Rush Limbaugh! Pirro is a serious candidate against Hillary.

Rush Limbaugh ^ | Aug, 09, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

[diamond6]

bump

[popdonnelly]

Hillary is already running for President. She has been running for President all her life. She was running for President before she decided to run for the Senate. That's a given. The only question is, does the country want eight more years of the Clintons?

[antienvironmentalist]

Does Hillary Clinton really want to bring up candidates spouses past misjudgements in this race? I have a feeling Pirro could do more damage to her than the other way around.

[nj26]

"New York is not a solidly Democratic state. It's a 50/50 state. The Democratic machine is not strong enough in New York, with a Republican mayor, to manufacture enough votes to swing an election."

New York is probably the second most liberal state in the country after Massachusetts. It used to be a 50/50 state in the 1980s, before Long Island and the urban areas upstate trended Democratic.

And don't forget that New York's "Republican" mayor is a former Democrat (who changed parties opportunistically to run for office) who is very chummy with Hillary.

[nj26]

Well, it just seems that we could run a stronger race against Hillary if we didn't nominate a candidate with a husband who's a mafia lawyer, tax cheat, and also fathered an illegitimate child or two.

[Vicomte13]

Bloomberg has not governed as a Democrat.
Hell, Ronald Reagan was a former Democrat.

New York IS liberal, no doubt about it.
So's Jeanine Pirro.
She's a social liberal: pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage.

But she's a fiscal conservative, and tough as nails on crime.
Fiscally conservative, crime-fighting social liberals are quite competitive in New York. That's Bloomberg. That was Rudy Giuliani.
New York is socially liberal.
New Yorkers hate crime.

Pirro's got the resume.
She's got the upstate and suburban connections, and that's all she has to win to win the election.
She's got no more spousal baggage than Clinton.
She's brighter than Clinton, speaks better, is better looking. In any televised debate she will cream Hillary.
There is no issue on which Hillary can outflank her.
She can outflank Hillary on two issues: Hillary will be leaving office, and Hillary has not brought home the bacon from a Republican Congress.

Pirro will have the money to get media exposure all over the state. Giuliani will be campaigning for her.

Once she gets the name recognition, it will be a ten point race, and that ten points will be pure media inflation. Come election night, Pirro will pull off an "upset".

[Finalapproach29er]

Bush's approval is sinking, gas prices are Carteresque, and you think Hillary is scared to campaign in New York?

She's so cocksure she thinks she's going to win by 15%- and soon thereafter become the annionted one for Demo-rats. Broom Hillary isn't scared.

[Cobra64]

I totally understand, but this is New York were talking about.

Is New York no longer a state?

[ConservativeMan55]

bttt

[RightWhale]

She has a good delivery and she has that certainty that she knows what is wrong and what to do about it. Upstate New York could go for that.

[Mia T]

bump!

She's Nurse Ratched. I was trying to tell these people she's Nurse Ratched. She's not likable, she doesn't come across as friendly, she doesn't have this "it" that you have to have as a politician these days on television.

--Rush Limbaugh

SCHEMA PINOCCHIO
how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor

by Mia T, 8.03.05


(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
MAD hillary series #5
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN
FOR AMERICA
FOR THE WORLD

They turned our bridge to the 21st century into a tunnel back into the 19th century. Back us out of that Republican tunnel, fill it in, go back across the bridge.... We'll have a giant celebration when we come back to Columbus in 2020. There's nothing more wonderful than making dreams come true.

hear hillary clinton
address to the Democratic Leadership Council
Columbus, Ohio
7.31.05

issus clinton is a dud.

I could say she has all of bill clinton's baggage and none of his charm, except I don't find bill clinton charming. What she lacks, in my view, is lubricant. Snake oil. She grates.

It's more than simple dislike. You don't want to see her; and you definitely don't want to hear her.

Missus clinton is everyman's worst nightmare: ex-wife, fishwife, frigid wife, mother-in-law; worse, the abusive Nazi commandant in the Lina Wertmuller masterpiece. When she humiliates, which is always, she dons the military-issue undershirt, she grabs the whip.

The clintons are clearly aware of this problem and are attempting to mitigate it with veneer.

