Premature 2008 Defeatism

American Thinker ^ | August 07, 2007 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

"One of the things I learned during the war was never to pick up my pen to transmit my own despair."

      - Albert Camus

So we've got a candidate who is among the most radical ever to stand for the presidency. One who was furthermore at the very center of the most corrupt administration in modern history. Who has a lengthy trail of dubious (to put it mildly) deals and arrangements behind her. Whose record as a senator is conspicuous for lack of any serious accomplishment. Who is, above all, one of the most unappealing personalities to run for president in this or any other era.

According to reputable polling, 52% of the voters have gone on record to declare that they will never, under any circumstances, cast their vote for Hillary Clinton. The last time I looked, 48% was a losing number in the presidential sweepstakes.

You'd think that, under those conditions, the GOP would be aching to come to grips with Hillary. But you'd be wrong. According to the conservative commentariat, the election is over, a year and more ahead of time, and Hillary has it in the bag.

It's a similar case with Congress. The Democrats, in control of both the House and the Senate, have astonished the world by getting even less done than the recent GOP Congress. None of their electoral promises have been kept. (Apart from raising the minimum wage, which took eight months, and an "ethics" bill distinguished only by the fact that it's emptier than most such exercises - I'm surprised they didn't add an earmark or two before they passed it.) Their greatest effort was put into trying to pass - not once, but twice - the immigrant amnesty act, possibly the most actively detested bill of the new century. The boast of the new Congress, run by some of the most ghastly personalities on the national stage (Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, and Reid) is that they've done their best to undermine the Iraq war effort - not, historically, a stance to gain much in the way of a public following. (Trust me on that; I've checked.)

The numbers concur here as well. Confidence in the Congress bottomed out at14%, one the worst levels (the worst, did I hear someone say?) on record. Fool all the people all the time? This crew can scarcely fool themselves.

But we get the same response from conservative pundits - the Congress is lost. Forget about 2008; head for high ground, the deluge is coming.

In recent weeks we've heard variations of this chant from Mona Charen, Robert Novak, Dick Morris, Tony Blankley, and John Podhoretz, among many others. The GOP is "tottering on the edge of a cliff," falling short in fundraising, losing voters, alienating minorities. A statistical shift "stunning in its ferocity" threatens to condemn the Republicans to long-term minority status. (These ferocious numbers originated in a poll by CBS, not traditionally a friend of the GOP.) Morris sees things the most bleakly. He's ready to write-off the Republicans as an artifact of history that may squeeze out one more election after Hillary throws the nation into chaos, but will become one with the Whigs and Federalists shortly thereafter.

This loser's attitude is largely shared by politicians, fundraisers, political activists, all the way down to posters on the Net. An electoral landscape that would have had the party chomping at the bit under Gingrich or even as late as 2004 now arouses only wails of despair. Is there any actual reason to join them? Can things actually be that bad?                      

The 2006 election lies at the heart of the GOP's current malaise. It's true the party suffered a whipping. What's often overlooked is that it was a deserved whipping. Republicans had grown overconfident to the point of arrogance. They had begun to believe that control of Congress was theirs by right. They elected a leadership that was slow, dull, and obtuse. Internal situations were allowed to fester into open scandal. No attention was paid to the requirements of the voters or the party membership. If a single worthwhile bill (e.g., an intelligent immigration bill) had been passed during the last year of GOP control, the Republicans would still be in charge. No such effort was made. The 2006 loss was what the GOP had coming. There are plenty of lessons in that loss; the question is whether they have been heeded.

Then we have the war. Lengthy wars have always been punished by the voters. Both Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson were forced out of office due to wars over which they were perceived to have lost control. Bush avoided that fate in 2004, but the weight now appears to have fallen on his party. It's widely accepted that 2006 was punishment for Iraq, and that in 2008 the voters will reach for a heavier whip.

