Heart-ache: GOP insiders say Hillary presidency is (almost) inevitable
posted at 11:22 pm on February 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
This is the intraparty equivalent of that Osama ad they dropped a few weeks before the election.
These are the stakes:
No, seriously, though, she’s going to win.
In GOP circles, the Democratic front-runner is seen as so strong, and the political climate for Republicans so hostile, that many influential voices — including current and former lawmakers, and veterans of President Bush’s campaigns — have grown despairing…
Even some well-connected outside advisers to Bush … are advising Republicans that it will be next to impossible to win the White House if Bush’s popularity remains so low, and public disgust with the war so high. Beyond the polls, some said there are gaps between the organizational prowess of the Clinton operation and any of the Republicans currently competing for the nomination…
The conservative movement, ascendant for much of the Bush presidency, is now divided and dispirited. GOP leaders report that it is harder than ever to organize Republicans around a common cause and that Democrats have made progress in recent years in rebuilding the infrastructure of their party. In this mood of malaise, the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is one prod leaders use to shock conservative troops into action.
Tom DeLay, for one, is ready for a political Rapture:
Reflecting the views of many well-known Republicans, DeLay thinks a Clinton juggernaut may provide the flattening the party needs in order to be reborn in Reagan’s mold. “Hillary Clinton as president may be the best thing that ever happened to the conservative movement and the Republican Party,” says the man known as the Hammer. “I mean, Bill Clinton as president was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party. It was because he was president that we gained the majority in 1995.” And he would know.
Exit question: Does the future of the Republican Party rest in this man’s hands?
Update: Perfect: “Iraqi Premier Admits Errors in Introducing Security Plan in Baghdad.”
Update: First Cintra Wilson, now Jonathan Alter. Acquaint yourself with the “Giuliani as Darth Vader” meme; you’ll be seeing much more of it from the nutroots the longer his numbers stay afloat.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
Well, IF getting a Republican (a consrvative Republican too) in the White House is such a lost cause then we need to focus on getting the majority back in the Senate to such a degree that anything Pres. Billary tries to do will face such opposition that she’ll go down in history as the most d0-nothing president in history.
Yakko77 on February 6, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Yeah, if we can survive another Clintoon in power, how indignant will she be when one of our cities gets leveled on her watch? Oh yeah, they will STILL blame it on Bush.
bbz123 on February 6, 2007 at 11:27 PM
There are 40% of the voters who will never pick Hillary, not even dead drunk at last call with full beer goggles on. Ralph Nader is thinking about running, who will siphon off the bottom of her loony lefty base. That makes her beatable as an old rug. The only thing that could make it better is if Al Sharpton is her pick for VP.
Bring out Newt Gingrich and we rightwing nutjobs will rise up out of the trenches and take the high ground. I wanna see Noot take down Hillary in a debate. I think he can put her in a headlock she can’t escape.
On To Victory!
Tantor on February 6, 2007 at 11:32 PM
DONT GIVE UP THE SHIP!
Defector01 on February 6, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Hillary as Prez? I don’t see it. Even the Dems I know say they wouldn’t vote for her. The majority of the country can’t be that stupid. Can they?…..
Guardian on February 6, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Let’s help Hillary with some campaign slogans:
BILL FOR CO-PRESIDENT AGAIN!
Tantor on February 6, 2007 at 11:36 PM
I truly hope Shrillary is the dem nominee. I believe it makes the Republican candidate a shoo-in. But truly, she will not get elected. I firmly believe that. I’ve said before - this country is not ready to elect a female president - and certainly not a lightning rod like her. Some day, but not yet. She’s no Angela Merkel and she’s definitely NOT a Margaret Thatcher. She has no ability to capture our nation in the times we live in with a uniting message.
thedecider on February 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM
GOP insiders haven’t really shown in the last year that they’re that in touch with the voters. Omniscient they are not.
They see everything through the Palantir of the MSM. They need to get out more.
INC on February 6, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I’m not so down about any of this. Almost 2 years out is an eternity in politics. The primaries are very important for us Conservatives. Get out and vote in the primaries!
SouthernGent on February 6, 2007 at 11:44 PM
May I request a caption contest for tonight’s most excellent and stimulating graphic?
What has two thumbs and ……..?
shaken on February 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Great. Now I guess I have to get ready to deal with the fact that I’m gonna have 12 freakin’ years of Clinton presidencys to look back on when I’m old.
So when I’m packed off to some God aweful nursing home and I’m stewing in a wheelchair, sitting on top of an overflowing bed pan, the only thing I can do is try to escape my nursing home hell with some pleasant memories of the past.
So I’ll drift back in thought and BAM!! President Hilary is in my thoughts again.
