"More Dangerous Than Hillary"

  1. "More Dangerous Than Hillary"
    Copyright 11/26/2007 Zashagalka (Used by permission, of course!)

    A very popular political formula currently floated by pundits and partisans alike is that, of Republican candidates, only Rudy can beat Hillary. In fact, Rudy cannot win such a race. The assumption that the religious right will expediently hold their nose and vote against their values is at best uninformed and at worst, disingenuous cajoling. For social conservatives, Rudy is more dangerous than Hillary. That fact will do more to suppress the conservative base than Rudy will be able to make up with attracting crossover voters. Rudy can't win. Any and all of the other Republican candidates stand a better chance of beating Hillary.

    If elected, President Hillary will face immediate and harsh opposition. Does anybody doubt that? Anything and everything she proposes will meet fierce resistance, all along the way. She will have to scratch and claw for every last inch of any measure that reaches her desk. Her previous disaster with Hillary-care is a prime example of what awaits her, as President. If you think the political bashing of the current President is malicious and loud, you ain't seen nothing yet! Merely attaching Hillary's name to a proposal will be enough to garner at least forty-percent public disapproval. Modern voters have a penchant to vote for a balance. Just like the current President, Hillary's husband couldn't keep his favorable Congress. Hillary is neither.

    President Rudy will meet with stiff opposition, as well. The difference is the direction of the opposition. Rudy's main opposition will push him to the left. As a result, Rudy represents a double push to the left - he starts left and will be pushed by his major opposition even further left. The practical result of a Rudy Administration is a leftward drift, combined with aggressive leftward political momentum. That left-left hook will carry Rudy's Administration much further left in policy and in practice than Hillary could ever hope to achieve. In addition, there would be no public pull to create an opposition Congress under Rudy. Worse, to the extent there IS such a public sentiment, it would serve to make Congress even more alien to the cause of the religious right.

    To use a sports metaphor, the difference in candidates, for religious conservatives, is the difference between the opposition playing with the wind at their back (Rudy), or the wind in their face (Hillary). At the election-day coin toss, if social conservatives don't get a voice in which team gets the ball, they will at least have the opportunity to affect the direction the wind blows.

    Talking heads counter that, once Rudy locks up the nomination, the religious base of the party will fall in line. Where else would they have to go? I admire the historical, if counter-intuitive, affirmation of that. That logic is based upon the assumption that religious conservatives will do the politically expedient thing come election time. That is delusional, or at least, not realistic. Religious conservatives are anything but politically expedient when it comes to matters of faith. For the faithful, elections are a matter of faith.

    The successful Big Tent Republican coalition of the past generation has been composed of fiscal and pro-military conservatives yielding some measure of political expediency to social conservatives. This formula works for a reason. Of all the factions of the GOP, those with value systems based upon fundamental beliefs are the least likely to give ground on those beliefs. As with any diverse group of beliefs, the strongest of those beliefs will form the core.

    Rudy supporters are alive on conservative blogs incessantly pointing out that not voting for Rudy will be the same as a vote for Hillary. Not true. Nominating Rudy will shatter the GOP coalition. It's an odd argument, after breaking the coalition apart, to then demand rigid adherence to that coalition. Once Rudy supporters decide to turn their backs on the core of their party for the primaries, they will wail (are already wailing) that like treatment by the party's base, come November, will be a betrayal. Indeed! Who's Judasing whom? That betrayal begins with a vote for Rudy, in the first place. It will not be the religious right that allows Hillary to win in this scenario. No. Those that vote for Rudy in the primary are, in effect, voting for Hillary come November.

    Supporters of Rudy point out that he will hold the line with Supreme Cabal picks. There is no evidence of that. He hasn't used any specificity about the kind of candidate he would nominate. It's the old, wink-nod "You know what I mean". Except, the religious right has no idea what he means. How could they? Republicans Presidents have been scared vague on Cabal nominations for decades, mainly with disastrous results. If social conservatives had to harangue President Bush about the Miers pick, how on earth could they trust a Rudy pick?

    If elected, Hillary would almost immediately get two Cabal picks (assuming the current President doesn't yet get one of those). Those picks would only place-keep the current order. In order to prevent a strict-constructionist paradigm shift of the Cabal, liberals will likely need to win the White House in '08, '12, and '16. Barring the unforeseeable, the best even a two-term Hillary White House could hope to accomplish would be to maintain the status quo.

