HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » In New Video, Rove-Backed...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri May 10, 2013, 08:35 AM

In New Video, Rove-Backed Group Blasts Clinton’s Handling Of Benghazi

Source: TPM

American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-backed conservative super PAC, released a one-and-a-half-minute video on Thursday that pillories former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the September attack in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead.

The video blasts Clinton for originally attributing the attack to a protest that was sparked by an internet video and for purportedly silencing Greg Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, who testified at a House hearing on Benghazi.

"How could this happen? Why did she blame a video? And was she a part of a cover-up?" the ad's narrator asks.



###

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/in-new-video-rove-backed-group-blasts-clintons

33 replies, 2679 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply In New Video, Rove-Backed Group Blasts Clinton’s Handling Of Benghazi (Original post)
DonViejo May 2013 OP
graham4anything May 2013 #1
tridim May 2013 #3
monmouth3 May 2013 #4
karynnj May 2013 #14
graham4anything May 2013 #15
karynnj May 2013 #16
graham4anything May 2013 #19
karynnj May 2013 #24
JDPriestly May 2013 #20
karynnj May 2013 #23
Beacool May 2013 #26
AtomicKitten May 2013 #29
Beacool May 2013 #32
AtomicKitten May 2013 #33
JDPriestly May 2013 #18
graham4anything May 2013 #21
JDPriestly May 2013 #27
graham4anything May 2013 #28
Botany May 2013 #2
Sedona May 2013 #5
Buzz Clik May 2013 #6
graham4anything May 2013 #7
Buzz Clik May 2013 #8
graham4anything May 2013 #9
Buzz Clik May 2013 #10
graham4anything May 2013 #11
Buzz Clik May 2013 #12
Sunlei May 2013 #13
JDPriestly May 2013 #17
lark May 2013 #22
CBHagman May 2013 #31
Beacool May 2013 #25
CBHagman May 2013 #30

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 08:38 AM

1. Now is the time for all democratic people to defend Hillary. After all this is all about 2016.

 

Now is the time for all democratic people to defend Hillary. After all this is all about 2016.
NO fracutre.
100% pro-Hillary
24/7/365

either one is for Karl Rove or one is for Hillary Clinton45.

the choice is for everyone to make.

any fracture against Hillary gets picked up by Karl Rove and run

Do you not think Karl Rove reads here and on Kos?


100% to Hillary now.
I have Hillary's back.
Does everyone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri May 10, 2013, 08:50 AM

3. I'm not 100% pro-anybody.

Guess I can't be in your fun little club.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri May 10, 2013, 08:52 AM

4. Not everyone....n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri May 10, 2013, 11:07 AM

14. Until She is the nominee, there is no reason to be 100% Hillary

In fact, that will hurt Hillary, not help her.

The FACTS on Benghazi show that the worst claims of the Republicans are nonsense. The hearing has shown at there was no way to save them - no force was close enough.

Hillary Clinton herself early on started the independent review. It did find that in HINDSIGHT there were things that could have been done to enhance security at dangerous posts. Many of those initiatives were immediately started by Hillary and others, that have longer lead times, are being worked on by the State Department. (One story I read is that the Pentagon is establishing a base in Spain of fighters that could help when needed in volatile North Africa.

There are (at least three ways to look at Benghazi:

- One is whether the consulate was important enough to bear the risk that was obviously there. Obviously the State Department was constrained by their budget - which the Republicans voted to cut. In addition, the State Department in DC can't micromanage what is done in each country's embassies and consulates. All requests for more security were with regards to Tripoli - and it is NOT clear that Tripoli would have been as dangerous as Benghazi.

- Two is what was done once the attack started - the hearings this week back the independent report - there was NOTHING that could have been done at that point.

- Three is was there an honest attempt to examine what happened, learn from it and strengthen security going forward - YES (Remember Hillary's angry response to Senator Johnson - this IS what matters)

- Lastly, did the WH, (Obama, State, CIA, Pentagon) manage the news out of Benghazi? It is likely they did - and it is likely that there were national security reasons to do so. Could speaking of the film help politically - NO - you still had an act of terror, you still had the Ambassador and others killed, That WAS the heart of the story - and we knew the day it happened what happened.

