Posted on 12/01/2007 7:52:20 PM PST by shrinkermd
Both Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd have columns today.
Rich has little to say about the Iraq War. He stresses Obama opposed it and Hillary did not. Presumably, this is enough for Frank Rich and Pinch to switch sides.
Here is a quote from Rich:
”…But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan “rumors” that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim — whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday — are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era…”
Rich’s article is Who’s Afraid of Barack Obama?
Maureen has a softer and more balanced approach but here is a choice quote of hers:
…Except for panicked Clintonistas, everyone seems eager to see if the young pol can live up to his potential. Responding to his more combative style, the press has relaunched him, giving him a second chance to shine, on this week’s cover of Time, in the pages of The New Yorker, in the up arrow of Newsweek, which now declares him “poised to be the comeback kid,” and at The Times, where young female assistants lined the halls on Wednesday to watch him glide into a second meeting with editorial board writers and editors…
Maureen’s article is O Brother, Where Art Thou?
This is a dramatic change on the part of the NYT. Even if it is brief, they seem to be acquiescing to the idea the Iraq War is going well and progress is being made. Seemingly, now they and others in the dominant media see it is time to think of someone other than Hillary..
For us it makes little difference who their candidate is. What is more and more important is new and novel leadership from our candidates with an ever increasing stress on what can be done not what has been done.
It is also time for our presidential candidates to cease the ad hominems and cheap shots at their opponents. Further, many and perhaps most voters in 2008 will have been born after 1980. This means the Cold War, Viet Nam and JFK are historical not personal remembrances. What is more and more important is we need new and novel leadership from our candidates. The election is about the future--what can be done not outweighs what has been done . This group of younger voters needs and deserves a positive, forward looking approach. Failure to grasp this will result in our failure.
I seriously question this. After all, this is the age of "the pill" and unrestrained recreational abortions at will, so we're comparing 18 thru 28 yr olds to age 29 and up. Then, we have to consider the percentage of voters out of each group.....I think there is a lot of wishful thinking here. If I recall correctly, there is (or was before Bush) a decline in the population born after the baby boomers were born, roughly 1945+, with a secondary bump, echo baby boomers about 1965+, then Roe and the pill hit about then also. Of course, history will record the Bush Border Baby Boom in future years, and God only knows the full ramifications of THAT!
Run, Hillary run! [Thump!] [Bump!]
What would you do instead?
Periodically, the American public gets frisky and mistakes the appearance of novelty with novelty. 1992 (Perot) and Gary Hart's abortive run come to mind. The voters are unhappy and want something different so they convince themselves that one of the candidates actually is different and fresh. Obama and the Old Media are trying to fan those flames today.
But there is not one fresh, novel or new idea coming out of Obama's camp and his platform is pretty much the same as every dem since 1972--retreat and surrender abroad and a race to socialism at home, with a big, fat-filled topping of whipped victim group politics and save the trees. He's working to seem fresh and to avoid the specifics which would expose him as an empty socialist suit. But you can put lipstick on a pig . . .
Pretty much the same out of the R's. Don't socialize as quickly as the dems would like to, stay strong abroad and try to slow down the victim group stuff without seeming mean. Someone may manage to make it sound fresh but the battle lines were drawn in 1935 and 1967 and they won't be moving soon. The reason is they are real lines with real consequences. You can have all the fresh ideas you want. But eventually you are going to have to choose between more, less, or the same amount of socialized medicine we have today.
The delusion that there are fresh new approaches to be picked off a tree has recently popped up in California. Schwartzanegger has tried to sound like this and the voters even believed it for a while. But reality forces him to take positions on all the old fashioned issues and he turned out to be just another middling democrat hack with big pecs.
The only really revolutionary thinker to be president in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan. Sometimes he went so far out of the box it took your breath away. He actually moved the lines--SDI and taxes are just two examples. The rest of our presidents have just been fiddlers around the margin. The only one running today that has a chance of being outside the box is Thompson. Principled federalism is an idea that has been pretty much abandoned by both parties. So it is a revolutionary idea (in context) that could be paradigm shifting.
And just like with Stalin, they'll deny they ever wrote these articles.
Bill and Shrillary have two things going for them the other RATs don't: a functioning secret police, and endless amounts of dirty money from Red China. One guy gets a Fort Marcy dirtnap, and everybody else pays attention after that.
We've seen them give thumbs up or down to other RAT candidates since they pardoned their way out of the White House. Effectively, there's no democracy left in the Democrat party. Even the elite media kowtow, and put in the proper shills for both the RAT and pubbie debates. It's all about as subtle as a Stalinist show trial.
According to US census data from 2006, 22% of the electorate is 18 - 29 and 78% is 30 or older. The writer of the article is a dolt on many levels.
I don't believe this line for a minute. People born after 1980 seem to be the generation that never grows up. I was born in 1976 and most of my peers have more interest in listening to childish hip-hop music than getting out to vote. If the above line is true, then Ron Paul will be a shoo in which isn't going to happen.
Did their internal polls in '06 suggest that Bill would win (via Hillary)? Thus, not worth wasting the effort?
“I also wonder if the media isn’t fed up with being threatened and controlled by the clintonista mafiosa - and they see a way out from under their heel -”
I agree. The media is liberal but they are also journalists. They are sick of the avoidance of tough questions and the hiding of the first lady’s records. They realize that if the Clintons get into power again, the press will be blocked out. There won’t be no straight talk express there, that’s for sure.
This may be one of the few times I think the low birth rate is good for Republicans. The 18-28 year old group is smaller than in the past so all of the brain washed kids are a smaller group than they would otherwise be.
A lower birth rate also means more people in the older age brackets and they have a better chance of voting R.
I have looked at the DEM field long and hard. They have one sorry lineup.
08 will be a good year for us.
FR bookmark
I agree. The percentage of people who cast their vote increases with age. Frankly, our country should benefit from this difference.
Regardless of what the law has decreed, how many 18, 19, 20 and 21 year-olds can we honestly say are "adults". I'd include some additional years.
Yet, age doesn't guarantee intelligence and good sense. We still have the duped liberals; the women who will vote for Clinton simply because she is a woman; and blacks who will vote for Obama just because his father is from Kenya, Africa.
lurk moar newguy
Because the R's don't have any superstar governors? Arnold is the only possible candidate for that title and he's a Democrat, not constitutionally qualified to be president.
The race is wide open in 2008. I have no idea if an R or a D is going to win.
Thanks for the statistical assist.
Some things I know only intuitively, and it’s always better to have the facts.
A sorry lineup, indeed. 230 years of freedom and we come up with these Marxist losers.
All of the Republican candidates far outshine them.
So what if she loses Iowa. It's a blue state that is going to go for her anyway in Nov. NH--same scenario. She'll pick Evan Bayh as her veep to try and make IN blue instead of red. She might carry Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, and even Kansas--all states which went for Bush in 2004 but served the Dems well in 2008 as they become bluer.
She's the most nationally electable of the Dems. Double treat--she brings Bill with her and his reality show is titled "Everybody Loves Bill".
This is just a temporary bump on her superhighway to the White House.
To me, the Fear Hillary stuff was a manipulative tool being used by the RNC and Rudy to try and herd everyone into voting for Rudy.
I find it offensive.
While I think we need to do everything, short of nominating another Liberal, to defeat her, she is not inevitable and can be beaten by just about any solid republican candidate as the current polls show.
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.