Posted on 10/25/2004 6:30:06 AM PDT by finnman69
I agree. I was referring to TWP standard.
For a "conservative", Broder sure supports a lot of liberal politicians and programs.
Actually, though, I believe George Will already holds that job. Broder is their "inside politics" hack -- incapable of seeing forests for the political trees.
See post 42. (And, then let it go). Thanks.
I like the way you think. How do you think Hillary will overcome the unpopularity vis-a-vis the clinton White House years, Hillary care, the-smartest-woman-in-America-bamboozled-by-her-worthless-husband issues?
You have to have password and user ID. No way am I signing up to give them any hits to their Web site.
I'll just believe you. Were you being sarcastic?
My guess is that the opportunism has become too obvious to deny. Kerry has no central core and is too easily influenced by the politics of every issue. I think that the leftist media is beginning to wonder what Kerry would really do in the Whitehouse once he is confronted with a Republican controlled legislature. Who knows? Will Kerry sit back and let Teddy pull the strings, the trial lawyers, the unions? Or would he play for the history books in some way? By packing the courts?
Maybe they're just sick and damned tired of carrying this guy, and getting no help whatsoever from him. The media has done everything but openly threaten us voters with death in order to get rid of George Bush get Kerry elected. They've delivered a steady stream of hateful anti-Bush rhetoric in books, TV, movies, magazines and the internet, undermined our alliances overseas, intentionally damaged the morale of the men and women in our armed forces, openly shredded whatever credibility they had left, and have pretty much bent over and spread 'em wide for John Kerry.
Despite all that, Kerry still can't catch George Bush, mainly because he is such a loathsome human being. If it weren't for the media's all out assault on Bush, Kerry would be lucky to get 40 percent of the popular vote on Election Day. The media has had to carry him for almost a year, while Kerry himself has done all he could to make their job almost impossible, thanks to his arrogance, his non-existent political instincts and his lack of charisma that's so intense he literally sucks it out of his surroundings and into oblivion.
And now, with only a week to go until the election, he still won't help the chattering class send Bush back to Crawford, so they're going to have to drag his rotting corpse across the finish line. I'm not surprised they're starting to crack.
You: "How do you think Hillary will overcome the unpopularity vis-a-vis the clinton White House years, Hillary care, the-smartest-woman-in-America-bamboozled-by-her-worthless-husband issues?"
She won't. She will be extremely unpopular and polarizing with the folks who didn't like the Clintons, and who look back on the Clinton years as a dark moral stain (so to speak).
Her campaign will be like the current Presidential campaign. It will be aimed at firing up the Democratic base and capturing young voters, swing voters, and single issue voters for the difference.
Take the current electoral map.
Now focus on the Midwest. That's the one region that belongs to neither party very faithfully, because Midwesterners are focused on the money as their core issue (unlike the South, for whom its abortion, or the Northeast, for whom its a combination of liberal social issues, or the Mountain West, where the issue is guns and libertarian concerns, or the West Coast, which is environmentally conscious).
The, particularly the Great Lakes states, are socially moderate but middle class and working class. This is a corporatist- thinking region, where people work for big industry and middle-sized industry, and where people are particularly exposed to economic storms that sweep through and wreak havoc on local jobs and families like tornadoes on a squall line.
Midwesterners are hunters, moreso than the Northeast, and they're relatively religious (but of a Catholic/Lutheran socially communitarian bent, and not so much a Southern Evangelical bent). But they want social security protection and they want health care protection, and they know that they need to get it from government programs. Likewise, Midwestern education is good, but it's public. Midwesterners like government in a way that Southerners and Mountain Men do not. But they are socially conservative because they are religious, in a way that Northeasterners and West Coasters are not.
So, the other regions of the country are all red or all blue, but the Midwest is up for grabs.
Midwesterners don't hate the Clintons, because they had jobs back then. And Midwesterners don't hate Hillary care either, because they are more likely to be exposed to being without health care in the big industrial layoffs that sweep that region.
Hillary will turn out the Southern and Mountain vote against her, and the Coastal vote for her, and like this election, 2008 will be determined in the Midwest, where the people are not going to become impassioned by social issues, but are going to keep their eye on the money. her negatives are not going to be as negative in the Midwest, and if she puts together a platform that is pragmatic and will give Midwesterners the sort of security they want, she will win the key states that give her the electoral college.
Of course, the Republicans could do the same thing, but to do so would require them to pitch their whole tax cuts and economic plan differently. To win the Midwest, the Republican tax reductions would have to particularly favor WAGES, and give deductions for health care and tuition, instead of the focus on detaxing capital. The price of turning the Midwest into a region of red states would be a fundamental reprioritization of who gets the MOST benefits under tax breaks and tax incentives. I don't think Republicans want to do that.
