Bruce Bartlett: Dealing with a Democratic Advantage (be prepared for a President Hillary Clinton)

National Review ^ | 05/08/2007 | Bruce Bartlett

[SirLinksalot]

I hadn’t planned on writing another column about Hillary Clinton, but the one I wrote last week has been so widely misunderstood that I feel compelled to do so.

To recap, I said that no Republican can win the presidency next year. If one accepts this premise, then if follows that it is in the interest of conservatives to support the most conservative Democrat running for that party’s nomination. I went on to say why I think Hillary Clinton may be the most conservative Democrat.

To begin with, it is obviously not impossible for a Republican to win next year. But clearly 2008 is shaping up as a Democratic year. It will take a monumental Democratic screw-up to lose. I can think of only one instance in American history where a party had the kind of advantage the Democrats have and still lost. That was 1948, when Republican Thomas E. Dewey blew an election that should have been in the bag and lost to Democrat Harry Truman.

While conceding the possibility that I am wrong, I think it is foolish to ignore the strong Democratic trend that is indisputable. Republicans should remember that they just barely won the White House in 2000 and 2004 against very poor Democratic candidates and with the party strongly united behind George W. Bush. I just don’t see that happening again next year.

The Republicans are not going to be as united, and it is almost a certainty that the Democrats will run a better campaign in 2008. I think all three of the Democrats within striking distance of the nomination will be better candidates than Al Gore or John Kerry. And because of the close losses in 2000 and 2004, the Democrats will really pull together this time.

Meanwhile, voter fatigue is going to wear heavily on the Republican nominee, who is not likely to have the same unity of party that the Democrat will have. It is obvious that there is no enthusiasm for any of the Republicans, which is why so many in the party are yearning for another candidate, such as former Sen. Fred Thompson, to jump in the race. The Republican nominee will be the last candidate still standing at the end of the day, which is not a prescription for party unity.

In any case, one need not accept my idea that the election next year is the Democrats’ to lose to want to hedge one’s bet. Many of the Republican party’s largest donors are already doing exactly that. BusinessWeek reports that John Mack, head of Morgan Stanley, a big Wall Street firm, is supporting Sen. Clinton. In 2004, Mack raised $200,000 for Bush’s reelection. The New York Sun reports that a number of other big Bush contributors have also joined the Clinton camp.

These and other big money people are just the leading edge of what I believe will be a steady move into the Democratic sphere in order to have some influence on the next president. This helps explain why, collectively, the Democratic candidates are raising much more money than the Republicans.

It is too easy to write off such people as opportunists who just want to be on the winning side. There is a deep undercurrent of hostility to the Republican party among many who formerly supported its candidates. They are simply disgusted with the incompetence with which the Iraq war has been waged, the total disappearance of fiscal discipline, and what they view as the party’s incessant pandering to ignorant and intolerant yahoos on issues such as immigration, gays, global warming, abortion, and stem-cell research, among others.

No doubt, a great many conservatives will say good riddance to such people. However, if the Republican party loses everyone except religious zealots, gun nuts, anti-tax extremists, and pro-life absolutists, then it is not going to win any national elections. That’s not a comment on the rightness or wrongness of the views of those I just listed — it’s simple math. There just aren’t enough of such people to put together a winning coalition. The price of purity is political powerlessness.

Consequently, I anticipate that more and more Republicans and even a few conservatives are going to start looking at supporting one of the Democratic candidates. I suggested that Sen. Clinton may be the most conservative Democrat now running. But others believe that Sen. Obama may be acceptable because of his deeply conservative temperament, and some point to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s excellent record of tax-cutting.

The point is that there are better and worse Democrats from a conservative point of view. Those who prefer to go down with the sinking Republican ship may come to regret that they didn’t try to exercise influence on the Democratic nomination before the nomination was sewn up.

[SirLinksalot]

Earlier, Mr. Bartlett wrote an article at the National Review warning conservatives to be prepared for President Hillary Clinton, insisting that she's probably the most conservative Democrat among the lot. The above article is part 2. This is part 1 :

-------------------------------------

Get Ready for Hillary Tough choices for the Right.

By Bruce Bartlett

As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It’s not quite 1932, but it’s getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates — even among Republicans.

