Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Surrendering to Hillary?

Bruce Bartlett,
TownHall.com

As each day passes, it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It’s not quite 1932, but it’s getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for any of the Republican candidates—even among Republicans.

Of course, one can never rule out the ability of the Democrats to seize defeat from the jaws of victory. But sometimes the trend in one party’s direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence can’t keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of year for the Democrats.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to a question during a breakfast gathering at the home of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie, Tuesday, April 3, 2007, in Mount Pleasant, Iowa home. (AP Photo/Steve Pope)

If I am right, conservatives are going to have to make an important decision at some point. Do they go down with the sinking Republican ship or do they try and have some meaningful influence on the next president by becoming involved in the Democratic race?

I’m sure that the first reaction of most conservatives will be to say that any involvement in the Democratic Party is unthinkable. Many view it as the party of treason and socialism. They could no more involve themselves in Democratic politics than a God-fearing Christian would consider working with Satan just because it looked like he was going to win.

For those of you who feel this way, stop reading. There is nothing more in this column for you. But for those conservatives who don’t see the 2008 election as a race between good and evil, but merely a contest between rivals within the same league, I think there is a good case for participating in the Democratic nominating process.

Here’s why. Although all the Democratic candidates are more liberal than all of the Republicans, they are not all equally liberal. Among the Democrats, some are more to the right and others more to the left. It is a grave mistake to assume, as most conservatives do, that they are all equally bad and that it makes no difference whatsoever which one is elected.

To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John Edwards is the most liberal and Barack Obama is somewhere in between.

The hard-core right-wingers who kept reading past the point I told them to stop probably all think I’ve lost my mind by now. But remember, I am talking about the politics within the Democratic Party, not the nation as a whole. Moreover, at this stage of the nominating process, all of the candidates in both parties are appealing mainly to their bases. These are well to the left of the country among Democrats and well to the right among Republicans.

It is in this context that one must evaluate Sen. Clinton’s position. Given the views of the Democratic base and the enormous unpopularity of the Iraq War, it is a real act of courage for her to steadfastly refuse to say her vote for the war was wrong. Of course, like all Democrats and most Americans she opposes the war today and favors a rapid pull-out.

That is why the easy thing for Sen. Clinton to do would be to just thrown in the towel, admit her vote was wrong, and move on. And that’s why it is an act of courage for her to refuse to do so. If conservatives weren’t so blinded by their hatred for her, this would be obvious.
New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to a question during a breakfast gathering at the home of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie, Tuesday, April 3, 2007, in Mount Pleasant, Iowa home.

On economics, it is reasonable to assume that Sen. Clinton’s policies would not be altogether different from Bill Clinton’s. This is not a bad thing. On trade, his record was outstanding and on the budget was far better than George W. Bush’s. While Clinton raised taxes in 1993, it should be remembered that he cut them in 1997, including a cut in the capital gains tax. On regulatory policy, Clinton was no worse than the current administration and probably better on net.
Democrats know all this, which is why our most liberal pundits, like Bob Kuttner, are attacking Sen. Clinton for being a clone of her husband on economics and attacking her support for “Rubinomics,” named after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. Its essential elements are a commitment to deficit reduction and globalization—which are both anathema to the Democratic Party’s liberal base. It wants a hard-line against imports to save jobs and an expansive fiscal policy to pay for a wide range of new social programs.

At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination. Call me crazy, but I think that person is Hillary Clinton.

Bruce Bartlett is a former senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis of Dallas, Texas. Bartlett is a prolific author, having published over 900 articles in national publications, and prominent magazines and published four books, including Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action.

26 comments:

MaxTurmoil said...

