Gingrich: GOP ‘Incapable Of Competing’ Against Hillary Clinton In 2016

[_Abyssinia]

President Hillary’s Inevitability

Lets not get ahead of ourselves

---

And why would they step aside? By all accounts, Hillary Clinton is a hard worker, but her tenure as secretary of state has by no means been stellar. Have you taken a look at how this administration has left the so-called Arab Spring? In addition to myriad questions over the death of diplomats in Benghazi, our “from-behind” president now watches as as rebels and Christians face increasingly violent crackdowns in Syria and Egypt.

“She’s been at the heart of foreign policy for the past four years,” John J. Pitney Jr., a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College observes. “If 2016 is a time of international peace and prosperity, then she’ll be able to claim some credit. But current events in the Middle East suggest a darker future. If things don’t look so good on the world stage, she’ll have to take a lot of the blame.”

With all her purported influence in the first term of the Obama administration, “she did zero to rein in Obama’s worst tendencies” on foreign policy, James Carafano of the Heritage Foundation notes. “If we set aside the bonus her legacy gets from her last name, then Clinton should go down as the least effective secretary of state since Warren Christopher,” Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former Pentagon official, says. “Her tenure has been marked by bashing allies and coddling adversaries to the detriment of U.S. national security,” he adds. “She might brag about being the most traveled secretary of state, but the position isn’t a frequent-flyer tier. She has no real achievements to her tenure, but she has overseen a hemorrhaging of U.S. influence that cannot be attributed to her predecessors but rather to the ill-advised strategies she sought to implement. If Hillary does to the country what she did to the world, then we are in very deep trouble indeed.”

Still, expect more of the Hillary talk. Governors who might be running in a few years aren’t household names, unlike the secretary of state. “The late Lee Atwater used to talk about ‘the invisible circle,’ the very small number of political figures that the public knows and can accept as potential presidents,” John J. Pitney Jr. says. “That is, if voters woke up and found that one of these people was in the White House, they could go back to sleep knowing that he or she could do the job. In their day, Nelson Rockefeller and Hubert Humphrey were in the invisible circle. Among Democrats not named Obama, who is there today? Hillary Clinton, full stop.”

Being in the “invisible circle” does not guarantee success. Nor should it. It’s other members “had liabilities, and so does Secretary Clinton,” Pitney continues. “First, she will be 69 at the time of the 2016 election. Unfair as the perception may be, some people will think she’s too old. Second, if voters are in the mood for a change, her credentials will work against her. After her many years at the center of Washington, the icon for ‘change’ would be a picture of her with a red slash through it. Third, all the Clinton-era litter would blow back onto her front lawn. Remember her mysterious success at commodity trading? Don’t worry: Oppo guys will remember it for you.”

I’ve long had a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton — the Daughters of the American Revolution accurately dubbed her a good citizen back when she was in high school. Certainly, she appreciated the power and importance of public service early in her life. But we can respect that without getting silly. There’s a photo of Hillary outside a Kennedy Center gala in Washington, in which we see Meryl Streep taking an iPhone photo of them both. The image captures the seriousness (or lack thereof) of some of the current political commentary about 2012, whether it’s on Clinton or Rubio and Ryan. Don’t run with it.

hotair.com/archives/2012/12/10/newt-lets-face-it-hillarys-going-to-be-awfully-tough-to-beat-in-2016

Is it “virtually” impossible to stop her in the primaries or is it impossible? Democrats need to overcome eight years of big-government fatigue and win a third straight presidential election. Their bench is far thinner than the GOP’s, except for an internationally famous, extremely popular former first lady turned senator turned Secretary of State who’s angling to make history as the first woman president. What Democratic voter in his or her right mind is going to roll the dice on Cuomo or Martin O’Malley or whoever when they could take their chances with Hillary! and the Clinton machine instead?

Here’s the real question. What does the near-inevitability of Hillary’s nomination mean for the GOP primaries in 2016? I think Republican voters will feel tremendous pressure to nominate someone with enough star power of their own that they won’t be completely overshadowed by her in the general. That’s good news for Rubio and Chris Christie, not such good news for Jindal and Rand Paul. Rubio would also benefit insofar as he and Jindal would likely be the only Republicans with a “historic candidacy” narrative capable of somewhat neutralizing Hillary’s. The wild card is Jeb Bush, insofar as he’s the only prospective nominee — at least right now — whose “brand” is as well known as the Clintons’. Is that a good thing in his case, though? Asking voters whether they want to revisit the Clinton era or the Bush era seems, shall we say, not so smart; besides, if you nominate Jeb, you forfeit the talking point that the other side’s candidate is old news, a stale dynastic offering at a moment when a new, more diverse America is being born. Exit question: Would Rubio want to challenge Hillary?