Of course, one can never rule out the ability of the Democrats to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. But sometimes the trend in one party’s direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence can’t keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of year for the Democrats.

If I am right, conservatives are going to have to make an important decision at some point. Do they go down with the sinking Republican ship, or do they try to have some meaningful influence on the next president by becoming involved in the Democratic race?

I’m sure that the first reaction of most conservatives will be to say that any involvement in the Democratic party is unthinkable. They view it as the party of treason and socialism. They could no more involve themselves in Democratic politics than a God-fearing Christian would consider working with Satan just because it looked like he was going to win.

For those of you who feel this way, stop reading. There is nothing more in this column for you. But for those conservatives who don’t see the 2008 election as a race between good and evil, but merely a contest between rivals within the same league, I think there is a good case for participating in the Democratic nominating process.

Here’s why. Although all the Democratic candidates are more liberal than all of the Republicans, they are not all equally liberal. Among the Democrats, some are more to the right and others more to the left. It is a grave mistake to assume, as most conservatives do, that they are all equally bad and that it makes no difference whatsoever which one is elected.

To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between.

The hard-core right-wingers who kept reading past the point I told them to stop probably think I’ve lost my mind by now. But remember, I am talking about the politics within the Democratic Party, not the nation as a whole. Moreover, at this stage of the nominating process, all of the candidates in both parties are appealing mainly to their bases. These are well to the left of the country among Democrats and well to the right among Republicans.

It is in this context that one must evaluate Sen. Clinton’s position. Given the views of the Democratic base and the enormous unpopularity of the Iraq War, it is a real act of courage for her to steadfastly refuse to say her vote for the war was wrong. Of course, like all Democrats and most Americans, she opposes the war today and favors a rapid pullout.

That is why the easy thing for Sen. Clinton to do would be to just throw in the towel, admit her vote was wrong, and move on. And that’s why it is an act of courage for her to refuse to do so. If conservatives weren’t so blinded by their hatred for her, this would be obvious.

On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Sen. Clinton’s policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton’s. This is not a bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding, and on the budget was far better than George W. Bush’s. While Clinton raised taxes in 1993, it should be remembered that he cut them in 1997, including a cut in the capital gains tax. On regulatory policy, Clinton was no worse than the current administration and probably better on net.

Democrats know all this, which is why our most liberal pundits, like Bob Kuttner, are attacking Sen. Clinton for being a clone of her husband on economics and criticizing her support for “Rubinomics,” named after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. Its essential elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization — which are both anathema to the Democratic party’s liberal base. It wants a hard line against imports to save jobs and an expansive fiscal policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs.

At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.

[Theresawithanh]

OK, I realize I'm probably not the first to come up with this, but I'll call you crazy, Mr. Bartlett! You may be right that it'll be Hillary(!) in the WH, although I have my doubts, but she is in no way, shape or form a conservative!!!

[Uncledave]

I just don’t see this incredibly strong Democrat advantage.

The democrats who won in 2006 ran as conservatives. Heck, socialist France just turned rightward.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Hillary Clinton has solid 40% negatives that have recently climbed to the 50%+ level.

We should support her for the Democrat nomination because there is no way she can win, especially against somebody like...

...Fred Dalton Thompson...

...for instance.

RUN FRED RUN!!!!!

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

‘ole Brucie is obviously a liberal and a cowardly, defeatist one at that. He calls people intolerant who are opposed to having illegals in the country; he refers to gun owners expressing their Second Amendment rights as “gun nuts.” He’s a liberal blowhard who should be posting on democrat underground.

[RC2]

If the American really follow Hillary over the past years, they will see that she cannot be trusted to be President. Her views on different things needs to be brought out. She will say anything to be President. Once in office, she would go back to her old self. She hates anyone that disagrees with her and especially hates the military. Not good for this country for a President to be in this position. Hillary is a pure socialist and could bury this country.

[Badeye]

I’m not so sure the ‘political norms’ apply post 9/11. There is some data available to indicate this.

[The Great RJ]

At this point the Republicans do not have any strong candidates for president and are divided. I would expect this to change and the prospect of a President Hillary should galvanize all Republicans to unite. However, Hillary may not be the nominee. She and Obama could peak too soon tossing the convention into a free for all and maybe opening up the race to one of the more loony left members of the party.