First, it is not a reach to consider Hillary Clinton the most conservative in the race. What baffles me is that hardliners in the conservative movement loath her and will refuse to support her. Why? Because she waffled on feminist concerns? Stayed with her affair having husband? To me I will gladly vote for Hillary not because she has a great record of accomplishment on getting things done, but she is for the overall progress of the United States. She is not so far left her ideology will get mixed up and nothing get accomplished, and she is not so far removed from mainstream America by being conservative again nothing gets done. However she is not my first choice, but she is given extra credit in my book because she has a legitimate chance of winning the presidency and I for one would like to stop seeing WMPO (white male property owners) being the only cookie cutter option for President.
Furthermore, I think it would be giant leap forward and even if she did what she did in the Bill Clinton years, it would not be anywhere close to being screwed up as GWB has made it. Fiscal responsibility tied with social programs to better America as a whole, wow. I am also tired of hearing how Hillary voted for the Iraq war.
“it is a real act of courage for her to steadfastly refuse to say her vote for the war was wrong.”
Hypothetically even if she voted in good faith that the President did his job as making sure the people underneath him did their job, then we wouldn’t be having the “lack of intelligence debate” we are currently having. However, it is constantly taken out of context and people forget. GWB asked congress for a resolution authorizing him to use force so he cold goto the U.N. and say, “Here, I have the full support of the American people, let make sure the U.N. weapon inspectors can do their job.” Well he got the vote as he wanted and sadly, he went straight ahead and used force without using diplomacy first as he intended. Where is the uproar that he is a liar? The message is lost in translation through the name-calling and inadequate information (I see a trend here) by bashing Democrats who voted for the resolution.
None the less Hillary will be able to accomplish democratic goals and catch America up with the rest of the world as far as social responsibility goes (cheap if not free education, health care, job security, retirement money.) I think any of the candidate can do a fine job running the country because the only place to go from here is up, snice we are already rock bottom. A Clinton/Obama ticket, Obama/Edwards or any variation of the 3, it will be a tough ticket to beat for anyone running in 08.

GreatAmerican said...

In response to the maxturmoil post. I want to say that I believe George W. Bush did the only thing that he could do at the time. All of the evidence pointed toward Iraq having large amounts of weapons of mass destruction. Given more time I believe that Saddam Hussein would have had and used weapons of mass destruction. Another thing is you mentioned diplomacy. Well talk is cheap, and besides how can you talk and get things straightened out with a man who was obviously insane. This guy killed thousands of his own people and some people believe we should have left him alone. I don’t think so! Now to get back on the Hillary Clinton topic. I will not support Hillary Clinton no matter what. Our country is in a critical place in time and I want someone who I believe can run this country. I have not made any decisions yet other than this one. We need to keep Republican leadership and keep the people of this great country safe and secure. It is not the fact that Hillary is a women. I just believe she would definitely lead our country in the wrong direction. Any of the Democratic candidates in my eye’s would lead us the wrong way.

viper10 said...

Wow! Talk about someone that hardcore about getting their party elected. First he said that there is no chance that a Republican will be elected, and then he encourages all the Republicans to vote for his favorite candidate. Now I'm not saying Republicans wouldn't do the same thing, but at least be a little more discreet about how you say it. I mean, he just called the Republican party a "sinking ship" and said the only way you can make a difference is by voting Democrat. Personally I am not going to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not because she is a woman, but because I don't think she has what it takes to run our country. And did she not say just a few years ago that she would not run for the presidency in 2008. I may have just heard it wrong, but I think she is going against her word. Again, this is just me, but I am actually considering registering Democrat just to vote against her in the primary election. Again, it's not because she is a woman, it is because I don't think she would be the best leader for our country at this time. So don't go calling me a woman hater, I have nothing against women in politics, and maybe one day we will have a female president.

nbk01 said...

To me, this article is logical from a republican viewpoint. Just as Bartlett says, it seems a unanimous state of mind exists within the general public that a Democratic president will take over the White House in 2008 as seen through some of the talks we’ve had in our own class this semester as well as through the media and other sources. Even among Republicans, there seems to be a sense that a win in the 08’ election is an uphill battle (with a few noteworthy exceptions who make a point to wear insulting t-shirts of Hillary to class). The bottom line is that if the Republicans are really the true players in American government as they claim to be, they would take Bartlett’s advice and decide unilaterally to pick the lesser of two evils in the situation. Although a win for the Democrats may be inevitable, a Hillary Clinton in the White House is certainly more favorable for the conservative cause then a John Edwards. One of the most aggravating things to me about the current state of politics in this country is the attitude held by both the left and the right which emphasizes competition within the parties and calls attention away from the real issues at hand. One of the best examples of this was the 2004 election in which John Carey honestly didn’t seem to have a single original opinion about anything except his opposition to just about anything said (or in this case mumbled) by George Bush. Perhaps the Democrats learned a lesson from 2004 and perhaps the republicans have forgotten that example.

east_ky said...

I think that it is clear that the Republicans have no chance of getting in the white house. There would have to be a scandal of gargantuan proportions within the Democratic Party to screw this one up. Frankly, I don’t see this happening. That being said we all know who the two most likely candidates to be elected are. Hillary Clinton and Barrack O Bama are definitely the frontrunners. Now, I believe it would be in the best interest of the Republicans to try to work with a democratic candidate. The democrats are not just a bunch of socialists. I do believe that Hillary Clinton does have many good policies that would benefit Republicans as well as Democrats. I consider Clinton to be neither a Republican nor Democrat. I would classify her as a moderate. This is the category where a large portion of the American people falls into. This can work to the advantage of both sides. She also has experience in the white house. I believe we can all admit that the Clinton years in the white house were much better than our current situation. I believe it would be much to the Republicans advantage if they cooperated more with the democrats, namely Hillary Clinton.

Anonymous said...

420ComfortablyNumb said...
I would agree with Bartlett when he says that Republicans have no chance of taking the White House in 2008. I still do not think Republicans should just switch sides in the fourth quarter. The first reason why this would be bad is because then the Democratic Party may slack a bit. Without constant conservative pressure upon the Dems may feel a little too confident and waste time repairing this great country. I think it would be shame for all the hard work Democrats have done to be compromised by lack of a competition. The second reason this is bad is because I have and am gleefully awaiting some hardcore conservatives to go down with the ship. Seeing the silent, sunken faces on Democrat bashers faces will be a most pleasurable experience for me. If all the Republicans tuck tail and hide in the next year and a half then Democrats winning the white house will lose some fun. Now, I would think it wise for Republicans to start preparing for having a Democratic White House. I think the sooner that Republicans accept that changes need and will be made the better.

DemocratLove said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DemocratLove said...

Agreeing with Ric, it will be nearly impossible for a republican canidate to win in 2008. With Hillary's advocacy for children and families and being a national leader on homeland security and national security issues, she is oustandingly the best canidate for President. One couldn't even begin to name all of her accomplishments, as a woman, senator, and hopeful next President of the United States. Republicans should wake up and realize that they should jump up on the bandwagon and vote for Hillary or be prepared to work together to help prosper America. Hillary has a 10 point plan for government reform. It's a key point for her and her team. We need a government that works and that works for everyone. People are ready for change. So for people on the right and even people on the left, we should all be looking into the future to better our nation. Something else that stands out for Hillary to me is the committees that she stands on right now in the Senate: Armed Services, Environment & Public Works, Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, Special Committee on Aging. All of which are beneficial with the issues of the 08' race. There is no doubt in my mind that conservatives should be prepared to take notes when Hillary comes into office.

God.Reagan.Rush said...

Unfortunately, I agree somewhat with Bartlett in that there is little enthusiasm for many Republican candidates. The ’08 election season is highlighting our shortcomings: our frontrunners, Giuliani and McCain, are two of the least socially conservative in our party. Many conservatives, like myself, would not care to sacrifice social conservatism to put a RINO in office. The fact that we have several logical (or illogical, depending upon your side of the fence) options for president, among them Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback, increases the likelihood for a run-off in the primary. Conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson, unannounced figureheads who could unite the party, are my personal favorites. These guys are running out of time, however, if they want to make a bid.

If the party cannot come together around one candidate, we deserve to have a liberal in office. My vote next November will definitely depend upon the candidates. My personal projection will be Edwards (D) v. Romney (R), in the event that Gingrich or Thompson won’t step up to the plate. The Dems would have you believe that we will see Clinton (D) v. Giuliani (R). If that is the case, you can bet I’ll vote Clinton. Not because I think she will be an effective leader. Not because I am gung-ho for a female president. Not because I am choosing the lesser of two evils. I would vote for Hillary Clinton, or any other Democrat for that matter, if the Republicans do not put up a formidable candidate to represent our party. Sure, I’m in favor of uniting behind the Democrats in ’08, but only to prove a point. If the nation is sick of George Bush, the Iraq war, and social conservatism, elect Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Hell, elect Rosie O’Donnell for all I care. As a result, the nation will spend the next four years on a steady track toward socialism and appeasement. This will give the conservatives another four years to put together a remarkable line-up for ’12 and rescue the country once again. I’m game. Are you?

