[WARNING TO INSIDE THE BELTWAY CONVENTIONAL WISDOM CONSERVATIVES: THIS BLOG IS NOT ABOUT JOHN EDWARDS OR MOVEON.ORG]
If one were to believe the fawning praise of inside the beltway political pundits, a shrewd strategist devising a plan on November 8, 2006 for a Democrat to win the White House on November 5, 2008 would propose that a candidate:
1) Change positions on the Iraq War with every release of a new Gallup Poll;
2) Vote to cut off funds to the troops in the field;
3) Slander the commanding general of a successful surge of troops in the field on national television by calling him a liar with a cute phrase worthy of those bewildered by the meaning of “is”;
4) Cackle at, instead of jabbing the knee of, Chris Wallace;
5) Express dismay that the Supreme Court upheld the federal law banning partial birth abortion;
6) Take money from a 15-year fugitive from justice;
7) Have her campaign utilize (and remain married to herself) a bitter, angry man that no longer can contain his Stephanopoulos described temper; and
8] Refused to denounce the idea of teaching 2nd graders about homosexuality.
Yeah, the Hillary is really disciplined. The kind of discipline that McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis had.
Many of even the beltway conservative pundits appear to be guilty, with respect to Hillary, of what most of the MSM is guilty of with respect to the Iraq War: boxing themselves in a position where to recognize reality is to discredit their own prior judgments.
Hillary has not been disciplined since she first met Bill in the Yale Law Library or even before, when she first read The Feminine Mystique.
Nor has she been disciplined since her first vote against tax cuts as a senator or her first move towards defeat in Iraq. She has been all over the lot on Iraq. It’s all on tape. Rush plays her varying statements all the time.
Have Fred Barnes and David Brooks and the rest of the conservative writers not heard them? Have they not seen her votes? If they have, then what can explain their obligatory statements that she is disciplined except that they want to be loved by their liberal cohorts in DC?
Discipline for a liberal that wants to be president means disguising ones liberalism. See the successful campaign in 1992 (see also Perot recruitment)
Teaching second graders about sex is not discipline except for those that really want to teach first graders the same.
Even Bob Shrum wouldn’t suggest that kind of discipline.
I contend that these liberal democrats simply cannot help themselves and that they will not allow our Republican candidate to lose in 2008.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
http://www.win-the-war.com/
September 29th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Why is my
a smiley face?
September 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am
If you want higher taxes, defeat in Iraq (victory for al-Qaeda). pushing for same sex marriage among 2nd graders, and a nationalized health care plan, vote for Hillary Clinton. Will the nation want to go down this path? Judging from the recent election in France (which I had pretty much written off), I doubt it. France has now moved from being a thorn in our side to being our greatest ally. I don’t really understand how that could happen, but if France was willing to make a right turn, I don’t see how we could take a sudden turn to the left. And being a Romney supporter, the fact that he can speak the language of our greatest ally is just another plus for me.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:39 am
For all of Hillary’s (and Obama’s and Edward’s et al) weaknesses, there will still be troops in Iraq on election day, about 47 million Americans will be without healtcare (and Bush will have vetoed a bill extending health coverage to millions of children), and it appears that the economy will either be in recession or teetering on the brink. Larry Craig and David Vitter will still be republicans.
Other than the traditional bromides, what exactly are the top GOP candidates proposing? It will not be enough to say “I am not Hillary,” because in truth, its really Bill.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Gamecock -
Because, the combination of “8″ and “)” are a kind of code for the smiley face with sunglasses. try using “8]” next time.
–
anyway, about Hillary, there are, IMO, three schools of thought on her:
1) The only Republican who can beat Hillary is Giuliani – This is generally advanced by Rudy supporters, who use it as a kind of “my guy or else” motto.
2) Any Republican will beat Hillary – I see this alot with Thompson supporters, and die-hard anti-Hillary folks who think that we could run a slug as our candidate, and still have it win in a landslide. They believe that, put plainly, Hillary is unelectable. They think that her liberalism, Feminism, and Clintonism will all combine to make her the most beatable candidate we have seen since Carter.
3) Any strong Conservative can beat Hillary – The most common theory, I find, among Romney supporters, who believe that, while the Republican can lose in 2008, that a strong, experienced, energetic Conservative can defeat Hillary. In the current situation, the two “candidates” who fit that bill are Romney and Gingrich (though he is a story in himself). This is also the thoery I suscribe to. By taking away Hillary’s monopoly on big issues (such as healthcare), and presenting a professional, experienced alternative, the GOP can keep the White House in 2008.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hillary should be a joke. And frightening. In any previous year the Republican candidate would win in a landslide.