Their first ploy is to pushpoll to artificially jack up missus clinton's numbers; this is a relatively easy task, given a compliant press. This illusion of electability is intended to fool the voters, activate the herd mentality and ultimately fool the smart money of the David Geffen-Harold Ickes stripe.

It won't work. Missus clinton has 100% name recognition. Any vote she doesn't already have, she won't get. Conversely, many voters have 0% information on the clinton abuses of power and utter failures. From this it follows that many votes she has today, she won't have tomorrow.

Their second ploy is to conflate "bill" and "hillary." "The clintons" become a single construct. Missus clinton arrogates bill's "bridge to the 21st century " as "theirs." And, by lifting the lyrics straight from Pinocchio, she becomes "the man from 'hope'."

The danger here for missus clinton is that with the bridge and the hope come the abuses and the utter failures.

---

AFTERWORD:

Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches? They make her sound like a cross between Pinocchio on Halcyon and a clueless tourist from Park Ridge, Illinois driving into Manhattan during rush hour. Oops.

And the plagiarizing... I mean, the clintons are shameless. And it isn't only Pinocchio.

In 2002, I wrote that the bridge to the 21st century was, arguably, clinton's most delusional conceit, that it overshot the mark by at least 1400 years.

To be fair, missus clinton's 19th-century reference is to that <yawn> retrograde 'retrograde Republicans' cliché, whereas my 7th-century reference is to the retrograde-in-fact islamofascist terrorists, whose jihadi declarations and acts of war against us the clintons willfully ignored for eight long years--allowing al Qaeda to grow exponentially in strength and reach, setting us up--very nicely, thank you--for 9/11 and its cataclysmic aftermath.

COMPLETE ARTICLE

[eureka!]

Re#35 I'm with you. I would add, anecdotally, there are a heck of a lot of Dem voters in NY that are sick of Hillary and could vote for a Giuliani type like Pirro and still feel true to their liberal causes. The Hillary camp cannot be happy with Pirro's announcement....

[printhead]

I can't wait to see the debate rules and who the neutral moderator is. The analysis seems to be tactical advantages and all and not much on issues.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I don't think this is going to be like the Lazio race. Jeanine Pirro could storm over to Hillary's lectern in a debate -- and there need to be debates, lots of debates, because it will not take much to show that Hillary Clinton is not just head and shoulders above everybody that walks in.

Hillary is not going to like the idea of debating an experienced prosecuting attorney on live TV

. . . especially not a female one who can't be easily patronized.

But I want to challenge Rush to create a new debate format. The standard TV "debate" format is not a debate but a joint news conference; we should have actual debates. It's not up to Rush to change what's done on TV, but he should in principle be able to push for a series of radio debates.

Because of the far lower production and air-time costs of radio, a whole series of radio debates would be entirely practicable. The participants wouldn't even need to be in the same city at the same time and neither would be advantaged by their location. And in a true debate format, the air time of the participants would be equalized by the use of a chess timer to control the microphones.

The longer the format, the less superficial the discussion will be. The less superficial the discussion is, the less sense a liberal will seem to make.

[Soul Seeker]

Agree with your analysis. Pirro can beat Hillary, I've no doubt. I'm not quite willing to go out on a limb yet and say she will, but she's not in this race just to give Hillary a little trouble on way to re-election.

[jwh_Denver]

If she runs and loses, she's toast. It's all over.

Total agreement. Hillary losing a race for Senate would seriously botch a presidential bid.

[Vicomte13]

I don't consider predictions like that really going out on a limb.

Nobody knows who I am, and within a week nobody will remember a word of what I wrote.

But when Jeanine wins, I'll look pretty prescient, won't I?

[leadhead]

I wonder if Andrew Cuomo would be up for a little revenge match after the Clintonites pulled the rug out from under his Gubernatorial primary campaign?

Not if he's taking flying lessons.

[Mia T]

Precisely.

Pirro will dispose of clinton in the first debate.
It will be immediately obvious to all
that Jeanine is everything hillary pretends to be.

JEANINE PIRRO: 30-year career fighting for the abused woman

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

[Soul Seeker]

Absolutely. LOL

I made predictions about the '04 race and was right, always feels good to peg it accurately. I'm just not ready to make a prediction on this one yet, other than to state this will be a real race and she is serious competition for Hil.