Anonymous said...

Of course, Republicans will have a weak candidate in 2008. The right-wing has induced every major Republican to pledge themselves to the failed war in Iraq, keeping Terry Schiavo hooked up, the war crimes involved in Abu Ghraib, the rendition programs, and the torture policies, and the wall-to-wall lying about Saddam Hussein, Jack Abramoff, and everything else under the sun. They couldn't have made Republican candidates any more unpopular if they had asked them to pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden himself.

I don't think there's any salvation for the Republicans in 2012 though. Because of the policy failures, dishonesty, scandals, and electoral defeats of the Bush administration, the Republicans now have a very weak bench of potential presidential candidates. It's very hard to see where a compelling candidate for 2012 would come from, very hard to see any Republican beating Hillary if she's up for election in 2012, and even relatively easy to see former VP Obama beating a GOP candidate in 2016.

As was the case with the Herbert Hoover administration, it looks like the Bush years are going to result in a long political wilderness for conservatives.

raiden5060 said...

I want to start out by saying how thankful I am that we have a closed primary here in Kentucky. The idea of conservatives participating in the Democratic nominating process is utterly frightening. I also have to disagree with greatamerican: “Given more time I believe that Saddam Hussein would have had and used weapons of mass destruction.” This is so ignorant! If Saddam had ANY weapons, he would have used them on our soldiers when we invaded their freakin’ country! Didn’t you find it odd that our military met no resistence from Saddam’s Republican Guards? Applying actual logic, one realizes that Saddam was little more than a paper tiger by 2003, thanks to the Persian Gulf War and sanctions and no-fly zones implemented thereafter which were continued during the Clinton Administration. “Another thing is you mentioned diplomacy. Well talk is cheap.” Talk IS cheap, that’s why it’s such a nice alternative to all-out war which on the other hand is extremely expensive—both in terms of money and lives. “And besides how can you talk and get things straightened out with a man who was obviously insane.” The same can easily be said of George “the decider” Bush. Now that I have addressed that silliness, back to Hillary. I don’t like Hillary because she is a corporatist rather than a populist. She supported the boondoggle in Iraq, and refuses to back down. I just think Obama is a much better choice, or even John Edwards for that matter. Both of them at least attempt to appear in tune with common working folk, such as myself. Republicans, stay out of the Democratic Primary…only adults are admitted!

rashardtae said...

Really why should Republicans be disloyal to their cause. I mean even if you are down you should never cross the line to enemy territory. I feel that despite how conservative Sen. Clinton is how can a Republican go for her just because they feel they are going to lose the race. The shift of power happens all the time and just because someone on another team shares similar views as you do doesn’t mean that is your partner. Greatamerican needs to forget about protecting how what George Bush did stop Hussein from what all conservative people think would have happened because it didn’t. They found no weapons of mass destruction. So how can person be capable of mass destruction with no weapons capable of it. So Greatamerican believe who you want to that’s your right and don’t change them but just remember the person who believe in now has contributed to terrible gas prices and more important started another war that we are losing bad. And more likely in the future this man will start a draft. Hopefully you are drafted and we will see how you feel about him then. And so far all I know and I sure everyone will agree the last Clinton did a great job of finishing a dumb war that a Bush started. Maybe this is like baseball. The Bushes are the starters and the Clintons the closers. Well I cant wait till while Iraq has the bases loaded with two outs Hillary comes to the mound and saves the United States.

osubuckeye said...

First off, I would like to say that I am very Liberal. I totally agree with Bruce Bartlett as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned. I also feel that the Republicans have no chance at winning the 2008 Presidential Election, and if the Republican Party is going to stay in the public eye, they need to support someone. That someone just happens to be the most conservative liberal, Hillary Clinton. I personally would not vote for her. I don’t agree with most of her ideas, and to be quite honest I think she sounds like an idiot. She doesn’t know when to shut her mouth. Maybe that is why she is considered the most conservative Democrat. Perhaps I’m not ready to see a woman running this country, but I just plain out don’t support her.

Mr. Moneybags said...

