Living with ... her

I want Hillary Clinton to be the next president of the United States, but for entirely different reasons than most of her supporters.

I might be in the minority among market-oriented, pro-agressive war on terror, socially conservative Republicans in being partially satified with Republican rule from January 2001 through January 2007 (the Democrats did control the US Senate from May 2001 through Jan 2003, however).

This isn't to say that I liked everything that happened during this period of time. But I was pleased with quite a few events that would not have happened if the Democrats had more power than they did.

Examples: Repeated tax cuts, the Alito and Roberts confirmations, free trade, Health Savings Accounts (admittedly part of a otherwise bad Prescription Drug Bill).

You might think that I would want a Republican to win the White House in 2008, right?

Wrong. A Republican in the White House without a Republican controlled US Congress is like having a quarterback behind an offensive line that is indifferent or downright hostile to the quarterbacks success.

Let me be blunt: A Republican President cannot be successful with a Democrat Congress.

Nixon proved it. Gerald Ford proved it. George Herbert Walker Bush proved it.

The reason why George W. Bush was able to win reelection in 2004 was because he had a US Congress that was at least partially in Republican hands for his entire first term. Without that Congressional support, there would have been no tax cuts to stimulate the economy in the aftermath of the Clinton recession. Without the recovering economy in 2004, Bush would have been defeated just like his father.

So, how do the Republicans win back the US Congress? Simple. The same way the Republicans won it in 1994, by making it clear which party was running Washington and watching as the American people begged the Republicans to get back in power.

The Republicans would not have won Congress in 1994 (the first such Republican victory in 40 years) without losing the White House in 1992. It's that simple.

Most Americans don't know who their Congressman is. Most Americans don't know which party controls Congress or how much power Congress actually has. But Congress has a huge amount of power, enough to sink a presidency if it is willing to sink the country in the process.

This is exactly what Pelosi and Reid will do to a President Guiliani, Thompson or Romney (I don't mention McCain because I dismissed him as a Democrat wolf in Republican clothing years ago). The Democrat Congress will kick back and watch the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, continue passing more legislation that will hurt the economy (like increasing the minimum wage and such) and then, when the economy sinks, the will rely on the fact that Americans don't know much about Congress and that the media is on their side to defeat the Republican in 2012.

At that point the Democrats will control the US House, the US Senate and the White House.

My attitude is: Why not just bite the bullet now? Why not let the Democrats have real power for the first time since September 11, 2001?

Will the Democrats close Guantanamo Bay prison? Will the Democrats end eaves-dropping on international phone calls? Will the Democrats surrender to Al-Qaeda an oil rich nation in the heart of the Middle East?

I do see some negatives on the horizon if Hillary Clinton wins in 2008. But with Pelosi and Reid nearly guaranteed to remain in the majority past 2008, most of those negatives would exist in any case. I am not convinced that a Republican president could keep the economy going and keep us safe with a Democrat Congress waging war on the President rather than Al-Qaeda.

What was it Clayton Williams said about the weather?

I cannot imagine President Hillary Rodham Clinton wearing camos and visiting and addressing our troops in Iraq as their "Commander in Chief." Even Michael Dukakis in a tank looks less ludicrous in my mind. Maybe.

I know things look bad right now. If the election were held within the next couple months, I would be getting ready for HRC (i.e. packing to move to Australia). Let me give a quick history lesson. Picture summer 1975: the GOP is very demoralized, Nixon resigned the year before, the dems destroyed the GOP in the 1974 mid-term election (worse than 2006). Additionally, the U.S. was in a recession and the GOP was deeply split between the "Reagan" Republicans and the "Rockefeller" Republicans. Things were BAD. Then President Ford was expected to lose by at least 25 points. In fact at the time of the contentious GOP convention, Ford was trailing Carter badly. Then during the fall campaign, Ford started closing the gap. In fact, people were amazed at the ground Ford was gaining. Ford lost by 2% (50% to 48%). The momentum was definately on Ford's side, but in the end Carter sqeaked by, winning the entire south. Most experts I have read seem to agree that if the election were held just one week later, Ford would have won. The reason I am saying all of this is simple, yes things look bad now and they may not get any better, but a year is a long time in politics. Look, Ford made up more than 20 points in less than 4 months, maybe, just maybe we can make up the difference. Things were a lot worse in 1975 than they are now. We can still win. Also, remember 1948, Truman (less popular than Bush) managed to win. With the right campaign, we can win.

