Posted on 12/10/2005 7:03:08 AM PST by Mia T
WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN.
WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.
We need to do better than Hillary Clinton, or the symbolism of a woman as president will be marred by electing a woman who has done almost as much to inflict mistreatment on real-life women as her misogynist husband.
Candice Jackson
To better understand why this move is fatal for missus clinton, we must go back to November 8, 2004, which is exactly six days after the re-election of George W. Bush.
The venue is Washington Journal (C-SPAN).
Enter Harold Ickes, looking weirder, more Ichabod-Crane-on-crank, than usual. Looking weirder still when one remembers that Harold Ickes is a strictly behind-the-scenes sort of guy.
Only something very important could have coaxed Harold Ickes onto center stage....21
Forgoing the standard niceties, Ickes launches into his planned tirade. He accuses Bush of terrorizing white women to get their vote.22 (The way he carried on, you would think he was accusing the president of rape or something.)23
"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women.
By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points.
In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%.
That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values.
I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."
HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Now fast forward to October 11, 2005. Susan Estrich, alignments adjusted upward--ALL alignments--is on Hannity and Colmes. She is there to huckster The Case for Hillary Clinton, 24 both the book and candidate.
Estrich's spiel turns her recent dire warning to the Democrats ("The clintons are sucking up all the air. Get them off the stage!" )25 on its literal head.26 (Air? Who needs air when you have a clinton?)
ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP FOR HILLARY DEFEAT (oops!)
Susan Estrich attempts to tie the fate of all women to the fate of the hillary clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote.
She argues that hillary clinton is the best chance, probably the only chance, for a woman president in our lifetime.
The false and demeaning argument and offensive gender bias aside, someone ought to clue in Susan Estrich. Gender feminism requires as its token a functional female.
So why is Susan Estrich making such a transparently spurious and insulting argument? She isn't that dumb.
For the same reason Harold Ickes is fulminating on C-SPAN.
The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.
In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, a journalistic consensus emerged to explain George W. Bush's victory. Despite the sluggish economy and deteriorating situation in Iraq, voters supported Bush primarily because of his values. One prominently featured exit poll question showed "moral values" to be the most important issue for voters, ahead of terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. Backlash against the Massachusetts court ruling allowing gay marriage and attraction of Bush's appeals to Christian faith helped bring out socially conservative voters and cement Bush's second term. This explains why Bush won Ohio, for example, where an anti-gay marriage proposal was on the ballot. However compelling this story might be, it is wrong.
Instead, Bush won because married and white women increased their support for the Republican ticket....
In this article I briefly account for the factors behind Bush's rise in the state-by-state popular vote between 2000 and 2004. This is not the same as identifying who elected Bush. That sort of analysis would put responsibility on white men since they voted 61-38 for Bush and comprise almost half of the active electorate. Instead, I focus on what changed between 2000 and 2004. In this view, it is white women who are responsible because they showed more aggregate change.
Identifying a cause for this shift looks for an explanation also in things that changed in the past four years. For example, John Kerry was not exactly Al Gore, so differences between Bush's two opponents could be a factor. But I suggest that such differences are dwarfed by a much larger intervention: the attacks of September 11. Turnout was up in 2004 because the perceived heightening of the stakes after 9-11 and because of intense competition between the candidates in a small number of battleground states. Higher turnout also appears to have helped Bush slightly. But it was the shift of married white women from the Democratic camp to the Republican camp that gave him the edge in 2004.
Post Election 2004: An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election
December 7, 1941+64
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive. We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times....
EXCERPT
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
When it comes to electing our first female president, we can do better than Hillary Clinton.
Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN
The election of 2004 confirmed missus clinton's worst fears:
9/11 and the clintons' willful, utter failure for eight years to confront terrorism) were transformative. They caused a political realignment--for all practical purposes permanent--that is not good news for clinton, or for the Democrats, generally.
Next installment...
THE ROADMAP FOR DEFEATING HILLARY
BarryC.Burden
Harvard University
The Forum, Volume2, Issue 42004 Article2
burden@fas.harvard.edu
COMPLETE ARTICLE
Dear Concerned Americans,
COMPLETE LETTER
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
Mia T
December 7, 1941+64
IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
December 7, 1941+64
IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)
REINVENTING HILLARY... AGAIN
(clinton machine dumps Geena Davis for Margaret Thatcher)
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor2
SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor
for the birds
(THE INCOMPETENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON)
HEAR CHRIS MATTHEWS + MAUREEN DOWD DEVOUR HILLARY
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)
clintonCORRUPTION: the more things change. . . .
Yitzhak Shamir Validated: THE CLINTONS ARE "A GREAT DANGER TO JEWS"
THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT?
clinton legacy of lynching update
KLEIN BOOK CAUSES HILLARY TO (oops!) CONFIRM "THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY"
CLINTON'S REACTION EXPOSES FASCISTIC MINDSET, TEXTBOOK CASE OF PARANOIA + MEGALOMANIA, AND A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IN BROADDRICK RAPE
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ED KLEIN AND SUSAN ESTRICH AGREE ABOUT HILLARY
HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes
retrograde feminist fraud positions herself as victim (again) in order to win White House
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]
HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue
HILLARY!?? WHAT IS THIS MORIBUND LOSER DOING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, ANYWAY? (bill's bud explains)
the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich
CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN
hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")
NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN CLINTON REACTION TIME AND CONTENT TO THE TWO RAPE CHARGES
WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?
IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE
PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE, 9/11 + KATRINA
I M P E A C H M E N T
h e a r --c l i n t o n --l o s e --i t
CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS PARDONING CROOKS:
Justice Undone in the clinton White House
sandy berger haberdashery feint
(the specs, not the pants or the socks)
CHENEY: CALL THEM REPREHENSIBLE
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES5
A CALL TO IMPEACH CLINTON IN ABSENTIA
THE LEFT'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY THE LEFT IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)
NANO-PRESIDENT, MEGA-DISASTER
history will not be kind to bill + hillary clinton
NANO-PRESIDENT
the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton
HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman
CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)
JENNINGS DOES A DIMBLEBY: clinton legacy-RAGE redux
1st Feminist Prez Impeached
(clinton, pushed by the "smartest woman in the world," managed to impeach himself)
For the children?
the clintons ARE pornography downloads
Why hillary clinton should never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... or any position of power
REASON 1: SHE HIRED JAMIE GORELICK
HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall
HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET (MAD COVER 2)
Do you really want THAT finger on the button?
"What, me worry?"
ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE
How did the flower children fall for the clintons, 2 such self-evident thugs and opportunists?
(FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!)
Alfred E. Neuman + the threat of terrorism, according to hillary
HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS part 1
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.
HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS part 2
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
IMHO if it is possible to commit vote fraud, it will happen.
Regardless of whether it is fake registration; voting in more than one place, casting votes for the dead, stealing ballots, ballot boxes or absentee ballots, causing computer voting machines to "miscount" or report incorrect totals, corruption, bribery, malfeasance, or simply manipulating the size, location, staffing levels, and number of machines available at polling locations, it will continue to happen as long as it is allowed to happen.
Both major parties will do whatever they must, to win.
For politicians, the ends always justify the means.
If people wish to be political activists, starting with the the way votes are cast and those responsible for counting the votes is the place to begin.
There is less than a year to go before the '06 election.
The electorate is largely uniformed and disinformed and has the attention span of a two-year-old.
We can't go for subtleties here. In my view, the GOP candidate, post-9/11 and post-Katrina, would need the following: star power, a perceived strength in managing disasters, war and terror, a mental toughness, a proven record going after the bad guys, an ability to articulate (sorely missing today--the president has virtually ceded the bully pulpit to the Ds).
Put it all together and I think we have only one possibility....
Me too, and my daughter and brother!
bump
Miami Cubans, FReepers, Minutemen all banding together might save us
Right! And Mia is certainly doing her part to get the info out so we can spread it. What the liberals do for a lie, how much more we SHOULD do for the truth. It's not a time for us to live in our usual comfort zone.
bump
"IMHO if it is possible to commit vote fraud, it will happen."
The Dems do it every year, with varying degrees of affectiveness. Expect massive voter fraud in the next election.
thx bump
Good advice. However in my view, the Clinton voter fraud schemes will be sitting out 2006.
The Clintons want a lot of Republicans in office for their 2008 run. They have a track record of using a Republican majority as a foil.
See 1994/1995/1996. Their slime machine stood-down in '94. Their slime machine went into action in '95. Clinton was reelected in '96.
Agreed!
Here are a few: For Grassley, his own home page where he said:
"In September I wrote the president to request additional LIHEAP funds to address what is likely to be a shortage in funding assistance this winter season for thousands of households."
Source: http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=CapitolGains.Detail&CapitolGain_id=311&Year=2005
Also, Grassley said:
"Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, said in a letter to API that the industry should devote part of its profits to a federal home heating assistance program. It was an ominous note since Grassley chairs the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee"
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20051210/bs_ibd_ibd/2005129general
Note: API = American Petroleum Institute
Bill Frist:
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he would endorse a windfall tax on oil industry "if the facts warrant it"
Source: Same as above
"if the facts warrant it" . . . well, a lot of "facts" have warranted much other BS, like Frist's decision not to go nuclear over SCOTUS nominees.
If Frist were a true conservative and not a liberal, he would have rejected this Marxist view outright.
Santorum (from an op-ed he wrote at Townhall.com):
"Just as Katrina has seared American poverty into our moral consciousness, AIDS has seared Africa into our moral vision. Caring for the sick and dying in Africa now is morally right, as well as geopolitically prudent; if we dont help, someone else will and that someone else may not be friendly to our interests. We need to embrace the challenge to dedicate a larger percentage of our GDP to foreign aid, . . ."
Source: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/RickSantorum/2005/11/17/175882.html
"We can't go for subtleties here. In my view, the GOP candidate, post-9/11 and post-Katrina, would need the following: star power, a perceived strength in managing disasters, war and terror, a mental toughness, a proven record going after the bad guys, an ability to articulate (sorely missing today--the president has virtually ceded the bully pulpit to the Ds).
Put it all together and I think we have only one possibility"
Would his initials be RG?
Isn't HRC's greatest asset that of "inevitability"? Most people expect her to win easily in 2008, and, therefore, she will unless she stumbles badly. I have always believed that much of her support comes from the lower classes who still believe that the alias "Bill" will be in charge in an HRC presidency.
Actually, I heard it once said that the first GHWB reminded women of their first husband: so that was why they were supposed to have been charmed by "second husband" Michael Stanley Dukakis. The analogy did not work in 1988.
I wonder if the former Mrs. Lisa Foster ever understood what she was up against. I believe she has since remarried and tried to forget her association with the popular Clintons.
I assume you're speaking anecdotally.
Most people I know think she's a sure loser. ;)
(And so, btw, do Ickes, Geffen...
and Estrich before her alien pod transformation.)
|
I agree with those 'lower class' supporters. I think the husband would be in charge. (An upcoming thread: THE HILLARY PUPPET)
ping
Probably wouldn't have an impact because those states are already blue and would not change the electoral outcome.
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.