A Republican's Nightmare? Really?

As the 2014 mid-term elections move inexorably closer, political pundits are burning up their word processors. 

They are trying to explain how (a) the political parties will fare in the battle for control of Congress and (b) who will be running for the Presidency in 2016 and (c) of those candidates, who will succeed?

Sadly each of them is also working with certain underlying assumptions that they take as if they were part of the words given to Moses, to be relayed to the people below. One of these assumptions revolves around the candidate that the Democrats will offer in 2016, that the pundits think is (a) inevitable and (b) essentially unbeatable. The candidate?  Why Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course.

Should Hillary choose to run, the assumption that her election is inevitable is pretty safe, or at least as safe as any political prediction can be. Remember though, in 2008 every political pundit thought Hillary’s nomination was inevitable, too. Oops. But for the sake of argument, let’s work from the basis that she actually becomes the Democrat nominee. Then one must look at why Hillary (or any other Democrat) should be considered unbeatable.

Reason #1:  She will be running against Republicans

While I abhor the ideas fostered by Democrats and their Progressive puppeteers, I will admit that I admire and envy the Democrat’s control of their members.  Their party control is total, and unwavering.  No matter how idiotic their proposals, every Democrat, from Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, down to the elected dog-catcher in East Podunk, Iowa all sing out of the same hymnbook and always sing in harmony.  And they never vary from that same song, no matter how ridiculous.

Among Republicans, however, it seems rare that any two ever seem to be on the same page. In fact, it seems like getting two Republicans to merely agree on what time it is verges on the miraculous. If there are 250 Republicans in Congress, then there appear to be 250 different “wings” of the Republican Party. There is the “go-along-to-get-along” wing. There is the Rand Paul Wing, the Ted Cruz wing, the John Boehner wing, the Trey Gowdy “Take-No-Prisoners” wing, the Tea Party wing in the House (as opposed to the Tea Party wing in the Senate), the John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte triumvirate wing, and soon (and on and on and on.)

Hillary wouldn’t need to use the old “divide and conquer” strategy, because if Republicans don’t alter their penchant for circular firing squads, they’ll take care of the “divide” part of that strategy for her.

Reason #2:  Her last name is Clinton, not Obama.

Bill Clinton was both a Democrat and a fairly popular president, and there has always been a “halo” effect when it came to the nation’s view of Hillary. That’s about it. On her own, Hillary hasn’t really accomplished anything, but the main stream media will hammer on the “co-presidency” meme for all its worth.

Reason #3:  She’s female.

In this politically correct and gender neutral era, the question of whether you were produced with an X or a Y chromosome should be irrelevant, but as we all know, those that sincerely espouse that view have only proven to all and sundry that they have a really, I mean really, good drug connection.

Gender matters. A lot. (Think about the justification of one of our newest members of the Supreme Court who described herself as “A wise Latina”)  But how it matters depends on whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican. If the female candidate is a Republican, she is portrayed as a Bible and gun-toting rube with all the brains of a bowl of guacamole left in the sun for a week, while a female Democrat (for just about any office) is viewed as a person who combines the best of Margaret Sanger, Marie Curie, and Mother Theresa. Okay, maybe not Mother Theresa, which hints too much at religion.

Mrs. Clinton has another advantage over her potential rivals, and we saw how that advantage was played out in 2007. Let her be called out on anything, and her ex-president husband will ride in on his white horse to come to her defense, because, after all, “She’s a girl!”  Bill will look like a wonderful and caring husband.

The mainstream media fails to see the irony of him claiming to be protecting her from attack. They will conveniently develop amnesia when the names Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, or Paula Jones are mentioned in any context. 

On the Other Hand: Hillary Clinton only has a name. No experience, no accomplishments, no major legislation, no nothing.  Just the name “Clinton”.

So how can Republicans win against her, since her last boss (absent the name Clinton) won the very same job with the very same absence of qualifications?

Response #1:  Stop being such followers of tradition, particularly when it is obviously self-defeating.  Politics, when it is boiled down to its essence is the selling of ideas and personalities. How well, Republicans, have you all done in those areas lately? 

How about trying a radically different approach, and avoid the establishment’s chosen “consultants” and “media whizzes”.  Perhaps you could find out who does the advertising for Proctor and Gamble, and hire them. Think of it as selling soap, except that this “soap” also walks and talks. Every voter wants cleaner clothes, but the political ads that try to convince them that Brand “R” is better than Brand “D” bore everyone to tears. Political ads that consist of “Hey, we’ll do a better job than Brand D” tend to tune out voters. 

