Carol Platt Liebau: Building the Beast That Devours You II

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Building the Beast That Devours You II

It shouldn't be a big surprise that Hillary Clinton received the highest percentage of those who would "definitely not" vote for her compared to the rest of her presidential rivals, Democrat or Republican.

Senator Clinton is a divisive figure, and long has been. That's no doubt part of her problem, and ironically, a lot of voter fatigue with the prospect of her candidacy, may be the result of the way the Democrats have chosen to go after President Bush. As I noted here, the left has waged a long political battle of attrition against the President, challenging everything he does, and attributing only the worst motives to him.

The Dems have refused to rebuke even the most out of control, reckless rhetoric (Teddy Kennedy comes to mind), hoping to harness grass-roots anger on the left for their own purposes. It's tiresome, not only to Republicans, but to the great mass of Americans who really don't like the kind of ugliness that they've witnessed being directed at President Bush.

People are tired of polarization, as President Bush himself was aware in 2000. They're even more tired of it now. And that's one more good reason that the Democrats have only themselves to thank for strengthening peoples' determination not to support the polarizing Mrs. Clinton. Oh, in addition to the fact that the left think's she's too much of a hawk. And that the American people don't resonate with inauthenticity.

9 Comments:

Blogger Dittohead said...

Let's all be bullies and play in the children's sand box.

Bush is the uniter, decider and MBA unitary executive.

Hillary is the divider.

Yawn!

10:03 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

since you are so bored, please go impart your depth of wisdom in someone else's sandbox please - lest I have to give you a fist sandwich ;)

10:25 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Pioneer,

Do you have any wisdom to contribute to the topic? LOL

10:31 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

My question - how can anyone who is too stupid to know of her husband's multiple infidelities over the years, be smart enough to run a country?

The answer? She's not!

11:50 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

One might counter that someone who doesn't know that Iraq was divided between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is too stupid to play "war president," but by Carol's logic, that just proves that a Republican should be elected president in 08 -- because people are tired of hearing mean things about Bush.

2:09 PM  
Blogger Pete said...

I struggle with your 'logic', wrabkin. Does that also hold that someone who doesn't know the differences between women, meaning that ALL women deserve proper treatment and respect, is too stupid to be President?

Divisions are in most countries - like Caucasian, Negro, Oriental, Indian, etc, etc. Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc, etc. Rich, Poor, Middle Class. Republican, Democrat, Liberatarian, etc, etc.
So your point is what? We should be shooting each other? "Can't we all just get along?" Can't the Iraqis?

I don't know about you, (yes I do!) but I will probably be voting Republican in '08. Not for your reasoning, but because I don't want a surrender monkey in the White House! And I don't see the left nominating what I would consider a true American.

6:39 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

Pete -

I suspect when you talk about proper treatment for women, you mean putting them in chastity belts and burkas, so their sexuality can be controlled by their daddies until their husbands take over. Or have you forgotten that Monica Lewinsky was an adult woman who made her own choices?

Not that I'm defending Clinton's adulterous behavior. I find it reprehensible. But I'd rather have a president who screws around and runs the country well than one who is faithful and does what Bush has done.

Of course, if we leave it to the Republicans, we'll get McCain, Giuliani, or Gingrich, and have the worst of all worlds -- incompetent political hacks who are also serial adulterers.

9:35 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

WOW, is that a flip-flop. The three republican front runners are all adulterers. The republicans must have higher expections of the the democrats.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

No, warpkin, I do not, nor did I imply anything like you suggested. "...proper treatment for women, you mean putting them in chastity belts and burkas..." Where do you get such ignorance?

Yes, Monica was of age - so? So was Paula, Kathleen, Juanita, etc. etc. Just because you are of age, it doesn't mean you must be willing to be manhandled, raped, get sexual insinuations thrown at you.

Personally, I want a President who doesn't use his office, or his prior office of Governor as an excuse to fondle! I don't want a President who loses his license to practice law because of lying to a Grand Jury. And I want a President who actually caused the economy he is credited for - rather than inheriting a growing economy from his predecessor!

Is that too much to ask? According to you lefties, the answer is yes.

10:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google