What southern states can Hillary! win?

Sometimes you have to lose to win. Here's hoping that the Republicans will lose the Whitehouse in 2008 to Hillary Clinton.

Not because I am as upset about the Bush and the Republicans as are some conservatives. Just because we know looking at recent history that the easiest route to winning back Congress is to lose the White House.

How did the Republicans win the US Senate in 1980 (a net gain of 12 seats)? By losing the White House in 1976 to Jimmy Carter. Having an articulate spokesman for conservatism like Reagan didn't hurt, of course.

How did the Republicans win both the US House and the US Senate in 1994? By losing the White House in 1992 to Bill Clinton.

Let's face it. The party that wins the White House enjoys a brief celebration. But then it must get on with the grubby, unpopular business of governing.

I mean no criticism of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John Edwards when I say that a few years after one of them wins the White House, people will be wishing George W. Bush were still president.

The job of running a superpower of 300 million people is that hard, especially when about 200 million of those 300 million are clamoring for more taxpayer funded handouts. It's like trying to run a family of 23 when 22 of them are demanding increased allowances every other week.

I think they are borrowing a play from the liberal book. It's similar to what some on the Catholic left did after the election of Pope Benedict XVI. Deride him as a little Mussolini; then, when he turns out not to be that, praise him for being the "reasonable conservative" and the kinder gentler Ratzinger. Of course, all of that is really a facade. The real deal is that you are building up the person in your own image, all the while saving up your stones for the day when you can destroy that image when a really important issue comes up.

Don't discuss, demogague under the veneer of being a peacemaker. This forces the debate on your own terms. That way, you don't have to consider your opponent's ideas on their own terms or entertain the possibility that you may have something to learn from people, even when their ideas may be flawed.

This is politics, pure and simple. The left does it, and I think the weekly standard is probably thinking in the long run, keeping all of the weapons in their political arsenal ready and available.

Bugg,

The main reason why Clinton I was successful economically (until the Clinton recession that began just as the baton was being passed to George W. Bush) was that it coincided with the first 3 Republican Congresses in 40 years.

Congress has as much or more power over the economy than the White House does. Policies pertaining to taxation, spending, regulation and litigation for the most part start with Congressional action or inaction.

With the Bush tax cuts going bye-bye as of 2010 (partially because the Democrat Congress will let them expire and not renew them like the GOP Congress did), the next US President, Democrat or Republican, is going to be serving helplessly over a stagnating economy (not the current one with its 4.5 or 4.6 pct unemployment rate and 3 percent GDP growth rate).

That's silly emotional rethoric, saying youy'd be happier with President Edwards or Obama. What have they done in the way of experience to warrant your endorsing them over a woman with her vast experience on so many fronts?

I fully understand someone being horrified by her becoming president. But you already posted how lightweigh Edwards is, and I agree. And Obama has a lifeltime to earn his stripes. He is like that Panda in Berlin; let him fully grow up experience wise and THEN we can decide where we stand politically.

For God's sakes, it is not like GWB had paid his dues before becomimg the single most powerful person on earth. Time for reasoned analysis rather than chronic dry heaves.

Rawlins: That's silly emotional rethoric, saying youy'd be happier with President Edwards or Obama. What have they done in the way of experience to warrant your endorsing them over a woman with her vast experience on so many fronts?

Both served in the Senate, just like her, though not as long as she has (though Edwards is close). But I grant you, it's true that neither man has been married to a president. So Hillary one-ups both of them on that front. And it's true she's been on TV a lot more than either man over the years. But being on TV is not relevant experience to being POTUS.

Anyway, it's not emotional rhetoric, silly or otherwise. I have my political differences with Edwards and Obama, who would probably govern to the left of HRC. But I find her such a stiff, humorless, ruthless person, one whose only strongly felt emotion is indignation. I don't trust her one little bit. Besides, I hardly think it's all that odd to not want to have four more years of all the Clinton drama.

For God's sakes, it is not like GWB had paid his dues before becomimg the single most powerful person on earth. Time for reasoned analysis rather than chronic dry heaves.

