Posted on 03/31/2006 9:00:39 PM PST by Mia T
LOST CAUSE FOR HILLARY:
Clinton Makes a Pitch For Catholic Voters
It's not "moral values." It's the terrorism, stupid.
And given the clintons' willful utter failure to confront terrorism, there is absolutely nothing missus clinton can do to make a clinton acceptable to that demographic.2
This is just further evidence of what, in my opinion, is why Hillary Clinton is one of the most despicable politicians that is out there right now in the sense that she's absolutely chameleonlike.
When she is pandering to the Left, she wants nothing to do with religion. She sounds like the ACLU. When she's voting against [the banning of] partial-birth abortion, I don't see her invoking the name of Jesus there because I'm sure she can't picture Jesus doing something like that. And she also knows it doesn't play with her far-left base.
And now she wants to pander to the center, so she starts invoking the name of Jesus.
And as a Christian, I'm offended by her use of Jesus for what I see as her very, very--uh--very self-interested political partisan ambition. I think this is simply a craven attempt to use the name of Jesus for political purposes....
To demonize either side of the immigration issue by invoking the name of Jesus is precisely the point..
This is an issue of prudential judgment that reasonable people can disagree about. They're weighing competing values--humanitarian values vs. values of national sovereignty in the age of terrorism. Neither side of this debate has the moral corner or the moral high ground.
Both sides have good points to make and to demonize the other side by invoking the name of Jesus [is despicable].
Larry Chapp, Ph.D.
also:
RIGHT DEMOGRAPHIC, WRONG ISSUE
by Mia T, 03.31.06
Mrs. Clinton, however, has positioned herself way ahead of her party and any of her putative 2008 Presidential rivals by championing initiatives that appeal to middle-class, white-ethnic, suburban Catholic voters, especially married women (another group that swung heavily to the G.O.P. in 2004).
New York Observer ^ | March 27, 2006 | E.J. Kessler
ight demographic, wrong issue.1
Catholic Theologian
Professor of Theology
The O'Reilly Factor
HILLARY DOES JESUS
"FURTHER EVIDENCE WHY SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST DESPICABLE POLITICIANS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW"
by Mia T, 3.26.06
WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS
AFTERWORD: A note to the Religious Right
hillary clinton
"Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in '91 and he went to the Sudan.
We'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him [bin Laden].
At the time, '96, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have; but they thought it was a hot potato. They didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
bill clinton
"I remember exactly what happened. Bruce Lindsey said to me on the phone, 'My God, a second plane has hit the tower.' And I said, 'Bin Laden did this.' that's the first thing I said. He said, 'How can you be sure?' I said 'Because only bin Laden and the Iranians could set up the network to do this and they [the Iranians] wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets. Bin Laden did it.'
I thought that my virtual obsession 2 with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him."
bill clinton
'04 ELECTION PROVIDES CLUE
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
WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN. (ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT) 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.
COMPLETE LETTER
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
1.
by Mia T, 02.08.06
"You know... the job which we should have done 1... which should have been our primary focus, to find [you know] bin Laden and eliminate al Qaeda."
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live
2.
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
READ MORE:
Mia T, 12.10.05
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRORE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
Dear Concerned Americans,
December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006
ping
ping
ping
ping
ping
ping
ping
ping
ping
on winning the presidency by terrorizing white women
bump
I think that at some point between Susan Estrich saying that Hillary couldn't be elected and when she became a Hillary cheerleader, she got bought off. Most likely the Hillary people saw Estrich badmouthing their boss and Susan was targetted for a "conversion" campaign. Just wondering what sort of advance Estrich got for her Hillary plugging book.
Bumping for Mia T. and all her hard work and dedication on exposing Mr and Mrs. X42!!!!!!
A bold statement from Hillary Revelation Clinton
Run Hillary Run!
I saw a great comment on CSPAN yesterday on the impact of 9-11 on white female voters in '04.
"Bush made major gains from white women in urban areas within sight of a tall building."--cgbg
We will make certain every voter understands that for 8 years, the clintons,
motivated by chronic self-interest, smallness and corruption,
willfully failed utterly to confront terrorism.
The 'security mom' will NEVER vote for hillary clinton.
|
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.