The Hillary strategy (and one of Bill's worst ideas)

Pittsburgh Tribune Review ^ | Sunday, May 25, 2003 | British journalist

[mystery-ak]

After suffering 8 years with a rapist as our CinC...rejoicing when Bush was elected...I wonder what our military's reaction would be to having Hitlery as their CinC.....I see massive resignations.....JMHO.

[dufekin]

I honestly doubt that Hillary! can beat Bush, even in New York. She's just too divisive a figure. And let us not forget that if Bush wins every state that he won in 2000, he will win in 2004--by a wider margin.

[bart99]

Thanks for the insighful response...... your comment

"There is one subject that Hillary does not hold back on and that is Homeland Security and its funding"

is still confusing to me. I know she's a strong advocate - but god only knows what direction she'd move.

I've asked many times, only cause I'm ignorant and REALLY don't know...... but......... what is her position on illegal (and legal - the bad ones) immigrants? And on tightening our borders? I've not read or heard much about her positions there. Any insight??

And by the way, speaking of character, I think she was doing her things while Bill was playing with his ladies for 20 plus years, She was a vibrant young lady. I doubt she took a vow of celabicy. I suspect that will be disclosed. A primary factor in Bush's election was to restore a sense of character and morals to the White House. Because she is female should not blind us to those issues, any more than as it was so apparent, and important in the public's reaction with Bill. Gore lost on Bill's character - not cause of a stiff body, some Buddist funds, and some audible sighs.

[Just mythoughts]

The history of "Homeland Security" started in spring of 2001.

HART/RUDMAN chaired a study regarding terrorism/security of this nation. Newt was one of about 15 who undertook this study that was released in spring of 2001 prior to 9/11.

The study among other things recommended three things, Defense Department, State Department and Newts idea an new "Homeland Security Agency. "Rummy" has gone through .ell over the bottom up review of the Defense Department and until 9/11 was on the "hate" list of much of congress and media.

The State Department still untouched and of recent words of ire to Newt for bringing up their unaccountability and connections with the UN unaccountable dealings and "rip-off" of Iraq with its "Oil for Food" program which they reaped untold billions.

Initially President Bush rejected the idea of a new agency "Homeland Security" and then the liberals taking of the Senate with the "JUMPING JEFFORDS" of socialist Vermont decided to take up forming a new agency. I have heard that the lying Lieberman is taking credit for this new agency's birth.

President Bush stood firm against "UNION" special status with reorganinzing all these agencies under the Homeland Security Agency and took it to the people in last fall's election and regained control of the Senate.

Before the Congress went on break good old boy Lott was called to the White HOuse to get that legislation passed before the new Congress came in after the break.

The liberal were so humilitated at not only loss of Senate but that they lost their demand for "UNION" special status that they decided that Homeland Security and its funding would be what they went after President Bush on.

In the midst of the Lott babel, and the liberal reaction with an all out assult of him stepping down, there was on Fox News somebody from the liberal party on an early morning program and I do not remember who it was but they stated that the DIMS would be using Homeland Security and its funding against President Bush.

What happened next was with the forming of the new "AGENCY", Congress themselves decided who "individually" would receive the money. President Bush spoke publically about how Congress had tied his hand with the funding because it was not sent to the Agency but to who the Congress decided individually.

So Hillary has been itching ever since Jan. 2003 about President Bush not looking out for Homeland Security, while she herself sent millions to specific people in New York for gas masks.

The request for money from the President was to coordinate the "first responders" throughout the nation, and what Congress did (I hold the sleeping republicans responsible for letting this happen) was to keep the funds from this Agency to do this.

Tiny Tom gave an interesting trashing of the President not funding Homeland Security speech to "UNIONS" from local, county, and state conference.

So all that these liberal have done and said the only thing left unsaid is that in order for all these accusations to have merit is for another terrorist attack to happen so this lying low life bunch can say "WE TOLD YOU SO"!

[Semper Paratus]

Keep playing that screed she did recently and it will remind voters of their in-law from hell.

[300winmag]

I honestly doubt that Hillary! can beat Bush, even in New York. She's just too divisive a figure. And let us not forget that if Bush wins every state that he won in 2000, he will win in 2004--by a wider margin.

Oh, I agree she knows that the RATs chances of winning in 2004 are slim-to-none. But she may make herself the VICE-presidential candidate in 2004 just to hear the adulation, and smooth the way for being on the top of the ticket in 2008. She could claim the defeat was solely due to the guy at the top of the ticket, and not her, because she's really adored by everybody. Besides, we should all feel sorry for her that she lost, and vote for her as president in 2008. It wasn't her fault.

Besides, Hitlery ran half the government as just a presidential housewife. Bill and Hitlery would have been calling the shots if Algore had won. She would do quite well as vice-president, and de-facto czarina.

[Liz]

Whether President Bush will ultimately triumph is part
of a broader question: whether good will triumph over evil.

Good will triumph evil, as long as the good guys (the ones in the VRWC that Hitlery despises) do their part.

[Liz]

.....Hilliary should be made to pin point HER SOLUTIONS to the issues she brings up. Step by step outline just what she would propose to do differently. That oughtta shut her up........

The conniving Clintons never had an unscripted moment in their entire lives.

