GOP Views Clinton As Virtually Unbeatable

The Politico ^ | 2/7/2007 | Carrie Sheffield and Jim VandeHei

[Mike Bates]

What many conservatives regard as the nightmare scenario -- President Hillary Rodham Clinton -- is increasingly seen by veteran Republican politicians and strategists as a virtual inevitability.

In GOP circles, the Democratic front-runner is seen as so strong, and the political climate for Republicans so hostile, that many influential voices -- including current and former lawmakers, and veterans of President Bush's campaigns -- have grown despairing. These partisans describe a political equivalent of the stages of grief, starting with denial, then resentment and ending with acceptance.

For now, these Republicans say the party needs good luck, including a change of fortune in Iraq, and a revival of organization and leadership in the conservative movement to avert another Clinton presidency.

"If the conservative movement and Republicans don't understand how massive the Clinton coalition is, she will be the next president," former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said in an interview last week, after giving a private talk to GOP lawmakers. Clinton will win, he added, "if we don't use everything available to us and motivate our base, the people that believe in us."

In his closed-door comments to conservative House members, DeLay warned of the wealth and political potency of the Clinton fundraising network.

"We do have to get our act together, and I'd agree with Tom DeLay on that," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa. "At this point, short an inspirational Republican nominee, then I would agree that it's going to be very difficult to beat Hillary if she wins the nomination."

Those comments echoed those by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich last month on Fox News:

[RockinRight]

Hunter has a better chance out of the two, and I like him.

Do you think he has a prayer?

[twonie]

Hey - the way that woman(?) lives, there is bound to be some new information by campaign time. We just need to be digging for it and having our swiftboaters well funded and standing by. Have a little faith!

[Mind-numbed Robot]

From the article:

These strategists are advising Republicans that it will be next to impossible to win the White House if Bush's popularity remains so low, and public disgust with the war so high. Beyond the polls,

Political strategists should be simply technicians who are skilled at the mechanics of the political campaigning process. They should NOT be poll takers, focus group conductors, and finally, position determiners. As they chase the "mushy middle" where the polls tell them the undecideds and weak supporters are they modify their message and lose their base.

That also means, as each candidate softens their stance to appeal to the wishy-washy voters the race becomes tweedle dee, tweedle dum. We never get a clear choice between the conservative position and the liberal scheme. We only get the lies from the left, their polls of "what the American people" think and our weak attempts to counter them. As a result, the person with the most money and the best organization wins.

To all conservatives I say ignore the polls and ignore the political consultants. Tell the voters what you believe and intend to do and get the technicians out there to bring out the voters.

[Seaplaner]

My good friends, I'm interested in the dynamic of much of the internecine feuding that goes on here.

I'll paraphrase a few for you here. "If the GOP nominates a wimp, I'm not voting!"

or

"If the base is ignored, the base will ignore the candidate

or

"We need someone with a M.O.R. appeal"

Consider this, if you will.

Our strategy should be to campaign for whomever we want for the PRIMARIES, for whatever reason. No worries.

THEN, our rock solid strategy is to support, AND VOTE for the whomever the GOP candidate might be.

Make no mistake, my friends. Hillary will do whatever she can to divide us. I suspect that she will orchestrate (clandestinely, from a distance) a third party candidate to siphon votes from the GOP. A neo-Perot, if you will.

So, and for example, even though John Sidney McCain gives me the absolute CREEPS, if he gets the nod, he gets my support and my vote.

Hillary is that dangerous.

[Mike Bates]

My good friends, I'm interested in the dynamic of much of the internecine feuding that goes on here.

FR is where you can disagree AND be disagreeable, even with folks who agree with you 90% of the time. :)

[jpl]

I'm not sure whether the Republican party stating that the conservative movement "needs leadership" is more laughable or sickening.

It's the Republican Party that desperately needs leadership, not the conservative movement.

[Seaplaner]

FR is where you can disagree AND be disagreeable, even with folks who agree with you 90% of the time.

