Replies

I think the Republican party managers who read this board regularly need to understand that if faced with a choice between a liberal Republican ticket--say either Frist or Rudy on top; Ms. Hutchinson on bottom; and a Dem ticket, even one headed by Mrs. Clinton, many conservative Republicans will not hesitate to take Mrs. Clinton.

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.