[ImpotentRage]

That bothers me, too. I don't know why some Bush appointees are not cleaning out the holdovers. In my opinion, one of the things that Bush should never have done is put his arm around Tenet's shoulders and say he had faith in him. There are many times when I think Bush is just too damned trusting.

[Liz]

When in doubt, Hitlery will assume the role of "victim."

Liberals and Democrats dominant ideology is victimhood: It is the party of those who, feeling put-upon, nurse political identities, defined by membership in grievance groups. The victimized groups are easily perceived b/c they usually have a hyphen attached to their separate identity.

Demoocrat liberals simply cannot feel good about themselves unless they have victims......hyphenated-victims. Feel-good liberal types have an utter contempt for the rest of humanity The problem, like so many other of society's self-described "tolerant and compassionate types," is that their ego-driven "sense of entitlement" is so outsized and demanding that they cannot stand to have a discouraging word spoken about themselves.....thus they engage in the political correctness atrocity which abhors criticism.

Liberals revive the spectre of a despised monarchy (that a Revolutionary War displaced), by setting themselves apart from the commoners, and demanding to be coddled and cosseted at every moment.

Marie Antoinette's infamous, "Let 'em eat cake," is the moral equivalent of contemporary liberals' sense of entitlement which thay extort by political correctness and victimology. Victimology is defined as the art of blaming and finding others responsible for your own personal failures, then looking and expecting the Federal government to make it all better. It is sometimes referred to as the "whining of America".

Liberals have indeed become a worthless class of whiners. These self-absorbed liberal humanoids, like the conniving Clintons, with their exaggerated sense of entitlement, demand the common folk kneel in obeisance and comply whenever they indicate their wishes.

We will never forget that when commoners dared speak up about the Clintons, Marie-Antoinette-Hitlery demonized them, and publicly labeled them a VRWC.

[Liz]

Although I disagered with it at the time, GWB decided not to go after the Clintons and their acolytes. It appears that was a good move b/c it avoided making victime of the Clintons and their worshippers. Now they can all die a horrible political death by their own hand.

[Tuxedo]

I think Hitlery will make herself the RAT VP candidate in 2004, knowing the ticket will lose. She will gather the accolades for being the first female (?) candidate for such a high position. Her campaign will get far more coverage than any other candidate, all totally worshipful.

Actually Geraldine Ferraro was the first female candidate for VP back in 1984. She will avoid anything that could stick a loser-tag on her. No, she is biding time until 2008. Not sure having Cheney on again as VP is a wise political move. Good for the country perhaps, but not good for the party.

[Noumenon]

If Hitlery ever gained control of the appratus of the state the only way she'd be voted out of office would be from the rooftops.

[Noumenon]

I see civil war.

[zip]

Thanks for the links. I appreciate 'em.

[zip]

I think Hitlery will make herself the RAT VP candidate in 2004, knowing the ticket will lose. She will gather the accolades for being the first female (?) candidate for such a high position

The second, remember Gerald Ferraro?

[John Lenin]

The media will play their part by not asking the tough questions of how we got to the point of being attacked on 9/11. Already the war between Freeh and Clinton has started. The real fight is against a complicit media who has covered up every Clinton crime that they possibly could.

[Irene Adler]

"I honestly doubt that Hillary! can beat Bush, even in New York. She's just too divisive a figure. And let us not forget that if Bush wins every state that he won in 2000, he will win in 2004--by a wider margin."

My only fear would be well-planned and audaciously executed voter fraud on a massive scale in enough urban areas to tip big electoral-vote states into Hillary's column. That is the only way I can see her winning the presidency. I don't think enough has been done to prevent such voter fraud. We all saw SD Senatorial voter fraud, after all. This is the only thing about 2004 or 2008 that makes me uneasy. Don't understand why Bush has not pressed harder for genuine reform in this area. Granted, any voter-reform action would have to be very carefully designed because rats are ready to take any changes in the system and game them to their advantage just as they have the present system.

[300winmag]

The second, remember Gerald Ferraro?

I think it was Geraldine, but I had forgotten her. I'm sure Hitlery and everyone else would, too.

Still, I think Hitlery would give the VP race a try. It must be galling her that there are nine RAT dwarves pretending to be candidates, and getting all that publicity (even if some of it is bad publicity). She (and they) know that they're out there solely at her pleasure, and she could yank their chains at any second. Look how the klintons built up and tore down RAT candidates in the 2002 election.

No matter how badly they're blown out in 2004, Hitlery has real advantages being on the bottom half of a losing ticket. First, she would get more coverage than anyone else. Second, she could later say she's "grown" in defeat, although her ankles are already quite chunky. Finally, she could start the myth that they would have been unbeatable if she was the presidential candidate, and she'll be unbeatable in 2008.

Of course, in 2008 I'd like to see a Jeb Bush/Condi Rice ticket.

[Slyfox]

Hillary's question to the president could well be, "Why are those responsible back making policy with the Iraqi exile groups?"

Hillary has always sidled up to our sworn enemies. Why should it surprise us that North Korea has recently fired some laser thingy's at us after the Clinton Administration, headed by Hillary herself, handed over our secret technology to a 'known' enemy.

Looks to me as though somebody could ram a few things down her throat if she thinks she can 'get Bush cornered'.