I agree.

[chimera]

Hard to argue with your reasoning. I just wonder how far it will get with the "true believer" contingent. Sometimes I wonder if they'd rather see Hillary in the WH just to spite those they judge are not "pure enough", never mind the fatal damage she is sure to do the country if she gets in.

The '06 election in OH is a good case study. You had Republicans and conservatives tearing each other to shreds over who was or was not a "true conservative" or a "pure Republican", or "who could be elected" and who could not be. The result? The 'Rats swept essentially all the statewide offices, and a Republican Senator got the boot in favor of an ultraliberal 'Rat. I don't see how that result could be considered a good thing for either the Republican party, the conservative "movement", or the state.

[gulfcoast6]

To me it is the one who can beat Hill-O-Ree, most important.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

This should be made "presentation grade" and heavily forwarded and kept around untill the election...

That is why I am putting it out there...

[MNJohnnie]

Truth hurts. Guess it is no surprise the loudest whiners don't like hearing that their actions actively help Hillary's campaign.

[zeugma]

Let me guess; conservatives have to support frightened Big Government Republicans because the alternative is worse. So it's a choice between wuss and worse.

Yeah. I can't wait to read the pub-bots telling us we have to vote for mccain/rudy because the alternative is the beast.

Nothing like not standing for anything besides being against your opponent to motivate your base...

[commonguymd]

Nothing but useless tripe.

[Seaplaner]

I don't see how that result could be considered a good thing for either the Republican party, the conservative "movement", or the state.

Me neither.

Sometimes, it's important to step back and get the big picture of the true extent of the damage when folks choose to use their vote as a spite-filled "message".

The wrangling should and must occur before the primaries.

Post primaries, UNITY is the critical key.

(And for certain, the Dems will be going after our unity with a meat ax.)

.

[chimera]

I'm with you there. At the risk of being flamed by the "purists" and "truists", I will admit at this point that I am very narrowly focused on one thing, and that is keeping the 'Rats out of the WH in '08. That especially means Hillary! and/or Obamalamadingdong. Short of selling my soul, I will do whatever it takes, within the rules, to achieve that goal. I'm not saying sell out principles, because we should hold to them, but also keep in mind what the overall picture is. I really don't see how the Republican party of the "conservative movement" would be served having Hillary or Obama in the White House, the 'Rats controlling both houses of Congress by sizable majorities, appointing USSC and federal judges who will influence the legal course in this country for decades to come, and passing legislation that will bankrupt and ruin this nation for years. Hell, we're still paying the price for the last time that happened. Anyone remember 1964 and LBJ's "Great Society? I am old enough to remember that disaster. Want more of that? No thanks.

[Kevmo]

Duncan Hunter just needs one jump-the-shark Verrücktenfreude moment by Hillary Clinton in 2007.

Plus, it would help if Dick Cheney resigned the VP slot due to health reasons and gave the nod to the only true social conservative in the race.

Ronald Reagan would vote for Hunter

[NittanyLion]

More of your so-called "pouting and bitching". Sounds like you apply those standards only to others. Some might call that the mark of a hypocrite.

[zerosix]

Brought to you by most of the same bunch who are "advisers" like Morris, et al who believe that GOP lost last November BECAUSE they were "too conservative."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That attitude extists in many places where conservatives run against RINOs, aka Pa's Specter(Bush/Rove).

When moderates (really liberals at heart) have the option of voting for a FAUX moderate/liberal, they always go for the genuine article - dimocRATS not RINOs.

The worst part is that many if not most conservatives (not those who claim to be "fiscal conservatives) refuse to vote for the FAUX and the genuine liberal wins. Check out how your state performs after a RINO wins in the Primary, not always, but most times, the real liberal wins every time.

[NorthEastRepublican]

This itself is enough to make the case for Rudy

[Churchillspirit]

Thanks. You may be right.

I am now totally depressed.