 

[irishpatrick]

Back to the election of 2016. Although I think that Newt is not the sharpest tool in the shed, I do think he’s giving a good warning to the GOP. It really needs to look within itself and scrub out some of the flotsam. In all the speculation here I’m surprised that no one has mentioned my governor, Chris Christie. Though I’m not a Republican, if the Dems put up Hillary–whom I believe will be very tough to beat–I think Christie may have a good shot. He’s a little abrasive, but unlike Romney, I think that he’s really sincere about his stance on social issues like abortion. And he’s certainly brighter than some other Republicans who shall remain nameless out of respect.

The only hope for the GOP, imo, is for a near unknown person rises to prominence. If the GOP sticks with Christie, Gingrich, Rubio, etc…they will have no chance at all. IMO

 

[irishpatrick]

Agree about Newt and his past. Disagree about CC though. Recently read an article about his and Mitt’s views on abortion and CC impressed me greatly. He spoke like a human and not a political automaton. And, despite his occasional acerbic rants, I think he is charasmatic in a fashion. Although I was not happy about some things in the State’s budget, we are in way better shape than we were under Corzine. I dunno, maybe with a little polish, he could be a “contenda”.

Christie cannot win–he is a moderate at best.

 

[irishpatrick]

The GOP will have to find someone that is not ashamed of their core values, and is not ashamed to speak them to the nation and the world. I liked Romney, but he really never did give any real detail about his economic plans for the country…people wanted to know what he really wanted to do, and not knowing they feared he’d only be for the wealthy.

One thing honest people must admit is that Democrats never try to hide their plans and ideologies–and that decisiveness is winning elections. The GOP used to be like that, not anymore.

If a person stands in the middle, they really stand for NOTHING!

 

[SamH]

The only hope for the GOP, imo, is for a near unknown person rises to prominence. If the GOP sticks with Christie, Gingrich, Rubio, etc…they will have no chance at all. IMO

I disagree on Rubio, but I agree on the others.

 

[ProVobis]

In all the speculation here I’m surprised that no one has mentioned my governor, Chris Christie. Though I’m not a Republican, if the Dems put up Hillary–whom I believe will be very tough to beat–I think Christie may have a good shot.

IMO, Christie can have whatever office he wants. Maybe this is the time for him to declare himself Independent and let the chips fall wherever. And/or maybe Rubio can join him.

 

[SamH]

The GOP will have to find someone that is not ashamed of their core values, and is not ashamed to speak them to the nation and the world. I liked Romney, but he really never did give any real detail about his economic plans for the country…

The last election had nothing to do with the economy. While Romney was vague, Obama’s “plan” was nonexistent. The election was over carefully edited sound bites that could be used in gotcha journalism and negative campaign ads - nothing else.

 

[irishpatrick]

I disagree on Rubio, but I agree on the others.

I really like Rubio, but I think the entire crop of GOP candidates are spoiled. The GOP needs a brand new face.

 

[irishpatrick]

The last election had nothing to do with the economy. While Romney was vague, Obama’s “plan” was nonexistent. The election was over carefully edited sound bites that could be used in gotcha journalism and negative campaign ads - nothing else.

I disagree. I think the Democrats painted Romney as being someone who cares only about the wealthy, and Romney did next to nothing to counter those attacks, and he never released anything showing a detailed plan to help middle class people and poor people. The GOP chose to make it about jobs, yet they never gave any real detailed reason to believe them.

I think I will go to the street corners and scream: “Irish Patrick is running for President in 2016, and he is NOT ashamed of what he believes!” LOL

 

[irishpatrick]

IMO, Christie can have whatever office he wants. Maybe this is the time for him to declare himself Independent and let the chips fall wherever. And/or maybe Rubio can join him.

Christie is seen as a moderate outside his own state.

 

[austenbosten]

Hilary Clinton is more than beatable. Everyone thought Hillary was going to be President…heck they constantly made references to it in movies. Next President is Hillary…Hillary is going to be on one of our Dollar notes.

and what happened?

