You would vote for the Hildabeast???
Posted on 06/19/2005 6:13:28 PM PDT by Tall_Texan
Some dominoes of Texas politics fell into place in the last few days or, more correctly, did not fall out of place as many thought they might.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson chose not to run against incumbent governor Rick Perry next year. She will instead run to keep her seat as a Republican in the U.S. Senate, a race she will almost certainly win. One of the reasons given is that Hutchinson is reaching a point of seniority and leadership in the Senate where she may be able to help Texas achieve some legislative perks.
I think there is another reason she decided (or was persuaded) to remain in the Senate. I think there's a chance she will be on the 2008 ticket if a few other things happen.
While Hutchinson is not an ideal Senator by conservative standards, she doesn't stick her neck out far from the party very often. She's a coalition type of politician, one who doesn't prefer to bludgeon her opponents with rhetoric but maintains a civil and reasonable tone. Her voting record is often more conservative than her speech. Her lifetime ACU voting score is 91, although she has scored an 84 in 2004 and a 75 in 2003.
In one sense, she embodies what irritates many conservatives about Republican senators, rarely criticizing or admonishing the excesses of Democrat tactics and rhetoric, choosing to make and keep friends on both sides of the aisle. She is proud of what she considers the "women's caucus" in the Senate made up of members on both sides.
In short, here is someone who comes across well, is not easy to demonize and cannot be easily pigeonholed as a rubber stamp, an extremist or an ideologue. These are reasons I think she has viability as a 2008 running mate.
This early in the race, it would be hard to predict who will be the Democrat nominee but the assumed frontrunner at this point is another member of Hutchinson's womens club, Hillary Rodham Clinton. No doubt many in the GOP do not want to see Mrs. Clinton going up against whoever comes out of the Republican convention with the nomination. They know the media will be solidly in her corner and believe she will return to the bloodsport days of stolen FBI files, secret committees and plans to convert us to one nationalwide government health care.
Should Mrs. Clinton win the nomination and the Republicans nominate a male, the GOP may crave a woman to "balance" the ticket and blunt some of the hysteria over a woman being at the top of the Democrat ticket.
Before going into where Sen. Hutchinson fits in, let's look at what other women might be called instead:
* Sec. Condoleezza Rice. The current Secretary of State and darling of some conservative groups, the biggest liability for Ms. Rice is that she has never run for political office. She would be a complete blank slate with regards to some political issues (particularly social ones). Being the first of her race on a major party ticket would steal some of the thunder from Hillary being the first of her gender to lead a major party ticket but could also lead to claims of "pandering" if she doesn't come across as a credible candidate. As John Edwards' recent campaign illustrated, a vice presidential nominee has to be able to assert themselves yet not upstage the top of the ticket. Any gaffe no matter how small will be blown out of proportion and the liberal attack machines will be in full force. We simply don't know how well Ms. Rice would hold up to this.
* Sen. Elizabeth Dole. There has not been a national Republican ticket in over 30 years that did not have a Bush or a Dole on it and, at first blush, some might think "Liddy" would be a more natural choice than Hutchinson. There are similar appeals. Dole is also something of a moderate Republican from a southern state. The major differences are tactical. While Mrs. Dole has the experience of her husband's campaigns, her term as Senator would be up for re-election in 2008 and the Governor's office is presently controlled by a Democrat, meaning that Republicans could lose that seat in more than one scenario should Sen. Dole be nominated for vice president.
* Gov. Linda Lingle. The Hawaii governor broke through in an impressive way to win in a state that votes heavily for Democrats. That shows promise but will Hawaiian values translate well to the heartland and will her presence on the ticket create a vacuum for GOP prospects in Hawaii?
* Sen's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. The pair of Maine senators would likely be considered too liberal for the party faithful, particularly after taking part in such party-angering exercises as the joining "the McCain Compromise" regarding Senate filibusters.
