Will Peter Schweizer's Book 'Clinton Cash' Derail Hillary's Campaign?

[pbrauer]

Yes
No
I Don't Know
Other

 

[ALiberalModerate]

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.

 

[joG]

Yes
No
I Don't Know
Other

If it were Richard Nixon standing against Hillary, you might want Hillary to win. Maybe not, but maybe.

 

[justabubba]

hope so
that would certainly open the path to an Elizabeth Warren presidency

 

[haymarket]

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.

 

[justabubba]

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.

i wish them much success; the sooner the better

 

[WCH]

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!

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

The GOP has a problem on the national level. After 2012 they spent millions trying to find out why they loss, and the think tanks and the studies all pretty much said the same thing, the GOP's turn to the right has turned off the moderate voters. The GOP needs to move more to the center.

BUT the conservative media and AM talk show people that the GOP loves so dearly are saying just the opposite, that the party has to go farther to the right to win the white house.

The conservative media is helping the GOP on the local and state level, but they are doing the GOP no good on the national level.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Like Dole, McCain or Romney...LOL!

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.

 

[ARealConservative]

I don't know which straw will be the last one.

email server

benghazi

Bosnia lies

donations

and on and on and on.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I chose "other" because the only really accurate answer would be "for ****s sake, I bloody well hope so".

 

[eohrnberger]

I chose "other" because the only really accurate answer would be "for ****s sake, I bloody well hope so".

Indeed.

Given the level of evidence that Menendez was charged on by the DOJ, and the level of evidence, as per the summary of this book that was released, seems there's more on Hillary than was on Menendez, so logic would seem to indicate any reasonable DOJ would also charge her.

Always was kinda figuring that Hillary was pimping out the SoS while she was there. Just look what the Clinton's did with the Lincoln bedroom while Bill was in office.

 

[bubbabgone]

I just posted this elsewhere but it belongs here also ... especially in a Pete thread ...

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.

 

[pbrauer]

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.

 

[justabubba]

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.

if you truly do not want a right wing president to select the next justices then you would not support hillary's efforts to attain the presidency

 

[WCH]

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.

You haven't seen hard right in recent history.

 

[eohrnberger]

I just posted this elsewhere but it belongs here also ... especially in a Pete thread ...

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.

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).

 

[bubbabgone]

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).

See how far you can go when you canoodle the right people?

 

[eohrnberger]

See how far you can go when you canoodle the right people?

Yeah, you too can be a 1%er, all you have to do is lie for the right people, and sell your soul.

You know, thanks, but I'll pass. I have to be able to look at the guy in the mirror everyday.

 

[pbrauer]

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.

 

[eohrnberger]

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 confirmation 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.

 

[pbrauer]

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

 

[DA60]

No, because most of her supporters are gullible, political ignoramuses, just like whomever wins the rep nomination - most of their supporters will be gullible, political ignoramuses.
Short of a book detailing her love of child porn (or some such hideous thing), their respective supporters will vote for them almost no matter what.

IMO, at least 2/3'rd's of American voters are as ignorant as a post when it comes to how a country should be run...which is why whomever wins in 2016 WILL leave office with America in far worse shape then when they took office (just as with Obama and GW Bush and...).

 

[eohrnberger]

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?

 

[pbrauer]

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?

Why would you expect honestly from a right wing hack (Peter Schweizer) who has lied before? Can you give me any evidence that Brock is a liar and a propaganist?