simply has to point out that instead of having ideas, all the R's can do is to go after her. The GOP already looks bad with Benghazi, so that message would be easy to craft.

The Dems accused Romney of killing a woman with cancer because her husband was laid off and lost his insurance when Bain & CO sold off the company. Seemed to work well for the Dems.

Romney stated that he felt Russia was our greatest GEO-Political threat, and Obama laughed and said the 80s called, and they want their foreign policy back.

Red, you should know by now that campaign ads, lies or not, are very effective. Will they work? Who knows.

Oh, and one more thing, the FBI is still investigating all the emails on her server(s)

 

[theiacowtipper]

The Dems accused Romney of killing a woman with cancer because her husband was laid off and lost his insurance when Bain & CO sold off the company. Seemed to work well for the Dems.

Romney stated that he felt Russia was our greatest GEO-Political threat, and Obama laughed and said the 80s called, and they want their foreign policy back.

Red, you should know by now that campaign ads, lies or not, are very effective. Will they work? Who knows.

Oh, and one more thing, the FBI is still investigating all the emails on her server(s)

I'm going to make one point about the cancer ad. It was not an Obama ad, but a PAC ad. I don't agree with the ad but if we're going to start with this, there are a number of anti-Obama ads that were equally as egregious, put out by Republican PACs.

 

[rocketclone]

Ok. I'll bite. What's the narrative of this message?

With Romney, it was that he only cared about rich people. And practically everything he said supported this narrative. From his tax plan, to his lifestyle, to his 47% speech. It was a simple message. It was well supported with concrete examples. And on the heels of the recession, it was a message that really resonated with voters.

What is the message against Hillary? Is is well supported? And is it something that will resonate with voters?

Simple, you lied and Americans died over and over. Use the emails and away we go

 

[Jan Itor]

I'm going to make one point about the cancer ad. It was not an Obama ad, but a PAC ad. I don't agree with the ad but if we're going to start with this, there are a number of anti-Obama ads that were equally as egregious, put out by Republican PACs.

No shit. I'm not keeping score here. My point is that these ads work. And I didn't say Obama campaign ads, I said Dem ads. The PAC was formed for Democratic candidates in that case, just like PACs that are formed for GOP candidates.

Geez, the they do it too argument is getting old. Of course they do it too. They all do it because the idiocy that is the American voter allows these ads to sway their vote.

 

[N_fuego]

Is it possible, that the reason Hillary decided to go with the unusual email setup had something to do with hiding Foundation info?

It's not just ancient alien theorists that say yes.

 

[Huey Grey]

Simple, you lied and Americans died over and over. Use the emails and away we go

Ah, the old Benghazi narrative. They already tried this. It failed miserably. Please tell me the cons have more than this.

 

[Huey Grey]

Is it possible, that the reason Hillary decided to go with the unusual email setup had something to do with hiding Foundation info?

It's not just ancient alien theorists that say yes.

Possible, but that will be one helluva bitch to prove.

 

[Huey Grey]

The Dems accused Romney of killing a woman with cancer because her husband was laid off and lost his insurance when Bain & CO sold off the company. Seemed to work well for the Dems.

Romney stated that he felt Russia was our greatest GEO-Political threat, and Obama laughed and said the 80s called, and they want their foreign policy back.

Red, you should know by now that campaign ads, lies or not, are very effective. Will they work? Who knows.

Oh, and one more thing, the FBI is still investigating all the emails on her server(s)

You think cancer was the narrative? I can assure you it wasn't. There were two basic narratives the Dems used against Romney:

1. That he only cared about the rich
2. That he planned on making life hell for immigrants

And Romney gifted the Dems by feeding these two stories whenever possible.

 

[cigaretteman]

Simple, you lied and Americans died over and over. Use the emails and away we go

Yes, the only problem with that narrative is that it's not true, and there are no emails to prove it to be despite Republicans' fantasies.

 

[22*43*51]

Ah, the old Benghazi narrative. They already tried this. It failed miserably.

Not really. Plenty of polling shows America's opinion of Hillary as being dishonest and low on personal integrity.

So, it did expose that side of her.

 

[Jan Itor]

You think cancer was the narrative? I can assure you it wasn't. There were two basic narratives the Dems used against Romney:

1. That he only cared about the rich
2. That he planned on making life hell for immigrants

And Romney gifted the Dems by feeding these two stories whenever possible.

Please tell me you didn't miss the point. It wasn't the cancer, it was Romney and Bain buying up companies and selling them off. The Dem PAC happened to try to tie it to a personal story where a guy lost his job and insurance because of Romney, and because he lost his insurance, his wife died. So Romney was responsible for her death.

Geez you can be a real simpleton sometimes.

 

[Huey Grey]

Please tell me you didn't miss the point. It wasn't the cancer, it was Romney and Bain buying up companies and selling them off. The Dem PAC happened to try to tie it to a personal story where a guy lost his job and insurance because of Romney, and because he lost his insurance, his wife died. So Romney was responsible for her death.

Geez you can be a real simpleton sometimes.

I'm really laughing at your post. You realize that you just proved my original point that the "Romney only cares about rich people" is covered under your example, right?

 

[pablow]

They do accept a lot of foreign dollars.

I am not sure what is given in return for such generosity.

Nothing. Same with the $250,000 speeches and the $100,000 commodity future payout. Nothing - absolutely nothing. People just like Hillary.

 

[IACub]

Not really. Plenty of polling shows America's opinion of Hillary as being dishonest and low on personal integrity.

So, it did expose that side of her.

Only morons who believe what they see on Fox News.