Ain’t that a kick in the nuts…
EFG on February 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM
People need to get past the idea that losing is some kind of brilliant strategy for winning. It is a variation on the liberal strategic thinking that says, “If we bomb the jihadi’s, they will gain more recruits and become more powerful than ever!!!” In real life if someone bombs you, you lose. If you lose an election, you lose. If they strike you down, you do not become more powerful than they can possibly imagine. You just lose, and that is bad.
At some point, maybe there will be a great utopian age when Repulicans think and act like winners. lol
Coyote D. on February 6, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Hell, how can we expect them to be in touch with voters if they’re not even in touch with their base?
Newt’s stock will rise. He has a message as similar to Reagan’s as anyone who’s run since. The basic message, “The scariest 9 words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” That IS Newt’s message. He’s getting it out and then he’ll run.
Editor on February 6, 2007 at 11:49 PM
But what if she is another Jimmy Carter? Who is the next Reagan waiting in the wings to clean up a mess like that?
B Moe on February 6, 2007 at 11:50 PM
I hope this is a lame attempt at fund raising by these “GOP insiders”. If not, they’re fools. While Hillary the president is to be feared, Hillary the candidate is not.
Capp on February 6, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Yeah, and after Her Thighness wins the Presidency in ‘08 there will be a small clandestine meeting between two very old media mogels in a bathroom wherein one admits that the other “won the bet” and hands him a crisp new one dollar bill.
That picture would be completed with Michael Steele being in the bathroom too, overhearing the whole thing, and turning the whole thing around on the two old coots with the help of a down-and-out Rudy Giuliani.
unamused on February 6, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Come off the coast and the picture seems a bit different…Wasn’t Dean’s presidency a sure thing? What happened to that?
Pam on February 6, 2007 at 11:54 PM
…no clue that mainstream America finds her obnoxious?
…is thrilled her husband found someone new who appreciates a big cigar?
…is grateful her daughter isn’t pregnant with the child of some loser?
thedecider on February 6, 2007 at 11:56 PM
In the most loving of ways, and without any trace of sarcasm, may you be as right on this as you were on the SB prediction, and as I was on the Nov. ‘06 elections.
Freaky Darth Vader
Entelechy on February 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Editor on February 6, 2007 at 11:49 PM,
I should have used the word base. I was thinking of GOP voters in my comment.
INC on February 6, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Well stated Coyote D. This is NOT the time to be thinking about losing to the Dems. Quit drinking the freakin’ MSM Kool-aid folks. Elections are not until 2008. Alot can happen between now and then. Remember the Dems are the majority in power now and they are bound to provide plenty of fodder for Republican candidates. To (partially) quote Ann Richards of Texas, they just “can’t hep” themselves.
thedecider on February 7, 2007 at 12:00 AM
…two blue frogs jumping out of her head…
Entelechy on February 7, 2007 at 12:01 AM
There are two things more dangerous to the Dems than conservatives:
1. The Dems
2. Reality
Those will do far more harm to any ‘08 run by a lib than anything we could dish out.
Most lemmings will follow the idiot in front of it right off the cliff.
unamused on February 7, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Here’s my personal voting stragtegy: Whoever the Dems hate and froth over gets my vote, at this stage Guiliani is getting them apoplectic, if Newt can make a feew heads explode ( pop goes the Oberwank) then I will cast it for him.
bbz123 on February 7, 2007 at 12:09 AM
No, it rests with the Republican Party.
2008 rests with the conservatives wanting to win more than wanting to be rigid/absolute, and internalizing the fear of what Hillary would do to the country and them/us.
Hillary is not Bill Clinton. She’s a European-style socialist idealist. Therein lies the danger!
Jonathan Alter is wrong - he hasn’t looked inside Hillary yet, or is blind and doesn’t want to acknowledge what he sees.
Entelechy on February 7, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I think it’s interesting — maybe even revealing — that nowhere does this article mention Giuliani by name. Sure, there’s the sneering reference to possible candidates who would normally be unpalatable, but the fact is that if Rudy does get the nod, the showdown between him and and Hillary is going to be a donnybrook of epic proportions. The “inevitablity” goes straight out the window if she goes up against him, and I’m shocked more people don’t realize that. Quite apart from the grotesquely different histories (nothing Hillary has done will ever compete with Rudy’s 9/11 leadership, and even discounting that she has little to compare to the sea change he wrought in New York) he can debate rings around her, and simply comes across as a better leader in all respects.
That being said, if the Repubs nominate McCain, Romney, or…well…anyone (I can’t imagine Gingrich getting anywhere near the nod), then yes, I think Hillary is pretty much unbeatable.
