Posted on 05/24/2006 4:18:08 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As we look toward 2008, it is obvious Republicans would like to see their GOP nominee triumph. Democrats clearly want one of their own in the White House. But there are many who want to see ABH – "anybody but Hillary" – get elected.
The former first lady's unique brand of transparently phony moderation, heartfelt inner socialism, Nixonian disregard for the norms of civilized politics and governance, and her well-documented tin ear on ethical issues make her the most dangerous aspirant for president since George Wallace (and he never had a chance of winning).
The more John McCain runs and Rudy Giuliani tests the waters, the clearer it gets that neither of these good men can command the Republican nomination.
McCain is too independent and Rudy too liberal. Republicans will not forgive the Arizona senator for his anti-torture bill, his backing for campaign finance reform, his support of major reforms in corporate governance, his opposition to big tobacco, his antipathy toward making the tax cuts permanent and his backing for citizenship for illegal immigrants. Nor will they overlook Rudy's support for abortion choice, gun control, affirmative action or gay rights.
Condoleezza Rice, long the object of our affections, has not moved any closer to running despite our ceaseless prodding.
That leaves no Republican who can beat Hillary. George Allen, of confederate flag/tobacco spitting fame, is not likely to win over any female votes from the Democrats. Allen can get his usual complement of gun-toting white males but the female vote is the swing one in our politics.
Governor Mitt Romney is sinking fast in the Massachusetts polls. And Senator Bill Frist can't get out of his own way to even be an effective majority leader.
As for Governor George Pataki, fleeing your home state because you wouldn't get re-elected is hardly a springboard to national office.
Al Gore - poor benighted Al Gore - offers the best chance to stop Hillary, albeit in the Democratic primary.
History is repeating itself. In 1960 and 2000, a popular president (Eisenhower/Clinton) prompted his vice president (Nixon/Gore) to run for president. Each lost very, very narrowly. Each was sharply attacked within his own party for not using the popular incumbent more to campaign on his behalf.
After their defeats, neither seemed likely to get another presidential nomination. But then the party blew the next election by a considerably larger margin (Goldwater/Kerry) and the former VP's defeat didn't look so bad in retrospect. Each rode opposition to a current war into renewed popularity. And Nixon got elected.
Gore has several key advantages over Hillary. He has always strongly opposed the war, while she and the other possible Democratic candidates – Kerry, Edwards, Bayh and Biden – all voted for it. His historic warnings about the dangers of climate change seem to be coming true all around us. The major national issue – energy prices – is right up his alley. Gore has been advocating alternative fuels and major conservation for decades.
Gore would exploit a soft-core negative against Hillary that is sweeping the ranks of Democrats. Hungry for victory and suspicious of Hillary's ability to win, they whisper to one another: "I like her but isn't she too divisive to win?"
Gore has become personally wealthy with the appreciation of his Google stock and his equity position in his Current TV network. And he has access to much of the donor base that he used in 2000 for his run for the presidency. Hillary will take many of these supporters with her, but the truly left-wing Democrats who are turned off by her moderation and backing for the war will likely provide a sufficiently wealthy and enraged base for funding an Al Gore campaign.
John Kerry and John Edwards both lack the purism of Gore on the Iraq War. Both backed it and voted for the resolution. Former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, the current fair-haired boy being touted in the Democratic Party, probably will not be able to get a word in edgewise as the two giants – Hillary and Al – square off with each other.
Any bad blood between Gore and Hillary? I once asked the vice president if there was any friction between Tipper and the first lady. "There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the deadpan, earnest reply.
"Well," I rephrased my question "at the convention how do you think Hillary would react to Tipper introducing her?"
"There is no friction between Tipper and Hillary" came the automaton answer.
"So neither one would mind?" I ventured.
"There is no friction . . ." You get the point. There wouldn't be any friction between Al and Hillary were they to run against each other.
None at all.
Why do we want to stop Hillary? Seems to me that a Hillary nomination will keep Repubs in the WH for years...
He's got the big L for LOSER sign around him. What's to worry? Having said that, I still think we should all be rallyikng around Hillary for the '08 Dem nominee..
The only reason Al even came close in 2000 was because of Willy's coattails. George W. Bush only had the honesty thing going for him. Al had the illusion of peace and prosperity. Emperor Al has since proven he has no clothes, or class. The comparison with Nixon is wrong... IMO.
Dick Cheney could stop her. Put a few feathers in her hair and push her flapping out of a bush and --
Exactly. I don't know much about Warner, but he could run as a Northern Southerner... or a Southern Northerner... whatever it takes.
Nixon had the big L for Loser hung around his neck as well.
I see a replay of history here.
Believe me I hope I am wrong.
He has in my opinion the best shot
All you have to do is watch the daily news and see, he is slowly weaseling his way into running again, by default maybe, or by design on the dimmies part
Hillary, I don't think she'll get the call, too much baggage
The better question is...........who is OUR best choice
I don't personally have anyone I am fired up about.....but whoever it is gets my vote over any dem
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.
Good, run Jethro Gore again. All the same mental illness that sunk Gore the last time will sink him in '08...only he'll have had 8 more years of adding to his already considerable weirdness resume.
"His historic warnings about the dangers of climate change seem to be coming true all around us."
WTF? Algore has been proven right on Manbearpig?
I can't read this guy anymore. A year ago, he said both McCain and Rudy could beat Piaps, now only algore can?
Brit Hume stated tonight, that the daily kos voted 68% to back gored-head for the nomination. hildebeast got 3% of the vote! foolsgold got the second place nod.
gore/foolsgold 2008... man that is a wonderful target rich environment!!!
Leftists want gore, and the leftists are the center (heart) and bank of today's dim party. gore just may get another shot, and sending him to hell once and for all will be delightful!
LLS
How bereft are the dems anyway?
When I think of their choices in '04...dumb and dumber and, oh, the guy they nominated...dumbest...
And now they're thinking of going to the portly idiot?
I guess he'd be better than the alternative mentioned, but really ....
I look for the Reps, in desparation, to run Jeb Bush in '08 to cash in on a name. In think it would be cash out, however, as none of the Bush family appears to be truly conservative.
Warner?
You jest?
You don't jest???
Morris and Ruddy have been making a living on Hilary for about 12 years now.
If you ask me, the entire retread line will probably "run." Lurch, The Mighty Elm, Mr. Silky Pony, The Reptile... they will all be there.
Morris should get a real job. WGF what he spews!
Probably... but I know nothing about him... which could be his strong point.
Not for the first time, Dick Morris is incorrect. Hillary can be stopped in the primaries by someone besides Gore.
I suggest Evan Bayh. He is the candidate that the Democrats would pick if they suddenly became intelligent. He appears moderate and unthreatening, and unlikely Madame Hillary, he has not alienated the moonbat wing of the party.
It would be easy to motivate the Republican base with either Gore or Hillary as the Democrat nominee. Bayh would lull that base to sleep.
Now, as for winning Republicans - I suggest that if Morris was writing in 1990, he'd be saying that President George H.W. Bush was going to win in a walkover, and that no obscure governor from Arkansas would stand a chance.
The point being - a fresh face can change the scene overnight. In 1992, the fresh face was Ross Perot. :)
regards, Ivan
| Dick Morris: Only Gore Can Stop Hillary |
||||||
| Posted by Leo Carpathian to gate2wire On 05/24/2006 8:09:11 PM EDT · 37 of 38 |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| Gore's Hot Air |
||||||
| Posted by ladyinred to dead On 05/24/2006 8:09:03 PM EDT · 33 of 34 |
||||||
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.