The current Democrats, with the Kennedy/(Kerry) wing predominant don't think that way...but of course they're about to lose an election rather catastrophically, for the Presidency, and for the Senate and House. The Clintons will have tabula rasa to work with, and their policies are likely to be a whole lot more pragmatic, and a whole lot more specifically tailored to the states they will need to win the next election, and actually COULD win, namely: Missouri and Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin. That's all they have to do to win. They do not have to make the red states love them. They have to make 4 Midwestern swing states think that they're getting a better economic break than they'll get from the Republicans, and the Clinton's will be back in the White House...IF the war is over or nearly over.
Which is why the Clintons will support the war effort for the next 4 years. Well, in addition to the fact that Hillary is a preachy Methodist from the Midwest and Bill is a good ol' boy from Arkansas who actually probably WANT to cream the terrorists who attacked us, and ... unlike the Kerry wing that doesn't think anything has changed ... DID learn something from September 11th.
The Clinton's are smart, and they learn. Kerry and the Kennedy wing of the party never seems to learn anything. This is why the Clinton's are in command of the Democratic party, and why they will be so formidable in 2008.
Well, you almost gave me a heart attack saying that the Austin Communist Newspaper praised Bush. I thought pigs would be flying and Kerry would stop lying.
"Despite flaws, Bush better leader for perilous times Author: AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Date: October 24, 2004 Publication: Austin American-Statesman (TX)
A country so deeply divided over such an array of issues should pause a moment and take a serious, sober look around.
Americans should ask themselves whether they really believe that European nations critical of the war effort will intervene in Iraq if Sen. John F. Kerry is elected president. They won't.
Further, we should ask whether they really believe that anything less than a fundamental change in the way Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are funded is adequate to ..."
Probably sent a few of the local lefties into a fit of apoplexy.
There simply aren't enough male democrats, especially union thug-types, who will vote for a woman for President in 08, even if Hitlery is their nominee.
I don't think H. Klintoon could win the Presidency, but I agree that she definitely aspires to.
Thanks....talk about half-hearted. Bet it ripped their hearts out to have to say that much positive about Bush. (I'm smiling here).
So if this newspaper is trying not to be their normal loser selves, it must look really bad for Kerry internally with the RATs? I'd say bringing out Clinton shows their desperation.
President Clinton reporting for dooty (see photo):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3950491.stm
Nah, Clinton's not coming out to save them.
Note that Senator Clinton's not out campaigning for Kerry at all.
Bill Clinton will be appearing in a limited number of states, and what he's really doing there is reminding everyone how good it was (from the perspective of Democrats and Independents), when Clinton was in charge. Billy post-cardiac surgery has more energy than Kerry, and megawatt-level charisma still. Clinton's there to be a good partisan, not affect much, and remind everyone in the Democratic party who's in charge, and who will still be in charge 9 days from now.
The Democrats' internals tell them they've lost. Clinton's not going to save them. He's there to be sure that they all come home to him after Kerry's crashed and burned. He's up there to look Presidential and moderate, alongside Kerry's not-ready-for-prime-time performance.
Again, no conspiracy. Clinton's out there for the party, which is still his, and to make sure that everyone remembers that. If anything, he's sucking oxygen out of Kerry by being there.
Just took a look at a photo of a proctologist's dream" two A$$holes!
BTTT
They also like bold talk about killing babies, grabbing guns, and promoting homosexuality. Makes 'em feel so warm and fuzzy...
An excellent and persuasive argument. I think your points are correct, but there are some counter-arguments. Perhaps the truth will be a weighted average.
I think Hillary will have trouble getting elected. I acknowledge that this is the Dems wet dream, but it is one more way they will lose.
Assume that Bill and Hillary have essentially the same ideological point of view. Now consider. Have you ever listened to Hillary? She is grating. She is a policy wonk with lots of facts and figures but no line of reasoning that can be inferred. Compare Hillary to Thomas Sowell, for example. One cites facts and figures, the other develops a clear logical argument.
Now consider Bill Clinton. (disclaimer: I am as disgusted with the man as anyone). However, here is my observation. I like listening to him. His voice is soft. He is folksy and familiar, without being intrusive. He is friendly and unthreatening. He also appears thoughtful. He is often very complimentary to even his political adversaries.
Now, regardless of his behavior, his cowardice, or his policies, he is indeed persuasive. I find it seductive and I should know better.
If I find it persuasive, then there are many nominal centrists who will listen to his voice and not evaluate his positions or actions. The undeniable fact is that they voted for him. He won.
I think that the notion is that Hillary will use the putative success of Bill as a basis for running, and will therefore be as effective politically. Moreover, they are identical idealogically, so there is no reason to believe she would not win.
