Mark Steyn: The Icewoman Cometh [To Hill and back]

National Review Online ^ | April 25, 2005 issue | Mark Steyn

[Constitution Day]

The Icewoman Cometh
To Hill and back.

By Mark Steyn

During the impeachment trial of blessed memory, I had a brief conversation with Sen. Barbara Boxer. “My duty is to the Constitution,” she said gravely. “My duty is to preserve our two-party democratic system. It’s up to the Democrats to save the Republican party from itself.” Warming to her theme, the petite brunette liberal extremist noted the latest Republican poll numbers — down somewhere between Robert Mugabe and the Ebola virus — and explained, “That’s not good for our democracy. This is a tragedy for the Republicans. The GOP has become the Get Our President party. That’s not the Republican party the people want. We have to reach out to them.”

“Oh, come off it,” I said. Well, okay, I didn’t. Instead I nodded thoughtfully in a nonpartisan sort of way and marveled at the senator’s ability to reel off her bit with a straight face. Eventually, sensing a massive uncontainable guffaw rising in her gullet, Ms. Boxer wrapped it up and stepped into the Senate elevator. As the doors slid closed, muffled howls of laughter began to shake the Capitol, glass rattled in the windows, plaster fell from the ceiling . . . Politics affords few greater pleasures than offering one’s opponents some friendly but hopefully lethal piece of advice.

We’re in one of those phases now — hence, the vogue for columns on the “Conservative Crackup,” a fearsome beast that, like the Loch Ness Monster, more and more folks claim to have spotted looming in the distance. In reality, the unrelieved gloom is on the Dem side of the ledger: The Republicans are all but certain to increase their majority in 2006. Whereas, if you want the state of the Democratic party in a single image, cut out the photograph from the New York Times the other day: a pumped Robert C. Byrd giving a clenched-fist salute at a MoveOn.org rally. That’s the Rainbow Coalition 2005 model: a dwindling band of ancient vindictive legislators yoked to a cash-flush unrepresentative fringe. It would actually be to the Democrats’ advantage if the Byrd-Kos union were to crack up, but instead their union seems merely cracked, like a miscast double-act thrown together by a desperate burlesque agent.

There is, however, one exception to the Dems’ dance of death: President-presumptive Rodham Clinton. The chances of a Rodham restoration in the White House are better than even. For one thing, the salient feature of the Clintons’ Democratic party is that it was grand for the Clintons, disastrous for the party: The Dems lost everything — House, Senate, state legislatures, governorships — but somehow Bill and Hill were always the lone exceptions that proved the rule. Clinton couldn’t even bequeath the White House to his vice president in a time of “peace and prosperity,” yet the First Lady won an unprecedented victory in a state she’d never lived in. There is no reason to believe the Clintons’ historical immunity to their party’s remorseless decay will not continue.

Second, the fact of a female candidate will send the media into orgies of diversity celebration. Right now, it’s the GOP with the star blacks (Rice), Hispanics (Martinez) and immigrants (Schwarzenegger), while the Dems are a sad collection of angry white males (Kennedy and Byrd). Were Condi to run against, say, Joe Biden in 2008, the press would play it strictly on the issues. But if it’s Bill Frist against Hill, get set for a non-stop cavalcade of stories with little inset photos of Mrs. Thatcher, Mrs. Gandhi, Mrs. Bandaranaike (Sri Lanka), Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Helen Clark (New Zealand), etc., etc., and headlines like “Is America Ready?” that manage to imply ever so subtly that not voting for Hillary is the 2008 equivalent of declaring that Negroes are three-fifths of a human being. Yes, yes, I know — cattle futures, HillaryCare . . . That’ll be 16 years old on Election Day and nobody — or not enough — will care.

Third, the senator is a quick learner. Her initial campaign stops in the 2000 race were embarrassing: stiff, evasive, that robotic I Speak Your Weight voice. By the end, she was almost charming — not lightly worn Fred-Astaire-romancing-Audrey-Hepburn charm; you could see she had to work at it. But nevertheless she did, and she succeeded. Smart folks adapt: For Republicans to assume they’ll be running against the Hillary of 1992 is a big mistake.

