Friday, August 17, 2007

All right you guys.

I see two issues here. No, three. One thing, the idea that Hilary is inevitable. I mentioned before I don't think she can get elected. The Clintons don't ALWAYS get what they want. So now here is one article "Republicans for Hilary" that talks about how other Republicans are hoping she'll get the Dem nomination as well. So I'm not the only one thinking along those lines. Also, here's a quote from John Hawkins at Townhall.

For example, in late June of this year, A Mason-Dixon poll showed that 52% of Americans and 60% of independents wouldn't consider voting for Hillary. Meanwhile, in that same poll, her disapproval rating was 42%, the highest of all the candidates, and her approval rating was only 39%.
These numbers would be bad news for any candidate, but they're particularly devastating for Hillary because the voters know her so well. Americans watched her in the White House for eight years and they've had a chance to look over her work as a high-profile Senator. Their conclusion? Hillary Clinton doesn't have what they want in a President.


And for further evidence...

As far as Hillary goes, I take some comfort in the fact that half the country already won't consider voting for her (see the link below), so her only chance of winning (if things remain as they do now) is a third-party candidate to split the "anti-hillary" voters into two manageable chunks. As charismatic and popular as her husband was, he only managed to get into the White House with 43% of the popular vote: the rest of the country was split between Bush Sr. (37%) & Perot (19%). Thus, Hillary's only prayer for success is if the GOP were to elect a socially liberal candidate (like Giuliani), prompting the true conservatives to vote for a third-party candidate who's more pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, etc. If she can get the Democrats united behind her (which, of course, she will) and keep the GOP split between two or more candidates, she can carry the country. - Nathan Dahlin

Of course that doesn't dispel any fear that we might get a Democrat for a president, but I don't think it will be Hilary. So we can stop feeling so pessimistic about her.

Now, the second thing is whether or not one wants to pay any attention anyway. You know we will have to pay attention. It's either now or later, but it will have to be done. We either pay attention during the election cycle in a positive way, supporting a good candidate (or at the very least one we can live with.)or we are forced to pay attention later when we're having to call the White House every other week because they are proposing legislation we can't live with. Does anyone remember HR6? Not to mention all the other trash that came through during the Clinton administration-I remember feeling like I was on the phone to the White House every other week.

Now the thing is, how do we prevent this from happening? Now if it strategically not good to support Huckabee, then that I can deal with.

But you know, we always complain, us Republicans, that our candidates aren't Republican enough. And I'm not even sure Huckabee is Republican enough for me. But I have heard him interviewed a couple times and he actually answers questions-just think of that! And he is for school choice, pro-life, wants victory in Iraq-not just cut and run...

And he did really well in the Ames Straw poll with out spending a ton of money. Mitt Romney did win it, but he spent a whole lot more money on it as well.

Now, maybe we should just throw our support behind Romney. If it looked like Romney and Guiliani were close and Huckabee was far behind then I would have to vote for Romney in the election. But while there is still time, if Huckabee (or Brownback) did get a presentable following it might communicate to the nomination winner that the Republican base will support them in more conservative leanings.

And how will we ever get good candidates if when they are there willing to run we give them a great big yawn and say they'll never make it? Do the dems treat their candidates this way?

OK, I'll stop scolding now. (S. says I probably don't have any friends left. *snif*)

But please, please, no more talk about Hilary being a shoo in for president. You'all are giving me nightmares.

8 comments:

Mrs. Darling said...

BOO!

IIIIIIImmmm HHHHIIIILLLAAARRRRYYY! IMMMMM GGOOOOIINNNNG TTTTOOOOO BBBBEEE YYYYOOOOUUURRR PPPPRRRREEESSSIDDDDDREENTTTTTT!

Okay , okay calm down. It was just a joke! S run get the smelling salts! Quick! The dear lady just fell off her chair! I was just making a joke. I had no idea she'd take it so seriously!

kerri @ gladoil said...

Now Mrs. Darling.. I'm agonna have to think of a way to get you for that....

Marbel said...

Oh I read this post at a bad time. Just got home from a showing of "High School Musical 2" with E. We were invited to watch it with 7 other 8 year old girls. My head is still spinning from that experience and that fact that my daughter is a complete freak and I am happy about it. How important is the next President, compared to that??

kerri @ gladoil said...

Yes, you're right, it IS more important that your daughter is a freak. I daily relish the fact that my daughters are freaks too.

kerri @ gladoil said...

Mrs.Darling, did you get your present? I wouldn't want it to get lost in your junkmail...

Mrs. Darling said...

OH Yes. I just now got it! You got me! I like to have jumped out of my chair at Hilarys frowning face. After jumping I sat here and roared with laughter!

Marbel said...

OK. I promise to start reading more about all these guys. You are right. We should not be so passive. Don't I frequently tell my kids not to be passive? (The answer is yes.)

From whence do you get most of your information? One of my problems is that it is so hard to know what source to believe, etc. I usually discuss these things with my husband, because he is smart and interested, but, alas, he is buried in Greek right now. But in one week he gets a break!

kerri @ gladoil said...

Thanks Marbel. I knew I could count on you! :)