[Lurker]

Hillary will not be the Dem nominee, although we should all most fervently hope that she will be.

She's easily the most beatable of the bunch.

L

[JZelle]

I heard him on Laura Ingrham yesterday. She lit into him pretty good.

[JamesP81]

and what they view as the party’s incessant pandering to ignorant and intolerant yahoos on issues such as immigration, gays, global warming, abortion, and stem-cell research, among others.

Yahoos. So that's what they're calling us these days...

[mo]

“.....opening up the race to one of the more loony left members of the party.”

BINGO!! Think 1972..George McGovern....the loons are enraged over Hillary already......they will probably accept Obama..only by virtue that he is black..we MAY get a REAL nutjob out of the Democratic Convention...that is if we’re LUCKY!!

[dirtboy]

They are simply disgusted with the incompetence with which the Iraq war has been waged, the total disappearance of fiscal discipline, and what they view as the party’s incessant pandering to ignorant and intolerant yahoos on issues such as immigration, gays, global warming, abortion, and stem-cell research, among others.

Intolerant yahoos? We're supposed to TOLERATE indecency, infantcide and an invasion of illegal aliens, along with our opposition to the absurdity of the global warming movement?

Barlett can kiss my pasty intolerant yahoo rump.

[dirtboy]

The Republican nominee will be the last candidate still standing at the end of the day, which is not a prescription for party unity.

Isn't that how elections normally work when there is an open seat?

Is this what passes for wisdom from the mushy middle?

[Little Ray]

I agree somewhat - the election is the Democrats to lose.

However, they seem to be working so hard to lose it!

Sorta reminds me of Republicans...

[Little Ray]

I agree somewhat - the election is the Democrats to lose.

However, they seem to be working so hard to lose it!

Sorta reminds me of Republicans...

[Renegade]

This guy is smokin bad nugs . Even my staunchest Dem friends are not going to vote for the Hildabeast or the Magic Negro !

[nothingnew]

Some of the points made are worth thinking about. However...However, if the Republican party loses everyone except religious zealots, gun nuts, anti-tax extremists, and pro-life absolutists, then it is not going to win any national elections. That’s not a comment on the rightness or wrongness of the views of those I just listed........

The bold doesn't really ring true, does it?

FMCDH(BITS)

[rfp1234]

Rope-a-Dope.

[SirLinksalot]

'ole Brucie is obviously a liberal and a cowardly, defeatist one at that.

This man is hardly a liberal or else the conservative National Review wouldn't even have him as a columnist.

He is an economist associated with supply-side economics. He was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.

In fact, he has worked for Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas). Bartlett spent much of his time working with the House Banking Committee, of which Ron Paul was a member, which involved Bartlett in economic issues.

He isn't a fan of W. though. In 2006, he published Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (ISBN 0-385-51827-7), which is critical of the Bush Administration's economic policies as departing from traditional conservative principles.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I just don’t see this incredibly strong Democrat advantage.

The democrats who won in 2006 ran as conservatives. Heck, socialist France just turned rightward.

Fine, but how often does one party retain the presidency for 3 successive terms? You have to understand that the only president to see his sitting VP elected to succeed him and not have his face on our currency is Ronald Reagan. Add FDR to the mix who succeded himself more than once (and whose face is on dimes), and you have made a serious dent in the history of parties retaining the presidency for more than two successive terms. Add in the fact that each of the prominent contenders has a serious problem, and we are definitely in trouble.

All that said, I am definitely not looking forward to a reprise of Filegate, Travelgate, Cattlegate, Billinggate, and so forth. And remember that Hillary was behind "the meaning of is" in the sense that she was the one who vetoed an out-of-court settlement of the Paula Jones lawsuit which was the only honorable course open to WJBC at the time.

[SirLinksalot]

Hillary will not be the Dem nominee, although we should all most fervently hope that she will be. She's easily the most beatable of the bunch.

Be alarmed, be very alarmed.

See here for instance :

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/9/103816.shtml?s=ic

Poll: Hillary Leads Obama, Giuliani and McCain

Hillary Clinton is not only the favorite for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, but she also leads both Rudy Giuliani and John McCain for the first time in a WNBC/Marist College poll.