Conservatives always have a chance of winning. Why? Because liberals are cocky, meaning there campaigns will be ran in a cocky manner. There is no "slam dunk" win anymore in America when it comes to elections. The fact that Giuliani against the entire field (democrats and republicans) is ahead in key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio (Hannity and Colmes) should begin to concern you. If democrats don't get off their high horse and run a real campaign then they will lose in a year that as characterized by many as an "easy win". No election is easy. There are to many special interest groups and media outlets to think that just because you are anti-Iraq War means guaranteed victory. The conservatives have a silent voice that speaks volumes on Election Day. (I.e. last two elections) They just choose not to have a battle of wits with unarmed people (democrats).

Furthermore, If Giuliani was to be in the running for the '08 election I would vote for him because I detest Hillary Clinton. She used her pillow talk rights to run this country for long enough. Its time for somebody not named Bush or Clinton to run the country.

God.Reagan.Rush said...

Raiden5060, you just had to take the Iraq war route, didn't you? When will liberals stop crying over spilt milk and realize the facts? The lens through which you see the past must be a nearsighted one. So what if Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11? The Germans didn’t attack us during WWII; the Japanese did. Furer Roosevelt realized the Germans as a threat in the overall war on totalitarianism. An, “Operation: Deutch Freedom” sort of deal. No; Saddam Hussein didn’t attack the United States. He did, however, provide $25,000 to Palestinian families of homicide bombers, harbored Al Qaeda terrorists, and made an assassination attempt on President Bush in 1993. He also used poison gas against his own people, raped the women of his country, and harbored one terrorist involved in the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing. (Where were liberal snivel rights activists?)

Bush did not lie to the Americans. He operated based on information provided not only by our own intelligence agencies, but that of other powerful nations around the world. Most of our information at the time came from the UN and the International Atomic Energy Inspections Agency. A son-in-law of Saddam’s was also instrumental in understanding the threat posed by Saddam’s weapons program. After his death at the hands of Saddam, Iraqi officials admitted that they had hidden 100,000 gallons of botulinum toxin, 22,000 gallons of anthrax, 500 gallons of aflatoxin, and 4 tons of VX nerve gas. Based on the information the United States and President Bush was given, British and Russian intelligence agencies, as well as the UN believed that Iraq was a threat. Why should we have sat around and waited for an attack while we licked our wounds from 9/11?

I could keep going, but I’ll stop there. To bring this full-circle and back on topic, liberals obviously haven’t given conservatives enough credit. When judging the Iraq war, they see the words spoken from the president’s mouth, not the intelligence behind it. When criticizing conservative ideologies, they look toward an uncertain future, not at successful precedents of the past. When making projections about the ’08 election, liberals do conservatives a great disservice. As I have stated before, if we can come together around a solid candidate, we will have great success. I wouldn’t refer to Hillary as Madame President just yet.

Anonymous said...

I think the author does make alot of valid point with his arguements. I know personally I am considered as one of those infamous swing votes and so far i am not too impressed with many of the canidates the republican party is presenting. I also agree that more then half this battle is already over before the general election really begins. Now i do believe many who voted GOP in the last couple of elections are going to swing the democratic side of the ticket. I for one have been keeping my eye on Obama i think to me he represents out of all the canidates, the best choice to follow Bush.

Jrhorne

clintbanks said...

What Bartlett is suggesting in this article has many implications apart from this specific race and this specific situation. If you follow the logic that you should abandon ship once think your going to lose, where does this leave any third party candidate ever. Sadly you see people do exactly what he is suggesting and it perpetuates the cycle of a two party system where parties are similar because no one dares support ideas or platforms that doesn't seem like a winner. We're a society who loves out winners at the cost of our ideals.
It's also funny that he mentions that Clinton is respected for her decision not to buckle and appologize for her vote on the war. How much can you respect a person who bucles and votes for a candidate he truely doesn't support? Not much.

liberalforlife said...

