Posted on 12/04/2003 3:37:03 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
I've told you before that Bill and Hillary Clinton pull the strings at the Democrat National Committee through their sock puppet Terrance McAuliffe. Traditionally, control of the DNC should've gone to Algore as the party's last nominee, but the Clintons aced him out of even that small victory. So when Howard Dean started coming on strong for the 2004 nomination, the Clintons threw in another sock puppet, Wesley Clark, to slow him down. Clark failed totally. The Clintons don't want to see a Democrat win in 2004, because that would mean Hillary couldn't run for the White House until 2012. But paradoxically the weakest candidate against President Bush in 2004 is also the strongest candidate to wrest control of the DNC away from Bill and Hillary after he loses: Howard Dean. This fear has some real basis, because Dean is a smart guy. You can be sure that the Clintons know that when they see stories like the Washington Post's "Dean Now Courting Party Insiders." The Clintons don't mind if Dean takes himself and his supporters off the cliff, but they're darn sure not going to let him take them off. "But, Rush, nobody thought Clinton could win against Bush 41 at this stage. The Democrats should be encouraging Dean!" Folks, you're not getting it. The Clintons don't want any Democrat not named "Clinton" to win in 2004. They need the party apparatus, and their head fundraiser McAuliffe in charge of it, to make a run in 2008. They don't want to have to take the party back over or anything like that. Sure they have HILPAC and George Soros' group Americans Coming Together and a number of other things, but those aren't a party apparatus. They see Dean raising $12 or $14 million dollars on the Internet as he smashes Clinton's fundraising records. That's why we have former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta telling the Washington Times that the party is worried about Dean taking them to a huge loss a'la McGovern or Mondull. They're doing anything they can to slow Dean down, so he'll be a sacrifice in 2004 and leave the door open for '08. This is going to be fun to watch. There's going to be a death struggle, a Texas chainsaw match between Dean and the Clintons over control of the DNC. Watch you don't get spattered, folks.
Let's examine this scenario a little further.
Being as far left as Dean is, a total 50 state rejection has to have repercussions on Nancy Pelosi's leadership in the House (being that she's as far left as Dean), as well as Daschle's position (assuming he survives his own election). A 50 state loss has to also include more losses in the Senate and the House from coattails. McAuliffe already has the defeat in 2002, and 3 out of 4 governships in 2003 at his feet.
Why would the party consider keeping Clinton/McAuliffe after that string of losses? What would an iron-clad fist around the reins of the DNC by Clinton/McAuliffe, in light of that record and with four more years of Bush, say to the masses within the Democrat party? When will they say that enough is enough?
-PJ
For one reason only--$$$.
Hillary Clinton shows up anywhere and she can rake in millions. No other Democrat, even her husband, can generate that fund raising prowess.
If Dean loses big, Democrats will be so deperate they will blindly grab for any life line. Hillary will be there posing as their savior.
Most definitely. Call him crazy, deluded or whatever else but what makes him dangerous is that he is being underestimated and Bush's strengths overestimated.
In other words, what are the downline ramifications?
-PJ
Tommy Daschle will be "deeply saddened."
You're right as far as you go, but what happens when Dean doesn't take one state? The person Dean puts in is purged after the defeat. That's when the Clinton people come back. Look at the Clinton years -- much of what was good for the Clintons hurt the Democrat party. This will be the same. In the short run, Hillary will be in a stronger position. In the long run, Democrats are doomed.
Dean will put his own people in BEFORE his historic loss. After the loss comes the purge. That's when the Clinton people move back into power. It won't be good for the party in the long run, but it will be good for the Clintons in the short run. And in the short run, Democrats will fall for it. Enough won't be enough until they hit the wall. Then it will be too late...
The klintoon mystique will die only when the media tire of hyping them, and cracks are starting to show.
The early, purloined, FBI files are pretty-much worn out by now, and there probably aren't enough people left to threaten anyway.
McAwful should have been fired long ago, and his continued presence is testimony to the stranglehold the klintoons hold on the DNC. He is a large part of their dirty-money base, and therefore necessary in their determined machinations to re-take the White House.
2006 poses a Giuliani problem. 2008 and 2012 are too far out to bet on, so 2004 is probably the Hildabeaste's best shot at the prize, but Dean is poised to rip Party control away from the toons. What to do? What to do?...
Well, I think the toons will revert to form and have Dean killed, and at the most fortuitous time for Hildabeaste to step in - 'For the good of the Nation'!
It's the Stalinist thing to do, and he'll just wind up as another headstone on the klintoon's 'Boot Hill'! The number of dead people swirling around them defies all logic, but not reason. Like the true Marxists that they are, they will do ANYTHING to return to power. Watch it happen as Dean grows stronger................FRegards
And then watch them try to pin it on the Bush Administration.
-PJ
You have to throw logic out the window when considering how Democrats will react. For Democrats, results do not matter--only good intentions.
McAuliffe, Pelosi, Daschle, etc. had the INTENTION of winning, but the fact that they didn't is not their fault--it's someone else's fault. And the Democrat sheeple will buy that argument.
You and I live in the real world where actions have consequences, but Democrats do not hold their leaders responsible for anything. It's my opinion that if Dean loses and loses badly, all the blame will be laid at his feet and the party will head ever more directly to Hillary (and Bill). Who else are they going to turn to?
That makes absolutely NO sense to you and me, but hardly anything Democrats do ever makes sense to me.
The only party the Clintons helped in their eight years was the GOP. Look at the statistics. They were a windfall for us.
If Clark wins, he takes Hillary as his VP, it's a Clinton win. They keep McAwful and the party strings.
If Dean gets wins, the Clintons lose power for a few months, then ride back on a white horse after the worst presidential defeat in history. Again, a Clinton win.
The basic premise is: what's good for the Clinton's is good for the Clinton's. The democrats got carved into special interest groups with no cohesive binding philosophy beyond the outstretched hand (feed me, feed me money). They're ripe for political manipulation. And the best manipulators are: the Clintons.
Why would the party consider keeping Clinton/McAuliffe after that string of losses? What would an iron-clad fist around the reins of the DNC by Clinton/McAuliffe, in light of that record and with four more years of Bush, say to the masses within the Democrat party? When will they say that enough is enough? -PJ
You are PRICELESS! :-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.