Il Padrino on February 7, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Actually the only thing Republicans have going for them is that Hillary might win the primary. If it’s anyone that half the country doesn’t already hate then there’s no way a Republican wins the Whitehouse.
Had they decided to go with different leadership then maybe there’d be a chance but staying with the same old corrupt group of leaders let everyone know they didn’t give a crap what the voters said during the last election.
Benaiah on February 7, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Scare tactics AP?
Griz on February 7, 2007 at 12:15 AM
“I’m a conservative, not a Republican.”
Say that 20 million times, and you’ll begin to understand why there is nothing that is going to save the GOP in 2008. The atheist and/or anti-Christian, metrosexual, gay-loving, pro-abortion, country club, Ivy League GOP appeals to about 10% of the population, who can’t tell them apart from “fiscally conservative Democrats”, as if. Big tent, indeed.
Thing is, “President Clinton” kind of rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it Slu?
Jaibones on February 7, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Nah! I commented on that point earlier: thedecider on February 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM
She doesn’t have what it takes.
thedecider on February 7, 2007 at 12:18 AM
True enough. The GOP got arrogant - I’ll give you that. Let’s hope they learned a lesson. I think the days of nominating a strict conservative are over. If the GOP wants to come back strong, they have to start embracing more social issues. Rudy provides that in spades.
thedecider on February 7, 2007 at 12:22 AM
thedecider:
I hope you’re right. I actually *do* think the country is ready to elect a woman, so maybe I come at it from a different angle than you do. My worry is that other than Rudy, none of the Republican frontrunners have the grit to go up against Hillary…nor the name recognition, nor the media-trumped hosannas that will come about for THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!, nor the appeal to 1990s Gilded Age nostalgia, when we didn’t have to worry about terrorist attacks on major population centers, but rather blissful ruminations on the nature of the President’s shwanz.
That’s what worries me most of all, really, and why I think Hillary is so potent and why Rudy is needed to counter her…I think a big chunk of this country wants to back to its 9/10 slumber, and what better way to do that than elect a Clinton? I think Rudy is the only one who won’t *allow* people that fantasy while on the campaign trail, merely by virtue of his presence, his history, and *why* he’s a candidate in the first place.
Il Padrino on February 7, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Get the whimpy ass RHINO’s out of the mix, stop all the doom and gloom bs about Shillery winning, and these Repubs got to do what they are doing now in the Senate on this waste of a Resoultion: Stand UP against these Dems. Their scum and no more mister nice guy.
And Iraq–Maliki needs a swift kick in the ass, Sadr has to be made ash, Iranian ifluence has to cease and the fricken Sunni’s and Shia need to be seperated. Those bastards know how we have our ass caught in the middle and quite frankly I thing our troops and our politicians have been getting the worse of a greese job. Stop all the bs and straiten the damn thing up. NOW.
auspatriotman on February 7, 2007 at 12:29 AM
I understand your trepidation and I believe your thinking is on the right path. The challenge is in getting the GOP to nominate someone more socially liberal than they have in the past. Rudy does fit the bill (personally, I would love to see Newt in the running but I won’t hold my breath for that) very well. He has the capacity to unite people from both parties. Hillary really doesn’t. I see two major obstacles against her: she’s a woman (no offense but I still believe this country isn’t ready to elect a female to the office of POTUS), and second, she has no uniting message to offer the public. Have you noticed that no matter how many times she tries to run to the middle, she is constantly pulled back by the left. She has absolutely NO uniting message for the American public to rally around. She can’t afford it. Only Rudy is in a position (today) to do that. I love Newt and wish he had a solid chance, but I think he’s too far right at this point in time. Who knows - 2008 is still a ways off.
thedecider on February 7, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Hillary can’t win. Her current unfavorable ratings are in the low 40’s and she has 100% recognition so it ain’t because people don’t know who she is. And the attack ads from Democrats in primaries haven’t even started yet, let alone Republican attack ads. We’re two years out from the election. This is so early to be worried about Hillary only DC retards are worryin’. These wankers spend too much time watching and reading MSM stories. They have an uneasy and reactionary relationship with reality.
Incidentally, Newt is a no go for the same reason Hillary is. He should be on the top of everyone’s short list for VP though. It allows the Presidential candidate more room to court the middle with Newt bringing in the right.
The Apologist on February 7, 2007 at 12:35 AM
There are two things that make me sceptical.
1. Conventional
2. Wisdom
How many shoe ins made it?