And then came George. Iraq and “childrens”.
And with his missteps came nostalgia for the good ole days- Bill’s.
If Republicans had not trashed McCain, he would beat her easily. If Giuliani is not fatally damaged by his own he may still beat her.
Thompson is coming off as Chauncey Gardner, appealing to only those who want to believe. Hillary will eat him alive if he was her challenge.
Romney should be appealing but he so packaged and pandering that the appeal is lost. He would make it a race. He would lose.
The rest are not prime time players.
Hillary shouldn’t win. Unless Republicans forfeit by who is their nominee.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:19 am
It’s a fatal mistake to underestimate the appeal of Hillary. A fatal mistake…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
September 29th, 2007 at 11:32 am
ACT,
Romney does much worse then the average Republican against Hillary in the South (even though he has higher name recognition than Fred Thompson). Coincidentally, Hillary does better in the South then the average Democrat. Not to mention, his brand of social conservativism will be anathema to voters in the crucial Midwest swing states. In order for Hillary to win, all she needs to do is win the Kerry states + Ohio. Considering she hold big leads in Ohio already and will do surprisingly well in Virginia and Arkansas, what blue states can Romney flip to make up for these losses (Giuliani will be very competitive in the Northeast and McCain in the Midwest)? I just don’t understand the electability argument for Romney.
And this isn’t even taking into account The M Word…
September 29th, 2007 at 11:46 am
LJ – Romney can flip MI, NH, maybe WI or MN (not saying he is the only one who can, but that he can)
As for the South, Romney is from the NE, Hillary is from Arkansas – she should be doing better in the south. In the end, however, people {southerners) are going to realize that Romney is much, much closer to themselves on issues than Hillary is.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:56 am
LJ,
Your premise, that Hillary would beat Romney in the general because if it was held today she would beat Romney, demonstrates, to put it charitably, a lack of vision. The American people will respond positively to a call for executive competence and American greatness. They want to see positive change in Washington, and Mitt has a more solid record of positive transformation than any presidential candidate in history. He’s made more than 150 companies better than they were, and generated a return on investment of more than 100% a year for 18 consecutive years in the process. He turned around an Olympics that, by consensus, was considered to be hopeless. He saved the government of Massachusetts from a fiscal and constitutional crisis of Katrina magnitude. The contrast with Hillaryl will be clear cut. There is excellent reason to believe that Romney can bring states like NH, Michigan, Oregon, and Maine to the table. I don’t think he will lose any red states, M word or no M word.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Breaking news:
1. Fred raises over $7M.
2. Newt announces he will not run.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/29/thompson-to-show-more-than-7-million/
September 29th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Bill’s most recent flare of temper on film will go a long way towards disabusing the public of its nostalgia.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Actually, Hillary (unlike Edwards and Obama) did not specifically endorse having the book about same-sex marriage being read to second graders. She gave a vague response on that point. You can see the transcript at http://www.cfr.org/publication/14313/democratic_debate_transcript_new_hampshire.html (search for “Lexington” to find this question).
September 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
ACT, I am somewhere between 2 and 3. I had too much experience losing when a democrat due to weak on defense candidates.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Congrats to Thompson. He obviously has supporters (though some of that may be the “low hanging fruit” that we have talked about on here) the question is, will he be able to sustain his momentum after the debate on the ninth?
September 29th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
This just in – bitter-sweet news. Gingrich isn’t going to run.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21047953/
Romney better win now!
September 29th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
#12 I have edited my blog entry. Thanks.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
#14 Yes, the 9th is crucial for Fred. I think he will do well.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
agreed Dave, which is why the “if the election were held today” polls are so limited in value.\
Elections are held after campaigns that inform an electorate that is not paying attention now.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I’m not convinced that Fred will fall flat on his face on the ninth, but I don’t think he will have an easy time at the deabte. For one, it will be his first experience at a forum where he does not control the show (at least in this election). For two, he is going to walk into this debate as the candidate with the most to attack, much like we say in the earlier debates with Romney and Giuliani. For three, I’m not sure that Fred will look good next to the more elequent Romney and Giuliani, or the more energetic Huckabee and Tancredo.