A Voice on the Right Wonders About a Coup
Don’t Get Weak: Random thoughts on the passing scene.
By Thomas Sowell
Liberal for life said….
In this article I found that this was an extreme case of making liberals seem as if they had no idea what they were doing yet we shouting blame and claims all around. A lot of the article made some sense when it wasn’t directed at liberals. I found this article somewhat disturbing because many people do take advantage of their power and I don’t just mean politically. I think this author made a good point when he discussed what teachers do to students. I feel that most teachers impose their beliefs on their students and be little the way they feel or think. I do believe that many people do feel as if they have God-like powers and this alone can create a lot of trouble. I do not feel that liberals are not tackling the problems we face but I feel that with liberal self congratulations we boost the moral of others and we get people to do more at a collective level and at an individual level. This author makes liberals out to be people who do nothing but sit around and pat each other on the back and this is very far from the truth. The scariest part of this article is that someone is actually entertaining the idea of a military coup. That would not save this nation that would do nothing but destroy us. This idea shows the weakness of those on the right and in my opinion makes liberals seem stronger.

Minorities and Traffic Stops

Study: Minorities fare worse in traffic stops

liberal for life said…
I read this article because in many of my sociology and criminology classes this has been discussed and analyzed. It is disturbing to think that minorities are that much more likely to be pulled over than whites. And if that’s not enough they are more likely to be arrested and more likely for force to be used against them. These statistics are unacceptable and should not be tolerated. If I was a minority I would be extremely upset and I would demand change for the better. Even though I am not a minority I feel that change should be brought and the training of police officers should be changed and improved. I am glad that someone appointed by Bush wanted to report these findings and I am glad now that these reports are given the proper attention and are met with a press release so they can not be so easily ignored. It is ridiculous that minorities should feel uneasy when driving because they are always thinking “Will I get pulled over or arrested or will pepper spray be sprayed in my face?” This is a way for whites to enforce power over minorities and is a way to racially treat others unfair. It is oppression and it is wrong!
Dante Condemns Moderation
liberal for life said…

I feel that Dante is trying to express here that moderation is the easy way out and if you do so in life and do not take a stand for anything than in death you will be seen as not even a person deserving of hell. Not a person deserving of anything but horror and shame. I feel a certain way about moderates and no it’s not this extreme but I feel as if it’s cowardly. I feel that if you don’t have the guts to stand up for something tooth and nail than no respect shall be given to you. Yeah its easier to sit on the fence and refuse to take a side but this really shows your character and how you lack one. If you cannot take a side on something than in reality you have no passion for it and your opinion should not even count. Maybe the idea that moderation is good is what is wrong with this country. So many people lack passion for anything and in that sense they are dead inside and if you are dead inside why are you living at all?

Surrendering to Hillary?
Bruce Bartlett,
TownHall.com
liberal for life said…

I really enjoyed reading this article. I felt it really made democrats look good under this scope of criticism that faces them in everyday living. I agree that no Republican will win the presidential race in 2008 instead it will either be a woman or a man of minority descent. Conservatives are going to drown in this fight for republican and in the end their vote is going to end up not counting at all. I think it is sad that many conservatives see that if they worked with the Democratic Party it would be like working with the devil. This is not true we are not Satan we just believe things a little bit differently than they do. I don’t know if I would say that Hillary is the most conservative but one thing is for sure she is a woman and I am a woman and it is about time that women got represented in the United States of America. I give kudos to the author for pointing out the fact that Pres. Clinton was a good president and done well economically and since Hillary and Bill share the same ideas on many of these subjects it could only be good for our nation. I am glad to see that conservatives are beginning to see the light and that is the glorious light of the Democratic Party which can open so many doors for us all. Hillary is the best for us all so join TEAM Hillary and lets bring to this nation what it deserves.

liberal for life said...

I really enjoyed reading this article. I felt it really made democrats look good under this scope of criticism that faces them in everyday living. I agree that no Republican will win the presidential race in 2008 instead it will either be a woman or a man of minority descent. Conservatives are going to drown in this fight for republican and in the end their vote is going to end up not counting at all. I think it is sad that many conservatives see that if they worked with the Democratic Party it would be like working with the devil. This is not true we are not Satan we just believe things a little bit differently than they do. I don’t know if I would say that Hillary is the most conservative but one thing is for sure she is a woman and I am a woman and it is about time that women got represented in the United States of America. I give kudos to the author for pointing out the fact that Pres. Clinton was a good president and done well economically and since Hillary and Bill share the same ideas on many of these subjects it could only be good for our nation. I am glad to see that conservatives are beginning to see the light and that is the glorious light of the Democratic Party which can open so many doors for us all. Hillary is the best for us all so join TEAM Hillary and lets bring to this nation what it deserves.

