According to a shocker of a story published by the Inside Baseball of the Washington beltway that is Politico a few months back, there are signs that the GOP establishment would sooner back Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 than many potential candidates.  What big money donors, particularly the Wall Street Republicans fear is that their ultimate nightmare of a Rand Paul presidential nomination may be realized. While the story refers to a “populist wing” and in particular Senators Ted Cruz  and Paul (who has Democrats terrified) it shows that the really big money players, particularly that of the thieves running the Wall Street casinos could care less about the state of the country as long as the cash spigots keep flowing their way.

The story, which is entitled “Wall Street Republicans’ dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016” makes no qualms about the adoration for Jeb Bush (whose immigration views are too liberal to survive the primaries) and cries crocodile tears over the implosion of Chris Christie. It is however the preference for Hillary over anyone who might challenge the existing spoils system that should raise the eyebrows of conservatives. I excerpt the following from Politico:

Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent — and unusual — consolation candidate if Bush demurs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn’t recover politically and no other establishment favorite gets nominated: Hillary Clinton.

Most donors and Wall Street titans have not lined up with any candidate yet, waiting for the field to take shape after the midterms. But if Bush doesn’t run, the list of Republican saviors could be short. Some donors fear Christie will never overcome the Bridgegate scandal. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin so far seems more inclined to stay in the House than to run for president. And to varying degrees, other candidates — such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio — are either unknown or untrusted.

The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”

Most top GOP fundraisers and donors on Wall Street won’t say this kind of thing on the record for fear of heavy blowback from party officials, as well as supporters of Cruz and Rand Paul. Few want to acknowledge publicly that the Democratic front-runner fills them with less dread than some Republican 2016 hopefuls. And, to be sure, none of the Republican-leaning financial executives are so far suggesting they’d openly back her.

Rand Paul represents the one and only Republican who can change the United States in a way similar to what Ronald Reagan did. The fraudulent stooge Obama spoke of being that “transformational” president while he was in campaign mode but he has only changed things for the worst. The vitriol and hatred directed towards Paul, in particular from the neocon infested Washington Post and their house attack dog Jennifer Rubin has been as sustained as it has been withering. Even today Paul is being savaged by Rubin in a screed entitled “Rand Paul’s Rotten Summer”. But the attacks belay a gnawing fear more than anything else.

There are only so many “isolationist” smears that can be hurled, particularly in an era when more Americans want to mind our own business and stop creating foreign disasters like ISIS. Senator Paul also has appeal with the younger demographic that Obama shanked in the back after he was elected and this is one more thing that scares the hell out of the establishment. This is particularly problematic to Democrats in that Obama’s economic policies have been particularly harsh on younger workers – and they are being forced to purchase insurance under Obamacare.

Speaking personally as a registered independent as well as a libertarian,  I believe that the best situation for America as a whole would be a Rand Paul presidency. Conversely, the worst thing for America would be a gut-wrenching eight years of Hillary Clinton. I hope that conservatives are able to see though the con for what it is and step up to the plate next primary season to defeat the evil machinations of the chosen candidates of the two-party scam and do all that is in their power to sink Mrs. Clinton.  Rand Paul is by far the best candidate when it comes to civil liberties and there is at least a chance to demilitarize the police and roll back the national surveillance state under him. Clinton will only be a continuation of Obama’s disastrous policies only unlike him, she isn’t incompetent.