Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Brightside
Could Al beat Hillary? If Mrs. Clinton persists in her support of the Iraq war, he could. But never count on Hillary losing an election over a principle.

Were truer words ever spoken?

6 posted on 02/22/2006 5:53:43 AM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Graybeard58

"Were truer words ever spoken?"

Three problems with your comment;

1. Hilary has no conception of "principle". No democrat (small 'd' intentional) does. They are all preening, self-indulgent, power-hungry children of the Summer of Love
who still labor under the incorrect assumption that they actually achieved anything with all their free-love-drug-taking-pacifist-nuveau-communist-if-it-feels-good-do-it menatlity and anti-war activities. The policies they have advocated have not lifted a single person out of poverty (in fact, they made poverty an attractive option). They did not save a single life, American or Asian, with their anti-war stance, and they opened a wound in the American political dialectic which will never heal.

2. Al Gore is laboring under the weight of the bane of democratic (small'd' intentional) party nomination politics, as concerns a loser: democrats not only bury their dead; they bury their wounded as well. Neither Gore or Kerry has a chance at a nomination, barring some earth-shaking cataclysm (an indictment or conviction, for example). Both lost to a man the democratic rank-and-file considers an idiot. Hardly conducive to inspiring confidence. Just ask Walter Mondale how this game gets played.

3. The remnants of the democratic (small 'd' intentional)party revolves around an agenda far more radical and subversive than even the 'established' front-line democrats are willing to espouse. It is, for all intents and purposes, Howard Dean's party far more than it is Gore's or even Hilary's. The Clintons thought they were cute when they elevated Dean to party chair, believing they could a) keep Dean's money machine while eliminating Dean as a contender, b) keep Dean's brain-dead legions under the assumption that their voice actually counts, and c) avoid a serious challenege from the leftmost fringes of the party. They are wrong on all three counts.

Because there will be no one else to nominate, Hilary will get the nod. She will run a PR campaign which will be intended to remind people of the 'good ol' days' of the 'Co-presidency' and which will be totally devoid of ideas, rational positions, and logic. But that's okay, democratic (small 'd' intentional) voters do not require well-thought-out,pertinent and effective government; they just need high-minded, focus-group-tested, less-than-four-words sloganeering and personal smears.

Fortunately, the rest of the country does require those things. Which is why Hilary will lose, unless her republican opponent is a complete bonehead (like Bill Frist) or simply the consensus candidate of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", like John McCain or George Allen.

This next presidential election is the republican's to lose.


56 posted on 02/22/2006 8:18:56 AM PST by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson