Her Royal Heinous!
Posted on 08/11/2005 9:17:22 PM PDT by nycfree
Hillary Lucks Out August 10, 2005
This column was written by John Nichols.
New York Senator Hillary Clinton has always looked like a good bet to win re-election in 2006 -- probably by a margin wide enough to jumpstart the 2008 presidential campaign that many Democrats want the former First Lady to make.
With the decision of Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro to seek the Republican nomination to challenge her, however, Clinton's fortunes have taken a dramatic turn for the better.
Pirro, a hyper-ambitious publicity hound who frequently turns up on the Fox News Channel as a "legal affairs" commentator, had been weighing races for governor, attorney general or Clinton's Senate seat. With the fortunes of the state Republican Party in decline (even the conservative New York Post says that "New York's GOP is withering -- fast"), Pirro was unlikely to win any of those posts. So she opted for the showcase contest: a challenge to the woman Republicans around the country love to hate. Pirro's announcement garnered homestate headlines, enthusiastic coverage on Fox and conservative talk radio and promises of hefty campaign contribution checks from Hillary-haters nationwide.
But, as the Post admitted, the Pirro campaign is "not one (Clinton's) likely to lose sleep over."
Here's why:
Pirro supports abortion rights and reproductive freedom. She's for civil unions and other gay rights measures. She favors affirmative action and opposes the strict immigration quotas favored by Congressional conservatives. She's a big backer of gun control. And she's been enthusiastic about precisely the sort of "big-government" solutions to child-welfare and community issues that Republicans condemn Clinton for promoting.
In other words, Pirro is more of a Rockefeller Republican than a Reaganite. Yet, in an era of sharper-than-ever partisan divisions, Pirro will attract few if any votes from moderate-to-liberal New Yorkers who have sent clear signals that they do not want to give aid and comfort to President Bush and Congressional Republicans. Don't forget that Bush lost New York State by more than 1,350,000 votes in 2004. In the same year, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer was re-elected with 71 percent of the vote and the GOP suffered a rare loss of a House seat in the Buffalo area while several of its House incumbents, such as upstater Tom Reynolds, saw their victory margins slashed.
It is comic to suggest that Clinton will lose many moderate-to-liberal votes to Pirro just because, in the words of the King of the Hillary Haters, Dick Morris, "Hillary will have to end up running against someone who is quite like herself in her public positions." New Yorkers are savvy enough to know that, if Pirro wins, she will vote to put right-wing Republican opponents of choice, gay rights and gun control in charge of the Senate, and that will disqualify Pirro with precisely the sort of voters she would need to mount a serious challenge to Clinton.
Morris suggests that Pirro might be able to draw support as a "tough-on-terror" candidate, playing the national security card against Clinton as have other Republicans in other states. But that is an even more comic claim. There is nothing progressive, nor even liberal about Hillary Clinton's stance on national security issues -- she wants to "stay the course" in Iraq, she's backed even the most over-the-top spending allocations for the war, she's been a supporter of the Patriot Act and other assaults on civil liberties and she's frequently more in line with the Bush Administration's approach on national security issues than a number of Senate Republicans.
When all is said and done, Clinton could end up benefiting from the "name" Republican challenge posed by Pirro, as it will reinforce the Democrat's position with base voters who might otherwise have problems with her centrist stances.
Indeed, if there is a candidate who is going to have a problem with her base, it's Pirro.
Several more conservative candidates are in the Republican race, including Ed Cox, a prominent New York lawyer who is the son-in-law of former President Richard Nixon, former Yonkers Mayor John Spencer and attorney Bill Brenner. Pirro may beat the three of them for the GOP nod. But one member of that trio is likely to be the nominee of the Conservative Party, a New York state institution that refused to back Schumer's moderate Republican challenger in 2004 and gained 220,960 votes for a little-known candidate running on its party line in the race. (In the presidential vote, the Conservatives backed Bush, who obtained 155,574 votes, more than 5 percent of his state total, on its line.)
If Pirro loses hundreds of thousands of votes to a Conservative Party nominee, she could well run a weaker race than Clinton's 2000 foe, former US Representative Rick Lazio, who had the Republican and Conservative endorsements. (Lazio got 43 percent of the vote that year, while polls currently put Pirro at around 29 percent.)
That may not be the worst of it for Pirro. While there is no question that Hillary Clinton suffers among some voters because of her association with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Pirro has a husband problem of her own. As the Post's able political scribe, Fredric U. Dicker, gently notes, "Pirro's strength as a candidate is handicapped by her husband Albert's conviction in 2000 on federal income-tax fraud charges, an earlier revelation that he fathered an out-of-wedlock daughter, as well as the recent allegation by a Mafia informant that Al Pirro leaked confidential material from an ongoing Westchester DA's probe."
Plenty of ink will be spilled over the next fifteen months on the Clinton-Pirro race, and talk-TV and radio will love the fight. But if there was any cheering heard after Pirro announced on Monday, it was coming from Clinton's headquarters.
Nobody! And that's the beauty of Pirro; she's a big time talker; she'll be all over TV, answering anybody's questions, which will make Hillary look like she's hiding something.
And the first question will be: will you serve a full six years. Watch her jump and jive, sports fans.
Her Royal Heinous!
Double nothing is still nothing.
He describes Pirro as "...a hyper-ambitious publicity hound who frequently turns up on the Fox News Channel..."
What he's missing is that it's so perfect!
OK, so Pirro is a big time talker, not conservative enough. So?
She has NOTHING to lose compared to Ms. hiney.
"So Ms. Clinton, is it true that you won't let subordinates look you in the eye?"
If she denies it bring a witness forward. Ha!
Oh boy! What a match up!
I hope its as fun as I'm imagining!
I don't share your feelings about her. I only know her from what I have seen on television, but I think she's smart enough to think for herself and will not blindly follow Chafee, Collins or Spector. I don't doubt that she would not please me with ALL her votes, but neither does my conservative Republican Senator! I would much prefer her to Hillary Clinton.
Pirro will weaken Hillary's powerhold on NY voters and diminish the effect of Hillary cult's supportive propaganda. Pirro is a much better speaker than Hillary. Hillary at ad lib spontaneously projects her true inverted ideation and agenda. No matter the issues, Pirro upstages Hillary spotlighting the fact that Hillary Clinton is NOT the smartest woman in the world. While Hillary is transparently duplicitious, Pirro is assertive and firmly set. Pirro has an excellent speaking presence and communicative skills far superior to Hillary's convoluted NEWSPEAK screech and harrange. Pirro will effectively counter, or should I say, prosecute Hillary?
|
Pirro will support:
So there is every difference in the world between Pirro and clinton. And this doesn't begin to discuss hillary clinton's corruption, betrayal and ineptitude. Or the rapes and other predation. Let us not forget that it was hillary clinton who hired Jamie Gorelick. Gorelick proceeded to do hillary clinton's bidding, which undermined the national security and was the efficient cause of 9/11. hillary clinton must never be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office... She must not be allowed near any position of power.... see: The contrast between these two women could not be more stark.
 (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) New York, New York -- if hillary can't make it there, she can't make it anywhere
|
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN,
FOR AMERICA,
FOR THE WORLD
madhillary.com (coming soon)
madhillary.blogspot.com
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005
what we're seeing here is the Clinton game plan for the national election folks. Try to split the conservative and moderate wings of the GOP. We all need to remember Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment-"speak no ill of a fellow Republican"....in other words, do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Dicker from the NYPost? He is not only an idiot--he's intellectually dishonest. Last night was asked to comment on missus clinton's poll numbers that had dropped like a brick when Jeanine announced her candidacy. Dicker cited a supposed counterexample. But that poll was taken BEFORE Jeanine entered the race.
So my question is this: Why did Chris Wallace (who was subbing for Brit Hume) book this obvious (s)hill to discuss the Jeanine entry? And why didn't Wallace follow up on Dicker's "error"????
We could not have conjured up a more perfect counterpoint to the rapist clintons than prosecutor-of-rapists extraordinaire, The Wall Street Journal thanx to WorkingClassFilth for the video
Jeanine Pirro. Her presence in the race will serve as a constant reminder to the voter that the clintons are rapists, terrorizers,
that the clintons are serial abusers of women.
EDITORIAL
October 18, 2000
Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?
special thanx to Jim Robinson
The closest that President Clinton has ever come to answering allegations that he raped an Arkansas woman in 1978 is a distance measurable only in light-years. After Juanita Broaddrick made the accusation in 1999, the president's attorney, David Kendall, alone answered, saying any such charges were "absolutely false." Of course, attorney Robert Bennett believed Mr. Clinton when he said he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky and defended the president then on no less sturdy grounds. Thus while lawyers can spare Mr. Clinton awkward moments at the podium in which he has to say, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" or "I did not fondle that woman, Kathleen Wlley" or "I did not rape that woman, Mrs. Broaddrick," their comments are, in effect, non-denial denials.
Hah.
bump. see #27
Just because you can't get everything you want, doesn't mean you should take your ball and go home.
"the witch is going to have to spend heavily to stay in this race."
Yes maybe she will exhaust all her campaign money so she won't have much to run for president
LOL. The press declared a "mandate" for Bubba back in 92 when he only got 42% of the popular vote.
Hillary could win by one vote and they will be calling it an overwhelming victory.
This will be interesting to see play out. I was listening to Hannity on the way home yesterday and he had Susan Estrich on. The first thing out of her large mouth was the legal problems with Pirro's husband. When Hannity reminded her that despite disbarrment, impeachment, etc..., the left told us that Hillary should be judged on her own and not by the actions of her husband, Estrich then blamed Hannity for bringing up the issue (WTF?!) but kept reiterating that Pirro's husband makes her unelectable.
She'll be able to beat Pirro with a Kinko's account and a half dozen volunteers from a high school chess club.
This is NY politics. Pirro got suckered into the race to keep her out of Albany.
HILLARY'S TRIPLE PLAY
the clinton putsch + filegate + the gorelick wall
BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS (SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE
HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman
ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE
Alfred E. Neuman + the threat of terrorism, according to hillary
HILLARY IS NIXON-PLUS part 1
BEWARE THE SYNERGY
Nixonian paranoia and fascistic mindset combine with
clintonian megalomania, ineptitude and, most important, easy betrayal of America
to make hillary clinton deadly dangerous for us all.
NANO-PRESIDENT, MEGA-DISASTER: history will not be kind to bill + hillary clinton
So, in other words, when she drops out of the race -- and she will -- it won't be the dough. It will be Pirro.
New York, New York -- if hillary can't make it there, she can't make it anywhere
What the heck has CBS been drinking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