How about ads that are more like, “Not only will Brand D not get things cleaner, they will actually make them dirtier” and use CGI imaging of a wash load coming out with the words CRONYISM, CORRUPTION, OBAMACARE, BENGHAZI, FAST AND FURIOUS or FREE SPEECH (each word in a different color, and appearing to be running like a bad dye job) on each piece.  Get an advertising guru with a sense of humor. 

Think back on every ad you’ve ever seen on TV and think about the ones that come easily to mind. Anyone remember “How about a nice Hawaiian Punch?” When that commercial was first aired, the whole country talked about it for weeks. Try to imagine an establishment Republican media type coming up with that ad, if you can. One liners work. They are easily remembered and repeatable.

Response #2:  Send every candidate that has even a remote chance to win to the equivalent of “boot camp”. First, like the Democrats, make sure everyone understands that they must be singing out of the same hymnbook.  No free-lancing will be tolerated.

Figure out what questions the tame left-wing media will ask to torpedo one of your candidates and come up with a dozen answers that are (a) humorous, (b) self-deprecating in the style of Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy and (c) sound like an real answer while dodging the issue itself.

Make it crystal clear to each candidate that unless they master these two items, or no funds for them will be forthcoming.  Cruel? Yes. Potentially more successful, though.

Response #3: Since there are no formally declared candidates for the 2016 elections for any office at this time, I think it’s safe legally to discuss what the various PACs should be doing, and how the Republicans should be reacting.  The most important thing for every candidate to remember is that while decrying the “outrageous” charges that the mythical “I-Think-Hillary’s-an-Idiot” PAC might make, defending free speech should be the key to the Republican response.

“Well, Anderson (Cooper), while I will not address the specific charges made by the “I-Think-Hillary’s-an-Idiot” PAC, unlike the present administration and its actions in the IRS Targeting of conservatives scandal, I cannot and will not, ever, try to coerce any individual or group or try to limit what they say, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.  That, by the way, seems to be the very same policy that my opponent supported while in the Obama Administration.”

I have very little hope that the Republicans won’t take every opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but I’ve always been an optimist.

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, a two-tour Vietnam veteran and writes frequently about political idiocy, business and economic idiocy and American cultural idiocy.  Jim also blogs at http://jimyardley.wordpress.com/, and can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com

As the 2014 mid-term elections move inexorably closer, political pundits are burning up their word processors. 

They are trying to explain how (a) the political parties will fare in the battle for control of Congress and (b) who will be running for the Presidency in 2016 and (c) of those candidates, who will succeed?

Sadly each of them is also working with certain underlying assumptions that they take as if they were part of the words given to Moses, to be relayed to the people below. One of these assumptions revolves around the candidate that the Democrats will offer in 2016, that the pundits think is (a) inevitable and (b) essentially unbeatable. The candidate?  Why Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course.

Should Hillary choose to run, the assumption that her election is inevitable is pretty safe, or at least as safe as any political prediction can be. Remember though, in 2008 every political pundit thought Hillary’s nomination was inevitable, too. Oops. But for the sake of argument, let’s work from the basis that she actually becomes the Democrat nominee. Then one must look at why Hillary (or any other Democrat) should be considered unbeatable.

Reason #1:  She will be running against Republicans

While I abhor the ideas fostered by Democrats and their Progressive puppeteers, I will admit that I admire and envy the Democrat’s control of their members.  Their party control is total, and unwavering.  No matter how idiotic their proposals, every Democrat, from Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, down to the elected dog-catcher in East Podunk, Iowa all sing out of the same hymnbook and always sing in harmony.  And they never vary from that same song, no matter how ridiculous.

Among Republicans, however, it seems rare that any two ever seem to be on the same page. In fact, it seems like getting two Republicans to merely agree on what time it is verges on the miraculous. If there are 250 Republicans in Congress, then there appear to be 250 different “wings” of the Republican Party. There is the “go-along-to-get-along” wing. There is the Rand Paul Wing, the Ted Cruz wing, the John Boehner wing, the Trey Gowdy “Take-No-Prisoners” wing, the Tea Party wing in the House (as opposed to the Tea Party wing in the Senate), the John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte triumvirate wing, and soon (and on and on and on.)

Hillary wouldn’t need to use the old “divide and conquer” strategy, because if Republicans don’t alter their penchant for circular firing squads, they’ll take care of the “divide” part of that strategy for her.

Reason #2:  Her last name is Clinton, not Obama.

Bill Clinton was both a Democrat and a fairly popular president, and there has always been a “halo” effect when it came to the nation’s view of Hillary. That’s about it. On her own, Hillary hasn’t really accomplished anything, but the main stream media will hammer on the “co-presidency” meme for all its worth.

