Posted on 08/02/2005 10:35:52 PM PDT by smoothsailing
In three years, the United States will know who the Democratic and Republican nominees for president will be. Today, many have anointed their choice of Democratic nominee, Sen. Hillary Clinton from New York. In choosing a president, the country is, of course, also choosing a commander-in-chief, the most solemn of jobs performed by the president as he or she undertakes to "provide for the common defense."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.."
Hillary we will not foget you contributions to the 3,000 deaths.
Hillary as Leader of the Free World? It won't be for long...
The nightmare scenario is a third-party candidate that will pull conservative votes from the Republican nominee.
That way she can win with a plurality.It sure worked for Bubba.
I swear to Allah (don't mind taking his name in vain)... when I read the title of this posting, I thought, "somebody's come out with one of those gag wristwatches; I wonder what's on it... a mechanized Hitlary doing Janet Reno, or something?"
This is nothing by cover so the MSM can say they criticized Hillary Clinton equally with criticizing the Republican candidate.
Unfortunately, they criticize Hillary 3 years before the election and participate in an October Surprise against the Republican.
But....HEY!......we criticized both sides equally!
If Hillary Clinton gets into the White House in 2008, may God have mercy on our souls.
|
Mia T, MacClinton |
|
Exactly.
But she doesn't require an ACTUAL third candidate.
If she divides the GOP vote, she can, by demagoguing an issue, e.g., abortion, make one faction, e.g., the Christian Right, a de facto Ross Perot. All she has to make them do is sit out the election in sufficient numbers.
This scenario requires a less-than-satisfactory-on-abortion GOP candidate.
This scenario, in fact, may be the worse case, for clinton absolutely needs the vote of every moderate woman extant if she is to have any hope of winning.
The way to counter:
1-women must be informed of the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women, a history that includes the rape of Broaddrick
2-Security moms must be made to understand the clintons' 8-year utter failure to protect this country from terrorism.
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005 |
Your research of this dangerous menace to freedom is a priceless resource.
National Security is her Achille's heel,IMO.The other weaknesses can be finessed by spin-doctors or buried by media to some degree.
She's one ruthless demon,and as you suggest,it will take a strong Republican with solid conservative values to beat her.No RINO's need apply.
I agree that national security is the bottom line.
But I disagree that the GOP candidate must be a strong conservative. I think any strong candidate--moderate or conservative-- can be the easy victor.
But it has to be the RIGHT candidate. Someone with wide appeal who will have the trust of the electorate to put national security first... not like the clintons, who always put it dead last.
As for hillary's HAWK posture, Dick Morris revealed that she was always THE extreme DOVE in the clinton administration. Missus clinton, preprogrammed grind, is simply following Al From's instructions: The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2 Mia T, June 9, 1999 Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem. From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason. That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically. When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.) Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent. With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity. With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity. The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.
THE ALIENS
l From is sounding the alarm.
"Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."
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.
