One Down, Two to Go

Townhall.com ^ | May 8, 2008 | Ann Coulter

[Kaslin]

Well, it looks like it's the end of the road for Hillary. Time for her to pack up her pantsuits and go back to ... wherever it is she's pretending to be living these days. Now we just have to get rid of the other two. Perhaps if I endorse Obama ...

This week, Bill Clinton lost his second presidential election for a protege.

Ronald Reagan was so popular, he not only won a 49-state landslide re-election for himself, but he also won a symbolic third term for his boob of a vice president, George Herbert Walker Bush (who immediately blew it by breaking his own "no new taxes" pledge).

By contrast, in addition to not being able to get half the country to vote for him in two tries, Clinton's connection to any other presidential candidate spells utter doom. Both his vice president and his wife have been defeated in elections they should have won, but lost because of their unfortunate association with him. The country has spoken. It wants to be rid of the Clintons.

The reason two elections in recent history -- the 2000 presidential election and the 2008 Democratic primary -- were razor-close is that in both cases there was some strange, foreboding, otherworldly force dragging down the presumptive winner.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, lost an election that should have been his in a walk. In fact, he was the first incumbent president or vice president in 100 years to lose an election in peacetime with a good economy. Mind you, that was before we even knew that Gore was a deranged conspiracy theorist who believes the Earth is in serious peril from cow flatulence.

What was the mystery factor to explain such a historic loss?

The media's pollsters may have lied to the public about Clinton's vaunted popularity, but Gore's pollsters got paid not to lie to him. And they told Gore the truth: Clinton was killing him.

After the election, Gore pollster -- and erstwhile Clinton pollster -- Stanley Greenberg told Vanity Fair magazine that if Clinton had helped, he said he would have "had Bill Clinton carry Al Gore around on his back." (This was when one man could still actually carry Al Gore on his back.) But research showed that whenever Clinton was mentioned, Gore's numbers went down faster than -- oh, never mind.

Steve Rosenthal, political director of the AFL-CIO, also blamed Clinton for Gore's loss, saying polls showed that voters who cared about character voted for Bush. (I know, I know. Are there actually people who care about character and vote Democrat? Yes, apparently they exist.)

Poor Gore did everything he could to distance himself from Clinton, publicly criticizing Clinton's sexual exploits with an intern, refusing to allow Clinton to campaign with him and taking as his vice president Joe Lieberman -- the first Democratic senator to scathingly denounce Clinton's antics with Lewinsky from the Senate floor.

But voters couldn't forget Gore's boss, the purple-faced lecher.

As election predictors go, the Dow Jones has been remarkably accurate. If the Dow goes up from the end of July to the end of October, the incumbent president or vice president wins; if it goes down, the incumbent loses. It has been wrong only four times since the Dow was created in 1896.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 2000, an article in The New York Times began: "The verdict of the Dow Jones industrial average is in, and it says Al Gore is headed for the White House."

And yet Gore lost. It was only the third time in more than a century that the Dow went up in the three months before the election and the incumbent lost. The two other times were: (1) Herbert Hoover in the middle of the Great Depression, and (2) Hubert Humphrey in the middle of the Vietnam War. (The only time the Dow went down and the incumbent won anyway was for popular Dwight Eisenhower.)

So we have documented proof: Americans rank Bill Clinton with national misfortunes on the order of the Great Depression and the Vietnam War. (This, of course, is an overreaction: The Great Depression wasn't that bad.)

And now Bill Clinton has wrecked Hillary's campaign, too. He's like the creepy guy who graduated last year but still hangs around the high school cafeteria chatting up sophomores.

In a Time magazine poll taken earlier this year, more than twice as many voters said Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary's campaign made them less likely to vote for her as said they were more likely to vote for her. (Some even said that "having Bill Clinton around makes me less likely to vote for What's-Her-Name." One-third of the respondents were upset Bill didn't call the next day, like he promised.)

So before remembering that we are now left with two dangerous choices for president -- a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy -- take a moment to revel in the fact that our long national nightmare is over. It turns out getting rid of the Clintons was the change we've been waiting for.

[Kaslin]

I don’t think she should throw her towel in yet

[ReleaseTheHounds]

You are forgetting 9/11. Or do you think 9/11 would not have happened if Gore had become President? If you do then you are illusional. Also if Gore had been President, not only would we have had one attack but 2 or maybe even three, before he would have woken up and realized that we were attacked.

First of all, I would have been "delusional" not "illusional"... But no, I'm not suggesting we would have avoided 9/11. Gore would have been a disaster as a president -- both the war on terror and the recession would have been worse under Gore. But he would have had the power of incumbency (sp?) going for him and the support of the mainstreams, so I would not have been surprised if he had won two terms.

But it just goes to show: the Dems did themselves no favor in propping up the corrupt Bubba -- he cost them throughout the 1990's (state legislatures, governorships and Congress) and hopefully he's costing them now. Clinton will be viewed in history as a very fortunate president -- elected during a vacation from history and he exploited it to the fullest. He benefitted from a great economy not of his making or even supporting (other than giving in to lowering the capital gains tax pressed by the GOP Congress) and he spent every penny of the Cold War dividend by slashing military budgets (and intelligence budgets) leaving us unprepared for the War On Terror that was being pursued by our enemies during the 1990s and unleashed on us formally in 2001. And that's not being delusional.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I’ll never forgive the gutless GOP Senators who turned the impeachment proceedings into a farce. Arlen Specter’s “not proved” still turns my stomach. In many ways, the impeachment process was pressed too early thanks to all the Clinton stonewalling. The important stuff (sale of state defense technology secrets for campaign contributions) was put aside in favor of the Monica stuff and lying/perjury/suborning perjury. Those were all certainly impeachable acts but it allowed the GOP Senate “Leadership” to consider the charges unworthy of pursuing. But impeachment is a messy process — nonetheless, I celebrate the fact that William Jefferson Clinton goes into the history book as only the second impeached presidents of the United States — an honor he very much deserves.

[Kaslin]

First of all, I would have been "delusional" not "illusional"...

You are correct, my mistake>

But no, I'm not suggesting we would have avoided 9/11. Gore would have been a disaster as a president -- both the war on terror and the recession would have been worse under Gore. But he would have had the power of incumbency (sp?) going for him and the support of the mainstreams, so I would not have been surprised if he had won two terms.

Yet you admit yourself that Gore would have been a disaster, yet you asume he would have declared a war on terror. My point is he would not have and because of it, we would have been attacked at least another times besides 9/11. Also you say that the recession would have been worse under Gore, to which I completely agree with you 100 percent. Yet you assume he would have been reelected. My statement still stands. You are delusional.

Also you are forgetting about the peanut farmer from Georgia who practically brought us the terrorist attacks was a disaster was not reelected

[Kaslin]

I forgot to include that the worst President of all times is and was the peanut farmer from Georgia.

[astounded]

...”take a moment to revel in the fact that our long national nightmare is over. It turns out getting rid of the Clintons was the change we’ve been waiting for.”

Amen! If we have to stomach a President Obama (and, I hope, survive his incompetence), the silver lining remains the wooden stake being driven through the heart of the Clinton vampires. That, in itself, is a benefit.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Also you are forgetting about the peanut farmer from Georgia who practically brought us the terrorist attacks was a disaster was not reelected.

The peanut farmer was running against Ronald Reagan -- at a time when the misery index was up around 20%. Not even the American voting public would have been stupid enough to return Jimmy "Why Not the Best?" Carter to office when they had Reagan as their choice on the GOP side.

Two "delusionals" in one day (on one thread) -- for me, I think that's a record.

[devistate one four]

1st elected prez

[harpo11]

"It turns out getting rid
of the Clintons was the change
we've been waiting for."

Ann Coulter, what a marvelous jewel. This one sentence would make the best campaign slogan and bumper sticker ever! BRAVO!