The GOP allowed itself to become entwined with the publicly despised amnesty bill. Granted that it was the President's bill, what sense was there in trying push it through twice, in such close cooperation with the Democrats? It achieved absolutely nothing other than giving Trent Lott an opportunity to make an ass of himself pontificating about the "will of the Senate". (Not that any power on earth can put a halt to that.)

And finally, there's Bush's continuing unpopularity. His ratings remain in the low 30s as if nailed there. If there's anything close to being an iron law of politics, it's that a party's popularity follows that of its leadership.

There it is. A pretty bleak-looking landscape, on the face of it. But a closer examination of these factors reveal reasons to believe that things are by no means as hopeless as they've been painted. 

If the GOP of 2006 deserved its beating, today's Dems are if anything worse. They're not only corrupt, incompetent, and arrogant, they're energetic about it. They seem to be operating under the impression that they were elected to outdo the GOP at this kind of thing. There's not a single piece of ineptitude or corruption that they're not underlining, highlighting, and capitalizing with as much in the way of in-your-face theatricality as they can produce. Which in the case of people like Schumer, Pelosi, and Murtha is plenty. The Republicans have been lax in taking advantage of this, but maybe that's all to the good. There's such a thing as gilding the lily.

The sudden change in fortunes in Iraq has pulled the carpet out from under the Dems. It appears that their entire 2008 strategy was based on hammering the war effort, and that Gen. David Petraeus's success with the surge has caught them with no plan B. So we can gather from House Majority Whip James Clyburn's comments, a favorable report by Petraeus would be "a real big problem for us." To say the least. The Democratic response has been to put their hands over their ears and hold their breaths: witness Representative Nancy Boyda's tantrum over General Jack Keane's optimistic testimony, which amounted to "I won't listen and you can't make me."

It's difficult to see how the Dems can maneuver their way out of this. The best they can do is to hope things turn sour and validate their position as defeatists, a stance that has its own shortcomings. The Democrats may have won the netroots, only to lose everyone else.

The amnesty bill was a bipartisan botch. But two things must be kept in mind: the biggest senatorial name attached to that bill was "Kennedy", and the thing was finally put to sleep through the efforts of a group of junior Republicans. There are plenty of ways the Dems can be made to ache over their part in that fiasco, from Harry Reid, who had the gall to reintroduce the bill after it was clear that the nation at large had rejected it, on down.

And there's something odd about Bush's unpopularity - it doesn't seem to have much of an effect. Perhaps because he ignores it, and perhaps also because it is to a large extent artificial, the product of seven straight years of media and Democratic effort. If you asked the sixty-odd percent majority what antagonizes them most about Bush, the majority probably would simply shrug and say, "Well, everybody says the same thing..." No particulars, no real grievances. Bush's unpopularity may be strictly situational, fated to change when circumstances do. In any case, he's not running in 2008. It would be best for the GOP to act as if this is not a factor at all.

So much for rational reasons. There's nothing unusual about any of these. They've been encountered before, and are the material of everyday political business. Methods of handling them are not a mystery. But that's not all there is to it in this election cycle. The irrational is playing just as large a role, as it always does when the Clintons are involved. 

The Clintons, as we all know, are untouchable. Nothing can get at them. Scandals, payoffs, corruption, the odd intern - everything bounces off. Anything they want simply falls into their hands. And anyone who stands against them... Well, there're some things we don't talk about.

Over the top? More than a little absurd? Agreed. But people act as if exactly that were nothing other than the absolute truth. The Clintons, in the eyes of their opponents, are living out a Stephen King novel in which they're enjoying the benefits of a pact made with the Prince of Air and Darkness many years ago (involving the sacrifice of a spare campaign worker), for an opportunity at unlimited power, with complete immunity until the awful terms of the bargain are at last worked out. (If my memory isn't playing foolish, childish tricks on me, King actually did put out a book not too dissimilar to this.)