- The Cat
MirCat on February 7, 2007 at 12:35 AM
And the Repub nominee can’t be a social lib because the Dem already is. Who will the socons vote for if not the Repub? No one. They’ll stay home. And the nominee won’t get their money and they won’t man the phones and they won’t put up signs or do any of the other things they have done in the last four cycles. And that means Rove’s incredible turnout machine will be turned off and the Repub will get slaughtered by any Dem nominee. You can’t turn your back on half the Party. It won’t work. Socon Repubs come for the socon not the Repub. If you ain’t got it they won’t show. And you won’t pick up the Dem socons at the periphery like you do every two years if you have a solib Repub.
Socons are too important to the machinery of campaigns and too substantial a proportion of the base. What you need to do is find a smart socon that knows just how hard to push without pissin’ moderate people off on social issues. Like GWB. Keep lookin’.
The Apologist on February 7, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Hillary will run to the right of the democrat base. Rudy is slightly left of the GOP base. Third party spoilers or lack thereof could determine the outcome. I predict Rudy will win. If not, when AQ strikes us again, Hillary will have to act. What will she do to defend this country? The 90’s are gone forever. The dems will find out the hard way this war is not voluntary. It will be interesting to see the anti-war party run a war when we’re attacked again. She won’t have the luxury Bill had to pretend it’s not happening. She will want to prove she can fight like a man. And when the dems find out how unpredictable war is, the irony will be Hillary may ultimately get more support from our side than her own. (I know how crazy that sounds but it’s possible.)
Buck Turgidson on February 7, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Never gonna happen. 20 months is the equivalent of an eternity in politics. I’ll bet ya a couple of pizzas.
Write in Newt!
Scotsman on February 7, 2007 at 1:16 AM
Amen!
Not to mention that the primaries are quite a long ways off, as are elections.
Again, a prediction - Hillary/Obama in ‘08 from the Democratic Primary.
Now it falls to the Republicans to field a worthy candidate - for my money, Gingrich is the only one intelligent enough to either put up a credible fight or win.
Emmett J. on February 7, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Have the GOP leadership say that 20 million times and maybe they will start to realize why conservatives no longer support them.
Conservatives want the GOP to return back to Reagan and the ideals he professed.
The GOP lost its way, and is no longer the voice of conservatives.
Just look at the 2008 candidates the GOP has to offer…
For every realistic GOP candidate (one that would realistically get the GOP nomination in 2008) I can show you at least one policy that goes against Reagan.
In fact lets all have some fun…
If anyone can point to me one GOP candidate for 20008, that holds all of the same ideaks that Reagan did (and is a real possibility for the GOP nomination), I will donate $500.00 to the winner’s favorite charity.
(Disclaimer)
I will not donate any money to a cause that is pro-choice; for illegal immigration (legal immigration is fine); or for gun control at large.
In the event no one is awarded the $500.00 it will go to http://www.reaganfoundation.org (I still need to figure out how to give it to them).
This fun is not sponsored/endorsed by hotair.com.
Hotair.com is free to edit/delete post if it goes against the TOS they have outlined.
Any edits/deletions by the hotair.com staff will rule my “ fun” invalid and a donation will be made to the http://www.reaganfoundation.org in my name
(End disclaimer)
F15Mech on February 7, 2007 at 1:36 AM
I hope Reagan never professed spelling/typing as part of his “ideaks” ;)
F15Mech on February 7, 2007 at 1:42 AM
BTW only one (the first winner) will win the $500.00
F15Mech on February 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Newt Gingrich and Duncan Hunter are pretty faithful to Reagan, but they’re probably not realistic possibilities for the ‘08 nomination.
forged rite on February 7, 2007 at 1:56 AM
It will take a miracle for the Republicans to win the presidency after Bush is through with it. He has alienated his base with support for the illegal alien and support for corporate and wealthy interests at the nation’s expense.
I have one solution: Colin Powell. I could get excited about him as president. He is the most well qualified presidental candidate and is perfect for the job. The problem is his age and he (or his wife) really doesn’t want the job - at least I think that is the case.
Perhaps the prospect of Hillary in office will change his mind. Just the thought of Hillary in office makes me shudder.
omegaram on February 7, 2007 at 2:28 AM
Pay attention to this folks. 20 months. And I’m with Newt also. He hasn’t declared yet, but if he runs he will tear hillary apart. But, on the other hand, I’ll take Rudy G. and John McCain over any dhemocrat.
R D on February 7, 2007 at 2:48 AM
It’s amazing just how stupid the GOP is. They still believe they’re losing because of the Iraq war. It just doesn’t occur to them that conservatives are pissed off over immigration problems and excessive spending.
Gregor on February 7, 2007 at 2:54 AM
If you are all ready to give it to Hillary and the Dhemocrats, then you are all appeasers. Bow down to get your heads chopped off. Worthless tools….
