It Takes an Agenda - Conservatives cannot live by Hillary-hate alone

The American Conservative ^ | November 13, 2007 | David Weigel

[HAL9000]

Excerpt -

“There’s a big difference between 2000 and 2007,” says John LeBoutillier, a former Republican congressman from New York and the head of Stop Hillary PAC. “In 2000, everyone on the Right hated Clinton and Gore, and we rallied to the guy we didn’t know: Bush. It’s different now. We hate Bush, and we hate the Bushes. We hate watching the Clintons palling around with the Bushes on goodwill tours and the like.”

There is another reason conservatives can’t count on Hillary: she offends and irritates them so deeply that they have trouble actually strategizing against her. They launch attacks, but compared to the carefully plotted Swift Boat strike on John Kerry or the years-long effort to spotlight Al Gore’s strange bragging and fibbing, the anti-Hillary attacks are erratic, grabbing early media attention and then fading out of the picture. Conservatives fixate on long-dormant scandals, like Bill Clinton’s treatment of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, without appreciating that reporters no longer want to chase those stories and that their very mention stokes sympathy for Clinton’s wife.

But it’s all some anti-Hillary agitators know how to do. In July, Sean Hannity told professional Hillary slayer Dick Morris the question he wanted some intrepid hack to ask the candidate: “Do you believe the women that claim that your husband serially abused them? Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones. Is that a legitimate and fair question?” Morris repeatedly shook his head and tried to explain where Hannity was going wrong: “Whenever anybody hits Hillary on her personal life, her marriage, or whether she is a lesbian or not, it plays into her hands.”

~ snip ~

[Hunterite]

Agree 100%. As much as I despise HRC and BC (more than just about anyone besides osama and his buddies) we cannot beat them with hate any more than the Libs could beat Bush with hate in 2004. You need to have an agenda, a platform, a reason to vote for you. Even more so in 2008 mired in a war and a huge spending spree. So far I haven’t seen any candidates with much of a positive message except Romney and Thompson. And both are pretty vague. Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo have some good ideas that need to be incorporated in the platform. Just being pro-life and anti-illegal and anti-Hillary isn’t gong to cut it. . Anti-Illegal is an agenda. Why are you putting that into the same category as Hillary bashing?

[Wolverine]

[Hunterite]

“While hate alone will not get it... who controls both Houses of Congress and what emotion catapulted them into power?”

Did Democrats win the election, or did Republicans not vote?

[melsec]

Personally I don’t think America is ready for a female president- especially Dillery. My wife mentioned the other day that she cannot understand why the media seems to fawn all over her: in my wife’s words “She seems like such a bitch”. If my non political wife can see that all the way from Australia with the limited coverage we get then I believe the decent women of America can also see right through her and will not vote for her.

This leaves only the singlet wearing, hairy armpitted women and the nuetered democrat males of America that will vote for her.

In my hmble opinion a win for Shillery in the primary’s will mean a repulican win - hopefully for Thompson - he seems like the only one (from this side of the Pacific) who has the balls and the vision to be a true Republican President.

Cheers

Mel

[Coldwater Creek]

The title of this article should be said loud and often.

Anyone but Bush is what lost the elections for the Dems.

[airborne]

Welcome to FreeRepublic!

[LibLieSlayer]

Silly question... you DO NOT take office without winning. Some Republicans in places like Virginia voted... for dims! No, they won on Bush hate... that is all that the dims have... and hildebeast is still running against Bush.

LLS

[KingofZion]

Hate had nothing to do with 2006 (though I know it must be comforting to think otherwise).

2006 was the result of

(1) GOP corruption in Congress (lost seats that were ultra-safe)
(2) GOP budgetary failures (spent more than Dems - lost fiscal conservatism mantle)

(3) Unpopular war (yes, I know that’s not the popular view here - but it IS unpopular in most towns)

(4) Katrina

(5) Historical pattern of 6th year losses for party in power.

The real question is whether the trend can be reversed. So far I see no signs. RATS have indeed failed to do anything, but that won’t be enough to kick them out.

[goldstategop]

I disagree. You can't beat nothing with nothing. That is exactly what Hillary is counting on if she is the Democratic nominee.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Mr Apple]

but running on the message of anti-Hillary

Let me clarify my post.
I think it is imperative that the Republican candidate ask Hillary in the coming debates next fall (if she is the Democrat candidate) about these particular Chinese agents I listed; why did she and Bill have repeated dealings with them year after year. And after being directly asked about these five individuals, see how she responds on stage with the whole world watching.