It was Romney who first conflated the Cairo embassy's APPROPRIATE comments on the film with the attack in Libya. The fact is that these are two independent issues that happened at the same time. It was critically important that Obama and Hillary disavow the content of the film, while explaining the US freedom of speech that allows such things to be disseminated. There were reactions in many Moslem countries to the film and many people there were angered and hurt that America would allow such a thing. (Note - our freedom to do this is extreme compared to most of the world - and American diplomats will ALWAYS be asked about such things.)

In essence, this asks was there a coverup? The simple answer is No. The question the right can't really answer is what was covered up? We knew the consulate was attacked and destroyed and the Americans killed. Obama called it terrorism the day after it happened - and if he hadn't used that word, it would not have mattered. It was obvious in all he said and did.

These are, I think, the facts - and they show nothing unseemly on Clinton's part. ( She may have to answer whether the WH protected HRC by sending Rice, not Clinton out to the talk shows - and whether that was her choice. It might actually not have been, because Obama would have realized that Clinton on 5 talk shows is bigger news than Rice on 5 talk shows - and this was not what they wanted to be the big issue. Note, Sunday talk shows do not have subpoena power and this is a valid political choice.)

As to silencing people in the State Department, there is always a balance between the necessity of controlling leaks and suppressing information. This is true in a campaign, in a Congressional office, a company, or any department in an administration. I believe that the State Department did NOT restrict the independent commission with regards to whom they spoke to in their investigation. They also made many people available to speak to Congress. Kerry told Johnson that the SFRC did get the information he claimed not to have - at a meeting that Johnson skipped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #14)

Fri May 10, 2013, 11:16 AM

15. Remember-Where Hillary goes, Kerry goes.

 

I myself would ignore this issue, it is a 5 day issue and isn't worthy of response

HOWEVER, it is obvous certain people want to continue this and attempt to get rid of Hillary,
so it can only get the press if posted.

87 threads on a democratic board about it is far overkill for a fake issue
unless of course one doesn't want Hillary in 2016.

imho

if not, then 100% support is needed.
one can't have it both ways.

and pray to God Markey wins. I will loudly congratulate him or I will say I told you so that he is a very wrong candidate for this time and place and if he loses, he will be the cause of his loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #15)

Fri May 10, 2013, 12:01 PM

16. Kerry had no connection to the State Department in 2012

As the current Secretary of State, his loyalty should be to the United States and to the Obama administration -- and to his own conscience. These could well line up with what is best for Hillary. If they don't, all those things could and should have priority. As to supporting Clinton, Kerry is OUT of politics as Secretary of State - just as Clinton was in 2012. The best thing he can do for himself, Obama, for the Democratic party, the US, the world is to be the best Secretary of State he can possibly be. His legacy is NOT tied to Clinton. Though any foreign policy successes that he and Obama achieve, will enhance the reputation of the Democratic party - so in that way, they might indirectly help Clinton if she is the nominee.

He has a responsibility to continue to work to make embassies safer - and this is a personal issue to this son of a diplomat. He said in his hearings that he will continue the effort to follow the recommendations of the investigation Hillary initiated.

Markey is favored to win Massachusetts per Nate Silver and recent polls. In addition, Gomez has a pretty difficult issue to deal with now - taking an almost $300,000 tax deduction for agreeing not to alter the facade of his home in a historical district - that has long forbidden changes. In addition, it is NOT Kerry's responsibility. I don't recall you questioning the nomination of Hillary in 2009. In addition, this - and the more important loss of Kerry as a powerful force in the US Senate - are things the President Obama had to consider in deciding to select Kerry as SoS. Having seen what he has done in the past 3 months, I think Obama made the right choice.

As to not being the right person, Kerry's start as Secretary of State has been quite impressive. Few people would have been highly praised by both the Arab League and been said by Tripzi Livni, Israel's top peace negotiator as having brought back hope.( http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/kerry-to-return-to-mideast-for-a-new-effort-on-israeli-palestinian-peace-1.519934 ) Not to mention Kerry and Obama have led to Israel and Turkey restarting their relationship. (Here's a CNN article on his achievements - http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/politics/labott-kerry/index.html )

The world and US interests needed a great Secretary of State to replace Clinton. Kerry has that potential. I don't think there was anyone else of his caliber around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #16)

Fri May 10, 2013, 12:16 PM

19. Is he planning on retiring, or would he stay with Hillary as SOS if offered in 2016?

 

I bet he would stay if asked.
Rand Paul and Jeb Bush won't ask him.

If Hillary asked him to be VP and put Biden as SOS, would he refuse?

BTW, I apologize for any prior animosity around the time of the nomination,however, I worked very hard for Kerry in 2004 even with the awful choice of Edwards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #19)

Fri May 10, 2013, 01:54 PM

24. I have no idea of any plans Secretary Kerry has

or whether he would be Clinton's choice if was interested. He would be 72 years old - and Teresa is 5 years older. If he does retire, there are many things both could do. He is an outstanding writer and a book on foreign policy by Kerry would be fascinating as he has different influences on him than any other diplomat I can think of -- starting with his father. (Or, in an attempt to retroactively make comments (not mine) on Hillary not sexist, he could just enjoy being a grandfather. - ( I can't imagine either just disappearing politically ) )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #14)

Fri May 10, 2013, 12:18 PM

20. Remember the President's statement in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012.

- Lastly, did the WH, (Obama, State, CIA, Pentagon) manage the news out of Benghazi? It is likely they did - and it is likely that there were national security reasons to do so. Could speaking of the film help politically - NO - you still had an act of terror, you still had the Ambassador and others killed, That WAS the heart of the story - and we knew the day it happened what happened.

Here is that statement.

Yesterday, four Americans lost their lives after an attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith were among those killed.

This morning, President Obama condemned that attack, which he called "outrageous and shocking" in a statement from the Rose Garden.

"We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats," he said. "I've also directed my Administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."

Ambassador Stevens had a history of dedicated service in Libya, and as he spoke to reporters, the President described the work to which Stevens devoted his.

"At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi," President Obama said. "With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there."

As the President spoke, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was standing by his side. Afterward, the two left the White House to visit the State Department, where the President planned to reiterate again his solidarity with America's diplomats stationed around the world.

Watch the President's full remarks here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1014&pid=479953

Fight lies and confusion with the truth and facts. Watch that video and pass it on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #20)

Fri May 10, 2013, 01:45 PM

23. thanks for the link - that is what I meant by saying "we knew"

Both Obama and Clinton were completely appropriate that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #14)

Fri May 10, 2013, 02:39 PM

26. Hillary also called it a terrorist attack.

As for Rice, the WH chose to send her to all the morning shows. Hillary had come back from a trip and declined to appear. The WH, as is customary, decided who to send. They were also the ones who gave Rice the talking points. What's not clear is exactly who in the WH talked to Rice and gave her the talking points.

I don't understand, to quote Hillary, what difference does it make? In the final analysis, the result would have been the same whether the attack was a result of a protest or of known terrorists. Our four people would be equally dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #26)

Sat May 11, 2013, 01:54 PM

29. I know you live to point a finger at and denigrate the president,

Last edited Sun May 12, 2013, 10:29 PM - Edit history (1)

... but it was the CIA, not the WH that gave Ms. Rice the talking points

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/12/04/1277741/cia-edited-benghazi-talking-points/

and most of the revisions were pushed by the State Dept

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/benghazi-talking-points_n_3253638.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/benghazi-state-susan-rice-talking-points

... and Hillary absolved of all responsibility during her tenure as SoS awaits her coronation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #29)

Sat May 11, 2013, 11:03 PM

32. You bore me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #32)

Sun May 12, 2013, 01:04 PM

33. truth usually does

... yet BS keeps tumbling out of you in your quest to whitewash Saint Hillary's career

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #1)

Fri May 10, 2013, 12:16 PM

18. 100% to Elizabeth Warren for me. I do not like Hillary Clinton.

I did until I saw a video in which she was utterly disrespectful to the ladies from Code Pink who were warning her prior to the Iraq War that a military action in Iraq would be wrong.

Hillary voted for the war. Hillary was wrong about that. It was a serious mistake. A very serious mistake. It has meant tremendous losses for our country.

We don't even know the half of just how bad Hillary's decision and the decision of our Congress to back Bush's War in Iraq really were.

We have yet to understand, much less pay, the price of the mistakes of those who voted for that war. Hillary was one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #18)

Fri May 10, 2013, 12:19 PM

21. If they take Hillary down,anyone else will be dukakissed quite easily in a general election

 

pity the petty

empower the republican party, and W will be thought of as good times compared to what is coming if Jeb gets in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #21)

Fri May 10, 2013, 04:11 PM

27. You are welcome to your opinion. I will stay with my own.

Life is not just a series of compromises. The difference between a successful life and a failed one is knowing when to compromise and when not to.

I liked Bill Clinton. He was right for his time. But with the threats of global warming and a failed economy looming over 2016,
and with Obama's unrelenting compromises preventing us from dealing with either of those threats,
I think that this is a time to stand firm on our principles.

For us as a nation to regain our balance, we need to pull to the left rather than fall to the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #27)

Fri May 10, 2013, 04:43 PM

28. Yeah,that attitude got us W in the first place.(and made Ralph Nader $$$$$).

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 08:43 AM

2. Rove is just doing the only thing he knows how to do (outside of stealing election)

Man I wish I could meet and spend some time with Karl. John Kerry had
3 purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star from his tour in Vietnam
and during that time he didn't loose a single man but Rove and Creative
Response Concepts painted John as a coward which was just a total lie not
unlike this crap about Benghazi. Karl would have the guts to say anything to
Hillary's face all he can do is lie and slime and then sneak away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 08:55 AM

5. Hello! There were protests about the video in 70+ countries about the video!

Most on 9/11/2012

"How could this happen? Why did she blame a video?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 09:21 AM

6. Gee, what a shock. Karl Rove involved in distraction politics.

You'd think the GOP would have had a bellyful of that loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #6)

Fri May 10, 2013, 10:09 AM

7. If Jeb gets in office, who is the loser? Rove is a lifetime Bushfamily member.

 

Ask W while in office, why Rove wasn't indicted for the LEAK

(yet people here defend leaks, go figure).

a leak is a leak.

which btw, isn't this whole BenG thingy predicated on a leak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #7)

Fri May 10, 2013, 10:11 AM

8. Rove is a full decade out of touch.

If Jeb runs and attaches himself to Turd Blossom, it will be to his detriment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #8)

Fri May 10, 2013, 10:17 AM

9. We aren't suppose to like Rove. But one thing Rove is, is a winner (winner=seated)

 

Rove plays to get the person seated

Rove is the one who fully stocked all positions of Republicans from top to bottom
(which is how they snuck Sarah Palin in.)

As a player, Rove is superb, to defeat him only means something if his side don't get seated

Read "Fraud" by Paul Waldman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Fri May 10, 2013, 10:20 AM

10. No, Rove is a loser. He was fine with the Bush machine in 2000, but that was a decade ago.

He is completely out of touch and using the same back alley tactics he used then. His predictions (interference?) in Ohio were a total bust.

Sorry, I have no admiration for him. However, I do hope that Jeb attaches himself to Rove.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #10)

Fri May 10, 2013, 10:29 AM

11. Who admires him? He is not looking for any of our votes.He is looking for our distractions.

 

any vote away from Hillary will ensure they win

it really is quite simple.

it's all about them stopping Hillary.

95% of the democratic party wants Hillary
the 5% of the party that fractures wants someone else who shall lose like Dukakis did.

It takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush.
and like Nader was working for Bush, Perot was working against Bush.

And the George Wallace racists in the democratic party stopped Jesse Jackson
aka the fracture racists and other fractures
Because Jerry Brown/ Jesse Jackson could have won
with zero money

but the racists stopped Jesse with a smear.
(much like John Edwards attempted to do in 2008 as the last "great white male" hope.
Just like Mario Cuomo did with his smear of Ed Koch(and which perhaps is the reason
Mario Cuomo never stepped on that plane.)

