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.
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.
Coldoleeza Rice is pro-gun. That is more than enough for me to vote for her.
As already mentioned, your love for Hillary would be more appreciated on the DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com
"...Ms. Rice is another weak opportunist; Pro-Abortion, anti-Bible, moderate with no obvious commitment to limited Constitutional government... ."
Are you serious?
2% of the base wil vote for Clinton in protest. 2% of the base will vote for a 3d party candidate in protest. 50% of the base will stay home. The GOP candidates for Senate, Congress and local offices will be the losers. The last election proved that turnout is important.