Some element of primitivism always exists in the way a nation treats its leaders (consider Kennedy as the sacrificial king, Nixon as the public scapegoat), but in the Clinton's case, we're dealing with almost pure superstition. It's embodied in the way people talk about them, the way they're portrayed, the way their opponents react to them. (A few days ago, Lucianne.com featured a picture of Hillary smiling through a curtain with the caption "Be Very Afraid", the clearest representation of these fears that you'll find.)

Hillary has spoken. She wants the Oval Office, and no one will stand in her way. At the proper moment, Bill will stride forward, exert his demoniac charm on the voting public, and the presidency will drop into their hands like ripe fruit. And all those who defied them will look out some dank midnight to find Carville, eyes aglow behind his dark glasses, coming down the sidewalk at the head of the Legions of the Damned... (I'm starting to scare myself here!).

Well, anybody who truly believes the Clintons are untouchable needs to consult with a man named Kenneth Starr. Those who think Hillary always gets what she wants need to talk to Ira Magaziner about something called "health care." As for Bill's unfailing charm - there's no better authority than the man himself. Take a good look at Bill the Elder Statesman these days. All those Whoppers have been taking their toll. He's had his first heart operation. He's no longer the sleek stud of the public imagination. Time waits for no man, and it did not wait for Bill Clinton. It remains to be seen how much of that legendary personal magnetism remains. 

Plenty of doubters exist in the Democratic camp. Not all of that 52% against Hillary is Republican. How else do we explain the phenomenon of Barack Obama? He hangs on despite manifest inexperience and flakiness for one reason alone: he's not Hillary Clinton. And when the nomination finally shakes down, are all those Obama fans going to Hillary? It's not likely.

As it stands, 2008 is in no one's bag. Once stripped of Hillary the Invincible, the Democrats really don't have all that much going for them. There's not an issue that doesn't threaten to blow up in their faces. They have saddled themselves with the ugly labels of defeatist and appeaser, labels that they will find very difficult to peel off. Their overconfidence is a sight to behold, their arrogance without precedent. Charles Schumer, the Democratic Mister Rogers, has suggested the Congress simply not confirm any more of the President's Supreme Court nominations. 

The Dems have openly embraced gay rights, including overturning the Defense of Marriage act and allowing gays in the military. Last week, unhappy with the way a vote was going, Democrats in the House simply threw out the results and reopened the voting once they'd lined up a few more of their people, the kind of procedure common in countries run by people with names like Mugabe and Chavez.

Such behavior contains the seeds of its own correction. Retribution comes not from any particular effort, but simply because of the way the universe operates. Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. At this moment the Democrats are as mad as any political party in this nation's history.           

The Dems will overreach. The Republicans simply have to be ready. In the meantime, they need to pull the party together, and show a united front. Exert some discipline on flyover Machiavellis such as Domenici and Lugar. The young members are a valuable resource, lively, ambitious, and energetic. Use them. Make the Democrats pay for every last stand they take, be it approval of gay marriage or attacks on conservative judges. There's nothing new about any of this. The party knows how it's done. What remains is to do it.

As far as the presidency goes, the best candidate is the one least likely to be affected by Republican funk and least impressed by Hillary. That, like it or not, is Rudy Guiliani.

As for the punditocracy, what's needed is to keep in mind an idea expressed by William James, the brother of Henry James, who instead of devoting himself to intricate, exquisitely-written novels, worked out the concrete, no-nonsense philosophy of Pragmatism. In his book Varieties of Religious Experience, James wrote of the "leap of faith": contemplate yourself trapped on a high mountain, facing a deep chasm, with no safe route back or around. Do you leap that chasm full of doubts and misgivings, or confidently, convinced you can get across in perfect safety?

The question answers itself. The next time you sit down to write about the coming debacle, to "transmit despair" as Camus put it, think twice. Think about that chasm, think about how you'd get across. Think about how a week is as long as a year in politics, and how we have more than a year to go. And think at last about how you may be taking the entire country across with you. Then make that leap.