    Rudy's campaign thesis is that only HE can beat Hillary. Given his relationship to the core of his party, that seems rather dubious. He might be able to split the difference between candidates that are palatable to the religious right in the primaries, but November is a different game. 'Where else could they go?' just doesn't apply to those that vote as a matter of faith. That should be obvious to all but the most die-hard Rudy supporters. When it comes right down to it, Rudy is more dangerous for the religious right than Hillary. That said, supporters of Rudy shouldn't be too shocked when the sound they hear in November isn't a lever being reluctantly pulled for Rudy, but rather, a resigned sigh.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 27, '07
    •  
  2. 6 Comments

  3. by   ElvishDNP
    You know what? I agree on most of your points.
    Next thing you know, the Cubs will sweep the 08 World Series...
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    I went out of town for Thanksgiving and I'm currently decorating a nursery (I'm covered in paint as I type).

    So, I missed a few weeks here. Call it my winter vacation.

    When somebody steps to the plate and pays me to write, well, then I'd just have to be more punctual.

    In actuality, I don't think Rudy can win the nomination. I think Romney will win it. He will likely win the first two primaries and that momentum will cause a polling shift. Besides, I think the right will latch on to ABR - anybody but Rudy. Give Romney any momentum and the 'split the difference' strategy Rudy is employing will fall apart.

    All the religious right needs is to isolate which man bests keeps their votes from being split. Iowa and NH should do that trick.

    I could vote for Romney. Shoot, I might even be able to support him.

    I will not vote for Guiliani. Nope. Not even if it means the alternative is Clinton. Not gonna happen. This writing is on the wall. And, conveniently, posted here.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 27, '07
  5. by   ElvishDNP
    I wouldn't vote for Rudy. Doubt it for Romney either. I can deal with his being part of a 'religious minority', I just don't think he's got what it takes any more than Rudy does.
    Probably the only GOP nominees I could vote for are Paul or McCain, and I'm not sure what either of their chances of 'the nomination' are.

    I'm not truly impressed with anyone on the other side, either. That's why I have a t-shirt that campaigns for Baggins & Gamgee '08.

    Assuming Rudy DOES get 'the nomination', who would you vote for?

    P.S. I meant the Cubs winning the WS comment as "Wow. I agree with you. Now maybe something equally unlikely will happen soon." And, since I'm a Cubs fan, that was the most unlikely scenario I could come up with. Tongue in cheek, my friend.
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Arwen_U
    I wouldn't vote for Rudy. Doubt it for Romney either. I can deal with his being part of a 'religious minority', I just don't think he's got what it takes any more than Rudy does.
    Probably the only GOP nominees I could vote for are Paul or McCain, and I'm not sure what either of their chances of 'the nomination' are.

    I'm not truly impressed with anyone on the other side, either. That's why I have a t-shirt that campaigns for Baggins & Gamgee '08.

    Assuming Rudy DOES get 'the nomination', who would you vote for?

    P.S. I meant the Cubs winning the WS comment as "Wow. I agree with you. Now maybe something equally unlikely will happen soon." And, since I'm a Cubs fan, that was the most unlikely scenario I could come up with. Tongue in cheek, my friend.
    Assuming Rudy does get the nomination, who I'd vote for is the subject of next week's commentary. LOL. I spoke to this some in another thread. Let's just say that I think Paul will run a third party campaign, even though he has already ruled it out. First, he has the money now. Second, Guliani/Clinton presents a weird dynamic that he could exploit. Third, he does know the way, having run 3rd party before. He says he won't do it because he doesn't want to just be a spoiler. But. What if a scenario presented itself in that he could be more than just a spoiler. Not the next President, mind you. But, what if he could forge the groundwork for actually breaking a hole in the two party system? Would he do it? Is laying the groundwork for a Libertarian President in twenty yrs worth the effort, today? I've said too much. LOL.

    Mind you, I'm not a Romney fan. I'm not laying out a strategy for 'my guy' Romney to win. I could support him, but I don't, now. I actually like Thompson. Fred understands the concept of federalism. Or, at least, says the right words to that effect.

    Huckabee has an outside chance, but he'll have to explode to best Romney. Mind you, he has made a case that he is doing just that. It just depends on where he peaks.

    I do think the real Republican primary race will come down to which candidate is the alternative to Rudy. I think Rudy plans to split that vote. I don't think that will happen. It's too important for the religious right. And. We know it.

    And, I understood your Cubs reference. I agree, suprising, and, welcome.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Nov 27, '07
  7. by   Jolie
    Quote from Arwen_U
    Next thing you know, the Cubs will sweep the 08 World Series...
    OOH! I sure hope so!
  8. by   CHATSDALE
    by the time the election is decided the cubs will be 'o8 champions [if we don't have a squeaker like we did in 2000]
    the more the canditates talk the less i like them, except maybe for huckabee who i can't believe he really has a chance
    i liked obama and thompson when they first were being mentioned as running but now i think i will enter the voting booth with a blindfold on and just vote for someone , anyone

close