C’mon Hillary

Related Articles

Obi-Wan Kenobi did not come from Saskatchewan.

People from outside of England say Worcestershire sauce like...

Trudeau Liberals thought they were a monarchy in the year 1432

I've been watching the Emergency Act inquiry with pretty...

News Roundup-ette for Friday Nov 18, 2022. Man-buns sell ETFs? Who f-ing knew?

Apparently, now, "visionary" investors are best represented by MS-DOS-era...

The Article

Presidential nomination for Clinton will clinch another Republican term

DALLAS—I am beginning to cross my fingers and pray for Senator Hillary Clinton’s ascendancy as the next presidential candidate of the Democratic party.

All good conservatives in the U.S. or Canada should do the same for this truly awful, awful woman.

Why, you might ask?

Well, more and more the growing reasoning is with Bill’s “wronged wife” heading up the Democrats in 2008, Hil’ will take them down in spectacular fashion and we’ll see at least four more years, likely eight, of another Republican president in the White House.

Clinton hungers for the nomination and the presidency, which is why she’s pretending to move from the radical left to the centre of the political spectrum.

Let’s hope this charade doesn’t work, and it may well not work.

There are too many people who have the goods on where Hil’ actually does stand, and if she looks close to getting the nomination, we’ll likely see a spate of books dredging up every zany idea she ever espoused.

The Swift Boat veterans’ book on John Kerry’s self-aggrandizement of his shorter-than-short stint in Vietnam will be nothing compared to the unravelling of Clinton’s pantomime.

Actually, I’m told the rational Democrat edge in the party—and there is one, unlike in the Liberal party in Canada—is starting to get nervous about what a Clinton nomination would mean.

It is trying to do an end-run around her with a more moderate candidate—one without Hillary’s warts.

Let’s hope they don’t find one.

OK, OK—we may be taking a gamble on a mainstream voter backlash against Clinton, but it would not be the same as a gamble on seeing a Democrat who can be marketed positively running against the Republican nominee next time around.

There is another faultline in Hil’s strategy, and that is a feeling Americans are not yet ready for a female president.

As an acolyte of former British PM Margaret Thatcher, I tend to deplore this outmoded sexism, but if it works in our favour with Clinton, why not?

So with President George W. Bush inordinately low in the opinion polls—a situation engineered by the Lib-Left media, headed up by the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBC and CNN—what are the Republicans doing to try and hold the White House in 2008?

Well, that won’t become clear until the November midterm elections.

If the GOP maintains control of both Houses of Congress, the optics look positive. If the Republicans lose control, it will be a dismal party and one that has to find a winning strategy.

Yet, although Bush is personally unpopular with rank-and-file voters, the GOP may well have strength that even now is underestimated.

For instance, it’s said some 40% of Americans are “born again” Christians.

The only party really appealing to this huge bloc is the GOP.

Hence, the GOP theoretically only needs to swing another 11% of voters to its side, and it wins.

Also, the Republicans, first under former president Ronald Reagan, found success, aside from ex-president Jimmy Carter’s comical blunders, by building a coalition of disparate groups.

Thatcher, as improbable as it may seem, did the same. Her successor, Conservative prime minister John Major, let the coalition fall apart.

In Canada, Stephen Harper is building a coalition of disparate groups. The Conservative gambit in Quebec is an example.

What the Republicans have to do after they get the feel for the strength or lack of it after Nov-ember is make sure the coalition Reagan built, and they managed to rebuild during Bill Clinton’s second term, can hold.

The coalition has to include the Christian Right and Hispanics—who now make up the largest ethnic group in the U.S.—and that’s surely possible, and maybe probable.

If they get a right-wing presidential nominee, they need to balance it with a moderate vice-presidential choice.

A moderate presidential nominee needs to be balanced by a solid right-wing vice-presidential nominee.

Former contender John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani may well go after the top job. Both have huge across-the-board appeal, but with disadvantages—McCain’s age, and Giuliani’s soft stance on social issues.

This said, after November, any number of potential candidates will start to be noted, and the race will really begin. It’s a race Republicans—and the world—can’t afford to lose.

 

Paul Jackson
Latest posts by Paul Jackson (see all)

You can use this form to give feedback to the editor. Say nice things or say hello. Or criticize if you must. 

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Your Message

    Do you Have a File to Send?
    If so, choose it below

    This is just a question to make sure you're not a robot:

    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    — Normally this would be an ad. It's a doggy. —spot_img