Yes
No
I Don't Know
Other
This is merely on part of an orchestrated campaign from the right to defeat Clinton via a death of a thousand cuts now since they know they have a poor chance of doing so in November of 2016.
Not a chance. I am going to just repeat what I wrote in a thread about this book.
Its an 8 year old story. There is just a book about it now. This is the problem with the American right these days, you think you are going to find some scandal thats going to take down the Democrat and pave your way to the White House again. Look since the 1988 election the Republican candidate has won the majority of the popular vote just one time in 2004. If you want to start winning the White House, its not some hit job book thats going to win it for you. The reason why Republicans are not winning the White House is they have moved so far to the right that the majority of Americans that vote in presidential elections agree more on the issues with the Democratic candidate than the Republican one. If Hillary wins in 2016 and there are pretty good odds she will, it will be because the majority of Americans agree with her more than they agree with her Republican opponent who had to move to the hard right on the issues because heaven forbid the GOP base allows anyone to moderate their views on anything. And why does Hillary stand such a good chance of winning? It is because on the whole she is pretty moderate and thus most people agree with her on the issues they care about.
If the Republicans want to beat Hillary in 2016, they need to run a candidate they need a moderate for a candidate. People ultimately vote issues they care about and the reason why Republicans have such a hard time winning the White House is they run candidates that are well outside of the mainstream on issues that most people that vote care about.
Like Dole, McCain or Romney...LOL!
I chose "other" because the only really accurate answer would be "for ****s sake, I bloody well hope so".
Saw David Brock on MOJO this morning and he has girded his loins in preparation for his Media Matters attack on Peter Szhweizer's book about Hillary's corruption while at State.
He acknowledged that, no, he hasn't read it and, no, he doesn't know what's in it, but he knows it won't be true because the NYT(huh?) and FOX are involved in the rollout and Szhweizer's funding is questionable with Breitbart and all that.
He wasn't asked if Soros' funding for Media Matters or their funding from any of his other funded groups influences what MM does but I suspect much of any donation likely ends up for David's coif or other related expenses.
Thinking back to Hillary's Benghazi adventure, the man does appear to have a special attraction for Hillary. Maybe it's a wardrobe thing.
hope so
that would certainly open the path to an Elizabeth Warren presidency
i wish them much success; the sooner the better
I understand your feeling; Elizabeth Warren is progressive, but if she ran her chances winning are much less than Hillary's. Perhaps I can change your mind a little. There is a huge prize that waits the next POTUS. That is the nomination of maybe 3 supreme justices. I sincerely hope you don't want a right wing POTUS to make those choices. Give it some thought.
McCain and Romney both ran to the hard right, they had to in order to appease the base during the primaries. Dole ran as a typical establishment Republican, but his biggest problem was he was running against Clinton who had a strong economy and peace and prosperity to run on. The Republicans keep thinking they need to get those old Reagan voters to vote for them and they will win. All the Reagan voters that are still alive, still vote for the Republican candidate. The problem for Republicans are those voters are not a majority.
I just posted this elsewhere but it belongs here also ... especially in a Pete thread ...
Already decided what's the truth and what's not before even reading it. My, my. What an omnipotent guy this Brock is. :lamoSaw David Brock on MOJO this morning and he has girded his loins in preparation for his Media Matters attack on Peter Szhweizer's book about Hillary's corruption while at State.
He acknowledged that, no, he hasn't read it and, no, he doesn't know what's in it, but he knows it won't be true because the NYT(huh?) and FOX are involved in the rollout and Szhweizer's funding is questionable with Breitbart and all that.
He wasn't asked if Soros' funding for Media Matters or their funding from any of his other funded groups influences what MM does but I suspect much of any donation likely ends up for David's coif or other related expenses.
Thinking back to Hillary's Benghazi adventure, the man does appear to have a special attraction for Hillary. Maybe it's a wardrobe thing.
:lamoAlready decided what's the truth and what's not before even reading it. My, my. What an omnipotent guy this Brock is.
What wonderful **** he shovels (more like it).
See how far you can go when you canoodle the right people?
How the **** would you read it, it hasn't been published yet.Already decided what's the truth and what's not before even reading it. My, my. What an omnipotent guy this Brock is. :lamo
What wonderful **** he shovels (more like it).
How the **** would you read it, it hasn't been published yet.
David Brock has the same power as Peter Schweizer has, except Brock write the truth.
Pete, the point here being is that Brock, without reading the book mind you, has already concluded that it's not the truth.
Well, how can he make that determination when he's not even read the thing?
He's already determined what he's going to find when he reads it, if he even bothers to read it. Already a case of confirmation bias, and hardly impartial. So anything that Brock writes about this book is already disqualified from serious consideration, due to his co nfirmation bias, the bias with which he's starting with. It's not even close to being truthful, and you know it.
More the mystery that you continue to believe that he's a source of truth, when he's only a source of propaganda, as this instance clearly demonstrates.
He will read it when the book comes out, you can bet you bottom dollar on that. I am quite sure there will be many reports on the book. Media Matters already has an extensive rap sheet on Scheitzer's (who is a Republican activist) works of fiction so its difficult to beleive the book will be anything different.
Clinton Cash Author Peter Schweizer's Long History Of Errors, Retractions, And Questionable Sourcing | Research | Media Matters for America
At this point Pete, I don't think that citing MediaMatters is going to help or support your position. Try again.
MM's position has already been made clear by Brock, so you were expecting any honesty from them? :lamo How about a more independent source to backup your position?