However, compare Hillary to Bill. Bill is soft, Hillary is hard. Bill is easy to listen to, Hillary is grating. Bill is folksy, Hillary is arrogant and elitist, AND IT COMES ACROSS LOUD AND CLEAR WHEN SHE SPEAKS. Bill could camouflage his ideology and make it appear as something else. Hillary actually accentuates her ideology. Hillary is no Bill. The visceral antipathy toward Hillary was effectively camouflaged by Bill. But that won't happen if Hillary is actually running for PResident. I think that she will open her mouth and people will cringe; she is no Bill. I think she will be defeated handily.
Well, maybe not handily given your arguments, but I think that her winning is not so likely either.
I agree with the differences in character and personality you've listed, and that they matter. Consider that Bill Clinton was literally a kid growing up with a single mom in a trailer in Arkansas who became a Rhodes Scholar, then governor of his home state, then 2-time President of the United States, the only Democrat to pull of the feat of winning two consecutive Presidential elections since FDR. His flaws and his interesting concepts in humidor science -we all know them - but he has undisputed charisma. Clinton's a political rock star.
Hillary is the things you say, but remember, Hillary's just a lawyer whose first try at national office was Senator from New York. Look at Theresa Heinz Kerry. Is she really a dragon lady? Was Nancy Reagan? Even Barbara Bush, God love her, had a pretty tart tongue. Hillary was a tough law partner and a political wife. She has had some learning to do. Part of the test will be to see if she grows into political office. She was my Senator in New York for awhile, before I moved to Connecticut.
I have to say that she's been a careful Senator. She thinks about the positions she takes. She consults with her husband too. Everyone knows that, just like Bill Clinton said in 1992, you get two for one if you vote for a Clinton.
I'm assuming that Hillary learns, and works on her image, and improves. I also assume that Bill Clinton will feature prominently in her campaign. He'll be running for office again too, everyone knows. He'll be the chief political advisor and chief of staff of the second Clinton White House. Really, nothing like this has ever happened before. They are going to write a whole new chapter.
I agree that Clinton is a master politician, but Hillary is bright, and she learns. Remember how clumsy Bush was at speaking back in 2000? He certainly has come along in four years. I wouldn't assume that Hillary is going to be as grating as you think. Also, since she and Bill will be firmly in the driver's seat after this election, she's going to have 4 years of being the "shadow nominee" to better her image and work on her delivery.
There's something else too: she's not going to be running against herself, but against a Republican.
Who?
Cheney's being on the ticket means that Bush has not raised an heir apparent, since Cheney won't be running for President.
Who, then?
Rudolph Giuliani is pro-choice. Assuming that the Supreme Court does not strike down Roe v. Wade in the next four years, that means that Giuliani will lose an election to Hillary.
Why?
Axiomatic. Hillary will fully mobilize every fiber of the Democratic base. Evangelical Christians will stay home by the millions if the Republicans dare to put a pro-choice Republican at the top of the ticket. Rudolph Giuliani and George Pataki have zero chance of being elected President of the United States. Their nomination would divide the Republican base. Believe it or not (and lots of Republicans don't believe it) pro-life evangelicals care more about abortion than they do about taxes or the victory of the Republican party or anything else. The price of getting evangelical votes is a solid pro-life stance. No pro-choice Republican can win the Presidency. So, if Hillary Clinton faces a pro-choice Republican, she wins. (All of that changes if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, maybe, or maybe it gets worse as abortion becomes a straight-up political issue again).
That rules out Giuliani and Pataki.
Who else, then?
John McCain is popular with moderates, and he is pro-life. But he antagonizes a lot of conservatives. Again, it will be a matter of who mobilizes his base better. Hillary will fire up the Democratic base and women's vote more than McCain will fire up the conservative base of the Republican party. Perhaps his strength with moderates will overcome that weakness with the base. But it won't be a slam dunk. And he'll be 72 by then.
Who does that leave?
Powell? Pro choice. Can't win.
Frist? Senators don't do well running for the Presidency. He doesn't have the star power of Hillary (whose power really comes from being a Clinton, not from being a Senator).
Tom Ridge? No charisma.
Who?
Jeb Bush?
Watch Murkowski's defeat in Alaska to see the limits of nepotism in America.
The most famous Republican governor in America is not a natural born US citizen, so he's out.
Condoleeza Rice could probably change her mind on abortion and be an interesting candidate, but she would need to be groomed for the position. There is no indication that anyone is even thinking about Condi for the Job.
So, that leaves Bill Frist or some other unknown candidate, some governor someplace, maybe Voinovich, versus a political rock star: Hillary Clinton.
Her flaws will make her beatable, but it is not going to be easy.
I agree that if Hillary were running against George Bush, it would be dicey.
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.