Malkin: Hillary Rodham Buchanan?

MichelleMalkin.com ^ | 11-22-04 | Michelle Malkin

[cgk]

HILLARY RODHAM BUCHANAN?

By Michelle Malkin   ·   November 22, 2004 11:21 PM

Newsmax recently noticed that Hillary Clinton is starting to play up border security and illegal immigration:

More than any other leader of either political party, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has been focusing on the issue of immigration reform and border security - taking hard-line positions that appeal to frustrated Republicans in a move that could guarantee her enough red state support to win the White House in 2008.

On Wednesday, as the media descended on Little Rock to cover the opening of her husband's presidential library, Sen. Clinton criticized the Bush administration for not using advanced technology to improve border security...

I've often said that the only thing saving the GOP open-borders elite on this issue has been Democratic stupidity. No longer. Hillary is many things--venal, arrogant, authoritarian, ruthless --but she is no dummy. (Did you see where she chose to make her tough-on-borders remarks? FOX News Channel.)

Unlike the Wall Street Journal editorial board, she seems to understand that the overwhelming support among Americans of all backgrounds for stricter immigration enforcement is grounded not in knee-jerk "nativism," but in rational

self-preservation. It isn't just bigots who want secure borders. It's families like the parents and widows who formed 9/11 For A Secure America, many of whom are lifelong Republicans fed up with the pro-amnesty antics of the Bush White House. It's families of victims of illegal immigration, whom both the Beltway and media have ignored.

I myself would never vote for Hillary. But the Republican establishment takes for granted at its peril the significant number of party faithful who may be sorely tempted to do so if the Bush betrayal at the border continues.

Hillary Rodham Buchanan? Don't laugh. She could be the GOP's worst nightmare in '08.

[nj26]

We all remember TRIANGULATION, right?

[Fatalis]

The GOP didn't write anyone off. These voters wrote themselves off.

Not even a good dodge, when you earlier said "for those who left the GOP, their opinion means absolutely nothing concerning the GOP."

Kerry and Gore's percentages of the popular vote in 2004 qand 2000 were within a point of Clinton's in 1996. The reason President Bush won these most recent elections is because many Perot voters came home to the GOP. You think Karl Rove and President Bush didn't want and cultivate those votes?

[sinkspur]

Buddy, have you ever heard of the words "vote fraud"?

There was supposed to be massive vote fraud this time around, but there simply wasn't.

[Dan from Michigan]

I said that if one of the Dems were smart they'd take the border issue seriously (particuarly Gephardt) and of course none of them were smart enough to listen back then.

That issue killed Spence Abraham here. He got doubleflanked(worst case scenario outside of a scandal).

I don't think Hitlary has the credibility to pull it off given Billy's stance. Gep could have done it, maybe Clark and Dean.

[NeoCaveman]

I don't think Hitlary has the credibility to pull it off given Billy's stance. Gep could have done it, maybe Clark and Dean.

You are right Hillary is way too polarizing. Someone else could pull this off though.

[AuntB]

"Rome wasn't destroyed by barbarians storming the gates. It was destroyed by barbarians who walked through the gates peacefully to enjoy the benefits of Rome."
Ronald Khol

[mercy]

Poll Schmoll. It doesn't matter. It's a done deal. We do not have the man-power to close the border even if the Powers-that-be wanted to. We don't even have enough man-power for Iraq ... let alone Lord knows how many other hotspots on the verge of needing attention.

Unless we have a thriving economy we will not be able to survive in these perilous times. We need the money to fight the wars we have decided to fight. So ... we must import the labor to kick the economy into the highest gear. Period end of story.

AND ... we need the younger generation to pay into FICA to support our welfare state. It takes five workers paying in to support one old fart sitting on his ass. You've heard you can't fight city hall ... well that goes times 1000 for the fed welfare state.

[CrosscutSaw]

If Malkin thinks Hillary can win in 2008 on the basis of immigration alone, then she's as vacuous as her critics contend. Nobody with any sense believes this.

First of all, Malkin said the GOP should be very concerned about Hillary on the basis of her staking out ground to the right of the GOP on immigration. I agree with her.

On Hannity and Colmes tonight, Laura Ingraham made the same point and Sean Hannity as well as Democrat Pat Cadell both agreed 100%. I suppose to you that makes them vacuous or having no sense as well.

But what do Malkin, Hannity, Ingraham and Cadell know? After all, if they were so smart they'd be spending a bulk of their time posting on internet forums! (/sarcasm)

[nj26]

I think Hannity and Ingraham realize the importance of nominating a REAL conservative in 2008, rather than a RINO, because of issues like this. Hillary is cunning, and she will trample over a RINO with no principles, running to his right on some issues. I also wouldn't put it past her and Bill to surreptitiously back a third-party conservative to draw votes from a RINO, like Perot did in 1992. (The Dems may have had George Soros in 2004, but the Clintons could have Mark Rich in 2008.)

I am confident, though, that Laura, Sean, and Rush will use their programs as forums to make sure that we nominate a REAL conservative, and keep Hillary out of office.

[CrosscutSaw]

Amen!