Posted on 07/12/2003 9:39:11 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
Today's CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message for xxxxxx xxxxxxx from Conservative Book Service:
Hillary's Plans to Take the White House
Your worst fears may be about to come true. Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House exposes the Clintons' long-range, highly detailed plan to make Hillary President of the United States -- and yes, despite her official denials, she's still mulling over a run in 2004.
In shocking detail, investigative journalist Carl Limbacher here blows the lid off the New York senator's plans for a grand political coup, something she has been carefully and quietly plotting for more than 20 years. With a patience, doggedness, and thirst for the truth that few reporters have displayed, Limbacher got the full story of Hillary's plans by conducting extensive research into Hillary's past and securing exclusive interviews with Clinton insiders. He even questioned Hillary herself! Limbacher uncovers the juicy morsels, backroom deals, and insider wrangling surrounding Hillary's presidential ambitions -- the hidden details that the mainstream press is too intimidated by (or enamored of) the Clintons to tell you about.
Think that Hillary doesn't stand a chance to become President? Limbacher shows how they'll get around potential and real scandals of a magnitude that ended the careers of many politicians less resourceful and ruthless than they are. He explains how the Clintons' approach to issues that could derail their plans -- such as Whitewater and Bill's thirst for bimbos -- has been consistently characterized by a brazen disregard for the rule of law and even for common decency. With startling precision, Limbacher also draws parallels between today's political environment and that which existed in 1992 -- the year George H. W. Bush lost the race to an upstart governor from Arkansas.
Limbacher reveals the real answers to questions Hillary avoids in public -- and much more, including:
• Why Hillary is not likely to wait until 2008 to enter the race for President
• How Hillary torpedoed Al Gore's chances for a rematch with President Bush
• The Clintons: why they're the most calculating and cold-blooded political team America has seen since John and Robert Kennedy
• Compelling evidence that Hillary has accepted money from Muslim groups with open sympathy for terrorists
• The eleventh-hour dirty tricks machine that beat Bush the father in 1992 and almost beat Bush the son in 2000 -- a machine that Hillary is ready to use again when she runs
• Conclusive evidence of bribery in the last-minute pardon frenzy just before Bill Clinton left office
• Remember the furor over Hillary's calling an aide a "Jew b-----d"? It wasn't the only time she has indulged in vicious slurs
• How the Clintons have effectively silenced publicity about Bill's philandering (including details about the stash of explosives discovered in a Clinton security agent's car)
You don't even have to be a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to be concerned about what Hillary in the White House would mean for the presidency, the Constitution, and America as we know it. Get all the facts that she and the media don't want you to know in Hillary's Scheme.
You can't be serious!! Oh Im sorry, all your critical thinking skills have been eliminated!
Read her post, friend. Her entire selection process revolves around party affiliation. No thought is used, no reading or research is attempted, and no "comparison shopping" is required. Exactly where is my post incorrect?
Considering the fact that the GOP is absolutely rife with RINO's who are more interested in staying in office rather than supporting principles of limited government, hers is plainly a losing strategy.
The only retort I can see as being thoughtful and valid (other than the imaginative and thunderously logical "You can't be serious!!", of course) is if she works hard in the primaries to support, as FR's main page does, "independent, grass-roots conservatism... working to roll back decades of governmental largesse" and candidates that strongly espouse those principles. She did not.
Nice personal attack. Am I hitting too much truth for you to handle? Don't like having your voting system described realistically? My post is numerically valid, and contains no mathematical error.
Do you know how many Republicans there are in this Country?
My post was about the percentages on this thread.
Of course, 96% on here don't agree with the President, because we have a ton of disruptors and "true" conservatives that if you don't believe like them you are a liberal or to quote some -- a "socialist!"
Disruptors are part of every discussion forum, but I think your over-reactions lump more posters into that category than deserve to be there. You seem to do exactly as you describe... "if you don't believe like them you are a [disruptor]." How are you any different?
I said 96% of Republican Conservatives -- it was done in a poll that was touted by Ralph Reed just this past week. Did I say 96% of Free Republic?
No, I did, and I think that is a very telling thing to discuss, since it would be hard to find a more intesive and pro-Right-wing forum than FR. If Bush's support is wavering here, then don't you think it could be weak elsewhere, especially when it counts next year? Especially when so many formerly rabid supporters like myself will NOT be working the phones, going to rallies, cajoling their friends, driving stranger to the polls, etc.
That is my point, but you seems to want to bury my opinion, despite the fact that I haev not "bashed" the President in any of the ways that you posted. Apparently, you feel the need to attack even those who are not "bashers", and go after any who do not toe your own personal line... exactly as you say "disruptors" do.
So tell us, are you a "disruptor", since you qualify by your own definition?
And hence you automatically eliminate all potential Zell Miller imitators in their party. Any strategy that eliminates critical thinking and "comparison shopping" is going to eventually fail at some point. Murphy's Law doesn't take any holidays.
