Republicans for Hillary

The apprehension among some party elites goes beyond electability, according to one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly about the worries.

“We’re potentially careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana peel and this person becomes president?”
If you’re a grassroots conservative who suspects that establishment Republicans would rather see Hillary win than an outsider from their own party whom they might not be able to control, that last line should show you that … yep, you’re right to believe that.


E Hines said...

Not so much. The punditry that quote these party elites very carefully choose not to identify their "elite" sources. Some of that, certainly, is because the so-called source desperately needs anonymity because he's speaking out of turn and knows it--which calls into question the integrity of the source and so the believability of the quote. This is a defect that could be supplied should the "journalist" offer corroboration from identified sources.

Some of that, though, is from the "journalist" making up the quote because he's desperate for copy to fill his assigned space, because he likes to distort, because....

There's nothing in such paragraphs to be taken seriously.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

Why shouldn't it be true? Clinton's one of the in-groups. They all know her. They all know her husband. They've been to her parties and she's been to theirs, and for decades. She's a much easier pill to swallow than Barack Obama -- or, for that matter, Donald Trump. Maybe easier than Ben Carson. Maybe easier than Carly Fiorina, or Ted Cruz, or anyone but a Bush. The established like safety, after all, and nothing's safer than the devil you know.

E Hines said...

It may well be true. My point is that, with carefully absent cites and inherently unbelievable "quotes" and "paraphrases," there's no reason to believe a "journalist's" claim of it.

To (almost) quote a movie character, show me the facts and specifics.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

Far, far down on my list of worries is that Hillary Clinton might hit a banana peel and we might end up with practically anyone else in the country as president, unless he's an ISIS sleeper or something. No matter what goon the Republican party nominates, it's highly unlikely I'm going to hesitate in my choice. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to vote for any of the current batch of Republicans over her, though I'd have to hold my nose for a few of them.

J Melcher said...

To be fair, very few of the current top tier candidates compare favorably to prior presidents in terms of executive experience. James Buchanan had more military experience than, say Hillary or Donald put together, and he was a PFC John Adams and FDR at least led military STAFF in actual wartime. Taft served similarly just before WWI. About 1/4th of prior presidents had been governors.

The legacy of Barack Obama is that a person with good political connections, glib delivery of scripted remarks, and a few years exposure in the U.S. Senate can be seen as worthy, while people like Perry, Jindal, and Webb are not.

Speaking of Webb, I watch with interest to learn if somebody like Carson would reach out across party lines to find the self-declared former Democrat (now independent) a V.P. or cabinet position.