When you look at her feints to the right in the post-9/11 era, what matters is not whether she believes them but that she’s the only Democrat with sufficient star quality to be able to ignore the deranged needs of UnableToMoveOn.org. Evan Bayh can’t — hence his pathetic vote against Condi. No male Democrat could get away with Hillary’s tentative moves away from Dem orthodoxy on abortion: Kerry was reduced to claiming that, while he personally believed life begins at conception, he would never let his deep personal beliefs interfere with his legislative program; Dean was practically offering to perform partial-birth abortions on volunteers from the crowd. But, if a woman runs as kinda-sorta-pro-life-ish, I’ll bet the NOW types decline to protest.

Can Hillary be stopped? Obviously she can. But one lesson of the last 15 years is that the Democratic party is basically a dead husk — it’s as effective as whoever’s wearing it. In the Nineties, the Clintons swiped it. For the 2004 St. Vitus’s dance, Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand and MoveOn.org seized it and couldn’t make it work. But, if Hill takes it back . . .

Don’t get me wrong. Biennial incremental gains by the GOP are set to continue for a while yet. But don’t be surprised if November 2008 is the usual day of disaster for Democrats in the Senate, House, and states, with the exception of Hillary’s election as president — and Chelsea’s stunning victory in the North Dakota governor’s race.

[Lando Lincoln]

"I think Steyn is wrong. Hillary is not electable."

I also agree that she is not electable. I know most of the reasons why people will think we are wrong. But no one will be more polarizing than Hillary. She will energize the right more than anyone and those "disenfranchised" people of the left still won't know how to vote, or when election day is, or became confused, or were misled, etc, etc, etc. Then, the gruel of the campaign is bound to bring out the shrill Hill - she won't be able to rely on her handlers with the constant attention. Plus, she will need to handle her 2006 campaign - or if she decides not to run (my bet), then she will have some "splainin'" to do. I'm just not convinced that she is electable.

Lando

[speekinout]

Hillary claims 43% of the popular vote just by showing up which is precisely the same % that got Bill Clinton elected in 1992.

I think that number is right on. That's the number who will vote for the Dem, no matter who it is. I don't think that many people who aren't committed Dem voters will vote for hillary.

The important thing is what the other 57% do. We haven't yet seen any signs of a consensus candidate. One might emerge, but it's equally likely that the GOP will pick a candidate that will be so unappealing that many will stay home or move to a third party.

I think a lot depends on whether GWB ends his Presidency with enough political capital to name his successor. And it will be years before we know that.

[Dog Gone]

Plus, just about every political decision she's made has blown up in her face. She is vastly overrated as a shrewd political mind.

From Hillarycare to managing Bill's Monica defense, she's a political disaster to her own interests.

[Ruth A.]

Slick Willy was on a different Air Force plane, not AF One.

[expatpat]

Possibly, but Giuliani won't run against her -- for Governor, maybe.

[NCSteve]

Hitlary is a loser in any run for president.

Not at all. If the GOP continues its headlong run to the left and nominates McCain or Giuliani, Hillary will win it going away. Most right-wingers held their noses tight and voted for Bush (or against Kerry, same thing). They can't or won't hold them tight enough to overcome the stench of a McCain run. Heck, I might even vote for Hillary over McCain. Social conservatives will not vote for Giuliani. Some fiscal conservatives may even have problems with him.

Granted, Hillary might win by another 43% minority-majority, but it would be the height of arrogance and stupidity for the GOP to count her out, now or any time.

[expatpat]

Is she nominatable? The moderate rats don't want her, because she's so polarizing, the DUngeon dwellers don't want her - they prefer someone more radical. Of course, if she's presented as the only one that can win.....

[300winmag]

I think Steyn is wrong. Hillary is not electable

Hillary is not electable, but what's left of the RAT party is learning how to seize power while losing elections.

Kerry as an awful candidate, a dweeb at best. But the RAT media promised him an extra 15% of the vote, and they delivered. Books, movies, and all sorts of life support. They even figure they could have won if they could somehow steal 55,000 move votes in Ohio. They know how many states are in their bag, and what states/precincts they have to steal.

For Hitlery in 2008, they will gladly provide 20% of the vote. There will be more books, more movies, and more forged documents against Republicans. This may result in the destruction of the RAT party, but the Clintons won't need the party after that. They'll be supported by one-world billionaires like Soros, and an increasingly imperialist left-wing judiciary.

Hitlery's dream is "one woman, one vote, one time".

[LibertarianInExile]

Rummy 2008!

"that robotic I Speak Your Weight voice..." Steyn slays me.

Hillary, however, scares the crap out of me. A genuine authoritarian in the White House during a war would light a match to those scraps of Constitutional law we have left.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Steyn is usually pretty spot on! What we need to do is start on a plan, not to mention finding a candidate, to BEAT HER.

