Hillary Clinton's Return Engagement

Human Events ^ | 2/9/08 | D. R. Tucker

[MartinaMisc]

Can America survive a second Clinton Presidency? Yes, if necessary.

John McCain will likely lose the general election to Clinton because the Republican base has no use for the man. McCain is not as repugnant as some of his critics make him out to be, but for many conservatives, McCain’s liberalism on immigration, his demonization of the religious right and his embrace of the mainstream press make him an unbearable symbol of RINOism. The conservative base, disgusted by the lack of an undisputed conservative on the ballot, will stay home, thus guaranteeing Clinton's victory.

Anti-Clinton sentiment in this country is simply not high enough to prevent her from winning; let’s not forget that ten years ago, a majority of the country appeared to be unconcerned about Bill Clinton’s clear perjury and obstruction of justice in the Lewinsky case. There are plenty of Americans who are still (for whatever reason) fascinated by the Clinton family, and they will flood the polls on November 4 to give the former President a de facto third term.

Clinton was a mediocre (at best) President, to be sure, but the country managed to survive the harm he inflicted upon it. The same may be said of his wife one day. Conservatism is about optimism, so it behooves us on the right to consider the “benefits” of a Clinton presidency:

[Rudder]

The way I figure it, the ball is in the RINOS’ court. They want McCain and they don’t want conservatives-—let’s see how well they do on their own.

[Darkwolf377]

As was the case in 1993-1994, Clinton’s domestic liberalism will reinvigorate American conservatism. .... While I’d prefer a McCain victory to another four years of Clintonism, a Hillary win could turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the GOP.

I've been reading this same bull since Bill Clinton won, and what did it get us? A somewhat conservative Congress which wasn't enough to get anything past Clinton's veto pen, but GEE, folks, they sure TRIED, a Democrat congressional takeover in 2006, and George W. Bush, who those same all or nothing types loved because of his religious beliefs and who now despise him.

This writer is on crack--Hillary probably won't do much harm, and the SCOTUS probably won't go too far left because Kennedy probably won't do that (his evidence for this...?), and Hillary will push the dems to the right! LOL! He BUYS her "hawk on defense, dove on everything else" pose?

This election sure is getting people wacky.

[Joe Boucher]

What is this “progressive” B.S.?
Progressive means to move forward.
Liberals do not move forward they wallow in socialism, a failed idea of the past.

[familyop]

...Hillary Clinton as our President? Send your girls to the next real war. It’s coming soon. You can try to draft our boys to serve her, if you like. But they’ll be a little sluggish.

[familyop]

Allow me to rephrase that for accuracy. You can draft our boys to serve Hillary Clinton, if you like. But each of them will be a little sluggish, at times, and assuring his own survival above all else. You'll see a need to depose such a commander-in-chief and to get a real one into office very quickly. The enemy did not strike some tract house neighborhood full of potential recruits on September 11th. He went for the gold. ...something to bear in mind.

[TomGuy]

One general problem with Hillary being elected:

GWHB had his term. He was defeated by BJ Clinton. Then GWB was the next. Now, H Clinton may be the next one.

We are letting a couple of families run the Nation. That is NOT good for the Nation; but that is not my point.

My point is this:

If Hillary Clinton, wife of a former president, does win, that will open the door and give rise to the concept that every future First Lady could feel it her right, her responsibility to run for the presidency. The next one may even try to follow immediately after the spouse has 8 years. So we could be looking at 16-year family presidencies, unless and until the other politicians get fed up and pass a Constitutional amendment, as they did after FDR's being elected to four terms.

The presidency needs new blood, new leadership to keep the vision of the founders alive. Otherwise, the Nation will devolve into a country run by families, like many of the countries south of the border. And that is NOT good for the Nation.

[Robert DeLong]

As a conservative I am deeply depressed that we do not have someone I could go to the poll and vote for with enthusiasm, however, that is not the case. Instead I must choose what is best for the country. While I do not believe McCain is the best for the country I do believe that he is the best for the country given the Democratic or even independent alternatives. Any indpendent alternative does not have a chance of winning so a vote for them would in reality be a vote for whomever the Democratic alternative turns out to be. With that in mind I will go to the polls in the general election and vote for McCain and in the process try to put some true conservatives in Congress.

Principle is a virtue so to do otherwise would in reality be betraying my conservative principals because I would in fact be voting in someone who would do far more harm to this country that I adore and cherish.

My guess is that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and even Mark Levin will cast thier vote for McCain in the end because the alternative would, as I stated, be worse. I suggest you and others seriously reconsider your position of either not voting or voting independent thus electing someone far worse. While it saddens me deeply that these are the choices we have to pick from, it is what we have to pick from. I think it is a shame that so many who voted in the early primaries voted in such a bad representative of the Grand Old Party as McCain, but they did.

I go to the polls for the Louisiana primary today, but my choices that reamin are McCain, Huchabee, or Dr. Pual. I won't vote for Huckabee because in my opinion he is worse than McCain. That leaves me with Dr. Paul, and while I agree with him on a lot of positions I am in direct opposition to his stance regarding the WOT. I so wish his stance were different because I would gladly cast my vote for him, but I feel that it is too important of an issue to cast my vote for him. Again I am left with McCain. Like I said very depressing and sad, but that is the realities as I see them.