* Laura Bush or Lynne Cheney. While each has their fans both would likely be thought of as place holders for their more famous spouses. It would be charged that the women were figureheads for the husbands who are no longer able to run for the job.
There are probably a few other names that I have left out but these are the top women in the Republican Party who might be able to fill the 2008 ticket.
Mrs. Hutchinson has some qualities that might make her the most ideal woman the GOP has on their bench. A former cheerleader, she is not unattractive. She is not the spouse of a politician. She has waged and won three statewide campaigns in Texas and will win a fourth in 2006 now that she plans to seek re-election. She has survived a legal dogfight against Travis County (TX) District Attorney Ronnie Earle over alleged mishandling of funds while State Comptroller back in the 1990s so she knows how to stand up for herself. Her Senate seat will be safe if she is called upon yet loses a vice presidential bid until 2012. The Governor's office is presently in Republican hands and will likely stay that way so the GOP will probably retain that Senate seat were she to get the VP nomination and win. Her Senate record will likely be picked apart but it will be hard to find anything that stands out as so exclusionable that either party could use it to vilify her.
Whether Hutchinson has the desire or ambition for a national campaign would remain to be seen. She would be age 65 in 2008. I do believe, however, that she could be seen as "Hillary insurance" for a male GOP presidential nominee in 2008, particularly a northern candidate like Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty.
Some things would need to happen for this to come about but they are fairly easily reached. If the GOP nominee is male. If the Democrat nominee is Mrs. Clinton. If Hutchinson retains her Senate seat in 2006. If the Republicans keep the Governor's mansion in 2006. Should any of those four things fail to happen, Hutchinson would not be a likely option. If all four happen though, I see it as a distinct posibility.
Sen. Hutchinson represents a relatively safe option to balance a ticket and blunt some of the buzz over a Clinton candidacy. She's a veteran campaigner from a safe state who establishment Republicans can certainly get behind.
You would vote for the Hildabeast???
Not being from TX, Hutchison has the image of a wishy washy person who stands for nothing but going along with other people's agendas. She does not project being a "leader".
Historically, governors, not senators, have been the best candidates. What GOP governor is going to emerge with a reputation, a following, an issue, an agenda? with something that will attract supporters and media?
Don't know but there has only been 1 senator elected directly from the senate in about 100 years.
Voters want someone with executive experience.
All the "comity" and I say that with as much derision as possible is the exact opposite of what you want as POTUS.
*Intercom from 30 miles away* Troll, may you please stand right there please, yes right by that big round thing, perfect.
ZOT!!!
Look at his posting history - quite a lot of praise for Hillary and Bill Clinton alike.
I have never seen it happen but its possible, reminds me of Jim Jeffords.
Ah, a Hillary lover, eh?
I understand that most of you are offended by the idea that a cold rational choice for the long term best interest of constitutionally limited central government and the free enterprise economic system would have you voting for a ticket headed by Mrs. Clinton, but you need to get control of your emotions.
However bad she may be, the Clintons were not successful in pursuing a liberal agenda. Their principal legislative success was the 1993 Tax Bill--the Clinton administration was a period of growth and consolidation of conservative political power and a second Clinton administration would be the same. However bad a choice as Supreme Court justice Mr. Bryer has been, he is probably better than David Souter. And Ms. Ginsburg's health makes her an opportunity for the current administration rather than a succesful appointment.
As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on the George II administration only because there is still time to turn failure into success. Although I reject the criticism of the invasion of Iraq, the aftermath has been terrible. Poorly thought out with no coherent policy to address the current status.
George II ought to be judged, at least in part, on his success in appointing a strong conservative majority on the United States Supreme Court. There is real doubt that he has the leadership skills and force to get his nominees approved by the Senate. Worse, on the first appointment, Rehnquist, where he has some chance to get a pass, he is waffling on Gonzales who will turn out to be another David Souter rather than forcing a strong nominee.