Reason #3:  She’s female.

In this politically correct and gender neutral era, the question of whether you were produced with an X or a Y chromosome should be irrelevant, but as we all know, those that sincerely espouse that view have only proven to all and sundry that they have a really, I mean really, good drug connection.

Gender matters. A lot. (Think about the justification of one of our newest members of the Supreme Court who described herself as “A wise Latina”)  But how it matters depends on whether the candidate is a Democrat or a Republican. If the female candidate is a Republican, she is portrayed as a Bible and gun-toting rube with all the brains of a bowl of guacamole left in the sun for a week, while a female Democrat (for just about any office) is viewed as a person who combines the best of Margaret Sanger, Marie Curie, and Mother Theresa. Okay, maybe not Mother Theresa, which hints too much at religion.

Mrs. Clinton has another advantage over her potential rivals, and we saw how that advantage was played out in 2007. Let her be called out on anything, and her ex-president husband will ride in on his white horse to come to her defense, because, after all, “She’s a girl!”  Bill will look like a wonderful and caring husband.

The mainstream media fails to see the irony of him claiming to be protecting her from attack. They will conveniently develop amnesia when the names Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, or Paula Jones are mentioned in any context. 

On the Other Hand: Hillary Clinton only has a name. No experience, no accomplishments, no major legislation, no nothing.  Just the name “Clinton”.

So how can Republicans win against her, since her last boss (absent the name Clinton) won the very same job with the very same absence of qualifications?

Response #1:  Stop being such followers of tradition, particularly when it is obviously self-defeating.  Politics, when it is boiled down to its essence is the selling of ideas and personalities. How well, Republicans, have you all done in those areas lately? 

How about trying a radically different approach, and avoid the establishment’s chosen “consultants” and “media whizzes”.  Perhaps you could find out who does the advertising for Proctor and Gamble, and hire them. Think of it as selling soap, except that this “soap” also walks and talks. Every voter wants cleaner clothes, but the political ads that try to convince them that Brand “R” is better than Brand “D” bore everyone to tears. Political ads that consist of “Hey, we’ll do a better job than Brand D” tend to tune out voters. 

How about ads that are more like, “Not only will Brand D not get things cleaner, they will actually make them dirtier” and use CGI imaging of a wash load coming out with the words CRONYISM, CORRUPTION, OBAMACARE, BENGHAZI, FAST AND FURIOUS or FREE SPEECH (each word in a different color, and appearing to be running like a bad dye job) on each piece.  Get an advertising guru with a sense of humor. 

Think back on every ad you’ve ever seen on TV and think about the ones that come easily to mind. Anyone remember “How about a nice Hawaiian Punch?” When that commercial was first aired, the whole country talked about it for weeks. Try to imagine an establishment Republican media type coming up with that ad, if you can. One liners work. They are easily remembered and repeatable.

Response #2:  Send every candidate that has even a remote chance to win to the equivalent of “boot camp”. First, like the Democrats, make sure everyone understands that they must be singing out of the same hymnbook.  No free-lancing will be tolerated.

Figure out what questions the tame left-wing media will ask to torpedo one of your candidates and come up with a dozen answers that are (a) humorous, (b) self-deprecating in the style of Ronald Reagan or John F. Kennedy and (c) sound like an real answer while dodging the issue itself.

Make it crystal clear to each candidate that unless they master these two items, or no funds for them will be forthcoming.  Cruel? Yes. Potentially more successful, though.

Response #3: Since there are no formally declared candidates for the 2016 elections for any office at this time, I think it’s safe legally to discuss what the various PACs should be doing, and how the Republicans should be reacting.  The most important thing for every candidate to remember is that while decrying the “outrageous” charges that the mythical “I-Think-Hillary’s-an-Idiot” PAC might make, defending free speech should be the key to the Republican response.

“Well, Anderson (Cooper), while I will not address the specific charges made by the “I-Think-Hillary’s-an-Idiot” PAC, unlike the present administration and its actions in the IRS Targeting of conservatives scandal, I cannot and will not, ever, try to coerce any individual or group or try to limit what they say, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.  That, by the way, seems to be the very same policy that my opponent supported while in the Obama Administration.”

I have very little hope that the Republicans won’t take every opportunity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but I’ve always been an optimist.

Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, a two-tour Vietnam veteran and writes frequently about political idiocy, business and economic idiocy and American cultural idiocy.  Jim also blogs at http://jimyardley.wordpress.com/, and can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com

RECENT VIDEOS