September 29th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Act, thanks on the 8
September 29th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Seven million is a big haul for Thompson, all things considered.
Is there any polling supporting this idea that Romney could flip MI, NH, WI, or MN? There are senate races in NH and MN and the GOP incumbents are vulnerable, which suggests the GOP brand is damaged there. MI has a dem gov and two dem senators. I don’t see that state going GOP.
Rudy, OTOH, could possibly flip NY or PA because a lot of Reagan Dems like Rudy.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“Rudy, OTOH, could possibly flip NY or PA”
….and NJ and CA and….and…..and….although FL would not be a flip, no Republican but Giuliani is likely to win it in 2008.
Everything you think you know about the Red Blue divide changes if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I am suprised by thompson’s numbers. i think this keeps him in the race. kudo’s to him. I really fear him getting the nomination becuase he is such a horrible candidate.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“Rudy, OTOH, could possibly flip NY”
Dude, that’s a nutty idea….
Maybe and probably PA, but you aint touching NY!
September 29th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
John Galt,
“I am suprised by thompson’s numbers. i think this keeps him in the race. kudo’s to him. I really fear him getting the nomination becuase he is such a horrible candidate.”
If he continues to be a horrible candidate and he still somehow wins the nomination, blame the south for that one.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
23. “I am surprised by Thompson’s numbers.”
For an insight. Go to Freerepublic.
Everything is rationalized. It’s like a Jackie Mason act.
He lobbied for abortion? It was for only minutes, for a few bucks, he really didn’t know what he was doing.
He doesn’t know about Terri Schiavo? It was years ago and his TV was in the shop.
He doesn’t know about an important recent death penalty case? He is campaigning and has no time for newspapers.
He helped defend a Libyan terrorists? What is the excuse for that one?
On and on. Nothing matters.
He loves gun shows and that he strokes his chin proves him a deep thinker. That’s good enough to be the Republican nominee.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
#5 Opinionated: “Thompson is coming off as Chauncey Gardner, appealing to only those who want to believe.
Hillary will eat him alive if he was her challenge.”
=====
I really appreciate this comparison. “Being There” is such a great movie. And the doctor
is the only one who gets it. People do believe what they want to believe about someone,
especially if that someone says little and has really no opinion about anything, but is tall,
and somehow appears grandfatherly and reassuring.
“Even a fool, when he is silent, is considered wise.” – Proverbs 17:28
September 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
#26 Opinionated – once again I have to give a hearty “Amen” to your comments.
The FReepers over at FredRepublic (yes, you read it right) are crazed about their Chauncey
Gardner candidate.
If Dobson says he won’t support him for POTUS, they just trash Dobson.
If another FReeper says anything negative about FDT, they accuse him/her of being a troll or
they ban him/her.
It doesn’t matter what significant facts are thrown at them — they ignore them.
I read a comment there once in reaction to an article saying Fred T. was soft on immigration
that said: “You haven’t seen Law & Order. Fred is NOT SOFT.”
It kind of freaked me out a little to realize that people were seeing Fred Thompson as
Arthur Branch, or whatever other authoritative figure he has played on the big screen.
It really makes me question the intelligence and objectivity of a lot of the posters over there.
It also makes me fear for the Republican Party.
Thompson has got to have more name recognition than Romney does in the South. FDT is from
Alabama, was a Senator from Tennessee and talks like a southerner. (I hear he doesn’t always
have this accent, only when it serve him.)
Anyway, I hope and pray that his upcoming debate performance shows the public and his
supporters once and for all that Fred Thompson is NOT ready for prime time, not near ready.
It may be wrong to hope something bad for someone, but I would just like to see the race
be between the serious, QUALIFIED candidates. And I think that would be good for all of us.
September 29th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Hey Beth, I don’t think that the idiots on FreeRepublic are really representative of people who support Fred Thompson. They are extreme in all matters. Not all of them, of course, but insanity is not only tolerated there, it is actually praised as high form of art.
I’m somewhat disappointed that a gentlelady like yourself would consider the opinion of Dobson to be significant. He may have his own opinion, and I would hope that he would keep that to himself, but people who support Thompson, or any other candidate, do not owe him any explanation for their support of this candidate. You may want to consider the fact that this Dobson character probably won’t endorse your candidate either. Since you are upset that people are ‘trashing’ Dobson, how would you respond to that?