Posted on 05/26/2003 7:40:30 AM PDT by NYC GOP Chick
I agree with the point that we as conservatives should not lower ourselves to 'name calling' as such. However, I would venture that what passes for 'name calling' here (and Mrs. Clinton evokes many) is rather a deep resentment for what she stands for, what she truly is as a person.
No one will argue the issue that Hussein, Hitler, bin Laden are deserving of labels (some might term it 'name calling' as well) of every vile nature for such describes their person. Hillary Clinton no less is such a vile person. She is duplicious, calculating, manipulative, hateful and in my humble opinion, just plain evil (I do not jest here).
The difference between her and the former is they attack from without, she works from within the system to subvert, weaken and overthrow and because of such she is the more dangerous...a Quisling if you will, not of a country, but of an ideology.
How can I state such things, how can I make such judgments? Consider all the evidence that associates with this woman's name, you name it...Vince Foster 'suicide', Whitewater, WH Travel office, Health care debacle, all the insider revelations...the list is endless.
I have no qualms in stating that this woman is a dire threat to just about every value we hold in American government or American social structure.
It is not so much that her name is associated with something (i.e. legislative bills) that may be "good" in and of itself, it is the fact that this woman will associate herself with good things like a virus, like poison...hoping we will swallow it and take her in.
Let's not fool ourselves one iota. She is only working to manipulate public opinion for her own purposes and that purpose is ultimately control of the highest office in the land.
May we be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
Exactly! Like I said earlier, she's trying to develop a rep as being "strong" on military issues and as being "reasonable" enough to to work with such right-wing "terrors" as Lindsey Graham.
Amen!
Are you suggesting Graham should have found a way to remove her from the bill? I don't know enough about Senate particulars to know if that's possible, but if he had it would probably have helped Hillary by making himself look like a jerk (and making her look like the victim). There is a reason the GOP is often accused here of trying to be nice only to take it in the shorts later - it's because by and large we ARE nicer and we DO try to be civil and respectful. Sometimes this will backfire but if the alternative is becoming dishonest unpleasant backstabbers like much of the Dems then that's the cross we have to bear.
The last point is about the bill itself. If it is a good bill and having Clinton's name on it means it is more likely to pass then so be it. For me the end result is more important then potential political fallout.
Best to all.
You have valid points. As conservatives (e.g. Senator Graham), we should be careful of how we deal with issues so as not to become that which we oppose. Basically my point was to address what you see as "name calling" goes far deeper, perhaps it's more of a recognition of this persons true nature and of the danger they pose.
Yet, as I am sure Senator Graham is aware of the sadistical nature of the senator from NY, I am sure he is aware of the dangers of advancing her agenda. We are not privy to the backroom machinations that went on ending up with her sponsorship of the bill.
Perhaps it was unforseen by Senator Graham, perhaps he is only giving her enough rope to hang herself, or even playing her ambitions into political advantage. We don't know.
One thing I do know, this woman is not the most astute politician or the brightest bulb in the house (contrary to the left's crowning her as the smartest woman alive). She has made her character more and more clear. And this is only amplified in contrast by the character (and I might add, the far superior intelligence) of President Bush.
I believe 9/11 opened people's eyes like never before and what they saw was humbling in what we tolerated in the White House. I believe they saw that character does matter and this is driven home even more by the sound leadership of President Bush in the contrast. The genuinenss, the leadership, the courage to lead of the current President shows the hollowness of the former occupants of the White House.
If this woman happens to land a presidential nomination in '04 or '08, I have to concur with Rush Limbaugh that there will be such an rising up of opposition, such a rallying to the GOP cause that will cause the left to stand in shock. They will only wish that it were simply a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
I know I personally felt deeply the indignity that the Clinton's heaped upon everything I held dear. I didn't care for Kennedy, I despised LBJ and considered Carter an idiot (useful idiot perhaps), but none of these so trashed the dignity of the office, so flaunted their shamelessness or so flipped off the American people's sensibilities as the Clinton's and then dared us to call them by their right names...pathetic white trash. Truly their legacy lies in that 16 acre hole in Manhattan.
As you may be able to discern, I do feel strongly about the 8 years of suffering under this 'administration'. God only knows the depths of danger that the Clintons have left for this administration to clean up.
Randjuke, I trust you will forgive my waxing somewhat lengthy in this my response.
I'm not saying that he should have crossed her name off of it, but I think he should have been more careful in soliciting co-sponsors -- and if he felt that he needed a 'rat female, he could have sought out someone like, say, Blanche Lincoln or Mary Landrieu or even Maria Cantwell.
It just galls me to no end that she is using this to patronize him and make him look subservient to her, like in an earlier article, when someone from her office said that she did this as a favor to him to thank him for taking her hubby to task for cheating on her.
There is NO WAY that having her sign on was crucial to getting it passed. And I find it thoroughly appalling that she's using both the well-being of our military and the good graces of a conservative senator to boost her career.
Oh, and I agree with just about every wonderful word the wise and witty el_texicano wrote. :)
I don't know and am only guessing, but it wouldn't surprise me that the junior senator in that minority party pushed herself onto the sponsorship of the bill while trying to make it look like he solicited her support.
Is she necessary for the bill's passage? I honestly don't know but I will bet we don't hear any dems whining about this issue.
Best to all, Randjuke (hanging his head because NYC GOP Chick didn't call him wise and witty like she did el_texicano)
Perhaps Senator Graham, along with other astute republican leaders, have decided to go to where the Great White resides, instead of waiting for her to find other waters in which to do her hunting. Maybe they've decided to board the boat and take bait to her, lure her away from those unaware of the danger she poses. Small amounts of bait at a time, let her begin to follow the blood path in the water, and when the imminent danger to us on shore has passed, well...maybe we'll find an Arkansas license plate...
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.