However, my post said that it was interesting that you took such pride in that strategy. To me, that's intriguing. If you find that to somehow be an insult (like, say, stating that one may be a failure in their profession), then maybe you should rethink your system. I never said
I am a true conservative and I admire Ron Paul for the things he stands for, but the last time I looked George W. Bush came out of Texas to get the nomination and then to become the President.
What happened? Thinking like yours!! The liberal agenda has been advanced since Rooseveldt like the chinese water torture,drip by drip(and in the case of Johnson one big waterfall)I guess pragmatism is not in your vocabulary. I am just as principled as you if my vote and others gets our agenda a leg up on the socialists.
I'll agree with points I and III, but point II is problematic. Protecting the Constitution would involve vetoing CFR and AWB, eliminating the Education Department (not a record increase), opposing federal prescription drug entitlement programs, securing the borders, opposing Affirmative Action (violates the 14th Amendments Equal Protection clause), etc. These are the Constitutional issues that ruffle the feathers of most "bashers" here, and we believe that it is an indicator that he is not doing his duty to protect the Constitution. That's where the discussion begins!
If you cannot see that, then we have no discussion!
Once again, you eschew alternate views without investigation, and refuse discussion on a discussion forum!. I couldn't imagine doing the same. Vive la difference, I guess. (Eww! French!)
I think a huge part of the problem is that this term is so undefined. It gives us a "big tent" but, to quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using dat word. I do no think it means what you think it means."
and I admire Ron Paul for the things he stands for,
Me, too, but he does unfortunately take it to the logical extremes which everyone jumps on. I love his logical consistency, but it does hurtsto see it do the limited-government movement such harm.
The liberal agenda has been advanced since Rooseveldt like the chinese water torture, drip by drip (and in the case of Johnson one big waterfall). I guess pragmatism is not in your vocabulary. I am just as principled as you if my vote and others gets our agenda a leg up on the socialists.
Ay, but there's the rub. Looking at the past 12 months, I;ve seen far more of their agenda succeed than ours. Chalk some of that up to the fact that we discuss their wrongs more than our victories, but I doubt it's even a 50-50 split on domestic issues. THEY are winning, while WE have all three Houses! Something is terribly, terribly wrong with that, and since GWB is the leader/head honcho in charge, and he proudly proclaims and supports positions that so many here vehemently oppose, we have to rant about it, and as is our Right, we also have to threaten to withhold our vote.
I'm betting that many cave at the end, but I'm hoping I won't unless he starts coming through with some MAJOR domestic victories in the next 12 months, at least as big as the tax cuts. Here's to hoping that he does... but being a fellow pragmatist, that makes me a realist. Recent history doesn't look favorable to that end.
I cannot argue the fact about being rife with RHINO's but is it not better to have a RHINO in your caucus then one more liberal across the aisle?(I know the lesser of two evils argument)At the very least you know there are ways in congress to control a fence sitter.
You can't be serious!!",
unbecoming of me and I apologize
she works hard in the primaries to support, as FR's main page does, "independent, grass-roots conservatism... working to roll back decades of governmental largesse" and candidates that strongly espouse those principles. She did not.
You are wrong! She works very hard, not only in the upper echelons but at the grass roots level. I cannot speak for her but I think every victory ever so small, is a step in the right direction for smaller govt.
WFTR
Bill
I think President Bush eschews your sentiment on this. I think rightfully or wrongly he has usurped the liberals on several issues so they cannot attack him for being an extremist. He has drawn the line in the sand on the Scotus nominations and knows it likely will be a bloodbath!! He has always said I will appoint strict constructionists and if he caves God help this country.
On the other hand, I hear people complaining and saying they will not vote for Bush in 2004. Well, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Unfortunately, the ultra conservative policies that most of us would like to see put in place cannot be done with only half of the electorate and small margins in congress.
The pervert also did things that did not satisfy his left-wing supporters (signing welfare reform, etc.). President Bush has been in office less than 3 years and has had to face obstacles bigger than most of the previous presidents combined (2 wars, September 11, etc.)
Therefore, I will support him 100%, because the alternative is unthinkable (hillary, kerry, dean, etc.) I will not sell out my country to these evil people because, at times, I might not totally agree with President Bush.
I haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say. And sorry, as a successful entrepreneur I can tell you from experience that a pragmatist does not make a good leader.
Actually after reading Congressman Paul's article, I see what has happened to Conservatism. Unfortunately you might well be a true conservative. Guess that means it's time for me to leave.
Uh, no, actually it doesn't. And just because W is a good, honest man that doesn't make him right and it doesn't make him Conservative.
I am one of the conservatives that all of you are bitching about -- how I abandoned the party because I won't roll (or bend) over and take it like you have.
Honestly and frankly I don't see much difference between Hillary and W in the abstract. What I do know is that Hillary's agenda will be DOA thanks to a Republican Congress.
But I won't have to contemplate that anyway, because you'll all put the RINOs and Neoconservatives back in power for another 4 years to make the gov't bigger and more intrusive and piss on the Constitution.
At least it's our guys doing it, right?
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.