J.R. Dunn is consulting editorof American Thinker

[neverdem]

I don't see how Giuliani makes it through the primaries. Not that I really care for him. If he can make it through the primaries, I'll vote for him without much enthusiasm. But I think the neoCOMs have dug themselves some big holes and can't stop digging. Giuliani has no strategy against Islamism that I can discern. Our current accounts deficit don't make sense.

The Unlikely Frontrunner - Is the GOP in for a Rudy awakening?

Giuliani spends a good deal of every stump speech stressing the need for America "to stay on offense" in the war on terror. His precise conception of that war, and his approach to foreign affairs in general, is harder to pin down. To the extent that he's amplified his view of the terror war, it seems much closer to the economic determinism of the moderate realist school than to the notorious butt-kicking strategy of the neoconservative warrior class. Indeed, he says the "war on terror" is itself a misnomer; he prefers the term "the terrorists' war on us," which does sound rather more defensive.

"Americans hate war," he recently told the Churchill Club, a gathering of Silicon Valley executives. "We're at war because they want to come here and kill us, not because we want to go there and kill them. We want to do business with them. We would love to have them all wired and part of the Internet buying American products, and then we'll buy their products. And then we'll have the kind of issues we have with China and India, like we used to have with Japan. But those are good issues to have. That's America, that's what America is about."

In the end, he says, victory in the terror war may come down to commerce. "Technology has transformed the world," he told the executives. "Part of the way we're ultimately going to win the war on terror is through that technology. We're going to win the war on terror because, yes, we have to be militarily strong, we have to consider defending ourselves, but ultimately we overcome terrorism when those parts of the world that haven't connected yet connect to the global economy."

Consider China, he said. "China has plugged in. It's still a dictatorship, and they have to overcome that. But they've plugged into the global economy. If you think of where the terrorists are coming from, those are places that haven't plugged in. Ultimately economic freedom pushes you to political freedom. . . . We need to be strong, we need to be determined, but we also need to connect as many of these [Middle Eastern] countries as possible to doing business with us, to being connected to the Internet with us."

[capt. norm]

A lot of people I talk to (liberals and others) seem to think it would be ridiculous to keep this chain (Bush-Clinton-Bush) going by putting another Clinton in the White House.

[Graybeard58]

It is my contention that any of the Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Rudy, can and will beat either Hillary or Obama.

[rhombus]

Of course Hillary is beatable unless WE give it to her the way we gave it to Bill.

[FlipWilson]

I believe the pessimism does come from the 2006 election. We are, after all, closer to that election than the next one. But I have a feeling once push comes to shove and the battle is joined, conservatives will regain their optimism and drive.

[mmichaels1970]

As far as the presidency goes, the best candidate is the one least likely to be affected by Republican funk and least impressed by Hillary. That, like it or not, is Rudy Guiliani.

Reading the article, enjoying it, minding my own business, and then SLAP!

[cinives]

The last time I looked, 48% was a losing number in the presidential sweepstakes.

Bill did it with 42% - he never got 50+%; however, I don't see a 3rd party contender to siphon off Pubbie voters like Perot did.

[dirtboy]

As far as the presidency goes, the best candidate is the one least likely to be affected by Republican funk and least impressed by Hillary. That, like it or not, is Rudy Guiliani.

What a joke. A Rudy nomination is Hillary's best, if not only chance, to win the White House with a plurality, just like Bubba did in 1992. If you have unfavorables over 50 percent, you need two other candidates to split the vote - and Rudy would split the GOP like no one else running.

[RC2]

I don’t believe the Republican Party is dead yet. If they keep going the way they are, I may change my mind.

As for “The Clintons, as we all know, are untouchable. Nothing can get at them. Scandals, payoffs, corruption, the odd intern - everything bounces off.”......I don’t believe they are untouchable either. The American people just need to get their hackles up enough to put them in their place and hold them accountable for their actions. Our people need to start standing up for their country for a change.