If FR even exists . . . Hilary will try to shut us down. Perhaps we have to launch some lawsuits of our own against the FCC and the FEC to try to expose the hypocrisy at the heart of McCain-Feingold. Such as attributing value to tendentious News coverage.

If she fails to shut us down, the Internet will have 4 more years of market penetration than it had last year.

they will have to take some conservative southerner who is unknown to most of the country and make him known, with the liberal media obstructing every inch of the way.

. . . but we only have to do it in the red states, and marginal border states whether blue or red.

What we need, IMHO, is to start now doing 12-year, 10-year, and 8-year retrospectives on what was going on in the Clinton Administration back in 1993, 1995, and 1997. In '06, assuming she wins reelection to the Senate, we should really do our maximum effort to tar Hillary with the Clinton Administration's scandals and tar the Democratic Party by association, shaming the D Party to put up a presidential candidate who's better for president than Robert Torricelli was for reelection to the Senate from New Jersey.

We especially need to hammer that message in the purplish states like FL, OH, and MN. If it succeeds and she isn't nominated, IMHO it's money well spent. Even if the Repubicans wish they had the money back for the general election.

[mathluv]

Last night on H&C, Dick Morris was talking about how Rudy could trounce her - only he can't get the nod from the GOP.

[Dog Gone]

Heck, I might even vote for Hillary over McCain.

This does not reflect well on you. McCain is one of the conservative's least favorite senators, especially once you exclude the New England region, but he's light years to the right of Hillary.

[utahagen]

I agree with you. I think we Republicans would recognize that HRC could win. Further, we should resist the urge to demonize her personally, as that just rallies sympathy for her among the soft-headed.

[G.Mason]

"The election is not wrapped up yet. Most did not think she would win as a carpet-bagger in New York. I laughed at the thought of her winning there. She did."

Most people don't know just how liberal New York and that part of the Eastern seaboard is. Plus look at what happened. Rudy Giuliani pulled out and it was no contest.

Hillary is a lighting rod. Her nomination will, like you, spur Republicans, sane Democrats [?] and people who have never voted, to donate to and help the Republican Party and vote.

This isn't a Senate race. This isn't about what goodies [pork] New Yorkers can get out of a couple of pandering politicians. We are, and will be in 2008, at war. A war where the rubber meets the road. Hillary will be under the tires. ;)

[rockthecasbah]

It's sad to think that if you combine the feminoids, tenured professors, public employees, union goons, welfare deadbeats, NAMBLA child molesters and assorted liberal miscreants, they add up to 43% of the voting population.

I thought the above people were moving to Canada. Take a hard left turn, exit at the Canadian border and don't let the door hit ya' where the Lord split ya'. What happened to that notion?

[NCSteve]

...but he's light years to the right of Hillary.

That depends on what you mean by "to the right." If you mean that he is a totalitarian fascist, then I agree with you. I believe that a McCain Presidency would signal the end of our republic.

As Steyn points out, GOP gains in the Congress are likely to continue for the next two or three election cycles. Unfortunately, a McCain Presidency would trigger the inevitable GOP lemming-like behavior. Given the makeup of the Congress she would face, Hillary would be largely toothless. Given a choice between two slobbering maniacs in the White House, I'll take the more harmless of the two any day.

[proud American in Canada]

I agree with you. I think we Republicans would recognize that HRC could win. Further, we should resist the urge to demonize her personally, as that just rallies sympathy for her among the soft-headed.

I think you are right on target. Hillary can win. And, she has been attacked and it doesn't seem to matter to so many people.

Republicans should play up their strengths. They should also nominate someone better than Hillary (of course, from my perspective, nominating someone better than Hillary would be easy, but let's think from the perspective of those people in the middle who actually choose the president).

It's still early. We shall see how world events play out in the next couple of years.

[G.Mason]

" ... They can't or won't hold them tight enough to overcome the stench of a McCain run ... "

They not only can, they will when it comes to Hillary.

"... Heck, I might even vote for Hillary over McCain."

McCain is also unelectable. As much so as Edwards, or Gore.

I wish I had read that prior to my responding to the first part, as I can see you and I have nothing to discuss.

Good luck to you.

[Dog Gone]

I'd rather have the judges McCain might appoint than even a single one Hillary would. Any member of FR who would seriously consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances should be put under double secret probation immediately.

[PhilDragoo]

Re Loch Ness Monster, it's now feigning moderation.