Powered by TypePad

« Don't Tax You And Don't Tax Me | Main | Still The One »

February 27, 2005




This is an exploration by Hillary Clinton by proxy through the NYT. The basis for this discussion is to float this initial idea as a precursor to Hillary's attempt to swing conservative voters away from the GOP.

As a conservative, with many conservative friends, I'm not all that enchanted with the GOP. If you remove the GWOT from the equation, you'll find that the GOP has largely paid lip-service for the vast support given by the conservative voters. Even if you do add in the GWOT the abject and utter failure to control the nation's borders and deal with the massive illegal immigration is a fundamental failing of the GOP's relationship with conservatives.

Over the next couple years you'll see Hillary Clinton doing:

1. Pushing the idea that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and resolution should be made on a state by state basis rather than a national basis. Due to the polarization of blue/red states there will be a significant number of states where abortion will be perfectly legal. In such circumstances people desiring abortions could easily travel to a state where it is legal, and then have the operation done there.

This would be a major win for Hillary Clinton with pro-life and religious conservatives.

2. Expect to see Hillary pushing hard for less secularization of Christian holidays, particularly Christmas. By openly refuting hard-core leftists on the issues of secularization of Christian holidays, Hillary will have her "Sister Soulja" moment. This will gain Hillary a great deal of prestige with religious conservatives.

3. Expect to see Hillary seriously oppose illegal immigration. Expect to see her demand a Congressional study on the state by state and federal costs of illegal aliens. Expect to see a LOT of support on this issue by ALL state governments, who currently shoulder the brunt of the costs. Expect Hillary to become adamantly pro-border control. This will buy Hillary even more prestige with conservatives as Bush is extremely open-borders and so is most of the GOP.


I seriously think this is the opening salvo of Hillary Clinton's move to emasculate the GOP's hold on conservatives. The simple fact is that many conservatives were Democrats. I left the Democratic Party, or rather they left me behind, because of it's incredible focus on ridiculous victimization politics and other various bits of nonsense.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Towering Barbarian

Let's hope you're right. I really would like to see Roe v. Wade tumble. But words alone are hollow. The true litmus test would be in how well she walks the walk afterwards. Until then those of us who are Pro-Life are getting a lot better action from the GOP then from the Democrats and I'm a believer in "Dance with the ones that brung ya". ^_~


I like the Hilary-by-proxy notion.

And I knew I had some other point - the discussion of abortion in this Jan 20 2005 article by Adam Nagourney struck me as absurd when I read it.


OK, Major Flip-Flop Alert! I have decided that I don't like the Hillary-by-proxy notion; I love it.

I don't think she is going to come out in favor of overturning Roe, nor does she need to go that far.

BUT, she may decide to abandon her fellow Senators if the Dem Party decides to block a "pro-life" SC judicial appointment (especially, obviously, if the retireee is already "pro-life"). So, the theory may get a test this summer. Very interesting.



One of the reasons why I think this is that anyone who really wants to win a national election must overtake the center and appeal to a broad base. The ultra-lefties are just too narrow a base by themselves and their inclusion absolutely antagonizes conservatives. As it is currently composed the DNC will have a very hard time winning future national elections. Overall the DNC's voting power might have becomed maxed out as there is a slow, but fairly certain, drive to enact election day changes that will prevent future election-theft.

Frankly I think the amount of voting fraud by the Democrats is far larger than anyone really supposed. Looking at Washington state and Wisconsin, the amount that has turned up is pretty significant.

Another aspect is that the required moves by Hillary are fairly cheap. The Roe vs Wade issue can be done by offering speeches at various rallies. But because this new position is one favored by pro-lifers Hillary could do these speeches at venues occupied BY pro-lifers, conservatives and religious conservatives. Instead of being largely restricted to campaigning amongst the regular crowd, she could use this opportunity to connect with a large group of people who would otherwise write her off.

And they'd pay the costs of these visits too I'd bet.

The illegal immigration is a very sore point for many people. To win this debate all you need to do is find out how many school children are illegal aliens. Right now in New Jersey the property taxes are going through the roof. Each year the costs of educating kids and constructing new schools is growing almost exponentially. There is a great deal of suspicion that most of this growth is from illegal aliens.

Keep in mind when reading all of this that I'm an Ultra-Conservative (non-religious). I absolutely hate Hillary Clinton. I think she's manipulative, shallow and completely unsuited to the demands of the White House, as evidenced by her performance in the 1990's. But if she does these things she can garner enormous support from conservatives, which at the very least will force the GOP to finally do something about the damn borders.



Oh and one other point. Bill Clinton won the Presidency and maintained his grip on national politics by co-opting the Republican platform.

Bush won by essentially doing the same thing.

See a pattern here?


I think if she got to Bush's right on immigration (easy), and did not oppose a pro-life SC appointment, she would be in a position to give the Reps fits, without necessarily losing her base (assuming the NY Times re-education campaign on abortion takes hold).



Yes I'd agree. Illegal immigration is a very "hot button" type issue for many conservatives. What's interesting is that the assumption that all immigrants are automatically in favor of illegal immigration is wrong. Many legal immigrants also oppose illegal immigration.

Yeah. I could easily see Hillary doing this and giving Republicans ulcers in 2008.



Look at the latest on PowerlineBlog.

"Let the Democrats be Democrats"

The important point made:

"... (1) President Bush nominates fewer conservatives than he otherwise would ..."

This is absolute poison for the GOP. It's also one that is going to be forced by Arlen Specter, regardless of what nonsense he said to get his position.

The simple fact is that a large majority of conservatives are appalled and disgusted by judicial activism. A very large segment of conservatives are seriously counting on the successful appointment of conservative judges to counter the excessive influence of overly liberal activist judges.

So far the GOP and the Bush administration has done extremely little in promoting conservative issues or agenda points. Frankly I can't think of any other group that has gotten so little, from a political party, for so much effort except perhaps jews/Israelis from the DNC. The only substantive thing done so far, other than the GWOT, is the tax cut. But that has been offset, and more, by the prolifigate spending by Bush and the vast new $1 trillion dollar entitlement. Consider also that Bush cannot run in 2008. Every single national level candidate, so far, is either a liberal Republican or, at best, a moderate Republican. There are no conservative voices being groomed.

In 2008 it's a whole new ballgame and one where the GOP stands ready to shoot itself right in the ass. We'll have to wait and see how it pans out, but I'm completely unconvinced that the GOP has any idea what kind of damage it is doing to it's relationship with conservatives.

BTW. I'm going to make a tinfoil sailors hat and wear it when making comments on here. :) Just joking.

Beto Ochoa

Did anyone else hear the clip where Howard Dean said that abortion had to be protected but 'They' needed to reduce the 'Demand'? I don't have time today to research it. He said it very recently. What exactly would 'They' do about the 'Demand' anyway?


Beto, the "demand" for abortion would be unwanted pregnancy. The Democratic position is that comprehensive sex-education (i.e., "There are pills, shots, condoms -- OR you could not have sex and skip the worries") works better to prevent this demand than abstinence-only (i.e., "Just Say No") does.

Having been a teenager myself, I consider that a no-brainer.

The comments to this entry are closed.