[TonyRo76]

» ...never to pick up my pen to transmit my own despair. - Albert Camus

Camus?!?

Well, if he'd followed his own advice, then that whining atheist Euroweenie wouldn't have written any books at all.

[MEGoody]

I have no clue what is in the head of ‘conservatives’ who claim that Hillary is as good as in. They’re either just ignorant of the facts, or they are purposefully trying to undermine the election to help Hitlery. Either way, it’s inexcusable.

[neverdem]

"The last time I looked, 48% was a losing number in the presidential sweepstakes."

That's folks who say they won't vote for someone. Hillary had one poll where 52 % said that they won't vote for her.

Bill did it with 42% - he never got 50+%; however, I don't see a 3rd party contender to siphon off Pubbie voters like Perot did.

I don't see a far left Bloomberg doing it. Ditto global warming Al Gore.

[mmichaels1970]

right on!

[monday]

“What a joke. A Rudy nomination is Hillary’s best, if not only chance, to win the White House with a plurality, just like Bubba did in 1992. If you have unfavorables over 50 percent, you need two other candidates to split the vote - and Rudy would split the GOP like no one else running.”

What you and several others on this thread fail to realize is that Hillary is going to spit the Democrat vote even more than Rudy would split the Republican vote. Indeed any candidate is going to split party votes since no one is perfect but there are many Democrats out there who will crawl across broken glass to vote against Hillary, especially if the alternative is someone socially liberal like Guiliani. Hillary is quite possibly the most hated and reviled woman on the planet. As much as you hate Rudy, it doesn't come close to the hatred Hildibeast can evoke.

[Dammit]

A Rudy nomination is Hillary's best, if not only chance, to win the White House with a plurality, just like Bubba did in 1992. If you have unfavorables over 50 percent, you need two other candidates to split the vote - and Rudy would split the GOP like no one else running.

Split between whom? Who is the third party candidate that will fool the Republicans again?

[Dammit]

A small number of the purported GOP voters hate Rudy. Many of them are here.

But if it was a significant number, we’d at least see him trailing in numerous polls. We see just the opposite.

Polls don’t mean much in August when nobody is really paying attention to these things. But if the predicted groundswell of anti-Rudy sentiment was going to appear “after voters learn what his positions really are” then it already would have. He’s been beat up for six months, and the only thing that has hurt his poll numbers is the inclusion of Thompson as an alternative in the polling questions.

Who knows if Thompson will actually run, but his momentum and fundraising will lag the longer he waits. Who wants to contribute to his campaign while he “tests the waters” for months on end? Either he can swim or he can’t, but he doesn’t need to keep testing the damn waters.

[Kellis91789]

I have hopes that the Dims will be so disillusioned with the work of their Congress that they’ll stay away from the 2008 polls in droves. Just as happened to the Republicans in 2006.

I also can’t believe the Clintons’ past has thus far been almost completely unused by the Republicans. I feel confident that will change once we reach the general election. I look forward to TV ads that are nothing but a montage of the Clinton embarrassments, shady deals, mysterious deaths, etc.

I’m fairly optimisitic that several of the Republicans can beat Clinton. Rudy, Romney, or Hunter. With Hunter my preference.

[dirtboy]

What you and several others on this thread fail to realize is that Hillary is going to spit the Democrat vote even more than Rudy would split the Republican vote

Wrong. At the end of the day, the Dems are desperate to win back the White House.

[dirtboy]

Split between whom? Who is the third party candidate that will fool the Republicans again?

More like, who is the third party candidate who will emerge if the GOP lurches too far left again in response to the siren call of the Rockefeller wing of the party?

[RJL]

The GOP is "tottering on the edge of a cliff," falling short in fundraising, losing voters, alienating minorities. A statistical shift "stunning in its ferocity" threatens to condemn the Republicans to long-term minority status.