Lokanda2 said...

I am a republican when they are few of us who admit it. Although I am a republican that does not mean that I will not vote for anyone other than a republican, which does not mean that I am a neo-con, and that does not mean that I support all the things that republicans support. I will not surrender to anyone regardless of who it is and that is my nature and it should be the nature of the Republican Party. Surrendering the presidency is not going to happen EVER, no matter who it is and what circumstances are present at the time. Republicans do stand a chance, it is a long shot but they stand a chance. If Clinton goes against Giuliani then I am all about Clinton but that is the only case in which I would vote for her. Giuliani is very liberal compared to Clinton and is the most liberal of all the republican candidates. If Giuliani wins the primary then the republican votes have surrendered. Conservatives will not give up, the last time I checked it is May the third of 2007. We are a year and a half away for the presidential election and that is so much time. Way to much time for someone to be telling the Republican Party to quit and that they are a sinking ship. I considered stopping when the writer said if you don’t believe this way then quit reading and then writing by blog on that but that would have been senseless just like this article is.

MaxTurmoil said...

To GreatAmerican who responded to m y original post

First, we need to find some common ground to talk meet. Saddam was a bad man. Insane? Probably not, but never the less bad person. He was in a neighborhood of bad people. We knew Syria, we knew Iran, and all had terrorists in their country before the war in Iraq. Why didn’t we go after them? We knew Iran had nuclear developmental powers, again why did we not go after them? Okay moving forward. Say we did all three. Then what about the obviously bad people in Africa that kill millions of people? Surely, any responsible republican can figure out that saving millions is much more important than saving thousands. Answer this and I will glad concede republicans should lead our country in our driven purpose to save the world.
Furthermore, you think the republicans are more capable than the democratic candidates are? This is not the 04 election; you can stop believing the George Bush hype now. It’s now okay to believe someone else than a republican can lead our country. Of all the candidates running, who has the most experience in Office? Giuliani? His only decision of any Importance was to move the Headquarters of the anti terror unit to the Towers that were attacked on 9/11. Immediately following the attack, the anti terror unit (before it was homeland security was shut down.) Mitt Romeny? You think he will be tough on foreigners. That’s laughable. Hillary has the most experience in running the country, she is the most educated and she is not far left or far right and can get things done. Moreover, right now in this country, we need to get things done and she is the ONLY one running that can get things done.
You also say Hillary would lead our country in the wrong direction. Well I don’t see a free healthcare system, cheaper education as a start to a wrong direction. It sure beats GWB start as raising education expenses to pay for elite tax breaks, putting us in the biggest deficit we ever seen and screwing our reputation as a powerhouse in the world and ruining our armed services and not taking care of our vets.
Greatamerican, you are capable of good insights, I’ve read your posts you are a smart individual. You are also in college; you are capable of critical thinking. Do not be offended by this post, but seriously read up on your candidates before you attack them.

Hendrix said...

I always have thought that you should make your vote count during elections. The fact that the next president is going to be a democrate is not all appauling. The fact is that all the canidates are very different in their views and everyone should pick the one that best suits them. Also if a republican would win its not like every voter agree's with that republican 100% its a give and take relationship. But to make your vote totally worthless is unamerican. You might as well not vote. And why would you do that it is a right given to you and a time to make your voice heard.

mckendree5454 said...

Surrendering to Hillary?
Wow!! I cannot believe this article used conservative and Hillary Clinton in the same
sentence without the word hate, bashes, detests, or something to that effect. Ok Bruce
I?ll agree with you on that there will be a democratic president in 2008, but I do not
know what you are thinking by saying republicans should hope on the Hilary Clinton band
wagon. In the eyes of 99 percent of republicans Hilary Clinton is far from a moderate
democrat. She is about as far left as you can get without hitting the guard rail. As
for mentioning John Edwards he is not even on the spectrum he is a 400 dollar hair cut,
Stalin loving communist, so he doesn?t count. Back to Hilary though for Bruce to say
that the republicans should join her because she is most like them is absurd. I think
republicans would rather not vote, vote for a loser, or move to Canada rather than vote
for Hilary Clinton. I think out of most political philosophers Hilary would relate best
with Karl Marx. Where the whole society owns the tractor, basically socialism. With her
health healthcare, and spending proposals she sounds more like Marx than any capitalist
like Locke. A true republican or capitalist or even American for that fact could not
vote for Hilary.

