LOST CAUSE FOR HILLARY: right demographic, wrong issue

New York Observer via Free Republic ^ | 04.01.06 | Mia T

[Mia T]

 

LOST CAUSE FOR HILLARY:
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).

Clinton Makes a Pitch For Catholic Voters
New York Observer ^ | March 27, 2006 | E.J. Kessler

 

 





ight demographic, wrong issue.¹

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

READ MORE

 

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.
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

also:

WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


AFTERWORD: A note to the Religious Right

---

1.

THE (oops!) INADVERTENT ADMISSIONS OF BILL + HILLARY CLINTON ^{part one}
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."

hillary clinton
Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006
Chitchat with Jane Pauley
San Francisco, CA

"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
Sunday, Aug. 11, 2002
Clinton Reveals on Secret Audio:
I Nixed Bin Laden Extradition Offer

"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
Sunday, Sept 3, 2002
Larry King Live

 



2.

 

'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
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

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 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.

The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.


Next installment...
THE ROADMAP FOR DEFEATING HILLARY

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
BarryC.Burden
Harvard University
The Forum, Volume2, Issue 42004 Article2
burden@fas.harvard.edu

READ MORE:

IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)
Mia T, 12.05.05

WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

(ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT)

Mia T, 12.10.05

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,

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

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

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006

[Mia T]

Did you notice that Susan Estrich, hillary operative, has all but vanished from the tube?
This is likely why:

 

'REAL RAPE' BY PROXY

And then we have the Susan Estrich proxy.

Susan Estrich is the Democrat political operative who put Dukakis in a tank and would put hillary in the White House.

Amazon.com sales rank suggests another tank for Susan: Following her sales pitch on Hannity and Colmes the other night, her book, The Case for Hillary Clinton went from bad to worse, (It instantly sustained a 10% decline to #8517. As I type this, it is #12,244.)

Ms. Estrich also wrote Real Rape, a book about the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape. But that was before she was tapped by the clinton machine to cover for... and revise the predatory history of... a couple of real rapists.

'Simple rape' is what the system calls this clinton kind of rape... Simple as opposed to aggravated. 'Simple rape,' a horrendous misnomer that only perpetuates the injustice. 'Real Rape' is what Ms. Estrich called it. But, as I said, that was before she was tapped by the clintons.

In the cases on which this book focuses, the man is not the armed stranger jumping from the bushes--nor yet the black man jumping the white woman, the case that was most likely to result in the death penalty prior to 1977, and the stereotype that may explain in part the seriousness with which a white male criminal justice system has addressed "stranger" rape. Instead the man is a neighbor, an acquaintance, or a date. The man and the woman are both white, or both black, or both Hispanic. He is a respected bachelor, a student, a businessman, or a professional. He may have been offered a ride home or invited in. He does not have a weapon. He acted alone. It is, in short, a simple rape.

Susan Estrich, Real Rape

In 'simple rape,' the system invariably revictimizes the victim and protects the rapist.

This horrible perversion of justice was the impetus for her book, so, of course, Ms Estrich knows exactly what is going on here between the clintons and Broaddrick.

Worse still, Ms. Estrich uses the horror of her own purported rape to obfuscate the casuistry and rapelies required to spin yet another rapist presidency. Estrich is contemptible.

Enlisting Estrich is yet another example of clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity, witness the O'Reilly interview tonight.

The clintons figured that Estrich in their corner would make clinton serial rape and predation just disappear, not understanding that her presence would only intensify the scrutiny and that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.

Indeed, by twisting her own scholarship, Estrich indicts the clintons just as surely as the twisting double helix on that blue Gap dress.

Estrich's reaction to Juanita Broaddrick is the standard feminist reaction--opportunistic and dishonest. (See article, Salon.com.)

While most, if not all of the women who contributed to the salon.com piece believed Juanita, (liberals as well as conservatives), some feminists were in denial; they conveniently relied on false premises to assuage the cognitive dissonance.

One recurring false premise: although Juanita was credible, clinton couldn't be a rapist because he never raped before (or since).

Notwithstanding the fact that not all rapists are serial rapists, did they never hear of Eileen Wellstone et al?

Shame on them.

 

"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.

For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.

Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.

Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.

Richard Poe
The Hillary Conspiracy

READ MORE

Mia T, 10.27.05
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)

THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)


ESTRICH IMPEACHED BY HER OWN WORDS,
EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN
my amazon.com review


STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ED KLEIN AND SUSAN ESTRICH AGREE ABOUT HILLARY


HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes


ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

thank you :)

[Mia T]

thanx :)

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Forgoing the standard niceties, Ickes launches into his planned tirade. He accuses...

And I accuse you Harold Ickes...of helping bill and hillary clinton - sell out our country to Communist China; you and hillary -are both on the list:

Ng Lap Seng, Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie; Manlin Foung, Wang Mei Trie, John Huang, Jane Huang, Johnny Chung, Col. Lui, Jing Wei Li, Irene Wu, Liu Tai-ying, Bin Liu, Irene Wu, Nora Lum, Shi JinYu, Shi-Zeng Chen, Xiao Yang, Liu Chao-Ying, Wang Jun, Wah Lim, General Ding Henggao, General Chi HaoTian, General Fu Quanyou, Chief of the General Staff of the PLA, Lt. Gen. Huai Guomo, General Kui Fulin, "Col. Xu", Gen. Liu Huaquing, William Peh, PRC Defense Minister Chi Haotian, China Resources chairman Shen Jueren, Lt. General Xiong Guangkai, Wang Liheng, vice-president of China Aerospace Corp, Gen. Ji Shengde, Bao Peide, 5th Vice Minister of the PRC, Zou Jia Hua, Vice Minister National Technology Planning, Lt. General Xu Qiliang, Chief of Staff of the PLA Air Force, Lt. General Wu Quanxu, Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the PLA, Zhu Roug-ji, Vice Premier of National Finance, Liu Ju-Yuan, Minister of China Aerospace Corporation (made both satellite orbiter version of Long March and the nuclear tippled missile version for the PLA), Keshi Zhan, Yue Chu, Xiping Wang, Nan Nan Xu, Chun-Fat Leung, Chang-Lin Tien, Liao Minglong, Tian Yi, Chen Qingchang, Pan Yongming, Shao Xingsheng, Jiangsu Yongli, Bernard Schwartz/Loral, Marvin Rosen, Keshi Zhan, Ken Hsui, Ms Melinda Yee, Hoyt Zia, Ira Sockowitz, Leon A. Panetta, Lanny Davis, Harold Ickes, William Meddoff, Alexis Herman, Jamie Gorelick, Hazel O'Leary, Mark Middleton, Nancy Hernreich, Craig Livingstone, Lynn Cutler, Neal Ainley, Maria Hsia, Robert Meyerhoff, Roger Tamraz, Joseph Landon, David Wang, Indonesian Arief Wiriadinata and his wife Soraya and convicted Miami drug trafficker Jose Cabrera; and also her ongoing association with China Poly Group Corporation / "Polytechnologies Incorporated," along with Hillary's ongoing ties with Ted Sioeng, Mochtar and James Riady and the Lippo Bank-Lippo Group & Lippo Pacific in Indonesia.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

U S Congressional Record/Senate
106th Congress
June 23, 1999
pgs. S7483-S7486
The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup
Senator James Inhofe
(right column/top)

[malia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7b2ae50170.htm

THE CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY SCANDAL AND COVERUP

Senate Floor Statement

June 23, 1999

Author: Senator Inhofe, Ok

[Sic Luceat Lux]

"THE CLINTON NATIONAL SECURITY SCANDAL AND COVERUP"

Yes, that was a long-running thread here. If Hillary announces her that she's going run for Pres. - I'd like to start up the Inhofe speech thread again. Bttt

[doug from upland]

We're going to stop her, Mia.

[Sic Luceat Lux]

Was just reviewing Alamo-girl's Downside Legacy and found this tidbit on Ickes:

* * *
NewsMax.Com 10/28/99 Carl Limbacher "…Judicial Watch celebrated its fifth anniversary with a gala reception in Pasadena, California this past Saturday night….. Klayman had the audience in stitches as he enumerated Judicial Watch's own list of America's Ten Most Wanted. Reno, executor of the White House's Chinagate stonewall, easily made the final cut. "Number four is my friend Janet Reno - who, when I saw her at a restaurant in Washington, DC shortly after I deposed John Huang - she told me I was doing a great job. 'Keep it up, Larry.' "I'm not kidding," Klayman quickly added, after the crowd erupted in laughter….."

NewsMax.Com 10/28/99 Carl Limbacher "…Other honorees on the Judicial Watch Ten Most Wanted List include, in descending order:

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, for threatening to defecate on the office rug when put under oath by Judicial Watch.
* * *

Yes, Harold Ickes - just another Hillary crony/scumbag.

[jla]

Bump

[Mia T]

;)

[Mia T]

ping