ALERT! Security Moms: THE LEFT IS GONNA GET US KILLED (HEAR GEORGE SOROS, BILL CLINTON)

FoxNews, George Soros, bill clinton, hillary clinton | 10.09.06 | Mia T

[FlyVet]

bump

[presently no screen name]

When bill clinton encountered problems, he simply defined them away.

Thus, we were told:

"is" is not "is," 3

"sex" is not "sex"...

"rape" is not "rape" 4

"genocide" is not "genocide," 5

the terrorist-declared war on America 6 is not war ('war' is but a "metaphor," a "figure of speech") 7

the terrorists' acts of war against America 8(beginning with the bombing of the same building by the same people in 1993 9) are not acts of war. (They are "crimes," 10)

Al Qaeda, in its incipient stage and stoppable in '93, was allowed--no, was empowered--to grow and metastasize under bill clinton's postmodern cover.


Terrorism grew and metastasized under bill clinton because bill clinton had a capacity to construct and compartmentalize alternative "truths," alternative selves, alternative moralities; bill clinton was the political manifestation of an "intelligentsia" and its "enlightened" worldview that reject all absolutes.


INCREDIBLE RECAP, MIA!! Brings to mind, "Depends on what you mean by being alone". Like a criminal wiggling himself out of accountability. But 'accountability' in not in billyboy's, et al, 'spin dictionary'.

[Mia T]

 

And here I thought my arguments were an appeal to reason. ;)

Notwithstanding, "the security mom" is not all women; she was identified post-9/11 and was so named for the obvious reason.

(If you are looking for 'patronizing,' check out the clintonistas, below....)

 

'04 ELECTION PROVIDES CLUE

To better understand why this move is fatal for missus clinton, we must go back to November 8, 2004, which is exactly six days after the re-election of George W. Bush.

The venue is Washington Journal (C-SPAN).

Enter Harold Ickes, looking weirder, more Ichabod-Crane-on-crank, than usual. Looking weirder still when one remembers that Harold Ickes is a strictly behind-the-scenes sort of guy.

Only something very important could have coaxed Harold Ickes onto center stage....²¹

Forgoing the standard niceties, Ickes launches into his planned tirade. He accuses Bush of terrorizing white women to get their vote.²² (The way he carried on, you would think he was accusing the president of rape or something.)²³

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women.

By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points.

In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%.

That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values.

I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

Now fast forward to October 11, 2005. Susan Estrich, alignments adjusted upward--ALL alignments--is on Hannity and Colmes. She is there to huckster The Case for Hillary Clinton, ²⁴ both the book and candidate.

Estrich's spiel turns her recent dire warning to the Democrats ("The clintons are sucking up all the air. Get them off the stage!" )²⁵ on its literal head.²⁶ (Air? Who needs air when you have a clinton?)

ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP FOR HILLARY DEFEAT (oops!)

Susan Estrich attempts to tie the fate of all women to the fate of the hillary clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote.

She argues that hillary clinton is the best chance, probably the only chance, for a woman president in our lifetime.

The false and demeaning argument and offensive gender bias aside, someone ought to clue in Susan Estrich. Gender feminism requires as its token a functional female.

So why is Susan Estrich making such a transparently spurious and insulting argument? She isn't that dumb.

For the same reason Harold Ickes is fulminating on C-SPAN.

The election of 2004 confirmed missus clinton's worst fears:
9/11 and the clintons' willful, utter failure for eight years to confront terrorism) were transformative. They caused a political realignment--for all practical purposes permanent--that is not good news for clinton, or for the Democrats, generally.

The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.


Next installment...
THE ROADMAP FOR DEFEATING HILLARY

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, a journalistic consensus emerged to explain George W. Bush's victory. Despite the sluggish economy and deteriorating situation in Iraq, voters supported Bush primarily because of his values. One prominently featured exit poll question showed "moral values" to be the most important issue for voters, ahead of terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. Backlash against the Massachusetts court ruling allowing gay marriage and attraction of Bush's appeals to Christian faith helped bring out socially conservative voters and cement Bush's second term. This explains why Bush won Ohio, for example, where an anti-gay marriage proposal was on the ballot. However compelling this story might be, it is wrong.

Instead, Bush won because married and white women increased their support for the Republican ticket....