There is obvious support here for the Secretary of State. Ms. Rice is another weak opportunist; Pro-Abortion, anti-Bible, moderate with no obvious commitment to limited Constitutional government. What is she going to do that is better for the cause of freedom and the Republic than Mrs. Clinton will be able to do against a Republican Congressional majority?
This fuzz that some how you can defeat Mrs. Clinton with a weak candidate because the weak candidate is a woman, or a popular figure, is just wishful thinking. If Rudy really has what it takes to stop Mrs. Clinton, he ought to do it today in New York where his liberalism is an asset. We need to do a lot better.
You obviously have taken a sharp left turn since joining in 1997. Looking at your posting history, it's obvious you are a Hillary Clinton fan. You might want to check out DU sometime. There are a lot of like-minded people there you could converse with.
No. My political philosophy has not moved left in any way that I can think of.
Obviously, you are obviously welcome to think what you like--insulting your enemies is usually not a very effective form of argument.
I am not a fan of Mrs. Clinton's; but I am not a fan of George or his father either--both are lousy leaders. I don't like the liberal Republican fuzzys any better than I like liberal Dem fuzzys. And I guess I think in the next political exercise, trying to control our emotions and use our intellectual factilities to seek out the best way to persue our objectives is probably going to get us better results.
The best way to pursue our opportunities is to think through our objectives and devise stratigies to achieve them. Good Luck.
I'm not going to condemn your viewpoint, in fact there is some twisted logic to it - not in the "America will learn it's lesson and run back to the GOP" reason either. It is that if a Democrat is in office, Republicans can return to being Republicans again - small government, moral values Republicans again instead of the wishy washy sponges they are now. There would be enough of them to stop the worst of a Democrat's excesses and might even force something good like they did with Welfare Reform in Bubba's presidency.
But there is one major problem. The Clintons backdoored the congress with recess appointments and executive orders to get "their people" and their policies into place no matter how extreme and the MSM obviously kept mum about it. They seized large plots of land for governmental and environmental narcissism, they sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese, they sold off pieces of American soil - all without the consent of Congress.
If faced with something like McCain vs Hillary, I would prefer to leave than vote for either. Maybe I would choose third party. They would just do too much damage to the country to want to stay. But I think if it came down to McCain vs Hillary, at least Hillary would cause the Republicans to grow a backbone again instead of being simpering wimps.
What are your objectives?
Coldoleeza Rice is pro-gun. That is more than enough for me to vote for her.
Up to now, I have not really had to make a difficult Presidental vote decision. I live in two places: One, the classic ultimate blue state where no Republican is ever going to win any statewide election for anything; if the Dems don't have the votes they steal them; and the other, the ultimate red state where every single county went for George. I could probably vote either place but my vote is not going to count for anything.
However the message for the R's is this: My mother in law is 86 years old and has never voted for a Dem for president--and she swears that in 2008 she is going to vote for Mrs. Clinton. No Dem has ever carried this county for president--but I don't talk to a single person who would vote for George today. Unless the R's produce a strong effective leader as a 2008 candidate; or unless there is an effective third party candidacy; any Dem will win. And at the moment, Mrs. Clinton is the any Dem.
In a three way race between Mrs. Clinton, a Liberal Republican; and a conservative on the third line, the conservative has a good chance to win if organized and capitalized to run an effective campaign.
She'll compromise on single shot.
and hitlery is a plain gun grabber.
Perfect! Great 'Toon!
The Biased Liberal media is EAGER to report that Hitlery is
"Moving to the center."Ha! Yeah, right. When pigs fly.
Check out her "Move to the center" here, per the ACU. She
went from "10" in 2003 to a GOOSE EGG (0) in 2004, on a
scale of 100 = perfect conservative.Moving to the center? He**, she's farther left in 2004 than
EVER!
Click here or on the pic for the article.
Senator Hillary Clinton (D)
New York
Democrat, Years of Service: 4
ACU Ratings for Senator Clinton: Year 2004 0 Year 2003 10 Lifetime 9
As already mentioned, your love for Hillary would be more appreciated on the DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com
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.