R D on February 7, 2007 at 2:59 AM
Gregor, The “illegal” immigration issue is a problem that both sides refuse to address. The excessive spending that you talk about has been around forever. It’s a non factor. The economy is growing at a rate that only the Clintoon’s could wish for.
R D on February 7, 2007 at 3:11 AM
“Nothing to see here, again, sheeple, just go about your business and let us, the MSM and Democrat {not Democratic} Party, tell you what you are going to do……… Nothing to see, go back to sleep, don’t think about what can happen in two years, let us make up your mind now, and drill it into your heads just like we are not winning in Iraq {even though we are winning}…… nothing to see………….
“Who said that?”
{The borders are still not secured….}
“Shut up”
{The economy is the best in human history}
“Cut the tape, Cut the tape…”
{The troops will be coming home, and voting….}
“Get the lawyers, Get the lawyers….”
{Two years of spin, how many times can Nancy Pelosi blink or Hillary go without botox?}
“AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH…….. declare Martial Law, declare it is illegal to be a Conservaive, register as many illegals and felons to vote before they get in power…. turn the machines back on…….. turn the machines back on….”
PinkyBigglesworth on February 7, 2007 at 3:34 AM
“GOP insiders” are the same people who couldn’t give a rat’s ass about enforcing our borders. “GOP insiders” are the ones who ignored their base once they got into office and started spending and expanding the government like Democrats. (Prescription drug benefit, anyone?) “GOP insiders” are the geniuses who gave us Mel “Part of the problem, not part of the solution” Martinez as RNC chair instead of Michael “Damn, that guy’s impressive” Steele. “GOP insiders” are the brilliant strategic thinkers who’ve got anybody that isn’t a RINO thinking about voting third-party in 2008. So I respectfully suggest that “GOP insiders” can kiss the hairiest part of my ass.
These chickensh*ts obviously haven’t got the Malkins to fight a war to the knife, so they need to get out of the way and let somebody with some fire in their belly take over and start taking the fight to the enemy. The aforementioned Michael Steele would be a good start–he’s smart, energetic, and positive (and I mean all of that in a totally non-Bidenesque way), not to mention being a completely untapped resource at the moment. We need real leaders who are hungry to win, not mealy-mouthed cowards spouting “defeat=victory” crap.
ReubenJCogburn on February 7, 2007 at 3:36 AM
Today’s Republican Party is completely out of touch.
Mel Martinez is RNC chair. Boehner and Blunt are back in the saddle. Bush is still talking about amnesties and ways that would-be illegal immigrants can bypass the border patrol through the absurdly misnamed “guest-worker program.” Republicans are still chasing the mythical Mexican Republican vote even as they ensure they will be a permanent minority party in the future by doing so. I’m almost finished with the whole lot of them. I’m justing waiting for the amnesty/permanent resident program to pass and I’ll throw in the towel once and for all.
I didn’t abandon the Republican Party. The Republican Party abandoned me.
Good luck with President Clinton.
tommy1 on February 7, 2007 at 3:41 AM
The mention of Nader reminded me of something that happened in 2004. I was wandering through downtown Dallas one night, don’t get me wrong, we were going to see a friend’s band play, I would never voluntarily go to that
hellholeplace without a reason. Anyway, while we were walking around, we were accosted by a nut for Nader, trying to get people to sign a petition to get him on the ballot. I signed it, and felt dirty afterward, until I thought about how Ross Perot cost Bush Sr. the election, and then I realized that I should always support the ultra-liberal whacko third parties. Not with money, of course, but I’ll sign the petition and wish them not so well.All in all, I don’t see how Hillary could be elected president. Of course, I still don’t see how his husband could be reelected, either.
Wolfman on February 7, 2007 at 3:48 AM
Sorry to tell you this,kids but the bulk of the Pro-gun,anti-amnesty,anti-abortion voters are going to go 3rd party or stay home if we don’t get a conservative candidate from the RNC for this election.
Cry all you want about party loyalty, but it is going to happen.
quax1 on February 7, 2007 at 3:52 AM
Should this happen, I should think we have learned nil from History and would eventually end up repeating it, see US History 1861-1865, albeit with some other very troubling factors involved.. Every great empire has been brought down from within and this is just what the libtards want.
Viper1 on February 7, 2007 at 4:00 AM
How about this………
A few Conservatives realize that what is really at stake, not only looking to the Middle East and Europe, behind our shoulders to North Korea and China, is our Sothern Brethren in Hugo and the Clan “Socialism or Death” to our South……………..
Yes, boys and girls, this is a very scary world, and every “anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-troop vowel that is expelled by our friends in the Republican and Democratic Party, MSM, and our allies” does have consequences….
