In an article called Hillary Clinton Begins to Move Away From Obama Ahead of 2016 posted at online.wsj.com, the website of The Wall Street Journal, it was reported:
Hillary Clinton has begun distancing herself from President Barack Obama, suggesting that she would do more to woo Republicans and take a more assertive stance toward global crises, while sounding more downbeat than her former boss (Obama) about the U.S. economic recovery.
People are “really, really nervous” about their future, Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Colorado last week that included hints of her emerging strategy to convey that she would be more effective in the pursuit of Democratic policy goals than Mr. Obama has been during his time in office. (end of online.wsj.com excerpt)
OK, so even the allegedly conservative Wall Street Journal is painting a picture of an open-minded, moderate presidential hopeful Hillary who is concerned about the economy. Because apparently even Hillary has to admit that there have never been economic conditions like this before, but then again there has never been a militant in the White House like Barack Hussein Obama before.
This portrayal of Hillary as some sort of moderate who suddenly is worried about the economy is false. Hillary Clinton is a radical like Obama. She is not going to substantially change Obama policies like those on the economy or on rabid environmentalism; or halt illegal immigration; or stop the rampant discrimination in our universities against the smartest students like white men and Asians. She is going to continue the Obama policies because the Democrat party today is an extremist party with a hard-core agenda. She will only “woo Republicans” and appear moderate to get elected, with a few promises that she will then ignore if she gets to the White House.
And that idea that she will “take a more assertive stance toward global crises” is more baloney. She had the opportunity to do so as secretary of state and did nothing but talk. She affected zero. Online.wsj.com reports:
But in tone and substance, the presumed presidential candidate (Hillary) has made clear in recent public appearances that she wouldn’t be running for a de facto third Obama term in the White House. The strategy could help Mrs. Clinton tackle one of her biggest challenges if she decides to run: how to separate herself from Mr. Obama without alienating Democrats and Obama supporters. (end of online.wsj.com excerpt)
Friends, Hillary is trying to separate herself from Obama for just one reason – polls. She sees that Obama’s popularity is sinking like a stone. Therefore she suddenly wants to be seen as different from Obama, more moderate, when she is nothing of the sort. They are two peas on a pod. They are both extremists. Hillary even wrote her college thesis on the radical communist strategist Saul Alinsky whose writings Obama consults regularly in his persistent effort to divide and undermine America. There is nothing important that she would do differently from Obama but she will claim that she is different for one reason only – to get elected. Period. End of story. Now look at this from The Wall Street Journal:
Mrs. Clinton gave a gentle account of their policy differences in her new book, “Hard Choices,” though she wrote that she would have armed moderate Syrian rebels (against the Assad government) at a much earlier point in the country’s bloody civil war. (end of WSJ excerpt)
This is nonsense because Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state was an empty exercise. She affected nothing. She circled the globe spouting platitudes and doing nothing of substance for four years. She even supported the 2011 Arab Spring uprising when we conservatives warned that it was just a steppingstone for the rise of radical Islam, which it has turned out to be. Meanwhile the US should have backed the Assad government because that Syrian civil war has also turned out to be yet another vehicle for the rise of Islam. The Assads have kept Syria stable for decades.
When asked recently what her accomplishments were as secretary of state Hillary could not even answer. She rambled on for two paragraphs, saying nothing. Unbelievable… This woman has no qualifications to be president so she falls back repeatedly on her claim to fame as potentially The First Woman President. Yet our First Black President has screwed everything up. Why should we risk our nation on another “first” just for the sake of being a “first”? We should not. Now look at what The Wall Street Journal reported:
In 2000, then-Vice President Al Gore was careful about positioning himself as a continuation of Democrat Bill Clinton’s presidency, since some voters were disillusioned with Mr. Clinton in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In 1988, though, Republican George H.W. Bush aligned himself directly with the popular Ronald Reagan. Mr. Gore lost, while Mr. Bush won. (end of Wall Street Journal excerpt)
Yes, indeed, a great president like Reagan can be followed into the White House. Losers like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama cannot be. In fact Republican John McCain could have followed even a hobbled George W. Bush into the White House in 2008 except that McCain was inept and timid and was afraid to even criticize Obama because Obama is (half) black. Romney lost in 2012 for much the same reason.
In 1980 Republican Ronald Reagan kicked off his run for the presidency with a scathing attack on sitting Democrat president Jimmy Carter. Reagan said:
The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten. Eight million out of work. Inflation running at 18 percent in the first quarter of 1980. Black unemployment at about 14 percent, higher than any single year since the government began keeping separate statistics. Four straight major deficits run up by Carter and his friends in Congress. The highest interest rates since the Civil War–reaching at times close to 20 percent–lately down to more than 11 percent but now going up again–productivity falling for six straight quarters among the most productive people in history.
Through his inflation he has raised taxes on the American people by 30 percent–while their real income has risen only 20 percent. He promised he would not increase taxes for the low and middle-income people–the workers of America. Then he imposed on American families the largest single tax increase in history.
His answer to all of this misery? He tries to tell us that we are “only” in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions—words–relieve our suffering.
Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his. (end of Reagan quote)
If John McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012 had used tough language like this they both could have beaten Obama. Any Republican candidate in 2016 can win the White House if he or she has the courage that Ronald Reagan had. He/she must define point by point the terrible record of Democrat Obama, from sky-high gasoline prices to broken borders. He/she must remind us of the sad economic realities as a result of Obama policies, not the fudged numbers that the Liberal Media report.
He/she must not be waylaid by the Liberal Media narrative that “Hillary is different” and that “Obama is not on the ballot in 2016”. He/she must emphasize that Hillary will in effect be an Obama Third Term because she will be, with perhaps a few minor differences around the edges, and mostly in style.
The Republican nominee also must be prepared to offer clear solutions, like governor Rick Perry of Texas will be able to do since he can take full credit for the economic success of his state of which he has been governor for more than 13 years already. Perry recently refused to meet Obama on a trip to Texas, and he savaged Obama for the illegal alien crisis in Texas. Good. We need more of that kind of boldness.
Another good GOP candidate would be governor Kasich of Ohio who now has been in office for almost 4 years and has made significant economic reforms that have allowed a state once written off as a Rust Belt failure to rebound strongly. Or governor Walker of Wisconsin who fearlessly took on the greedy public-employee unions in his state and won handily.
The Republican nominee must also be prepared to take full advantage of the political gaffes that Hillary is known for, like her recent lament that she is not that well off… with a $50 million fortune. There are many more such gaffes coming because Hillary is not anywhere near as smart or politically savvy as the media are portraying her.
But the minute that the Republican candidate in 2016 fails to speak aggressively against Hillary he/she will lose because Hillary will have every Liberal Media outlet in America slobbering all over her as badly as they have slobbered over Obama. A stinging and confident rebuke of Democrat policies, along with clear solutions, is the only thing that will throw the media off their pro-Hillary game and win the election. The Wall Street Journal reported:
Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Obama has “worked so hard and reached out so often, and it gets discouraging because you don’t feel like you’re getting much back.” She added: “I don’t think you can ever stop. And I think that’s part of whoever the next president is just has to be ready to do.” (end of WSJ quote)
This is more political obfuscation. Obama has never reached out. He has implemented the most radical agenda that he can and Republicans have let him do so because spineless moderates like McCain have said that they can work with Obama.
We rational Americans cannot work with today’s Democrats or trust them by any stretch of the imagination. They are extremists from Harry Reid to Nancy Pelosi to Obama and Biden all the way down to the local level. In my hometown in Massachusetts two of the most prominent Democrat families are known or have been known widely to be associated with organized crime. Democrats are generally corrupt and they care only about their agenda and never about the common good. Obama is clear proof of this. We must elect a Republican president in 2016 and it is absolutely possible and likely if we have a strong candidate who speaks boldly about the real condition of our nation.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas