Daily Beast says Clinton must go

Dear God, Hillary Clinton. Please, Just Go.

No one benefits from her latest venture back onto the political scene.

Liz Mair

10.18.18 5:20 AM ET

OPINION

Hannah Peters/GettyWe’re three weeks out from the 2018 midterm election, and Hillary Clinton is popping up again like a Halloween ghoul who keeps rising from the grave to terrorize the American public; only this time accompanied by the increasingly #MeToo burdened uber-villain, Bubba.

The Clintons, it seems, can’t seem to call it quits, even if it means leaving members of their own party cringing and many more voters ready to “headdesk” themselves into a coma.

This time, it’s happening courtesy of a pay-through-the-nose-to-see-them rehab tour. Because if there’s one thing America hasn’t had enough of over recent decades, it’s efforts by the Clintons to recast themselves as normal, likeable people, as they cash checks and play the victim.

Previous editions of this show have included Hillary’s two Senate runs and two presidential runs, which, depending on one’s perspective, were either an attempt to show independence from her husband or to be compensated for his myriad screw ups.

But despite the last run ending with a loss to Donald Freaking Trump, the most flawed candidate Republicans could conceivably have run in 2016, it appears that nothing will get Hillary out of our political debate once and for all.

Hillary remains caught up in the delusion that the only reason she lost in 2016 was because of Russian interference. She does not seem to have fully processed the fact that she lost the electoral college, the only vote that counts.  She touts the fact that she got nearly three million more votes than Trump while conveniently leaving out that her tally of the vote still fell well below 50 percent.

Both of the major party nominees in 2016 were so unlikable, flawed and—let’s be candid—unethical that lots of us just couldn’t pull the lever for her even if we couldn’t stand Trump. According to a studyfrom American National Election Studies, the words most associated by voters with Hillary in 2016 were “experienced liar.” Is it logical that she’d want to rehab her image, given all this? Perhaps. Is it possible? No. Do we need to watch her try? Definitely, definitely, definitely not.

Hillary’s continual pursuit of limelight and headlines ensures that the image of the Democratic Party remains an outdated, outmoded, and frankly despicable for far too many voters. This comes at a time when leading Democrats are attempting to focus voters’ attention on the future—2020, and beating Trump—and jostling for the role as the new party leader.

It also undercuts Democrats’ positioning as the only party that really cares about #MeToo and that will fight for survivors, a contrast Dems are only too keen to spotlight in the wake of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and ongoing allegations about President Trump’s treatment of women.  Only sheer partisan convenience could allow someone to insist that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is credible while downplaying the numerous allegations of mistreatment (and worse) made by women against Bill Clinton.

For the Democratic Party, about the best that can come of this latest Clinton revival is that no matter how unpalatable any of its leading lights—Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Cory Booker, or others—are individually, they’ll look like downright appealing the longer Hillary hangs about.

But her doing so does not signal that the Democratic Party is actually living in the present, and focused on beating Trump. Rather, it suggests the party wants to turn American politics into the new edition of Groundhog Day—only with no Bill Murray or actual groundhog. Isn’t it time to let the Democratic Party move on from its Clintonite past, and to give someone else a go?

One of the reasons Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been so refreshing isn’t just because the more Democratic Socialist-driven, modern Democratic Party—which is populated to a greater degree by younger voters—wants a younger, more progressive avatar to embrace. It’s also because even Republicans are starting to get weary of bashing the Clintons now; though some of us will undertake it still as a public service.

Clinton is like the target you’ve already shot dead-on so many times the paper has gone to shreds. There are few more column inches to be written, but even Fox News personalities have begun to act a little bored when they dive into Hillary-focused narratives these days.

All of which suggests that for Republicans, too, it’s time to move on—to fresh fights, with fresh adversaries. We want the newest bad guy, not the evildoer from the biggest show in the freaking 1990s. Maybe in 2020 that will be Warren, Gillibrand, Harris, or Booker, or any one of the other 20-some people that might potentially run for president on the Democratic side. But it’s a dead certainty that it isn’t the lady we’ve seen inveighing against the right wing for stealing things she seems to think she or her husband are inherently entitled to for decades now.

It’s time for Hillary and Bill to get off the stage and quit seeking the public adoration they’re clearly never going to get to the massive degree they crave it. Be content, like so many other party elders who turned out not to be winners, in working behind the scenes to help to deliver wins for other, better, up-and-coming, appealing voices.

