Blogging against Hillary?
All over the conservative/republican side of the blogosphere are references to blogs set up specifically to oppose Hillary Clinton's election and educate voters on the dangers of returning her to the White House.
Hillary Clinton, being who she is, being married to whom she is, and being as well-funded and recognizable as she is, poses quite a dilemma for conservatives, republicans and traditionalists. To most, she's become almost synonymous with the term antichrist. I can't lie. I do not care for this woman. She makes my skin crawl in a hundred different ways BUT addressing the upcoming presidential race with a purely anti-Hillary stance is foolish.
Don't you remember how ABB lost the election for the democrats? The A.nything B.ut B.ush tribe waged war as an opposition party - and the opposition mentality is that of the minority. It's the job of the minority party to oppose. What else can they do? They have to oppose the majority party or else they are acknowledging that the better party won.
If we take an anti-Hillary position we'll be defeatists, opposing her instead of supporting our own candidate and conservative values. That didn't work so well last November when we tried to maintain a majority simply by opposing Nancy Pelosi.
I'm not suggesting that the cause isn't a noble one - educating the voters on the dangers of Clintonian policies is worthwhile. My concern is that is ineffective and makes the right side of the political spectrum sound just like the stark raving mad moonbats who equate Dubya with Hitler.
The real concern of conservatives in the upcoming election should be finding a winning candidate that exudes confidence has a clean record and believes in basic principles of social and fiscal conservatism. We need to be screaming his or her name from the rooftops with such force and conviction that people respond "Hillary who?" If we can't produce such a candidate, then, as much as I hate to say it, we don't deserve to hold the office.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Michael— 2007/03/01 @ 11:54 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/03/01 @ 04:12 PM — (Reply)
How's it going for my favorite liberal, Michael?
Comment by Cate— 2007/03/01 @ 12:16 PM — (Reply)
Great site!!! I found you from your comments on another blog. I'd love to add you to my blogroll and extend an invite to our discussion forum. We are DC area based as well. Just drop me an e-mail if I have your permission to add you. Either way. We'll bookmarking you as "read daily''.
Nice job
-Chin
Comment by Chin— 2007/03/02 @ 11:43 AM — (Reply)
Haven't been on bloghi for a few days, so I must have missed the comment about Harry, whereever it was you made it...
"Last Democrat president to do something right"... Hmm, my first inclination would be to expand that to "Last president (regardless of party) to do something right," which I suspect you'd disagree with. So, just looking at the Dems since Harry:
Well, call me naively patriotic, but I thought that Kennedy made some good with the Berlin air supply, the Cuban blockade, and the initiating the mission to land a man on the moon.
Johnson? A few civil rights actions, but no real bright shining moments leap to mind.
Carter? Say what you will, but the Camp David Accords remain one of the very few successes in the Middle East. There was a lot that went wrong with the Carter Administration, but Camp David was a success.
Clinton? Can't name a single thing from his administration I'm proud of. NAFTA was an unmitigated sell-out to Wall Street.
-- Now, my counter, such as it is, is that the Republicans haven't done much better, and in many cases, done a lot worse.
Comment by Michael— 2007/03/08 @ 09:19 AM — (Reply)
LOL now look at carter, islamic fascist best friend, yup that’s a real good example NOT
Comment by bluejacket— 2007/03/08 @ 10:21 AM — (Reply)
Your point is...??
Or was "LOL" and "NOT" all you had to say on the matter?
Comment by Michael— 2007/03/08 @ 12:37 PM — (Reply)
Nuff Said'
Comment by bluejacket— 2007/03/13 @ 05:20 PM — (Reply)
For staters:
The first Gulf War
Soviet Detente'
Relations with China
Those don't match the real Harry's go ahead to drop the bombs, but certainly outshine the achievements of any democrat President since the real Harry.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/03/08 @ 07:42 PM — (Reply)
No big surprise that we're in disagreement, but permit me to point out a few facts, if I may. Egypt was the single largest Arab combatant against Israel in the Arab-Israeli War of '48, the Six-Day War of 1967, and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. It was the sole combatant in the Sinai War of '56.
That means that from the founding of Israel in 1948, Egypt had troops actively fighting against Israel every decade. No other Arab nation can make that claim, nor can any other Arab nation boast the size of the army that Egypt put in the field.
Since the signing of the Camp David accords, Egypt has not even fired a bullet into Israel. Almost 30 years of continuous peace between an Arab nation and Israel, and you say the turmoil in the region is worse??? Do you have no sense of history, sir? Can you imagine what the region would look like if Egypt were the same pan-Arabist state that Nassar and Sadat ran? I heartily recommend you brush up on your Middle East history.
As for your starters:
China (i.e. Nixon), I conceeded myself, I believe.
I'm surprised that you'd list detente as the "right thing to do," since it basically justified the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in '68, the continued domination of Eastern Europe under Soviet hegemony, and eventually the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '79. It was the failure of detente that lead Reagan to abandon it in 1980. Harry would never have stood for the insanity of detente, either.
Finally, the first Gulf War was successful in garnering an international coalition- conceeded. But Harry wouldn't have sat around waiting for an international coalition to help defend so vital of a global resource. Harry would have told Saddam point-blank: Withdraw, or we will be forced to take action. And if Iraq troops were still around in two week's time, Baghdad would be a mushroom cloud.
As much of a liberal as I am, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, I said (to the horror of my peacenik friends): "If this is not the time to use nuclear weapons, then there will NEVER be a time to use them, and we should get rid of them completely."
By sitting around, waiting for international approval, and only acting under the mandate the world gave, left the US as effectively 'baby-sitters' for Hussein's government, and made the second Gulf War practically inevitable. I realize that there was no mandate for pressing the invasion to Baghdad, but THAT would have been the right thing to do. So, no, the first Gulf War was, at best, a meager success- maybe the right thing to do, but not the right way to do it.
Comment by Michael— 2007/03/09 @ 08:27 AM — (Reply)
I missed the part in your initial comment where you commended President Nixon for the China policy. Of course I agree with you that it was a huge development.
Detente' was a step along the way to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It allowed the fresh air of capitalism to enter which ultimately resulted in the Soviet menace being reduced to a few smaller menaces. The same thing is happening in China. The combination of the policy and the Ronald Reagan steadfastness made it work.
I agree that the Cuban Missile Crisis ended with a favorable result. Whether it was the result of masterful work by the Kennedy brothers or lucking out in a dangerous game of chicken, so far history has not told us.
I agree that the First Gulf War should have been continued through the ouster and death of Saddam. However it is doubtful whether liberals would have gone for that during that era. The seccond time around liberals began highly in favor of it until it began not working out so good. Whether liberals and conservatives had identical information prior to the war or whether the conservatives hid information from the liberals only history will hopefully one day show. If the liberals were lied to, then what has been perceived by some as their flip flopping was justified review of events. If however liberals and conservatives had the same information, the later backpedaling by the liberals is reprehensible.
Had Fidel had come to power while Harry was President, even Eisenhower would not have had to deal with Fidel, he would have been gone and all of us would have been smoking cubans for the last 60 years uninterrupted.
That the nonstop mideast turmoil has not involved Egypt in any overt way has not improved anything in that region and things are worse, hostility is more open today. At best it could be termed a pyrrhic victory.
I can't wait for the 2008 campaign to continue to unfold. I think a highlight will be democrat debates including that sarcastic son of a bitch Joe Biden. That should be fabulous TV.
Always nice to bat around information with you Harry.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/03/11 @ 02:39 PM — (Reply)