So the whole support and stand with illegal aliens and the Mexican government and attacking their base voters didn't work out for the Republican leadership?

LOL... Didn't see that coming!

[monday]

“Wrong. At the end of the day, the Dems are desperate to win back the White House.”

Maybe. Bush has demoralized Republican voters and none are willing to vote for anyone but their favorite, like you, so, I never thought I would say this but, Hildibeast looks like she could win despite the fact that she makes peoples skin crawl and sends shivers down their backs. Wow, what a monster she is going to be once in office. Looks like the bad old days are due to come back around 2008-2009.

National health care, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, stock market crashes. Jeez.... the beast of the apocalypse sitting in the oval office.

[Dammit]

Okay, then answer the question you posed.

It’s not Bloomberg.

Alan Keyes?

[Graybeard58]

Nobody is talking about the elephant in the room and that is the fact, from a life time of personal observation, that democrats as a whole are a racist, sexist bunch. I personally know dems who would never vote for a woman, because of the simple fact that she’s a woman. Ditto on a black person.

[SuziQ]

I’ve thought, since the election in 2006, that this caterwauling about losing to the Democrats was a little premature. Instead of bitching and moaning, Republicans need to be out there working for a candidate, WITHOUT bashing and belittling those who are working for their own. Remember, at some point, there will only be ONE Republican, and we don’t want to have poisoned the water so much that other Republicans, and even some Independents, won’t vote for him because of some offense or perceived slight by one of his supporters. We need to get beyond that silliness and think about the COUNTRY, not just about our own feelings.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

“Polls don’t mean much in August when nobody is really paying attention to these things. But if the predicted groundswell of anti-Rudy sentiment was going to appear “after voters learn what his positions really are” then it already would have. He’s been beat up for six months, and the only thing that has hurt his poll numbers is the inclusion of Thompson as an alternative in the polling questions.”

People who weren’t paying attention 6 months ago aren’t paying attention now. FR is a very aware website—political junkies most of us. We represent the Republican primary voters—the most aware of them. Perhaps 30-50% of the PRIMARY voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abortion stance. Since only 20% vote in the primary, that means 6-10% of the Republican voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abort stance.

As the primary approaches—December, January 2008, we’ll see Rudy’s numbers go down.

[colorado tanker]

I agree with the article. Hillary is our secret weapon that might allow us to hold the White House.

OTOH, I think prospects for re-taking either house of Congress are bleak, given the lack of vulnerable or open seats, even as bad as the present Dim congress has been. They have been so bad, however, they may not get the pickups they think they will.

[Clintonfatigued]

What the article says is true, but what’s important is what it doesn’t say. It’s not enough for the Democrats to be arrogant, corrupt, and incompetent. Republicans need to give the public a reason to vote FOR THEM, not just against the Democrats.

[Dammit]

Perhaps 30-50% of the PRIMARY voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abortion stance. Since only 20% vote in the primary, that means 6-10% of the Republican voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abort stance.

That's a whole bunch of unsupported assumptions compiled into a completely ridiculous conclusion.

If only 6-10% of Republican voters know of Rudy's abortion position, then we are frankly too stupid to even vote.

I think you're completely wrong, but if you're right, forget it. A dice toss would likely provide a better result.

[neverdem]

What the article says is true, but what’s important is what it doesn’t say. It’s not enough for the Democrats to be arrogant, corrupt, and incompetent. Republicans need to give the public a reason to vote FOR THEM, not just against the Democrats.

That was true before September 11, 2001. I'm not sure it is any more. They are in almost complete denial about national security and the Islamist threat. They have pandered their socialist schemes/entitlement programs for so long with financing that's going bankrupt. Socialized medicine in other countries means rationing health care or falling back on the private sector.

[codercpc]

Perhaps 30-50% of the PRIMARY voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abortion stance. Since only 20% vote in the primary, that means 6-10% of the Republican voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abort stance.