Rawlins, do you really want to hold GWB up as an example here? You seem to be saying "she can't possibly be worse than Bush," which is not exactly an inspiring endorsement.

I'm not there yet in terms of my own decision on which candidate to support in '08, but I find the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency quite palatable. She doesn't have the pizzazz and sizzle of Obama, but she seems more likely to be an effective commander in chief. She does have the polish and shine of Edwards, but she seems increasingly comfortable letting her personality and passion show up. She doesn't quite have the resume of Richardson, but for she seems to make up for it in life experience and powerful presence. Clinton is easily shaping up as the most serious Democratic candidate in the field.

I find myself somewhat mystified that the Beltway pundits seem to take for granted that (a) Clinton will be HATED, HATED, HATED by the right-wing and that (b) this fact, and THIS FACT ALONE should disqualify her for the job because it would be too "polarizing", "divisive", "unelectable" and "controversial". Clinton's readiness for the presidency should not be assessed based on how much her opponents hate her. The right-wing hate mongers do not set the tone for the nation, and should not be taken as representative of "what America thinks". America is very much still making up its mind about Hillary, and it's good to see that some elements of the conservative political movement are increasingly opening their minds and maybe, just maybe, ratcheting down the vitriol.

I think the software ate my comment. Image isn't everything, but the thought of seeing President Hillary Rodham Clinton wearing camos and visiting our troops in Iraq strikes me as really, really weird, almost as weird as that photo of Michael Dukakis in a tank. Maybe more so.

...what could be done to heal the divisiveness in this country?

Elect Ron Paul. He's anti-war (the only such on the Republican side), he's a libertarian, so the anti-religious Left can calm down, and he's for restoring the Constitution, so the IRS and the FBI can go to hell thus pleasing both left and right.

I find the most embarrassing thing about a Hillary’s candidacy is the fact that, if elected, the first woman president will be the wife of a former president, she will not be someone who (like Thatcher) rose to political leadership on her own merits. If it weren’t for Bill she’d be still working for the Rose Law Firm. History is not something you can erase and replay, so that’s how it will always be. I would have thought the US to have produced a more inspiring story.

For those who immediately object and raise the fact that George W has the same issue, don’t worry, I agree with you. He is the mediocre son of a mediocre president and Hillary is the mediocre wife of a public pervert.

If the US if going monarchical, I could think of better families than the Bushes and Clintons. I can only fervently hope that the American people put an end to this Bush-Clinton-Bush rut that we’re in while we have a chance, because if they don’t we got Jeb, Chelsea, and George P. waiting in the wings

The "conservative" pundits warming up to Hilary fall into 2 basic groups. The first are those who view her as a fellow member of the Wad Party who will pursue an "activist" foreign policy. The second group think she'll be an improvement over Bush on the domestic side if only because the "Blue Dog Democrats" and GOP'ers in Congress will reign in her spending sprees. This second group is probably wrong. The GOP is going to lose too many seats to be a true counter-weight.

I suspect her Presidency will be initially successful in at least appearances, but will eventually collapse in the face of such challenges as; the sub-prime debacle, our dependence on the Middle East for cheap energy, the simmering discord over immigration, the imperial over-reach abroad and the culture wars here at home are going to shatter the Democratic majority. Again.

The good news will be the opposition that forms against her will form the core of a more genuinely conservative party that will look, sound and act much different than the current Republicans. The political landscape will be much different in 4 years from now and unrecognizable in 10.

Kevin,

I agree with most of what you wrote about how a Hillary Clinton administration would end up failing, providing political opportunities for us "right of center" folks.

That's why I hope she wins.

If a Republian wins the White House in 2008, we will have "divided government," a Republican White House and a Democrat Congress.

That means that when the economy sinks (as it usually does under a Congress where both the US House and the US Senate are controlled by the Democrats), power, responsibility and capability will be divided.

The Republican president will be blamed for the bad economy, but will be powerless to make the Democrat Congress act. So, he will be defeated in the 2012 presidential election.

Sound familiar? It should. It is exactly how things went under George Herbert Walker Bush.