In this article I briefly account for the factors behind Bush's rise in the state-by-state popular vote between 2000 and 2004. This is not the same as identifying who elected Bush. That sort of analysis would put responsibility on white men since they voted 61-38 for Bush and comprise almost half of the active electorate. Instead, I focus on what changed between 2000 and 2004. In this view, it is white women who are responsible because they showed more aggregate change.

Identifying a cause for this shift looks for an explanation also in things that changed in the past four years. For example, John Kerry was not exactly Al Gore, so differences between Bush's two opponents could be a factor. But I suggest that such differences are dwarfed by a much larger intervention: the attacks of September 11. Turnout was up in 2004 because the perceived heightening of the stakes after 9-11 and because of intense competition between the candidates in a small number of battleground states. Higher turnout also appears to have helped Bush slightly. But it was the shift of married white women from the Democratic camp to the Republican camp that gave him the edge in 2004.

Post Election 2004: An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election
BarryC.Burden
Harvard University
The Forum, Volume2, Issue 42004 Article2
burden@fas.harvard.edu

COMPLETE ARTICLE

IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)
Mia T, 12.05.05


WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN.
WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.
Mia T, 12.10.05

[Mia T]

thank you :)

[presently no screen name]

I guess Mr Klintoon being the fabulous attorney he is must have missed the classes on conspiracy

True. Although he probably would wiggle out of it and say what may look like a conspiracy to some may not be so. After all, we really can't be sure since we can't read their minds.

Slick Willy aka Wiggle Willy. Truly the con-artist.

[Kimberly GG]

Wow Mia, that's quite a collection. As someone who is very interested in the subject, seems you covered all aspects of the subject. All but one.

When a terrorist successfully carries out an attack after crossing the border, who you going to blame then? Democrats or a Republican President who should have secured the border on 9/12?

[YdontUleaveLibs]

Just before the elections in 04, I was accused of being a Security Mom. I did not switch my party allegence because of 9/11. I did stop being a liberal a few days later when I heard that the prevailing mood of liberals is that we deserved 9/11 because of our international policies. However, at that time I didn't know how much influence liberals had with Demonrats. It was not until after the bombs started dropping in Iraq and several Demonrats bowed to the Liberal Whackos and said that they were against the war they voted for that I decided I was switching parties. I am and have been a war hawk since 1979, you can guess why. My party affiliation what ever it has been hasn't changed that. There is no longer any room in the Demonrat party for warhawks. If there was I might still be able to claim the party. But, if you are against abortion, prepare to be drummed out of the party. If you are pro-wire tapping Islamic Excremists prepare to be drummed out of the party. The Demonrats and Liberals are driving their base out. This is to our advantage.

[Mia T]

bump

[Mia T]

thx :)

[Mia T]

thx. good point.

I think part of the long-term solution is a govt of citizen-politicians.

[Mia T]

bump

Clinton refused to kill or even capture bin Laden even as he pretended to go after bin Laden because killing or even capturing bin Laden would have denied clinton the Nobel Peace Prize and he couldn't let us know he valued the prize more than keeping this country safe. ^{6, 7}

VIRTUAL SURREALITY

A virtual kill of bin Laden seems apt. One should never expect more of bill clinton. And there is a certain symmetry, a perfect parry for clinton's 'virtual obsession.' ⁹

 

And then there is clinton's virtual bombing of North Korea.... (will be posting on this shortly....)

It is too bad for the country (and the world) that the Senate impeachment trial of bill clinton was also only virtual....

[Mia T]

ping

[gonzo]

Thanks, Mia T! Much appreciated..............FRegards

[nopardons]

BTTT

[Gail Wynand]

Nothing to add.

Consider my recent post (1300 views):

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few."
- Nancy Pelosi, discussing plans for the first 100 hours of democrat control of the House of Representatives in November 2006.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -Karl Marx 1875

America faces a moment of decision this election day. At their core, the Leftist scum that run the democrat party, the media and the universities, are all marxists in the worst sense of the word. That is not just as an economic, historic or philosophical abstract, but also as the murderous, savage, ruthless, power-seeking, reality of every major marxist movement in the 20th century.

[Mia T]

Pelosi and missus clinton are arguably the two best examples why nepotism should be a no-no, especially in an already devolved subgroup of Homo sapiens.

Excellent. bump.

[Mia T]

thx gonzo :)

[Mia T]

bump. turnout is everything. We mustn't allow the clinton-Soros machine pull the strings.

[Mia T]

thx :)

[JustPiper]

Very timely thread Mia-great job as always!