|
The Democrats’ emerging strategy: find a candidate who is a better liar
The current issue of The New Republic has an amusing cover: a crowd of Democrats, each advancing his own contentious theory of what Kerry did wrong. In the lower right corner of this crowd, Hillary, with a big smile on her face, is saying, “I think Kerry did everything just right.” In the same issue, TNR editor Peter Beinart says the Dems, rather being divided by mutual recriminations in the aftermath of the election, are in fact far too united for their own good. Instead of criticizing themselves and changing, they are complacently agreeing with each other that they basically did nothing wrong in the election. All they need to do, the Democrats are assuring themselves, is to try to convince the public that they are patriotic, that they can be trusted with the national defense, and that they are not cultural and moral aliens. But, as Beinart correctly points out, that’s exactly what the Democrats strove so hard to do in this last election. How could anyone forget their ludicrous national convention, with its wall-to-wall evocations of patrioticm and military virtue that came across as false as a three-dollar bill? The only solution to the Democrats’ dilemma, David Limbaugh suggests in a TownHall.com column that perfectly complements Beinart’s TNR piece, is to do a better job of lying:
Absent external circumstances falling into their lap, Democrats will have to continue to run as centrists in order to win future presidential elections. And since they are not likely actually to move rightward—given that their patchwork of constituents are unabashed leftists—they’re going to have to find someone, like Bill Clinton, who can credibly dress up as a centrist for the campaign. Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 16, 2004 08:35 AM | Send Comments
Hillary Clinton has been running for POTUS since 1992. Her every decision and political move have had “campaign” written all over them. She will run, she will be nominated, and I sincerely hope that she will lose. She has demonstrated herself to be without principles, scruples, and humility. I cannot think of another Democrat or Republican past or present who would be a more divisive chief executive. Electing her would be like crowning Lucretia Borgia. Posted by: Joseph on November 16, 2004 10:39 AMI would be surprised if they send her up. Her economic views alone are so openly communist that even the Dems will think twice about nominating her. Posted by: Dan on November 16, 2004 3:12 PMDan, you obviously don’t understand the upper echelon of today’s Democrat party. Those people are yesterday’s street demonstrators. They’ll nominate her alright. Hold onto your hats, gentlemen. Liberalism’s endgame is coming up. Posted by: Bob Griffin on November 16, 2004 3:41 PMRather than concentrate on “the possible ills and horror” of something that will never happen (a Hillarian presidency), conservatives’ time would be better spent watching what the TRUE enemy—the one that is building and solidifying their power (the Bush machine, the Ahnolds and the RINOs who control the GOP as Haley Barbour et al)—is doing to conservatives and our country what Demos only dream of doing. You’re welcome to rail about Hillary and her cohorts. Just remember that all the while, we are being royally s____ed by Bush and Gang. The real struggle for power is going on between the RINOs like McCain and the Left-of-RINOs like Giuliani. Meanwhile, Rome burns… Posted by: David Levin on November 16, 2004 4:38 PMI agree with Mr. Levin. There are plenty of people to keep their eyes on the hard left and the left-liberals. While I’m of course interested in the left, my chief concern has always been the mainstream, because, even if there were no left, the mainstream by itself would be leading our society to destruction. Remember: The Democrats will take us over the cliff at 80 miles an hour. The Republicans will stay within the speed limit, but they’re still take us over the cliff. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 16, 2004 5:01 PMYou’re right, Mr. Auster. This is how Bush introduced Condi Rice today: “As a girl in the segregated South, Dr. Rice saw the promise of America Think about the mindset of a person who would say something like that right after an election in which southern conservatives put him in office. Does it occur to this blister that some people might find this offensive? Does he care? Posted by: Bob Griffin on November 16, 2004 6:12 PMBush does not care. He is a self-righteous liberal with a family-values veneer (about all that keeps him from being a Democrat himself). HRS Posted by: Howard Sutherland on November 16, 2004 6:31 PMI agree. The real long-term danger comes from Bush and the other RINOs who are driving us over the cliff. That is where our fight lies now. The Hildebeast looms as a frightening spectre. She’s being used by Republican liberals like Ahhnoldt, Rudy, and Jorge in much the same way that apes and baboons were used as foils by the very plain Hapsburg women of the Spanish Court. Next to such beasts, they appeared beautiful and attractive. Posted by: Carl on November 17, 2004 3:28 AM“in much the same way that apes and baboons were used as foils by the very plain Hapsburg women of the Spanish Court.” Could Carl explain? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on November 17, 2004 9:15 AMWhat is a RINO? Posted by: Andrew on November 17, 2004 9:19 AMRepublican In Name Only For example: Lincoln Chaffee of RI Posted by: Bob Griffin on November 17, 2004 11:08 AMMr. Auster, I think Carl meant that the Hapsburg women were not very attractive themselves. In order to make themselves APPEAR more attractive, they surrounded themselves with extremely unattractive beasts. Thus by direct comparison, they only SEEMED attractive. Posted by: Bob Griffin on November 17, 2004 11:13 AMMr. Griffin’s explanation of my remark is correct. Posted by: Carl on November 17, 2004 12:36 PM |