How many times do those of us that actually know this have to try to tell you?????????
To the point, I know we are all divided, but have a common goal, to protect this country and our families…… are we in agreement?
Why not encourage Newt, Duncan, Robert, the boys and girls left in the repulican/conservative party to create a “TEAM”, to put together a package to secure the border, win the war, and deal with our “neighbors”, then let the people decide…….. Brother Hugo just took over in an election, and now he is “Dictator for Life”… does that sound any familiar to any of you?
Anyone else worried by parties other than our brother muslims???
Anyone else worried by the possible outcome of the next election???
Thoughts are welcome, discussion is encouraged, insight and wisdom…….. is being prayed for.
PinkyBigglesworth on February 7, 2007 at 4:26 AM
In the 1992 election Clinton won with only 43% of the vote. Perot received 19% of the popular vote and Bush 41 most of the remaining votes or about 37%. It was widely acknowledged that Perot siphoned off largely Bush votes. The combined votes between Perot and Bush were about 57 million. Perot’s reform party represented one in 3 republicans.
Why all the math? Because like then the extreme right of the republicans are going to whine about RINOs, the base, blah blah blah while not acknowledging they are NOT the majority of the party — important part yes but not majority.
So until 2016 when you have to say Madame President and do the finger pointing remember the old saying about four more pointing at yourself.
Bradky on February 7, 2007 at 6:13 AM
Oh geez. This is wayyyy too early for this nonsense. A lot can happen in two years.
.
GT on February 7, 2007 at 6:21 AM
Hmmm…
We need a Pro Law and Order… (prosecute the dam traitors leaking secrets to the press…).
Pro American…
Anti Islamic Jihadist…
Border Control Advocate… (Fund the dam fence…).
Pro Military…
Straight talking Conservative.
Romeo13 on February 7, 2007 at 6:40 AM
…name a state Kerry lost that she can win?
Alden Pyle on February 7, 2007 at 7:10 AM
I agree. Little disappointing to see talk of civil war (at any time) and abandoning parties this early in the game. Just seems that if the base doesn’t chill out some they will make Hillary seem like a reasonable moderate.
Bradky on February 7, 2007 at 7:29 AM
I’m not Slu, but I can answer that question. It rolls off the tongue just like “Wile E. Coyote, suuuuuuuper genius.”
steveegg on February 7, 2007 at 7:37 AM
We also cannot discount the Dems proclivity for voting fraud and general chicanery, if there is a whiff of a GOP victory in the air come election time they will pull out every trick they have in their little black book of thievery.
bbz123 on February 7, 2007 at 7:43 AM
No, I don’t like the thinking that a Hillary presidency would be good for the Republicans. I don’t think that way. The Dems think that way. Party first country second. I fear a Hillary presidency will do so much damage to our nation that it would not even be recognizable in 4 years.
We have to have central rallying points. We conservatives must start putting many things behind us and move forward.
hoosierken on February 7, 2007 at 7:54 AM
Ok, I know he hasnt thrown his name in the hat yet (cause its still friggin EARLY), but if he does, he gets my vote.His name, you ask?? Tancredo!!
mrfixit on February 7, 2007 at 7:57 AM
As for the country being ready for a female POTUS… I dont know. I would, if her name was Rice, but she would rather be NFL Commish.
mrfixit on February 7, 2007 at 7:59 AM
Hillary wins?
NO WAY.
Not gonna happen.
Her negatives are too large. She has a HERSTORY that is damning. Also, the nutroots hate her guts because likie us, they know she’s lying by “moving left” — because they WILL NOT FORGIVE ALL HER PRO-WAR TALK AND HER PRO-WAR VOTES.
And, SHOULD the lie factory (Hillary’s war room — every Democratic candidate has a lie factory) convince the nutroots that she was lying all along and is really anti-war, then the moderates and those who support victory in Iraq will have all the proof they need that she lied to them.
So, they’re going to have to STEAL the election, as they tried to do in 2000 and 2004. (And probably did in 2006).
And if the Republicans want to win, they’re going to have to resort to the same nasty tricks that the Democraps always do to win: Thugary, violence, and fraud.
georgej on February 7, 2007 at 8:05 AM
For anyone who thinks Hillary can’t possibly win, here’s your homework assignment: Watch her “I’m in” video. Lends new meaning to the word “slick.”
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 7, 2007 at 8:18 AM
I’m a certified RINO;
-priority #1: GWOT
-priority #2: everything else
20 months is a long time and the landscape will change but my party is going to fight with itself all the way to election night. Like that kid screaming on the floor in the grocery store everything has to be their(wingnut) way or the highway. Makes me sick.
Limerick on February 7, 2007 at 8:23 AM
The Pantsuit Moves Left
How exactly does a socialist move left?
Anyway, I’m not buying the gloom and doom scenario. She’s just so unlikable, this smarmy, arrogant woman.
JammieWearingFool on February 7, 2007 at 9:04 AM
Ohio. Florida.
Think this is way premature though. So much can, and will, happen before the election.
honora on February 7, 2007 at 9:25 AM
You mean put the partisan need (making Hillary look bad) ahead of the national needs? Gee, I thought this was what Democrats were roundly condemned for doing re Bush? Funny how perspective can change, ain’t it???
honora on February 7, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Newt said he’d only run as a last resort; this is probably a push to get newt to throw his name into the ring - so he can run as VP with guiliani - who is the likely GOP candidate.
lorien1973 on February 7, 2007 at 9:38 AM
I heartily agree.
My view is:
This election is the Democrat’s to win or lose. Unless they run Hillary, then it will be the GOP’s to win or lose.
The GOP could take this next election easily with one of several decent conservative candidates. But I’m just not seeing any decent candidates popping up.
It is yet to be determined if the GOP learned their lesson and will run a candidate that can get traction with their base. Otherwise GOP voters will stay home just like they did last November.
Because. There is one thing we can count on this next election, and that is Democrats turning out to vote.
Lawrence on February 7, 2007 at 9:44 AM
It was balanced with Michelle’s vent with the swastika and Bush.
right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 9:51 AM
I don’t think it was the base that stayed home. The majority of both parties is NOT the “base”. The party that forgets this is the party that will lose more seats.
Bradky on February 7, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Yes, a lot can happen in two years. Just a few months after their drubbing last November, the GOP is cozying up to the democrats on amnesty, putting an open borders guy in control of the RNC, and a bunch of GOP senators want to side with the Dhimmicrats in condemning any possible success with the war. Think of the stupidity and betrayls we have to look forward to in 6 months.
This post is not a scare tactic as someone else asked AP above. This is an accurate assessment by people looking at the facts as they are. I would love Newt Gingrich to win the nomination, but he won’t. Too much baggage, which will be thrown at him via catapult by the MSM especially since he’s running against a Clinton. Romney? Who? Another Mass-pole? Please. The Mayor? They’ve already gone to work on dragging him down and he only announced two days ago. McCain? Good luck. He’s even less popular with his base than Clinton. “But he’s a war hero” didn’t help Kerry get elected either..and Kerry’s base didn’t hate him as much as the conservatives hate McCain. The GOP is going to reap what they sowed. Gang of 14, open disdain for border control policys, civil rights for terrorists, and Senator Mel as the head of the RNC. If they could have attacked the democrat base the way they’ve savaged their own, they could run anybody and win. As it is, they’ve only guaranteed their defeat. I don’t want another g**d**n clinton. But none of our candidates have any sparkle that can pull votes from her or even rev up the base. I already have seen people wanting to ‘vote for McCain because he can win’. i’ve seen what McCain does once he’s comfortable and I’m not going to hand him any power. If he stays in, I’ll vote for Rudy. But I don’t see any way we can win unless the party pulls it’s collective head out of its butt. These insiders need to look in the mirror at WHY she’s going to win, and try to fix it.
austinnelly on February 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM
or, how about
So. When we decide to start fighting, you guys will let me know, right?
Need some incentive? What if I told you that President HillBillary’s first official act as President will be to bring back Janet Reno as Attorney General? Mad enough to fight yet?
CyberCipher on February 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM
“At some point, maybe there will be a great utopian age when Repulicans think and act like winners. lol”
I think most of us would settle for having them think and act like Republicans, at least once in a while. If we’re bound to elect a liberal either way, how much difference can it really make which letter of the alphabet follows their name in the newspapers? At that point, it’s all nothing more than a silly kid’s game anyway, our team against theirs, with nothing more critical at stake than bragging rights and transient DC/Big G spoils.
Mike H on February 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM
God is not mocked, we will get what we deserve.
NRA4Freedom on February 7, 2007 at 10:09 AM
The funny part is, Republicans will be roundly condemned by the MSM for putting selfish partisan needs above national security. The same MSM folks never laid a finger on the Dems when they were selfish, they constantly attacked our president and his policies in a time of war, in order to gain back their power. The Dems can always rely on the MSM to act as their cheerleaders.
Funny how the MSM’s perspective can change, aint it?
It’s called politics honora. Those who have lost power will always go after those who have gained power, Dems and Republicans alike. It’s been going on for centuries, in case you haven’t noticed.
The only difference in today’s world is how the political tactics of both sides are reported or ignored by the press, depending on which party is in power.
fogw on February 7, 2007 at 10:24 AM
My opinion reflect the voters in my region. I know a lot of conservatives that will only vote for candidates with a pro-life, and or pro-Israel platform, etc. And these people (mostly Republicans) pretty much all stayed home in November.
The Republicans in my area out number the Democrats 3:1, yet when only 1/3 of the Republicans turn out it gives the Democrats a chance. Consequently, many Democrats won in state and local government against Republican candidates who were otherwise confident in keeping their seats.
The main reason for this? What the voters themselves tell me? The GOP voter base feels the current GOP platform is out of touch. They’re not going to vote Democrat, but since they no longer feel the GOP represtents them, they also refuse to vote Republican.
I voted for who I considered the lesser of the two evils. But many here are tired of this and have decided there is no point in voting when they view both choices as bad.
President Bush is considered a moderate in these parts. He is heavily supported regarding his war policy and taxes. But he’s in the tank regarding fiscal policy, open borders, the normal stuff we all talk about, etc.
Lawrence on February 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Exactly. The motives of each party are impeachable. What I find exasperating is the inability of some to grasp this fundamental notion.
honora on February 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM
What? When? Have I been asleep the last 6 f***in’ years? Other than the tax cuts, a couple of measly judicial nominations (which were foisted on Bush by the Miers embarrassment), and a briefly strong stance in the war, when did this happen?
Mark V. on February 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM
And count me among those who prefer a President with a temper where that temper is vectored toward protecting the country rather than just winning the Presidency or scoring cheap political points.
Mark V. on February 7, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I’m not ready to throw in the towel yet. I just need one decent GOP candidate to peak my interest. The current field looks like a festering pile off dog-$hit.
Find that candidate (imediately) and start to win the GOP constituents back.
natesnake on February 7, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Idle curiousity: does a festering pile of dog sh**
any different than a regular pile? How so?
honora on February 7, 2007 at 11:47 AM
This is absolutely ridiculous.
If the GOP is ready to concede defeat two full years before the election, we’re in real trouble. Replace them all. Get some officials with some stones.
These guys are a bunch of pantywaist losers.
ahem on February 7, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Amen, bruddah!!!!!
Lonevoice on February 7, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Agree with that. This is no time to concede (unless of course it’s a faux-concession to make the democrats overconfident … not that I have the confidence in Republicans to even try such a thing).
However, our current crop of declared presidential candidates on the Republican side is certainly uninspiring.
thirteen28 on February 7, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Hillary will never win the South. Not gonna happen. You don’t win the South, you don’t win period.
spmat on February 7, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I would like to see Tancredo or maybe Newt. Unfortunately, I think by the time Bush leaves office he will have done irreparable damage to our country through his immigration policies.
Here is the bad news and this is exactly the process that what Bush wants to accelerate and exacerbate:
Coming US challenge: a less literate workforce
How likely are we to dramatically change those outcomes by 2030? Take a look at the educational stats for even fourth generation Mexican-Americans. They are awful.
tommy1 on February 7, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Actually, that’s not true. Hillary (or whoever) could lose the south if she/he gains in the west/southwest and keeps a solid northeast, midwest and CA.
honora on February 7, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Indeed it does. Fresh dog $hit is mostly solid without fly and magot activity. Festering dog $hit has been saturated with ground water, lost it’s original form, and is infested with flys and magots.
Example:
1996 GOP Presidential Hopefuls = dog $hit
2008 GOP Presidential Hopefuls = festering dog $hit
natesnake on February 7, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Something to remember re: Reagan and the GOP, Ronnie was an eternal optimist. It was hard not to like that about him.
If we want that back, then the doom and gloom has to go.
Defense Guy on February 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Hillary will not debate, no way. She knows she would be ripped apart. She will limit her exposure, limit her access, limit what she says to very contained points and speaches. She has a huge base so why take a chance and make a mistake. The MSM will protect her, the more the republicans try to “smoke her out” the more the MSM will point to how desperate the conservatives are. 60 days from the election, and you still won’t know what she really stands for. Women will vote for her because she is a female, liberals will vote for her, the extreme left will vote because of the wink, wink effect, minorities will vote for her because of the continued promise of a handout. But middle America will vote for a solid, strong, decisive candidate…that is who can beat Hillary, not the most conservative, or the most liberal, but the one that will communicate to the masses and connect with them, that is what she cannot do. It was not Reagans conservative values that won him the election, it was that the American people trusted him and connected with him. Many (of the MSM) thought, right up to election he was going to lose. They (MSM) do not understand the masses. Hillary has a disconnect with people, they only need an excuse not to vote for her. She has a huge “unlikable” factor.
right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »