So Much For Their Cinderella Candidate
I didn't really get a chance to address this one yesterday. We were busy with more pertinent issues than Mark Warner announcing he wouldn;t run for president in 2008. Naturally, the Democrats now have a problem for 2008. As the WaPo observes, he was the clear-cut alternative to Hillary Clinton. Now those hopes seem dashed, or do they?
Former Virginia governor Mark R. Warner's decision to bow out of the 2008 Democratic presidential race yesterday left the remaining candidates scrambling to fill the ideological and electoral void left by the candidate long considered a leading alternative to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid.
The most obvious Democrat to benefit from Warner's surprise announcement, in the view of many party strategists, is Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.). He cleared his schedule yesterday to make phone calls to donors and party activists who had tentatively signed on with Warner for 2008 and are now free agents.
Warner's anticipated campaign was to be built around the notion that in an age of polarized politics, many voters are eager for a leader focused on reaching across partisan barriers for solutions to big problems. The former technology executive talked often about his experience in Virginia; he had won a state where Republicans had easily won the governorship in the previous two elections and went on to persuade the GOP-controlled legislature to pass a tax increase he called necessary to the financial solvency of the commonwealth.
That résumé -- coupled with his personal wealth -- had elevated him as a preferred choice among many Democrats who believe that Clinton (N.Y.) will not be electable in 2008.
"This is disheartening information to Hillary-alternative Democrats," said Thomas F. Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County.
Some party strategists suggested that the greatest opportunity for a Democrat seeking to be the anti-Clinton alternative will -- unlike Warner's canceled candidacy -- emerge on the ideological left.
Left isn't the direction the Democrats need to go. They're about to learn a painful lesson in November, if things hold the way they're going, which is that the extreme Left isn't even close to the mainstream. And while Bayh looks like a viable candidate, there are a couple of factors in his candidacy. First and foremost is Howard Dean. He's the chair of the DNC, and if this November the Democrats don't gain back either House and don't come close to taking either, he could face an internal ouster from that position. If he isn;t tossed out, then Bayh has a fifty-fifty chance of getting the nomination, but I'm not holding my breath.
The second factor is his voting record and rhetoric over the last few years. He openly attacked Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation debate on the floor of the Senate. It came as a surprise to us when it happened. He seemed to be one fo the few Democrats in the Senate that hadn't shifted to the Left. With that display though, he showed that he's just as much a panderer as the rest of the extremist Democrats.
The WaPo also notes that Sen. Clinton may have too much baggage to carry for a 2008 run. They cite her war vote in 2002 as the biggest piece of carpet-baggage for her. The nutroots won't accept her because of that. There's also an "experianced Democrat operative" who states that the other candidates will be running to the Left rather than the center. That makes no sense at all. If Warner was to be the prospective viable option for the Democrats in 2008--an answer to Hillary--then why sell out the idea, and run in the direction of Hillary Clinton.
I don't care what her voting record shows. Her outreach to the GOP, across the aisle, to seem more moderate is small; nearly infinitessimal. And it's not like it's on any important issue, other than her initial war vote, and the subsequent votes after that one. Anyone ever wonder why The democrats scream about the war, criticize the president and the military's efforts to prosecute the war, yet they continually vote in favor of it when called to account? The answer is dirt simple.
They know, deep down inside in places that they don't like to acknowledge, that this nation stands behind her men and women in harm's way, and the absolutely dislike politics being played with the military. If they don't vote in favor of the war, the voters are going to crucify them. They would only pull a stunt like the withdrawal of troops with a majority in both Houses. And lo and behold, what are they campaigning on this year? A withdrawal (or redeployment, depending on which windbag the MSM is speaking with) of the troops from Iraq. And if the majority they gain (not gonna happen, but I'll entertain hypotheticals) comes in the numbers they need, Iraq won't be the only battlefield we'll be pulling troops from. A "quagmire" in Afghanistan will be discovered, and those troops will be pulled, too.
They don't get it. Marcie cited the story coming out of France about the coming intifada. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you appease the animals. They turn violent. Europe is about to undergo either an over civil war against the Islamofascists, or it will be one within the shadows, and I agree with Marcie. She cited Mark Steyn's great response to the question of the coming intifada. Old Europe doesn't have the fortitude to deal with this threat. They've grown lazy and comfortable in their lives over there, and they'll do whatever it takes to keep it.
That's what the Democrats are going to campaign on in 2008. It'll be a "let bygones be bygones" platform. If we just quit killing them, they'll leave us alone. Wrong strategy, guys. To win a war, you destroy the enemy. Mark Warner might have grasped that. I don't know because I haven;t seen any statements from him regarding the war other than the typical "I support the troops" statements. Evan Bayh two or three years ago, and I might have believed him. Now, I'm not so sure. Hillary? She's damaged goods all the way around. This year we're seeing that the nutroots won't have what it takes to retake either House. In two years I doubt they'll be able to build a big enough base to propel a Hillary or a Kerry into the White House. And the simple reason is that you can't trust them when it comes to national security. The days of Roosevelt and Kennedy (JFK, not his embarrassing brother in the Senate) are long gone; cast aside for what the Democrats thought were greener pastures. Unfortunately for them, they found a dirt field filled with critters that resemble lemmings. And those lemmings are willing to take the whole nation over the cliff in the name of appeasement.
