Your rant is meritorious and deserved. But then again, that's why the Democratic Party probably will win the election. They will continue to win elections by defusing the crisis of conduct -- not by continuing it by ensconsing a spider in the White House.
I know... bad form quoting yourself... but here's the text of the push poll phone calls being made in KY. Of course, Republicans have no knowledge of who could be doing this and are horrified that someone would suggest it was them. Note the code words that tap into anti-gay sentiment... Fairness.org is a legit organization, but is not the one making the calls. Look for more of this over the next year. Lots more. Like I said, it's all they have left.
More from Kentucky... Even though Repubs deny making the calls mentioned in the post above, they are openly sponsoring calls that feature Pat Boone... On top of that... Yes, I'm sure the manly men of the Republican Party have no idea who's behind the anti-gay push poll.
I'm somewhat confused here. Didn't you earlier in this thread cite a poll that Hillary woudl lose to a hypothetical Republican as reason to not support her?
I'll repeat what I've posted a few times elsewhere (wish we had search... then I could cut and paste!), which is that Hillary Clinton's main flaw is the demonization of her by the Rove GOP machine, back when they were very good at it, and truly excellent at calling for bipartisanship while being the most partisan political party and, later, Administration in modern history, in my opinion. Millions were spent attacking her during the ill-concieved national health insurance debacle, for which she unfairly gets the lion share of blame when one considers that there's no way she came up with all of it. She was "the face" of the proposals. And the idea was a good one, just wildly optimistic about how fast something like this could be done, when incremental change could have taken important first steps we really needed. The demonization of Hillary during Whitewater continued, the Rove machine seeing that attacking Hillary was far easier than attacking Bill, who was very popular and could give a damn good speech defending himself if assaulted. Millions were spent on that. Fast forward several years to today, and you have that reservoir of manufactured ill will "built in" with a segment of the electorate. They have been conditioned to despise Hillary Clinton, regardless of how rational it is, or how flimsy the evidence of her "misdeeds," created by one of the great masters of political disinformation in the last 50 years. Thus, my desire that she not get the nomination. Not because I think she wouldn't be a good President. I think she would be and would also, by being elected Prez, push ahead the agenda of equal rights for women more than any other single act in this country could, and I'm a feminist, along with my wife, so I'd like that. What concerns me is that she would not only get the hard core "dead-enders" to vote GOP, when their disgust with the farcical Bush Administration, along with disgust at someone like Guiliani, the possible nominee, makes them likely to stay home in large numbers or vote for some far-right Nadir type in a "3rd party" run, but that it could get many of the very large numbers of Reagan Republicans who are ready to jump ship and vote Democratic to either stay home or vote for the GOP nominee. A bummer, no matter illogical that result might be to those who would be influenced by a Hillary Clinton nomination and campaign in the '08 election. I want the Democratic Party to win the Presidency in 2008. I want a Democratic Congress to increase its majority. The latter will occur regardless, but the Presidency is not the slam dunk it should be if Ms. Clinton gets the nod. D&D. Attempt to be Civil! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture.
btw, this story was linked to from Instapundit, which i'm sure you'd characterize as "conservative." you might want to stop throwing darts until there's some actual evidence of who is behind it.
Who's behind what? The linking? I'm happy that Instapundit links to the story, but wouldn't it be curious to see what his readers think about it? Oh, that's right, he doesn't allow reader comments. Wonder why? It's clear who's behind the robocalls. It's the same people who imply the Dems are gay in campaign speeches and pay Pat Boone to fan anti-gay attitudes. Please tell me you're not suggesting that the Dems are behind this in some kind of super-Ninja trick. And did you realize that a former aide of Rove is now living out of a hotel in Louisville. What a coincidence! http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/058039.php By the way, the Repub just put the Ten Commandments on display in the state capital. I wonder what demographic that action is aimed at?
you might want to examine why the NC democratic party is desperately trying to dump it's senate candidate now that he's come out of the closet. neither party has a sterling record on gay issues, and neither party is above pandering to it's base. but don't tar the entire party by the actions of a few sympathizers. again- why don't you wait for some evidence?
Concur....somewhat. I'm not sure where I fit into your thesis because my personal distaste for her stems from Hillary, not Karl Rove. Afterall, a demon doesn't have to be demonized. But I do agree that the Democratic Party has a sure win unless they wake up an elephant for a head-butting contest.
How about a President whose last name isn't Bush or Clinton? I'll vote for the GOP if Ron Paul is their nominee, but no one else. I'll vote for any Democrat except Clinton. If it is Clinton and the typical GOP stooge, then I'll either vote 3rd party or stay at home.
I don't particularly like the idea of BCBC either. Even pretend aristocracy gives me the willies. But I do find it curious that many (not necessarily you) who are making this argument had little to say about BCB, but now that the other C may be added on, it becomes a problem.
Another example of Republican civility. I love how they work across the aisles to address national problems when they could just be tilting the playing field to give their party an advantage...
Americans secretly adore royalty -- before the Clintons and Bushes, there were all those Kennedys and before that there were all those Roosevelts. But like European royalty, the blood ultimately goes bad. (Eh, Teddy K?)
Sorry, my mistake. I misread one of your earlier posts as saying "polls show Hillary losing to a Republican Hypothesis."
While I'm not supporting Clinton for the Dem. nomination I think many of you are getting too worked up regarding a Clinton backlash. Hillary certainly does have many negatives but its not like any Dem. will not face a very negative general election. We've seen a taste of that towards Barak Obama in terms of playing subtle racial and nativist fears and he will be relentlessly attacked about things like touring with a Gospel Singer who doesn't like Gays and having been at a community meeting with Black Muslims. We know the attacks against Edwards about his wealth and there will certainly be lots of attacks against Richards, Biden or any other Dem.. The thing that many are not considering about the Clintons is that they also know how to hit back as just as hard and are far more masterful politicians than Kerry or Gore. I think it is a mistake to believe that somehow having a Democrat without the last name Clinton automatically translates into a Dem. landslide while Clinton snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. There is a reason while the RLC machine has been successful and their tactics won't change without Clinton there. There is also a reason why the Clintons have been successful too in the face of very tough political opposition.
utterly fascinating that most of you seem to believe that ad hominem attacks only flow in one direction. bush has been subject to far worse in both of his campaigns than anything you may think rove had a hand in.
Agreed that attacks do flow in both directions but I was specifically commenting on the fear that Clinton will be taken down by negative attacks and not wether both parties are doing so.