Yes, others have stuck around past their primes. Mitt Romney, a candidate with a similar resume of high profile presidential losses, is now running for Senate. But his circumstances are different. He was asked to run for the seat that he will soon occupy by its current occupant and he’s maintained strong ties to Utah. Even then, his continuing presence on the political stage irks a ton of Americans who wish he too would go away quietly.

So, Hillary, ditch the rehab tour. Dispense with TV appearances. Recognize that whether it’s lauded or not, you did make some kind of a difference (yes, even Hillary did a couple of things right in her various terms in public office), and be content to leave it there.

Zombie movies for Halloween are fun. But whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or neither, there’s only so much zombie politics you can take. That’s what the Clintons essentially offer now—a brain-devouring, egocentric version of Democrat-ism lurching and festering onward, seemingly endlessly.

Senator Susan Collins's Profile in Courage

Originally published at Fox News by Newt Gingrich

Listening to the extraordinary speech by Senator Susan Collins I was struck by the resemblance to the senators described in President John F. Kennedy’s book Profiles in Courage.

While he was still a senator, Kennedy took advantage of a period when he was recovering from back surgery to write a study of eight senators who he felt had been courageous in doing what they thought was right, even if it cost them re-election.

Profiles in Courage was received with rave reviews and won the Pulitzer Prize.

If Kennedy were writing the book today, he would have to add a chapter for Senator Collins.

Senator Collins has consistently done what she thought was right. I am much more conservative, and I have often disagreed with her. Nonetheless I have worked on health projects and other issues with her, and she has always been thoughtful, serious, and dedicated.

When we have disagreed, it has been within a tone of friendship and mutual admiration that we are both serious people trying to help America navigate through some very difficult and complex challenges.

When I watched her speech Friday I had great admiration for her words – even more than for her final decision.

If you have not read or watched her nearly hour-long speech, I encourage you take the time to do so.

It epitomized the Senate at its best (I write this as a former Speaker of the House for whom praising the Senate under any circumstance is a painful prospect).

The Founding Fathers wanted senators to be more aloof than representatives. They designed it so only one third would be up for election in any given year. Initially, they had senators elected by the state legislatures to protect them from direct pressure from the public. In its earliest years, the Senate took this concept of aloofness so seriously that they met in secret and refused to tell people how they had individually voted. In fact, they met in secret until 1794.

The Senate has a tradition of much longer speeches than the House (if you don’t believe me watch C-SPAN coverage of the two bodies for a few days). The goal was to have a solemn deliberative body that would be slower than the House in following public opinion.

All too often the age of televised sessions, the power of social media, the impact of organized, passionate interest groups, and the ambition of individual senators who grandstand to attract attention so they can later run for president (such as Senator Cory Booker absurdly declaring he was having a “Spartacus moment”) combine to break down the deliberative nature of the Senate and the ability of its best members to think seriously and speak wisely.

For one hour last week, Senator Collins took us back to an age when calm, reasoned logic, powerful imagery, and deep thought controlled the Senate floor.

While most people will focus on her vote, I think for historic purposes it is even more important to watch her reason methodically and then take the case for approval or rejection of Judge Kavanaugh step-by-step and item-by-item.

Senator Collins explored the background of the judicial decisions Judge Kavanaugh has made in his years on the bench. She reported on the hours she had spent interviewing him and many other people. She outlined the case for and against Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s charges.

Again and again, Senator Collins shed light and logic where others had engaged in emotional diatribes, character assassination, and smears. The contrast could not have been more vivid.

At the end of her speech, I was impressed with how thoughtful and methodical she had been in laying out the case and announcing she would vote “yes.”

Maine is a moderate state with a big activist left-wing element.

Left-wing, anti-Kavanaugh activists had already organized a web page that had gathered more than $2 million in pledges to fund an anti-Collins candidate in 2020 if she voted for Kavanaugh. Left-wing activists sent more than 3,000 coat hangers to her staff symbolizing back alley abortions in an effort to emotionally pressure her into rejecting Kavanaugh.

Collins seems impervious to pressure from both the right and the left. That is a profile in courage worthy of note.

Now, in response to her vote to confirm Justice Kavanaugh, former Obama official Susan Rice is saying she might run against Collins in 2020.

I think that would be the perfect match. Susan Rice was the designated liar sent out by the Obama team to lie to the American people about the Benghazi attack and the death of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya.

I can’t imagine a clearer contrast between a profile in courage and a profile in dishonesty.

P.S. More than 3 million people have watched my Facebook Live on the Left's efforts to destroy Kavanaugh and destroy America since last week.
Watch it and share with your friends here>> 

Newt Live: Destroying Kavanaugh and Destroying America