Publius II
I didn't really get a chance to address this one yesterday. We were busy with more pertinent issues than Mark Warner announcing he wouldn;t run for president in 2008. Naturally, the Democrats now have a problem for 2008. As the WaPo observes, he was the clear-cut alternative to Hillary Clinton. Now those hopes seem dashed, or do they?
Former Virginia governor Mark R. Warner's decision to bow out of the 2008 Democratic presidential race yesterday left the remaining candidates scrambling to fill the ideological and electoral void left by the candidate long considered a leading alternative to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid.
The most obvious Democrat to benefit from Warner's surprise announcement, in the view of many party strategists, is Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.). He cleared his schedule yesterday to make phone calls to donors and party activists who had tentatively signed on with Warner for 2008 and are now free agents.
Warner's anticipated campaign was to be built around the notion that in an age of polarized politics, many voters are eager for a leader focused on reaching across partisan barriers for solutions to big problems. The former technology executive talked often about his experience in Virginia; he had won a state where Republicans had easily won the governorship in the previous two elections and went on to persuade the GOP-controlled legislature to pass a tax increase he called necessary to the financial solvency of the commonwealth.
That résumé -- coupled with his personal wealth -- had elevated him as a preferred choice among many Democrats who believe that Clinton (N.Y.) will not be electable in 2008.
"This is disheartening information to Hillary-alternative Democrats," said Thomas F. Schaller, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland at Baltimore County.
Some party strategists suggested that the greatest opportunity for a Democrat seeking to be the anti-Clinton alternative will -- unlike Warner's canceled candidacy -- emerge on the ideological left.
Left isn't the direction the Democrats need to go. They're about to learn a painful lesson in November, if things hold the way they're going, which is that the extreme Left isn't even close to the mainstream. And while Bayh looks like a viable candidate, there are a couple of factors in his candidacy. First and foremost is Howard Dean. He's the chair of the DNC, and if this November the Democrats don't gain back either House and don't come close to taking either, he could face an internal ouster from that position. If he isn;t tossed out, then Bayh has a fifty-fifty chance of getting the nomination, but I'm not holding my breath.
The second factor is his voting record and rhetoric over the last few years. He openly attacked Condoleeza Rice during her confirmation debate on the floor of the Senate. It came as a surprise to us when it happened. He seemed to be one fo the few Democrats in the Senate that hadn't shifted to the Left. With that display though, he showed that he's just as much a panderer as the rest of the extremist Democrats.
The WaPo also notes that Sen. Clinton may have too much baggage to carry for a 2008 run. They cite her war vote in 2002 as the biggest piece of carpet-baggage for her. The nutroots won't accept her because of that. There's also an "experianced Democrat operative" who states that the other candidates will be running to the Left rather than the center. That makes no sense at all. If Warner was to be the prospective viable option for the Democrats in 2008--an answer to Hillary--then why sell out the idea, and run in the direction of Hillary Clinton.
I don't care what her voting record shows. Her outreach to the GOP, across the aisle, to seem more moderate is small; nearly infinitessimal. And it's not like it's on any important issue, other than her initial war vote, and the subsequent votes after that one. Anyone ever wonder why The democrats scream about the war, criticize the president and the military's efforts to prosecute the war, yet they continually vote in favor of it when called to account? The answer is dirt simple.
They know, deep down inside in places that they don't like to acknowledge, that this nation stands behind her men and women in harm's way, and the absolutely dislike politics being played with the military. If they don't vote in favor of the war, the voters are going to crucify them. They would only pull a stunt like the withdrawal of troops with a majority in both Houses. And lo and behold, what are they campaigning on this year? A withdrawal (or redeployment, depending on which windbag the MSM is speaking with) of the troops from Iraq. And if the majority they gain (not gonna happen, but I'll entertain hypotheticals) comes in the numbers they need, Iraq won't be the only battlefield we'll be pulling troops from. A "quagmire" in Afghanistan will be discovered, and those troops will be pulled, too.
They don't get it. Marcie cited the story coming out of France about the coming intifada. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you appease the animals. They turn violent. Europe is about to undergo either an over civil war against the Islamofascists, or it will be one within the shadows, and I agree with Marcie. She cited Mark Steyn's great response to the question of the coming intifada. Old Europe doesn't have the fortitude to deal with this threat. They've grown lazy and comfortable in their lives over there, and they'll do whatever it takes to keep it.
That's what the Democrats are going to campaign on in 2008. It'll be a "let bygones be bygones" platform. If we just quit killing them, they'll leave us alone. Wrong strategy, guys. To win a war, you destroy the enemy. Mark Warner might have grasped that. I don't know because I haven;t seen any statements from him regarding the war other than the typical "I support the troops" statements. Evan Bayh two or three years ago, and I might have believed him. Now, I'm not so sure. Hillary? She's damaged goods all the way around. This year we're seeing that the nutroots won't have what it takes to retake either House. In two years I doubt they'll be able to build a big enough base to propel a Hillary or a Kerry into the White House. And the simple reason is that you can't trust them when it comes to national security. The days of Roosevelt and Kennedy (JFK, not his embarrassing brother in the Senate) are long gone; cast aside for what the Democrats thought were greener pastures. Unfortunately for them, they found a dirt field filled with critters that resemble lemmings. And those lemmings are willing to take the whole nation over the cliff in the name of appeasement.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home