The poll of more than 1,000 adults conducted from April 26 through May 1 found that Clinton has a solid lead over her Democratic rivals for the nomination, garnering 35 percent of the vote compared to 17 percent for Barack Obama, 15 percent for John Edwards and 9 percent for Al Gore.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani leads with 28 percent of the vote, with John McCain trailing at 18 percent. Two unannounced potential candidates – Fred Thompson at 13 percent and Newt Gingrich at 8 percent – both outpoll announced candidate Mitt Romney at 7 percent.

In a head-to-head match-up, Clinton outpaces Giuliani by a margin of 48 percent to 43 percent, with 9 percent undecided, and beats John McCain, 47 percent to 42 percent.

John Edwards also outpolls Giuliani and McCain, but the two Republicans both beat Obama in a head-to-head race.

Other findings of the WNBC/Marist poll include:

* 29 percent of respondents said Clinton’s position on the Iraq war made them more likely to vote for her, and 44 percent said it made no difference; 27 percent said it made them less likely to support her.
* 41 percent of those polled said they would "definitely not consider” voting for Clinton, down from 46 percent in December. Only 35 percent felt the same way about Obama and Edwards.
* Asked about Giuliani’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights positions, 35 percent said it would not be a factor in deciding whether to vote for him; 27 percent said it would be a minor factor, and 38 percent considered it a major factor.
* Surprisingly, 11 percent of Republicans polled said they would support Clinton over both Giuliani and McCain.

[cookcounty]

Oh gosh. Bartlett ain’t no Reagan. What a pessimist.

[Alex Murphy]

What Bartlett fails to consider is that Miss Rodham's apparent relative conservatism may be nothing more than a carefully orchestrated marketing move, aimed at differentiating herself from her fellow Democrats, in order to woo "moderate" Republican voters away from the party at election time.

She's reinvented herself before. What's to say she's not actively doing it again?

[HitmanLV]

Did you read the reviews FDT got for his speech on Friday? If he brings more of that stuff to the stage, he will put the nation to sleep.

[deebee1]

Let’s take a look at Hillary’s conservative positions:

- Wants to raise taxes
- Wants to ban guns
- Wants Nationalized Healthcare
- Wants to gut the military
- Pro abortion

- Against the War on Terror
- Against tax cuts
- Against school choice
- Against the 1st amendment

Yep. She’s a real conservative. Why wouldn’t I want to vote for her. It’d be just like having Reagan back in office.

[California Patriot]

Bartlett is an IDIOT and a COWARD. First, Hillary is no less liberal than the other punks in the Democratic field. In terms of substance, these people are like a row of dog turds lying on the ground. Yeah, they’re different. But not in any way that matters! Second, while it’s perfectly true that the Republican candidate will have a hard time in ‘08, it’s not necessarily true that we can’t win. There is no way whatsoever to know this. Therefore, it’s outrageously dumb to call for a pre-emptive surrender. Don’t listen to this punk.

[California Patriot]

Yeah, that too. Bartlett is unbelievably dumb.

[ChildOfThe60s]

and what they view as the party’s incessant pandering to ignorant and intolerant yahoos on issues such as immigration, gays, global warming, abortion, and stem-cell research, among others.

I'm not ignorant, but I am damned intolerant. And will somebody please find the [invisible] Republicans in the Senate and White House that are pandering to me??

[Ieatfrijoles]

Here’s to hoping bartlebee doesn’t try to parlay this into a trilogy.

[Gritty]

[Old_Mil]

This article is merely proof that RINOs are really democrats at heart.

[WOSG]

“At this point the Republicans do not have any strong candidates for president “

I disagree. Romney would make a strong candidate, as would Guliani to a lesser extent. There are other Governors like Gilmore and Huckabee who are not bad. All of the above could wage better campaigns than most republican presidential campaigns.

We see 3 big problems for the GOP:
1. The division between the base and the elites, as given by the mention of ‘yahoos’ on the right.
2. The war in Iraq driving presidential popularity down.
3. GOP losing the competence edge.

[OldPossum]

they view as the party’s incessant pandering to ignorant and intolerant yahoos on issues such as immigration, gays, global warming, abortion, and stem-cell research, among others

It's right here where the author reveals his anti-conservative biases. Yahoos, indeed!

[darkangel82]

40%? More like 100%.

[gogeo]

FUD peddler extraordinaire. I wish I understood why some believe negativity to be an accomplishment of some type. It's not.