 

[Jan Itor]

I'm really laughing at your post. You realize that you just proved my original point that the "Romney only cares about rich people" is covered under your example, right?

Was that the discussion when we started this? No, it was whether blistering ads would have an impact on Hillary's campaign. I mentioned the ad they ran against Romney and how it worked. You said cancer was not a narrative. I said, cancer was not the point of the story. Try to follow along Red.

As for Romney, the man donated a hell of a lot of money to various charities. He also adopted a child. Can you match that? Hell no you can't.

Man, you are an idiot.

 

[SIXERS24]

Only a Moron would choose to ignore Hillary's negatives in the polls.
She is not a good candidate for a General Election.
Trump, Cruz, Carson, Huckster, Florina, and Paul are also terrible candidates!

The Best General Election candidates are Kaisich and Rubio

American doesn't want another Bush or Clinton.

Bush is done and Hillary wont win.
Heck she is already having trouble with a full campaign schedule because of her health!

 

[Huey Grey]

Was that the discussion when we started this? No, it was whether blistering ads would have an impact on Hillary's campaign. I mentioned the ad they ran against Romney and how it worked. You said cancer was not a narrative. I said, cancer was not the point of the story. Try to follow along Red.

As for Romney, the man donated a hell of a lot of money to various charities. He also adopted a child. Can you match that? Hell no you can't.

Man, you are an idiot.

Boy, you're getting heated. Someone needs to take a chill pill.

As for your argument, the GOP has already used every form of blistering attack they can against Hillary. And you know what? They appeared to have failed. And do you know why they failed? Because emails just aren't sexy. Claims that she covered up Benghazi might be, but when 8 investigations say there's no evidence, that becomes un-sexy. And where's the sexiness with her Foundation? That she worked with foreign governments? Unless you can prove something illegal happened, then no, it also fails.

The reason why the narrative worked against Romney is because it was easy to digest for the voter (He only cares about rich people), it was supportive (His 47% statement and tax plans that favored the rich), and it was something voters cared about (Helping the rich when everyone else is suffering is bad). Bain was just a small part of this narrative. You could have omitted Bain and the narrative against him would have been just as effective.

But the attacks against Hillary fail one to two of these three tests. First they aren't simple. They require explanation of why using private emails is wrong or why charities can't take money from foreigners. They are somewhat supportive, but that illusion loses its muster when the GOP launches investigation after investigation and they all fail to come up with evidence. And it's debatable if people really care about them. I'm not sure many are losing sleep over improper email usage.

Are you capable of having a rational discussion without exploding like a petulant little child?

 

[aflachawk]

I don't think this will happen. Keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation is the GOP's third line of attack against Hillary. If it was a source likely to furnish lots of ammunition, I suspect the GOP would have used it as their first line of attack. Also keep in mind that the GOP has already thrown everything they can against Hillary concerning emails. She weathered that storm and is once again on the rise. And lastly, it will be easy for Hillary to counter such attacks. She simply has to point out that instead of having ideas, all the R's can do is to go after her. The GOP already looks bad with Benghazi, so that message would be easy to craft.

She is on the rise among dems but not the general population. Her trust and likability numbers are still upside down. Her trust numbers by a big margin.

 

[Jan Itor]

Boy, you're getting heated. Someone needs to take a chill pill.

As for your argument, the GOP has already used every form of blistering attack they can against Hillary. And you know what? They appeared to have failed. And do you know why they failed? Because emails just aren't sexy. Claims that she covered up Benghazi might be, but when 8 investigations say there's no evidence, that becomes un-sexy. And where's the sexiness with her Foundation? That she worked with foreign governments? Unless you can prove something illegal happened, then no, it also fails.

The reason why the narrative worked against Romney is because it was easy to digest for the voter (He only cares about rich people), it was supportive (His 47% statement and tax plans that favored the rich), and it was something voters cared about (Helping the rich when everyone else is suffering is bad). Bain was just a small part of this narrative. You could have omitted Bain and the narrative against him would have been just as effective.

But the attacks against Hillary fail one to two of these three tests. First they aren't simple. They require explanation of why using private emails is wrong or why charities can't take money from foreigners. They are somewhat supportive, but that illusion loses its muster when the GOP launches investigation after investigation and they all fail to come up with evidence. And it's debatable if people really care about them. I'm not sure many are losing sleep over improper email usage.

Are you capable of having a rational discussion without exploding like a petulant little child?

Actually, we were having a rational conversation until you went off in a different direction and acted like you were right all along, when we weren't even talking about that. It's like, what I'd imagine talking to a lump of shit would be like sometimes with you.

I simply stated that attack ads work, unfortunately, even if they are lies. You somehow turned it into me proving your point about Romney, when we weren't even debating whether you were or weren't right about him.

Stop picking a phrase out a post and trying to manipulate the entire conversation based on that one phrase or sentence.

How you can't understand that flaw is beyond me.

 

[22*43*51]

Only morons who believe what they see on Fox News.

What do you mean?

The Benghazi hearings were 18 months of Hillary saying "There's no scandal, I just wasn't very good at my job!"

The e-mail scandal was about 12 months of Hillary saying "There's no scandal, I'm just incompetent."

 

[IACub]

What do you mean?

The Benghazi hearing were 18 months of Hillary saying "There's no scandal, I just wasn't very good at my job!"

The e-mail scandal was about 12 months of Hillary saying "There's no scandal, I'm just incompetent."

That would be one narrative, yes. She's actually been quite crafty about the whole thing, hardly saying anything and letting the GOP continue to look like bigger and bigger fools.

She's not the candidate I would choose, but the attacks on her personal character have been over the top ridiculous.