The reason why George W. Bush got reelected in 2004 while his father got defeated in 1992 is that George W. Bush had a Congress that was Republican for most of his first term, which meant that the Bush tax cuts weren't just endlessly debated in Congress. They actually passed Congress and became law.

Ever wonder why Jimmy Carter got defeated in 1980 while Bill Clinton got reelected in 1996? Simple. Clinton was lucky enough to get the first Republican Congress in 40 years, while Carter had a Democrat Congress to work with for his entire 4 years in office.

Basically Presidents do not entirely control their own fate. Their success depends in large part on whether the are alloweed to work with a Republican Congress (in which case they are likely to be successful) or if they get a Democrat Congress (in which case they are likely to get booted out by an angry electorate.

dbkenner,

I LIKE Edwards' hair. It's so vibrant, full of bounce and body. I think we deserve a president with fabulous hair. Imagine an a press conference where he bursts through a waterfall and whips his head around, flinging that silky hair into place. Oh glorious day!

"Besides, I have spent much of today reading around in the second half of the glorious Margaret Thatcher's memoirs. Now there was a leader."

Yeah, but she also had a deeply unattractive personality. She wasn't called the Iron Lady for nothing.

I, for one, have not found any personality on the Republican side "attractive" since John Anderson, who did a great impersonation of an intellectual. But like Franklin I survived Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes. Especially liked the "Christians" who accused Bill and Hilary of murder, and who made the point of talking about Bill's sexual escapades (which would not otherwise have been made public, as he was too much of a gentleman to kiss and tell). Can't wait for that again.

But I'd rather have someone in office who has more than ten minutes experience. We've suffered quite enough from the "attractive" frat boy who is the Current Occupant.

Okay, fourth try - I keep getting a "your comment awaits blog owner approval" message when I post here.

The thought of seeing President Hillary Rodham Clinton dressed in combat fatigues and addressing our troops when she visits Iraq is a very disturbing and absurd image.

I would be interested to know if anyone here can tell me of a female world leader they would describe as having an "attractive" personality. Traits generally required for a woman to be "attractive" seem to include such things as being self-effacing, modest, quick to agree with others (particularly male others) and to put their needs and wishes ahead of her own. Most men, and some women, believe it is not "attractive" in a woman to dominate, to put herself in the spotlight, to demonstrate anger, give orders, and insist that she is right and her opponents are wrong. Yet these are characteristics we require in a leader. Hence, it would seem that a woman who seeks to lead will by definition make herself "unattractive." Maggie Thatcher was no exception. If anyone has an exception to offer--someone Senator Clinton should emulate--I'd love to hear about her.

Strangely, these and other obnoxious characteristics are apparently much more acceptable in men. Perhaps we should rethink what we seek in a leader. This is a very interesting article about psychopathic characteristics in high places.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html

The authors quoted in the article above, Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare, have written a book on their findings--Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work. This might be worth reading before election time. There are a good many snakes in elected office as well as corporate office--yet we keep sending them back, as if we have become accustomed to being "led" by people who are grandiose, ruthless, manipulative, and lacking in compassion for others.

"I would be interested to know if anyone here can tell me of a female world leader they would describe as having an "attractive" personality."

Corazon Aquino seemed widely beloved as an electoral candidate. Since you don't specify heads of state, I'd add Aung San Suu Kyi too.

Although, actually, the one thing about Clinton I *do* admire is her personality. Regardless of her motivations, she has kept her marriage vows, despite provocation that would have pushed nearly any other woman to divorce - if not bloody murder. That touches this social conservative's heart, at least. She was also very blunt about her support of the Iraq war, despite how unpopular that was among her core supporters. I can't stand her platform, but at least you can say she has some principles and sticks to them. When was the last time you could say that of anyone who made it to the final ballot?

"That touches this social conservative's heart, at least. She was also very blunt about her support of the Iraq war, despite how unpopular that was among her core supporters. I can't stand her platform, but at least you can say she has some principles and sticks to them."

But that's part of what's alienated so many people against Hillary Clinton, Jennifer-- that she is so unprincipled, and changes her positions so often. For example, she recently attacked Barack Obama for his stand on talking to world leaders of rogue states, and for ruling out a first-strike use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. But Hillary herself made these same sorts of comments in earlier speeches. It's her lack of principles that in fact, angers so many people and makes her so unappealing.