Are you kidding? Every single article written about Rudy says that he is pro - choice, or socially liberal, or some other wording. Even those written by his supporters point that out. He certainly doesn't shy away from it. His strengths are Security, and Fiscal concerns. I can honestly say, without exaggeration that every single person I know that may or may not vote in primaries knows that Rudy is not pro life.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Me: “Perhaps 30-50% of the PRIMARY voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abortion stance. Since only 20% vote in the primary, that means 6-10% of the Republican voters are aware of Rudy’s pro-abort stance.”

Dammit: “That’s a whole bunch of unsupported assumptions compiled into a completely ridiculous conclusion.”

You’re right—my assumption was that the non-primary voters are completely uninformed. False and guilty as charged.

But it doesn’t matter. Only the primary voters matter. I still feel only about 50% (at best!) know that Rudy is pro-choice.

Certainly on FR, that’s 90+%. But this is not a random sample.

I’m relying on the majority of people don’t read or watch news==even Republicans. This responds to codercpc’s comment:

“Are you kidding? Every single article written about Rudy says that he is pro - choice, or socially liberal, or some other wording. Even those written by his supporters point that out. He certainly doesn’t shy away from it. His strengths are Security, and Fiscal concerns. I can honestly say, without exaggeration that every single person I know that may or may not vote in primaries knows that Rudy is not pro life.”

Yes the word has gotten out—to those who pay attention. The majority of people try to ignore politics.

Our guesses will only last until the facts will come out with the NH and IA primaries.

[neverdem]

Fake photos used in embryonic stem cell research IMHO, we lost a U.S. Senate seat in MO because of ignorance and propaganda about the stem cell debate. hocndoc's linked comment is definitely worth an attempt to start to understand the subject. It's not easy. Who said it was?

Beauchamp Recants Thanks to the ping from Robert A. Cook, PE, my favorite FR engineer. Check out the links to phony stories.

Why 'liberal' doesn't quite fit USAToday link from Jonah Goldberg. He hit a homer.

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[hosepipe]

Hitlery with Obama as VeeP and Bill Clinton as kicker as first gentleman.. will garner the twinkleized vote(i.e. most women).. and many/most twinkleized males will swoon..

Hitlery will be hard to beat.. with Obama.. and Bubba...
Any says it will easy are smoking some strong stuff..

Duncan can get no traction, Fred Thompson looks like a President and probably act like one, but only Newt has the brains to solve Americas sever problems..

America does not want Newt.. Hitlery {spit} will win..
Just watch Newt at the National Press Club.. He was manificent..
But the Twinkleized VOTE(i.e. most women) and twinkleized males will elect Hitlery.. WHY?.. NO republican candidate will say what needs saying.. for fear of sounding like a doom sayer, hyper-ventilating...

America is swimming in deep doo-doo.. in a sewer up to its neck..
Might take a nuke in one our citys to SLAP us back to reality..
Meanwhile Hitlery is gonna win.. and will KILL the economy with taxes but she will win..

[SunkenCiv]

The Democrats, in control of both the House and the Senate, have astonished the world by getting even less done than the recent GOP Congress. None of their electoral promises have been kept. (Apart from raising the minimum wage, which took eight months, and an "ethics" bill distinguished only by the fact that it's emptier than most such exercises - I'm surprised they didn't add an earmark or two before they passed it.) Their greatest effort was put into trying to pass - not once, but twice - the immigrant amnesty act, possibly the most actively detested bill of the new century. The boast of the new Congress, run by some of the most ghastly personalities on the national stage (Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, and Reid) is that they've done their best to undermine the Iraq war effort - not, historically, a stance to gain much in the way of a public following.

Thanks Neverdem.

[hocndoc]

And you knocked another one out of the park. Thanks for the pings and for the link!