Being aware of what can go wrong, and pressing on anyway...that's admirable.

[nwrep]

BINGO!! Think 1972..George McGovern....the loons are enraged over Hillary already......they will probably accept Obama..only by virtue that he is black..we MAY get a REAL nutjob out of the Democratic Convention...that is if we’re LUCKY!!

I think some revisitation of political history is in order. The 1972 Democrat Convention was the last spontaneous decision made on the convention floor. Since that time, the cards have been stacked against grass roots spontaneity by the Dems, consolidating the power in the core, reliable Dem constituencies like labor and teachers unions. There is no way they will oppose the party conventional wisdom.

If Hillary is leading the Dem polls, it is a guarantee she will win the nomination. Obama has very high odds against him. The party machinery is solidly behind her.

Besides, sweet-talking "Magic Negro" Obama is no George McGovern-like nutcase. He is not going to commit the amateurish mistakes of idiot McGovern.

[Aetius]

He may not be a total liberal, but with his WSJournal background, he probably is far-left on immigration, so he should love Bush for that.

Furthermore, he seems to have barely concealed contempt for social conservatives. His ridiculous framing of those issues sounds like something off of dailykos -— gun nuts, religious zealots, abortion absolutists.

There is no silver-lining for conservatives if it has to be Hillary over Obama or Edwards. It would be just as much a disaster with one as any of the others.

[devolve]

— I heard this wimp on Laura Ingraham’s show too

No Republican, no conservative

Sounded like a wispy little girl to me

On FR I call these “sleepers”

Advising Republicans to vote for “conservative Hillary”

That Soros money gets around.....

[potlatch]

Conservative!!!

[devolve]

Good post potlatch -

Piggly Wiggly

[Sprite518]

Can you say hoodwink? Bruce Hillary is not conservative at all. She is faking it in order to become POTS.. Furthermore, take a look at France. A far left country could not even elect a Socialist woman. Sorry but Hillary is not only going to be the nominee, but she will lose.

There is no way in hell would I ever vote for a Democrat. Even if we had a 0.0% chance to win. No way... Consider my vote for capitalism vs. Socialism.

[potlatch]

Many don’t know the story and meaning of Animal Farm although it’s been made into a movie twice.

[Sprite518]

My thought s exactly. If this guy was in prison, then he would be someone’s bitch. What a coward and a disgrace.

I guess if a rapist broke into his house and had a gun. Then Bruce would let his wife or daughter get rapped since there is no way he is going to get that gun.

The guy is a loser and a jerk.

[Zack Nguyen]

I can think of only one instance in American history where a party had the kind of advantage the Democrats have and still lost.

I can think of at least two others - 1992 and 1996. In 1991 George bush had approval rating s at least in the 80's - yet lost to a little-known governor from Arkansas. In mid-1995 Republicans held both houses of Congress and were flying high. By election day 1996 Bob Dole had been miserably defeated.

The lesson is: nothing is forever in politics. No one should panic.

[Zack Nguyen]

Republicans should remember that they just barely won the White House in 2000 and 2004 against very poor Democratic candidates and with the party strongly united behind George W. Bush.

The party was not united strongly behind George W. Bush in 2000. In fact, a few million conservative Christian voters sat it out. In 2004 Bush did have aunited party behind him and won by 3 million votes.

I find some holes in Mr. Bartlett's reasoning here.

[Sprite518]

Regarding the War in Iraq. People are not upset that we went in there. They are upset the way we are fighting it.

The rules of engagement is a big problem. For instance, a troop can not shoot unless the enemy has shot directly at them first. Unfreakin believable.

Most people I talk to say they just want us to blow up the entire freakin country. Kind of like Germany in WWII. Then get our troops out. Why spend the money on super weapons if we do not have the spine to use them.

We do not have to do the house to house fighting. I remember one story I heard about the German occupation post WWII. I think it was 1946? Nevertheless, 43 or 4 GIs were killed in a small German town by some resistance. After this happened we shelled the town for the next 24 hours.. All nite long too. Well guess what? Never again was an American killed in that town.

[devolve]

I’ll dig out my outline from Classic Comics!

Hillary’s favorite book I have heard

[potlatch]

Lol!

[BufordP]

ping