Anonymous said...

No_Names_avaible


Anonymous:

I would have to say I agree with you. The republican have only put weak candidates in the race, but I don’t think they really had a chance. Bush’s approval rate is low and people are looking for change. Instead of making the same mistake three times, people are going to jump ship and see how they like it. I am not saying that is the right thing to do, but change is not always bad now is it? I do think that the republicans can make a comeback, but they need to take a rest for at least a term, and I think that is just what they are doing. Also, the democrats are not perfect. They will screw up a few while they are in office.

budbud said...

I personally also think and hope that Democrats will win in the White house next year. Yes, Hillary Clinton does work from a feminist approach but what is wrong with that? She is a strong woman and in office she would do many things good for the country like Bill Clinton did in the mid 1990’s. I am not sure if I agree of the comparison of Satan meaning we are good and they are evil. There are just a little difference in the beliefs of things and there are a few different views. I don’t know if I would say that Hillary is the most conservative but one thing is for sure she is a woman and I am a woman and it is about time that women got represented in the United States of America. I am an American woman and not just because I am a woman and a Democrat, I believe that not just because she is a woman, she might get us out of the problems that Bush has got us into. I don’t feel that Republicans have any chance of winning the election in 2008. I firmly am a believer of that and if that means putting in a female to do the job, then what is the problem and what’s wrong with that?

raiden5060 said...

To god.reagan.rush:

First off, your analogy between the Iraq War and WWII is not apt by any means. During World War II, Japan and Germany were allied and both were at war with our allies. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we declared war on them in retaliation. Germany then declared war ON US on December 12, 1941—the day after Pearl Harbor. We didn’t have to manufacture a war against the Germans on false pretenses. With regards to the Iraq War—the 9/11 Commission found no conclusive link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, so stop spreading your right-wing revisionist lies on the subject. Liberals tried to warn you gung-ho conservative dittomonkeys before the Iraq War that Saddam and bin Laden were no friends. Saddam was secular, and Osama viewed him as an infidel for that reason. No link existed between Saddam and al-Qaeda, understand? WWII was different anyway—we actually had an adult as president.
You make dubious claims that Saddam provided $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. What HR department do you have to go to receive such an application? $25,000 for a suicide bombing? Prove it—and Rush saying so definitely doesn’t make it true. Even so, that has nothing to do with why we went to Iraq. I can’t think of any militant Palestinian organization that has declared war on the US—and last time we got involved with one of those militant groups (Hezbollah), Reagan pulled our military out of Lebanon with his tail between his legs.
Speaking of near-sighted lenses, I notice that you are obviously a Reagan fan. Let’s not forget who funded the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan—which was the early phase of al Qaeda. I won’t leave you in suspense any longer; it was none other than Reagan. When the USSR was struggling with their own quagmire in Afghanistan (“The graveyard of empires”), the CIA was training and funding mujahideen elements, OBL specifically. Reagan may have “won the Cold War” as you conservatives laughably like to claim, but he created a brand new and even more problematic enemy for us to contend with. It’s just another glaring example of woefully short-sighted right-wing foreign policy.
Not only that, but Reagan also sold weapons to Iraq, whom we supported in the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980’s. There’s a very famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld (OMG, who’s he?) shaking hands with Saddam after securing the questionable arms deal. When Saddam used the gas WE SOLD TO HIM against his own people, the American government looked the other way. It’s only twenty years after the fact that right-wingers become indignant. On top of that, Reagan sold weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq conflict to help fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua (Iran-Contra ring any bells?). My, what a tangled web we conservatives weave; Iran is now our enemy #1—what a bizarre and uniquely Republican pattern.
The simple fact is Bush did sell a war to the American people on knowingly false pretenses—rendering him a big fat LIAR. He blurred reality, confounded Iraq with al-Qaeda, and misled us into our very own quagmire in Iraq based on false pretenses after strong-arming the intelligence community to get the casus belli he wanted, even when the magic-8 ball was saying “all signs point to ‘you’re a dumbass.’” It was all because Dubya wanted to be a remembered as a beloved “war-time president.” He has failed. You lousy Republicans should just “get over it.”