Republicans Know Hillary Clinton Marks the End of the Line for the GOP

Hillary-Clinton-shadesFollowing politics as closely as I do, it goes without saying that I’ve seen a lot of ridiculous things.  I’ve maintained for quite some time now that the Republican party has caused its own problem.  It bet big on the tea party for the 2012 presidential elections and lost.  But more importantly, what selling out to the tea party did was it gave a voice to the politically crazy.

People who years ago would have never been taken seriously by anyone outside of other crazies such as themselves were suddenly not only given a voice, but political influence within the Republican party.

They unleashed a monster and now not only can they not get rid of it, it’s gaining power.

President Obama’s re-election in 2012 essentially split the GOP into two different factions.  The “establishment” or the Republicans who know that they must appeal to more mainstream ideas if they want to remain nationally relevant, and the “tea party” Republicans who honestly believe that the reason Mitt Romney lost is because he wasn’t conservative enough.

In other words, the Republican party is in a lot of trouble.

Which is why I absolutely cannot wait for the 2016 presidential election.  Because I believe that’s the moment when the Republican party will begin its final march toward national obscurity.

And I believe many Republicans know this.  Which is a big reason why they’re absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton.

Without breaking down polling numbers too much, it’s more or less a certainty that if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, she’s going to win – and win big.

It’s why the Republican party (for at least a short time before the bridge scandal) was so big on Chris Christie.  Out of all the potential GOP candidates, he is the only one who polled anywhere close to possibly beating Clinton.

And this is before she’s even decided if she’s going to run.  He benefitted from his campaign for governor and national headlines.  The moment Clinton announces her intention to run for president in 2016, her numbers will skyrocket.

She’s the main reason why Republicans keep Benghazi an issue.  Or at least try to keep it a mainstream issue.  It’s a “scandal” they can use against Hillary Clinton.  There’s just one big problem – their conspiracies have been debunked more times than I can count and the only people who are buying into them are people who wouldn’t vote for Hillary in the first place.

Then again, for Republicans, “truth” doesn’t really matter as long as they “muddy the waters” enough so that some Americans aren’t sure what’s real and what’s Fox News fiction.

They keep demanding answers to questions based off their lies.  Then they’re getting angry because people won’t answer them.  That’s how good propaganda is done.  You create your own “facts,” demand answers for those “facts,” then when people refuse to answer you (because they don’t want to feed into your propaganda) that “proves” they have something to hide.

The Republican party knows that if it stands any chance at beating Hillary in 2016, they basically have to swing for the fences.

Like in poker, they’re going to have to go all-in with the right-wing crazies.

Notice how since Chris Christie has fallen from grace, suddenly Rand Paul has become more vocal?  And do you also notice how his digs at Hillary make absolutely no sense?

This woman was First Lady of the United States for 8 years, a New York Senator for another 8, and Secretary of State for 4 – yet (outside of Benghazi) the big “story” right now is the Monica Lewinsky scandal from the late-90’s.

Which didn’t even involve her! 

If anything doesn’t her loyalty to Bill, staying with him through such troubling times, proudly display her commitment to her family and her vows of marriage?

Of course it doesn’t.  Well, not to Republicans anyway.

See, what they’re trying to do with this is paint Bill Clinton as some kind of sexual predator (being that he would become “First Husband” I guess) in a desperate attempt to somehow imply that his actions reflect poorly on her.  You know, the whole “do we really want someone like that near the White House again?”

Honestly, I’m not even sure where they’re going with it because it makes absolutely no sense.

Paul tried to insinuate that Bill Clinton’s affair shows the hypocrisy within the Democratic party as it relates to women’s rights.  You know, because one man’s affair somehow negates everything Democrats are trying to do to fight for women’s rights.

Paul’s comments also assumed that Monica Lewinsky was somehow too “young” and stupid to have known what she was doing.  That she was just an innocent “girl” (Paul referred to her as a girl, not a grown woman) who was clearly taken advantage of by the superior man.

Paul said:

“I think the media really seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this.  He took advantage of a girl that was twenty years old and an intern his office.  There is no excuse for that, and that is predatory behavior. And it should be something we shouldn’t want to associate with, people who would take advantage of a young girl in his office.”

Nothing quite like trying to defend your record on women’s rights, while referring to an adult female as a “girl” who was too naive to know what she was doing.  She was 22 (not twenty as Paul always claims).  I’ve known women who were mothers at 22, with good careers.  Women at 22 who were in law or medical school.  I’ve known plenty of 22-year-old women who knew exactly what they were doing in life.  It’s disrespectful to degrade Lewinsky, or any other 22-year-old woman, as a “girl” simply because she’s fairly young.

More than two decades in the spotlight as First Lady, then U.S. Senator and finally Secretary of State, and the top two things they have on Hillary Clinton are their fake Benghazi conspiracy and Bill Clinton’s infidelity?  They’re screwed.

And they know it.

Sure, they’ll dig up more between now and then, but these two situations are just a preview of how desperate the Republican party is going to be with their attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Republicans know that if Clinton wins in 2016 (and assuming she serves two terms) that would mean we will have been led by a Democrat in the White House for 16 years.  And that’s something the Republican party just can’t bounce back from.

Not with a country that’s embracing immigration reform, supports same-sex marriage, believes in climate change and is beginning to back the legalization of marijuana – issues that the base of the Republican party strongly opposes.

Republicans bet big on the tea party and lost.  And when Hillary Clinton is elected the next President of the United States – and I firmly believe that she will be – you’re going to see the GOP implode like never before.

Heck, you’re already starting to see that now.  Because when you’re trying to use the Monica Lewinsky scandal from 1998, in 2014, for a potential 2016 presidential campaign – especially when that scandal didn’t even directly involve the candidate you’re trying to attack…

You’ve pretty much already lost.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • surfjac

    “Without breaking down polling numbers too much, it’s more or less a
    certainty that if Hillary Clinton runs in 2016, she’s going to win – and
    win big.”
    Go into the election cycle with that attitude and you may be wrong about who wins. Fight on subject, policy and the future. Fight the other side as if it was it was for the survival of America because that’s what it will be!

    • 2Smart2bGOP

      Fight as if you are behind, and never stop. We need to stay vigilant this year and not give in to the typical “mid-term malaise” that screwed us in 2010 and brought in so many of those teabags.

      • deborah1955

        I couldn’t agree with you more.

      • Robin Tomlin

        Without doubt the most frustrating thing was the 2010 mid terms. The Dems had folded the tent and gone home allowing tea party redistricting to take place. For real change, 2020?

      • surfjac

        Damn right

  • Edward Krebbs

    “doesn’t her loyalty to Bill….” Uh, aren’t the repubs supposed to be for the family ?
    Although I could see them countering that by working as Sec of State she was fighting her ordained role to be barefoot and pregnant.

    • Bine646

      I still cant believe Bill piped Elizabeth Hurley- now thats a legendary story

    • Bine646

      Another fabrication- Idk Elizabeth Hurley’s Boyfriend from the time just broke the story with details and quotes from Bill himself but you know lets tally that one up with Benghazi? You progressives never cease to amaze me hahahaha

  • strayaway

    (The Republican Party) “bet big on the tea party for the 2012 presidential elections and lost. ”

    Wrong. The Tea Party peaked in 2010. By 2012 it had been taken over by big money and lost its vitality. Party insiders were even changing rules at the Republican convention to smooth the path for Romney.

    Hillary might not only spell the end of the Republican party but also the two party system and what’s left of preventing our slide into a economically fascist state. She was a big supporter of the Iraq War. Hillary was alleged to have encouraged the bombing of our historical ally Serbia. She supported Obama’s bombing of Libya. She supported the bigger mess that Obama tried to get us into in Syria. Her Arab Spring support has been a US policy disaster. She has consistently been a puppet of Wall Street. When has she ever challenged the spying on Americans? Hilary will most likely continue this Country in the direction it has been heading under the last several presidents.

    • grannieannie2

      I’m so sorry, strayaway, but you lost in 2008 and again in 2012. Keep trying though!

      • strayaway

        You can count on it. I don’t want the US to keep going the way of Chavez in Venezuela.

      • Mike Riley

        you know, I am dyed in the wool liberal, but more importantly anti conservative/republican/teaparty. But I am very concerned about some of strayaway’s points. I want nothing more than a Dem landslide, and if that means HC, so be it…..but America needs a radically new direction, that Hillary may not be able to take us in, due to her historically close ties to big business/money (i know, i know – you can’t win without it, and that is part of the change I think we need).

  • Gabriel Gentile

    Yes, just like the Bush re-election meant the Democratic Party was “dead and buried”.

    • KyleZombie

      There’s a difference between 12 (potentially 16) straight years of Democratic presidents and 8 with Bush. You know, because 12 and 16 are bigger numbers than 8.

    • Imsloan68

      Bush had to cheat both times to win. Everybody knew that

  • Alecta

    I DO so hope you’re right. Further, I’d love to see Warren as VP candidate. Between them, they are so intelligent, knowledgeable and so very informed that they ought to be able to counter anything. However, I do fear the influence of Faux news and the far right in fearmongering. Also, the republican gerrymandering. it’ll be a hard slog, but the Dems will have to hammer the message that every person needs to vote, to make absolutely sure that they are correctly registered and have the correct documents. It may come to busing people to polls, and having lawyers escort them to make sure they’re not turned away by ill-informed or malicious volunteers.

    • Dave

      Whatever it takes to win.

  • terry horn

    Hillary, has a problem. That problem is security. Since 1993 and “Black Hawk Down”. The Clinton’s have had a very bad record of securing their asset’s. The Clintons would rolled back foreign intel in the 90’s which may have resulted in the first strike of the “Trade Towers”. No real reaction was launched to deal with this. Sudan would offer the Clintons , “Bin Ladens ” head. The Clintons would pass on that offer. A CIA hit team would find “Bin Laden” but could not get a green light, in order to pull the trigger. Next, the “Trade Centers” were hit again, less than a year into Bush, 43’s Presidency. This time killing thousands of American citizens, Resulting in regional War and the deaths of Thousands of U.S. military personell as well as destabilizing the Middle East, under George Bush, 43. Hillary Voted for war, before she was against it. Benghazi, is just another step in Clinton Foreign Policy. The order was to stand down as the Ambassador was being murdered. Then blame it on a video. Sending Susan Rice , out to face the arrow’s as Hillary went on vacation. I feel sorry for Susan, An African American Woman, set up as the next Sec. Of State, she was used as a pawn, As soon as Hillary re- appeared McCain and Hillary really liked John Kerry, for the job. Rand Paul, has promised to expose these things. I doubt that Paul will carry the ticket for the Repub party, but he doesnt have to.

    • Dave

      Is that all you got? You Nazi republicans are going to lose big. After 2016, there will be NO REPUBLICAN PARTY! What a happy day that will be.

    • CherMoe

      Yes, keep that in mind. After ALL the warnings and Bush brushing them off saying “I’m not going to go swatting at flies” it is a FACT that 9/11 happened ON HIS WATCH. And quite frankly, there’s a lot of people in this country that DON’T believe his & Cheney’s official version of the story. So terribly SAD that Bush & Cheney LIED us into those two UNFUNDED wars and based on those lies, many in Congress voted to go ahead with the war, THUS ENRICHING Bush & Cheney & their cronies BEYOND BELIEF.

    • udicks

      There was no stand down order. Republicans know that why don’t you?

  • bklynhmnst

    You could have said the same thing about Hillary’s certainty to win the 2008 presidential election in 2006, you would have been wrong then and could easily be wrong now.

    Also to say that the selection of Mitt Romney, the multi-millionaire and most anti-tea party of the Republican field, was to “bet big on the tea party” just sounds silly. Mitt Romney is clearly of the first of the two schools of Republicans you named, not the second.

    • Andy Kinnard

      No, the Mitt selection and the convention shenanigans that smoothed his nomination were signs of the traditional GOP fighting back against TP extremism. I don’t understand how you could read the article and come away with the impression you have.

  • SyntheticPhylum

    Totally off-topic, but this site really NEEDS to police its ads better: I’m seeing an ad to “HELP ALLEN WEST FIGHT BACK AGAINST OBAMA’S LIBERAL AGENDA: VOTE TODAY!”

    Something is SERIOUSLY wrong when I see an ad like THAT on a progressive website! 😀

    • RICHARD RALPH ROEHL

      What make ewe-folks think this is a progressive site? What does progressive really mean?

      It might be more accurate to call it a partisan site… slanting to the political left. Partisan is partisan. It matters not which way it $wings.

      Frankly… I’m no longer sure what progressive means in a world trundling down the road toward extinction.

  • grannieannie2

    I’d ask every single male GOPTP person, “Have you stopped beating your wife? Only yes or no, please!”

    • TD MW

      That is too good, grannieannie!

  • TD MW

    Hope you’re right, Allen. Who do you think her running mate will be???

  • AxelDC

    I love history but Llewinsky was 20 years ago. If Republicans think voters care about an affair that will be over 2 decadesaold, then they are doomed to only get voters well past retirement age. Then again, they think voters are still wowed by Reagan.

    We already impeached Clinton and voters in 1998 told Republicans to knock it off. Gingrich lost his Speakership as a result. Do they want to lose an election 18 years later as well?

  • Tom

    I just hope Hillary has her birth certificate in order. You know how they like to find SOMETHING wrong . . .

  • RICHARD RALPH ROEHL

    Frankly… I’m not very enthused about Mrs. Clinton. 155 million women in faster poo-food Amerika. And she’s the best we can do? Perpetrating the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/George P. Bush paradigm?

    Politics in capitalist-fascist Amerika reminds me of junior high school.

  • Greg

    The lewinsky scandal wasnt a true scandal, it involved two consenting adults who made a choice and if we look back at that time the majority of the country shrugged when it happened and the gop was unsuccessful in impeaching Clinton. Funny how Rand has downplayed his kidnapping of the female student in college and trying to force her to do something against her will and I think if he does run fro president this will be brought up multiple times.

    with regards the GOP today is there is a massive divide forming between the two halves the teaparty/ radical right and the moderate right which will splinter the party into two separate parties which means neither half will have enough elected positions to have majority control of the senate or house relegating them to the crazy uncle in the basement. we are seeing the far right pushing an agenda the majority of the country is against and they answer is its not the conservative ideas that are not being accepted its that they are not yelling them loud enough. if the country was so anti-Obama romeny would have been elected no matter if he was conservative enough or not but their excuse is people didnt vote for him as he was not conservative enough so they voted for the liberal instead. not sure what type of psychosis this is but…….

  • Guest

    Just like the Bush re-election meant the Democratic Party was dead and buried?

  • Riverboat Gambler

    Rand Paul will dominate Hillary in a head to head. Hillary is the blue team in the old red vs. blue battle. Paul couldn’t care less about red vs. blue. He cares about the Constitution. While Hillary defends stale old policies that are basically the same as the GOP’s stale old policies, Paul will push bold new reforms that put the power back in the hands of the people.

    Can’t wait for 2016. It’s the beginning of America’s comeback tour.

    Peace.

    • brian

      are you high?

    • Ryan

      Can you specifically name some of these “reforms” that Paul will implement? Or are you just spewing talking points that you heard on Fox Noise? You sound just like a campaign ad for Rand Paul.

      • Imsloan68

        You know, privatize social security, cut the medical care, eliminate housing and food subsidies for low income families and the continuing destruction of public education. What kinds of reforms did you think he meant?

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      wish I knew where U are so we could wager a nice fat sum of money

    • SophieCT

      Great! A tin foil hat for every head!

    • Imsloan68

      Bold, huh? You mean cutting taxes for the 1%, which will magically create jobs and then gut the social safety net further, but call it a “bold new reform.” Hmm? That kind of fresh new idea?

  • Matt Petersen

    I’ve been saying this same thing for a while now. This is why Republicans in Washington have already been trying to stack the deck in their favor with voter ID laws that they say combat voter fraud that statistically does not exist. CLEARLY aimed at suppressing democratic leaning voters. Cancelling early voting and restricting voting hours in democrat leaning districts to discourage the democrat vote. Repealing parts of the voter rights act by the SCOTUS to allow minority voter discrimination (most of which vote democrat), and the list goes on & on.

  • Tom Alonzo

    Clinton/Warren 2016. Lets watch RWNJ’s totally loose their minds

  • heteroxalstalker

    Oh for cryin’ out loud. The only reason anybody calls Hillary a progressive is because she has a D next to her name. In reality she is a conservative democrat. Her economic policies might as well be written by the Bush family. We have an oportunity to elect a real progressive in 2016 let’s not waste it on Hillary Clinton.

    • SophieCT

      Funny, your comment looks like it was copied and pasted directly from the Rove memo. Hint: Try not to overdo it now or your message will be diluted when you need it most.