[abclily]

The writer is saying, “Give the nation over to the Clintons for the next four years. We can survive it again.”

There is a bit of difference between Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. He is a smiley, sloppy liberal. She is a hard-nosed, destructive Communist.

[Darkwolf377]

He is a smiley, sloppy liberal. She is a hard-nosed, destructive Communist.

More precisely, I think, is that Bill was about himself, and would do what he had to do to survive, but Hillary is a TRUE BELIEVER.

Hillary is NOT a phony--she's a GENUINE socialist.

I know we often toss that word around, but just look at that mind-boggling "Christmas gift" ad of hers.

The woman is the real thing, which is 100 times scarier than a fake.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The need to rehabilitate her party’s severely wounded credibility on American safety could compel Clinton to avoid pandering to the antiwar left as President.

The question before the house is whether that sentiment - expressed more than once by Rush - is reliable.

If Hillary can get elected after what Bill did - say rather, didn't - on national security, why would she think that she has to? Well, she might think that it would be a problem blaming Bush for what she allows to happen in the aftermath of the Vietnamization of Iraq.

[Rudder]

Again I am left with McCain. Like I said very depressing and sad, but that is the realities as I see them.

With enthusiasm like that, McCain can't miss.

[Seattle Conservative]

I’m caucusing in Washington State today and will be doing so for Romney and voting for him in our primary on the 19th. I don’t know if Romney is still an option in LA or other states. Since he ‘suspended’ his campaign, as I understand it, he keeps his delegates and it may give him a seat at the table for negotiations re the party platform and perhaps a position in the RNC or new administration (if he wanted that). IMHO it also shows the RNC, McCain and the MSM that some of us still support Romney and aren’t immediately going to flock to support McCain.

[TomGuy]

As a conservative I am deeply depressed that we do not have someone I could go to the poll and vote for with enthusiasm, however, that is not the case.

I was pondering the crop of wannabes we have and concluded that the fix is in.

It isn't so much WHO gets elected but WHAT they will likely do. The real power-people (those behind the scenes who actually are the doers and shakers) have plotted WHERE they want the politicians to go. They are less concerned about WHO gets elected, because whoever it is will continue to follow their underlying agenda.

Look at the crop still standing, and look at just one issue: Illegals and borders.

Obama and Clinton and McCain and Huckabee have all been staunch supporters of open borders and pro-illegals.

Three of the four voted for Comprehensive Immigration (amnesty for illegals) the three times it was voted one, and one of them actually helped author the bill. The other one was a governor, so he didn't get to vote, but he did support it.

Even though upwards of 80% of the American people do not want it, the crop will continue to push it.

Eighty percent of the American public will lose in favor of a majority (50+1) Senators and a majority of House Representatives who will eventually get Comprehensive Immigration passed and legalize 12-60 million illegals.

That says that the American people have abrogated their their say in governmental issues. They think in terms of politican parties. Those parties are guises for the power-people to continue to pull strings behind the scenes. They have fooled most of the American people into thinking their choice is between Democratic or Republican. Look at their underlying actions -- they are basically the same, with a few differences of opinion.

Politican parties are little more than an effective method for the real power-people to hoodwink the public.

Until those 80% of Americans stand up and yell to the top of their lungs that they are going to vote out every incumbent -- and DO IT, frequently to reshape Washington politics, the status quo will continue. The real power-people know those 80% of Americans can be appeased with a bone, occasionally. That settles the rabble down while the power-people continue to move their agenda.

[randita]

I just don’t understand this silly logic that if you lose to a Democrat, that’s a good thing. Anyone who espouses this philosophy lose credibility with me.

A good case can be made that 9/11 happened because of Clinton’s laissez faire approach to national security. Clinton did great harm to this country with his shenanigans, lies and parsing of words.

McCain’s not my first choice, but I think he will put national security on the top of his priority list. That’s the most important issue for me.

[surrey]

Bill is a true narcissist. He wanted to be CIC for his own satisfaction. I don’t think he gave a damn about doing anything good for the country. He wanted all the perks that go along with being the big dog.
She,on the other hand, wants to be president for the power, pure and simple. Unlike Bill, she has a true aganda and it’s not good.

[mtbopfuyn]

Those parties are guises for the power-people to continue to pull strings behind the scenes. They have fooled most of the American people into thinking their choice is between Democratic or Republican. Look at their underlying actions -- they are basically the same, with a few differences of opinion.

Bingo.

[rod1]

The author ignores the fact that Bubba was more interested in using the offiec for his ow “gain” than for any particular hard core ideological agenda.

Hillary is different.... and a marxist at heart.

So the assumption all is OK with Hillary calling the shots is ludicrious. It will not be “only about sex” with her.

Mccain cant’ win but we should not be at ease with the Hildabeast.

[alwaysconservative]

Again, brilliantly said!

To paraphrase something I read recently, to find out how strong this purist “conservative” voice really is, we should ask President Tancredo how the immigration issue helped him, or even Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Or maybe we should ask President Dole how that “honorable veteran” thing worked for him against a lying, philandering piece of sleaze and a wing-nut millionaire whose “independent” third party handed the Clintons the WH, twice.

[Ann Archy]

Chelsea said that getting rid of “Don’t ask. Don’t Tell” is first agenda item!!! GAYS IN THE MILITARY ASAP is what Hillary wants.....and will get....there goes our fine military.