Many don't seem to be practicing avoidance :-(
Many don't seem to be practicing avoidance :-(
ping
Stopping the Marxist Medusa is strictly a function of WHO AND WHAT runs against her. A strong conservative that will FIGHT and show this criminal socialist for what she is, and always has been, can EASILY bury her in smart fashion.
Lopez: Rudy? Does it have to be Rudy?
Podhoretz: It doesn't have to be Rudy, but in my view he is the best candidate for the GOP.
As a heartland Christian conservative I can tell you that being a Mormon or a Jew would in no way cause me to not vote for someone if I agree with his political stances.
I don't like Romey a lot because he is too waffley, and because he was too phoney during the whole gay marriage thing in his state. Yes, I give him some blame for that.
McCain is crazy and he hates the First Amendment. I could never ever vote for him.
I like Rudy, but he is a liberal state Republican and his positions on the issues are too liberal for the Republican base.
Give me someone like Pence. Why don't we have a good candidate like him in the mix?
But if Republicans could find a black Christian conservative I think we would walk all over Hillary.
The "more conservative than thou" purists will get her elected unless they learn that no candidate is absolutely perfect. Many would rather let Hillary get elected than vote for Republican candidate that could win....Rudy, for example.
I would vote for him if the alternative was Hillary, but we have a lot of "snob conservatives" who remind me of the religious police in Saudi Arabia. They spend their hours looking for fault in other conservatives, relishing the moment when they can denounce them and spell out all of their nonconservative traits.
They may as well donate their time and money to Hillary's campaign because they are working FOR her, regardless of what they think they are doing. These "super conservatives" are making the liberal mistake of never calculating the end result of their efforts.
Iheard him hawking his book on Fox yesterday. Now I know pot-ah--gritz is a stupid man. He has revealed himself as such many times, but he out did himself during the interview. He said that the beast was safe from attack because everything that could be said about her was already said, already brought out. I was embarrassed for him.
Let me break this to you gently Mr. pot-ah-gritz: Hilary Clinton has been in the Senate for five years plus. She has made hundreds of votes. There are potentially hundreds of angles of attack to be garnered from examining her voting records and public utterances. I know you'll say ANYTHING to sell your book, but please think before you speak.
|
May 09, 2006, 6:13 a.m. CAN SHE BE STOPPED? That’s the title of John Podhoretz’s new book. “She” is Hillary Clinton and she is on her way to the White House. For Republicans, John writes, Hillary’s election should be concentrating the minds of Republicans and conservatives wonderfully. But it isn’t yet. And if we’re not careful, the disappointment many of you feel with the state of your party will translate into an exhilarating but potentially suicidal journey as the primary season gets under way in earnest in 2007. The road you should travel, the path you should take, is the one marked “Danger: Hillary Approaching.” Today is publication day for John, so he took some questions from NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: How bad would a President Hillary be? John Podhoretz: We should start from this simple fact: Despite all the talk of her emergence as a "moderate," as a senator, Hillary has a 95-percent liberal voting record, according to National Journal. Let's go down the domestic list. Tax cuts? In June 2004, she told an audience in San Francisco: "For America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that [tax cut] short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She will feed the bottomless the Democratic-liberal appetite for ever more regulations at the federal level. And I haven't even mentioned foreign policy, where the Democratic party's lesson from Iraq will be to act with a degree of caution approaching total paralysis. Lopez: What will her husband do as First Gentleman? Podhoretz: I have no idea. I do know that managing him—keeping him quiet and in the background—will be a key element of a successful presidential bid in 2008. Lopez: Why is it harder for a liberal to win the presidency than a conservative? Podhoretz: Two reasons: First, it's still the case that twice as many Americans describe themselves as "conservative" rather than "liberal." That's why Democratic politicians don't embrace the "liberal" label. Second, conservatives know what they stand for—in brief, a strong America, smaller government, lower taxes, less regulation, and traditional values. It's much harder for liberals to describe their positive beliefs, since they no longer subscribe to the view that we are on a relentless march forward to a glorious future. Lopez: Why won’t Clinton fatigue be a significant obstacle in keeping Hillary from returning 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Podhoretz: When she runs for office in 2008, it will have been a decade since the revelation of Monica Lewinsky's name and almost 15 years since the word "Whitewater" entered the vocabulary. That's a long, long, long time. Lopez: Besides name recognition and cash, what’s Hillary Clinton’s greatest advantage on the road to the White House? Podhoretz: A 25-point lead in every poll among Democratic voters about whom they want to be their nominee. Lopez: And disadvantage? Podhoretz: The need to stroke and becalm the party's Deaniac wing, which can cause her a lot of unnecessary trouble almost solely due to her vote in favor of the Iraq war. Lopez: Can we expect a pre-election announcement that Lindsey Graham will be in her Cabinet. Podhoretz: Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the authors of the cliché that Hillary is uncommonly hard-working as a senator, which is alternately patronizing—as though she might otherwise be spending time in the beauty parlor—and an example of grade inflation—because, let's face it, what senator actually works hard? Lopez: You call Hillary “cold,” “flat,” and “unwomanly.” Are you sexist? Podhoretz: Considering that I say flatly Hillary will be the next president of the United States barring concerted Republican action to stop her and that she is an uncommonly intelligent and skilled political actor, I think "sexist" isn't the right description of my view of her. I argue that these hard and unattractive qualities help make her a very plausible first woman president—because America has to believe she can plausibly stand up to Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il and Osama Bin Laden. She needs to seem tough, and whatever Hillary's weaknesses, tough is a pretty good word to describe her. Lopez: Rudy? Does it have to be Rudy? Podhoretz: It doesn't have to be Rudy, but in my view he is the best candidate for the GOP. He remains wildly popular despite having made almost no public appearances in the past two years. His record as mayor of New York City—which one can plausibly argue is a job equal to being the governor of most states—remains the most extraordinary example of active conservative governance at the local level in the past 75 years. He is not a Washington candidate, which means he can separate himself from the congressional party's excesses and hijinks. Most important, he spent eight years as a liberal-slayer in New York, taking on every major institution, refusing to kowtow to the New York Times and the liberal media, and getting so much done that the city is still reveling in the revival for which he was almost solely responsible. Lopez: Why not John McCain? Why not an Allen or Romney? Podhoretz: John McCain has too complicated a history with the social conservatives and activist groups, and is such a gadfly that it seems inevitable he will act in ways to divide the GOP coalition. Unlike Rudy, he seems to prefer making friends with liberals and attacking conservatives, and that's not a good stance for a party leader. I guess George Allen is a plausible candidate, but why is he at three percent in polls of likely primary voters while McCain and Giuliani are nearly 30 points higher? As for Mitt Romney, I just don't think the nation is ready for a Mormon president (and by the way, I say that as an observant Jew who doesn't think the nation is ready for a Jewish president either). Lopez: You’ve previously talked up Jeb Bush. But not in the book. Why no dynasty vs. dynasty fight? Podhoretz: I take Jeb at his word. He's not running. Lopez: Why not woman vs. woman? Why wouldn’t Condi pull it off? Just more of your sexism? Podhoretz: The presidency is not an entry-level electoral job. Condi Rice hasn't ever been elected for anything. She should run for senator or governor of California and take it from there. I would be thrilled to vote for her in 2016.
Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008. Lopez: In the short term: If Republicans lose big in 2006, how will it reflect on 2008? Will it be a good kick-start to the GOP or just put Dems that much ahead? Podhoretz: Here's a very good rule of thumb in politics: Losing begets losing. Lopez: How can blogs stop Hillary? Could the left-wing blogosphere wind up a thorn in her side? Podhoretz: Blogs can and should keep the pressure on Hillary to speak, speak, speak. She prefers to remain silent for the most part, because that way she can limit any damage her words might cause. I offer some very practical tips for bloggers in the book, which is one of the many, many reasons they and hundreds of thousands of other people should buy it immediately! Lopez: What’s your most important piece of advice on stopping Hillary? Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost.
|
THE ABSURDITY OF THE 'HILLARY IS A BITCH' THEORY OF ELECTABILITY This is why many believe nominating a woman - nominating Hillary - will play into the GOP's hands. If the public is looking for a tough guy, won't the public want a guy? Maybe. On the other hand, if there were ever an American woman politician who could pass for a tough guy, it's Hillary Clinton. Start with the purely cosmetic. The fact that she never quite figured out what to do with her hair or her clothes, the fact that she's not a raving beauty, and the fact that she has a manner that is almost pathologically unsexy all work in her favor - just as they worked against her as a traditional First Lady. Those qualities have created an image of Hillary Clinton as unfeminine. This connects her to the successful female chief executives in other countries. Golda Meir was a hard-edged old broad, Indira Gandhi a dominatrix, Margaret Thatcher a battleaxe.... She possesses a hard-to-describe style that may be the perfect blend for the first woman president. Hillary possesses a very complex mien. She is almost always calm and composed, but radiates an icy hauteur.... The qualities that make Hillary Clinton a not especially likable, even a dislikable, public figure are pretty good ones for the first serious female candidate for president. For here's the bitter truth: The first woman president must not seem over-emotional, or flighty, or guided by intuition rather than reason. She must not seem demure or delicate, nor can she seem brassy and sassy. She must not appear to be in a girlish quest of a strong man to help make things right. Above all, she must not seek to excuse any flaws in her conduct by suggesting that they are due to her being a woman - from the natural excuse, like a hormone rush jangling her emotions, to a political excuse, like an unjust society that won't give the XX chromosome an even break. Just for vulgarity's sake, let me put it this way: She's got to be a bitch. And Hillary is a bitch. Her challenge will be to play up her anti-feminine qualities without being completely without charm and appeal. Republicans and conservatives are sure she has neither charm nor appeal. And indeed, she doesn't have much. But she probably has enough. TOUGH ENOUGH
False premises, non sequiturs and Oedipal issues--not necessarily in descending order of importance--infect his argument. I examine the first two here; the last I leave for him and his mother (or shrink) to resolve. THE ERRORS:
G. K. Chesterton
These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real. Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration." It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief." Mia T, 10.02.05
AND OTHER PODHORETZ NONSENSE
By JOHN PODHORETZ
May 7, 2006
Adapted for The Post by John Podhoretz from his new book, "Can She Be Stopped?"
f the notion that hillary clinton's repulsive "bitch" affect renders her electable is silly, the assumption that the only real swing voter will elect another clinton in this Age of Terror is downright absurd. And yet, John Podhoretz, normally an intelligent, seemingly sane fellow, is trying to sell us the former by assuming the latter.
Sang-froid is hardly hillary clinton's strong suit. Missus clinton's reputation for out-of-control rage precedes her. 1
When was the last time you observed hillary clinton 5 partake in our process of political discourse, or, as Charles Kuralt once put it, relish in "the raucous give and take of American democracy?" ANSWER: Never. hillary clinton answers to no one.6 hillary clinton doesn't play in Peoria.
The bottom line is this paradox: In order for hillary clinton to have any chance of winning elections, hillary clinton, in all her "bitchy" manifestations, must all but vanish from the public stage.8
(Which she has.
'Hiding Hillary' is the overriding clinton strategy. All manner of proxy, from clinton operative to elaborate Hollywood production, create the illusion of presence while the Right lacks the courage to force the real hillary clinton onto the public stage.)
Men despise hillary clinton. She is their worst nightmare: their mother-in-law, their nagging first wife and the Nazi commandant in Seven Beauties all rolled into one low-center-of-gravity package.
Especially after they learn about the rapes.
... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)
FOOTNOTES
READ MORE