Some unknown, nobody who had ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS came around and beat her.

I highly doubt Hillary will be any stronger after people realize it’s been 8 lousy years and the Dems are still blaming Bush. However I don’t know of any Republican that energizes me.

 

[irishpatrick]

Hilary Clinton is more than beatable. Everyone thought Hillary was going to be President…heck they constantly made references to it in movies. Next President is Hillary…Hillary is going to be on one of our Dollar notes.

and what happened?

Some unknown, nobody who had ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS came around and beat her.

I highly doubt Hillary will be any stronger after people realize it’s been 8 lousy years and the Dems are still blaming Bush. However I don’t know of any Republican that energizes me.

Four lousy years was enough for Romney.

 

[ringil]

Christie is seen as a moderate outside his own state.

Maybe that’s who the GOP needs to run a moderate who actually admits that he is a moderate. Heck, I would, MAYBE vote for Colin Powell. He’s a oddity- a guy who likely could win the Presidency but never wanted it.

I don’t think this treading along catering only to the far right will win them a Presidency.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Maybe that’s who the GOP needs to run a moderate who actually admits that he is a moderate. Heck, I would, MAYBE vote for Colin Powell. He’s a oddity- a guy who likely could win the Presidency but never wanted it.

I don’t think this treading along catering only to the far right will win them a Presidency.

I have seen some democrats say Christie should be the nominee, the exact reason right there why he should not be. Moderates usually fail as republican presidential candidates:

Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E Dewey nominated twice, Gerald R Ford, George H W Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney

 

[irishpatrick]

Maybe that’s who the GOP needs to run a moderate who actually admits that he is a moderate. Heck, I would, MAYBE vote for Colin Powell. He’s a oddity- a guy who likely could win the Presidency but never wanted it.

I don’t think this treading along catering only to the far right will win them a Presidency.

An estimated total five million expected Republican voters did not vote. Had those people wanted a moderate, they would have voted for Romney because Romney is NOT an ultra-conservative. Republican voters want a real conservative choice, someone who really believes in smaller government, lower taxes, a strong military, protection of life and protection of marriage, and a love for American exceptionalism and America’s core founding values. If the GOP finds someone who has a sound pulse, and can speak to those issues convincingly, they can win easily.

Had those 5-million voted, Romney would be President-elect and the Senate might very well have flipped into the Republican’s hands.

 

[ringil]

The last election had nothing to do with the economy. While Romney was vague, Obama’s “plan” was nonexistent. The election was over carefully edited sound bites that could be used in gotcha journalism and negative campaign ads - nothing else.

Well, thinking this way, you leave no room for improvement in GOP chances. It’s all about other people being against you and an unfair game. Why even try in such a twisted scenario.

 

[ringil]

A estimated total five million expected Republican voters did not vote. Had those people wanted a moderate, they would have voted for Romney because Romney is NOT an ultra-conservative. Republicans voters want a real conservative choice, someone who really believes in smaller government, lower taxes, a strong military, protection of life and protection of marriage, and a love for American core values. If the GOP finds someone who has a sound pulse, and can speak to those issues convincingly, they can win easily.’

Had those 5-million voted, Romney would be President-elect and the Senate might very well have flipped into the Republican’s hands.

Nope, it’s the swing voters and “independents” who win elections.

White males can no longer win it for the GOP.

 

[irishpatrick]

Well, thinking this way, you leave no room for improvement in GOP chances. It’s all about other people being against you and an unfair game. Why even try in such a twisted scenario.

Exactly. The GOP either faces the challenge, or it should fold their tent.

I am all for an authentic prolife party.

 

[irishpatrick]

Nope, it’s the swing voters and “independents” who win elections.

White males can no longer win it for the GOP.

Friend, if those 5-million voted, you would not be saying that because Romney would have won. The GOP’s task is to learn from that, and to determine why those people did not vote.

The Republicans have never felt they must get only white votes to win. How easily people forget the human rights record the GOP actually has. Most people do not know that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the civil rights acts, then did the Democrats. Most also do not know that it was Republicans who initiated the drive to get women the vote. The left has managed to bury the truth quite well.

 

[ringil]

I am all for an authentic prolife party.

So am I, but I suspect our ideal Pro-life parties would be very different in their fiscal approach and philosophy on the role of government.