[Lexinom]

Bingo! You've got it, white is white, and black is black. Too many people seem to be seeing the world as a negative print.

Here's why: the character of most of the Republican candidates, on display next to that of Hillary Clinton, will prevail in the hearts and minds of Americans.

Also, Iraq will likely be moving in a positive direction.

Those two things combined - character, and strength on the national security - put our guy head and shoulders above any of the Dem's candidates. Put Rudy up, and you forfeit the character advantage.

Now, let's go nominate someone worthy of the job!

[Lexinom]

Right you are! At present, groupthink rules the day. You have the only-Rudy-can-beat-Hillary groupthink ("IDIOT! STUPID MORON! DON'T YOU HAVE A BRAIN? BEATING HILLARY IS ALL THAT MATTERS!!!"), the Americans-will-no-vote-for-a-patriot groupthink ("Tancredo, Huckabee, and Hunter are too conservative"), the I'm-too-selfish-to-care-about-anything-but-my-TV-and-easy-chair groupthink ("Only the WOT matters, I don't give a damn about 40 million dismembered babies, pornography and the Lord's name in vain on TV, or sodomarriage, only about myself and my taxes").

I believe the nomination process will provide a referendum on America, given that with much hard work and respect for the wiles of the enemy within we likely will prevail come November 2008.

[Berosus]

From ThePeoplesCube.com:

“Democrat Congress’s two major victories: minimum wage increase and al-Qaeda’s restored operating capability”

[Mygirlsmom]

I have hopes that the Dims will be so disillusioned with the work of their Congress that they’ll stay away from the 2008 polls in droves

One thing you gotta say for the dead..and the deadbeats.....they're a solid voting block. They always show up.

[SunkenCiv]

:’) It won’t be long before the DP platform calls for the removal of the presidential images from Mt Rushmore.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[curiosity]

Great article. I'm forwarding it to every politically active friend of mine. This defeatism I'm seeing on the right really has to stop, and this article may be the right medicine.

[curiosity]

Of course, as a Romney supporter, I must disagree with this sentence:

"As far as the presidency goes, the best candidate is the one least likely to be affected by Republican funk and least impressed by Hillary. That, like it or not, is Rudy Guiliani."

But other than that, great article!

[curiosity]

Polls don’t mean much in August when nobody is really paying attention to these things. But if the predicted groundswell of anti-Rudy sentiment was going to appear “after voters learn what his positions really are” then it already would have.

Well, I don't think voters know much about his positions yet. They know he's pro-abortion, but his radicalism on the issue hasn't been broadly disseminated yet. A lot of Republicans are willing to hold their nose and vote for someone who is mildly pro-abortion, but there's nothing mild about Rudy's position.

[Coleus]

.

[neverdem]

Meanwhile Hitlery is gonna win.. and will KILL the economy with taxes but she will win..

On the basis of what? And if she gets the nomination, don't forget Al Gore, after Obama's latest miscues, IMHO, Bill Richardson will be the neoCOM's VP nominee. I'll be quite surprised if any woman or minority becomes the first President of that persuasion who is not conservative. Yes, many women will vote for her just because she is a woman, but we live in interesting times, not some feminist utopia.

NeoCOMs will get you killed. Have you noticed that they are pushing national health insurance again, not to mention gun control? They can't help themselves.

[davidosborne]

I want comment on the “vote splitting” debate... I believe DUNCAN HUNTER will SPLIT the “union” vote across the board with his Secure America/Buy American message.. the unions are already fighting over the “thought” of supporting a Republican.... this is huge.. and certainly in the best intrests of ALL conservatives..

[hosepipe]

[.. NeoCOMs will get you killed. Have you noticed that they are pushing national health insurance again, not to mention gun control? They can't help themselves. ..]

Yes I have.. its diabolical..

Hitlery and Obama plus Bubba will be the team..
You can count on it.. WHOs got all the money?... (spending none of it yet)
See what I mean..