Rove does the job he is paid to do.Evil genius. But he does it well.
After all, Jeb is back and tied statistically for the lead.
No one thought that possible, and he only needs about 24% of the republican vote to be nominated or less, depending on the # of people, in a primary system he set up.

so like Fraud by Waldman says
to say the Bush's are stupid, Rove is evil, etc. is meaningless
they don't need ONE democratic voter to win the primaries

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #11)

Fri May 10, 2013, 10:35 AM

12. I lump Rove in the same honey bucket as Coulter, Beck, Palin, Hannity, and Limbaugh.

They offer red meat to the ultraconservative, knuckledragging morons, but the thinkers on the right recognize that the entire crew are simply useful idiots. Trot them out on occasion to really piss off the left, but don't let anyone get the impression that they speak for the Party. I guess I am agreeing with you in principle.

By the way, I think your analysis of Hillary is a bit backwards. Hillary has great name recognition and is wildly popular with the hard left base, but she is unelectable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 10:52 AM

13. who sub-titled that b-grade vid. and sent it to the internet crazy Iman 2 days before 9-11date?

The Iman who called for global protests at every USA consulate office. And there were 1,000s of inraged protestors.

That vid was made in the usa and looks like it was funded by someone?

Who informed the attackers of the schedule of the Officials killed? That wasn't his regular office location.

In my opinion- some right wing whackos sturred their muslim-hate pot bigtime intending for 9/11 disasters and perhaps cover for an attack. All for their twisted warmonger hate,politics.

by the way was it the bushgang who gave Gadaffi the solid gold diamond encrusted gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 12:10 PM

17. Here are the President's remarks in the Rose Garden on September 12, 2012.

Matt Compton
September 12, 2012
11:54 AM EDT
Share This Post

President Barack Obama, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, delivers a statement regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya (September 12, 2012)

President Barack Obama, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, delivers a statement in the Rose Garden of the White House, Sept. 12, 2012, regarding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Yesterday, four Americans lost their lives after an attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith were among those killed.

This morning, President Obama condemned that attack, which he called "outrageous and shocking" in a statement from the Rose Garden.

"We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats," he said. "I've also directed my Administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."

Ambassador Stevens had a history of dedicated service in Libya, and as he spoke to reporters, the President described the work to which Stevens devoted his.

"At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi," President Obama said. "With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there."

As the President spoke, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was standing by his side. Afterward, the two left the White House to visit the State Department, where the President planned to reiterate again his solidarity with America's diplomats stationed around the world.

Watch the President's full remarks here.

(Do watch the video so that you can remind your friends of what was said.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/09/12/president-obama-discusses-attack-benghazi-libya

If President Obama does something I believe is wrong, I will be among the first to criticize. But President Obama's speech on September 12, 2012 was clear. The Fox News folks and tea-baggers just did not want to hear what was being said. I question whether they ever heard this speech or thought about what he was saying.

They are making things up. (What's new?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 01:20 PM

22. Rove must be very scared of her,

to start running attack ads so far in advance. Little good will it do, though. Only the teacrazies give a damn about this, it's a big yawn to everyone else. The RW lies & distortions are not convincing anyone who didn't have pre-conceived prejudices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #22)

Sat May 11, 2013, 02:04 PM

31. Rove's group was running ads against Democrats in winter of 2012...

...and said ads were tailored to appeal to women, especially those in the sandwich generation (i.e., caring both for elderly parents and children/teens). It didn't win the eventual GOP presidential candidate the women's vote, but the effort was preemptive all the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Fri May 10, 2013, 02:28 PM

25. Welcome to the 2016 presidential campaign!!!

Although it's only 2013 and Hillary has yet to announce her candidacy.

In 2012 Rove supported Romney to the chagrin of the Tea Party crowd. How well did that work out for him?

The GOP is terrified of a potential Hillary run and they will try to destroy her reputation, but they forget the 90s at their own peril. Clinton left office with very high approval ratings. Their insistence to tarnish Hillary will backfire. Their efforts are transparent and heavy handed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sat May 11, 2013, 02:02 PM

30. Contact information for American Crossroads.

Hold them to account for ignoring what was going on in September 2012 (i.e., worldwide protests about the video called The Innocence of the Muslims and for exploiting the deaths in Benghazi.

http://www.americancrossroads.org/contact-us/

American Crossroads
P.O. Box 34413
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: (202) 559-6428
info@americancrossroads.org

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread