“Moderates” Could Orchestrate GOP Disaster in ‘08
By Christopher G. Adamo
Ever since November 2, analysts across the political spectrum have pondered the real significance of values and morality to the election’s outcome. But one person who clearly has no illusions about the importance of such issues to Republican successes is New York Senator and professed former “co-President” Hillary Clinton.
Any lingering doubts that she is contemplating a run for the White House in 2008 should be completely dispelled by the amazing comments that she has made during the past week. Yet Senator Clinton’s astonishing political makeover only serves to prove her recognition of the need to pander to conservative voters, if she is to have any hope of success in her bid for the presidency.
In the wake of the momentous 1994 mid-term elections, in which Republicans rose to dominance in Congress and throughout the nation, Democrats immediately began assessing the reasons for their phenomenal losses. Having seen the sudden rise in prominence of the Christian right, they desperately sought a ploy by which they might find common ground with this constituency, and thus dispel their past antipathy towards it.
Soon afterwards, the issue of “black church burnings” in the South became prominent on the nightly news as if it was some emerging crisis. Not only did the issue present an opportunity for Democrats to come to the aid of churchgoing citizens, it also contained an all-important element of racism, on which the Democrats have historically relied to demagogue a multitude of issues.
Always quick to jump aboard any promising political bandwagon, Bill Clinton claimed remembrance of such tragedies in Arkansas during his childhood, though this was later totally refuted.
Once the elections were over, the entire issue mysteriously dissipated from the public scene, only being briefly resurrected in a few major urban areas in 1998, just prior to the mid-term elections. By 2004, it had become painfully obvious that the disconnect between Democrats and the Christian community could no longer be bridged on this basis.
So liberals have been forced to become much more creative in their efforts to perpetrate this ruse. And, once again, as is often the case when the Democrats are in big trouble, their best hope may lie in the actions of Republican “moderates.”
Though Senator Clinton now attempts to portray herself as “religious,” and no rabid advocate of abortion on demand, her track record of brazen liberalism proves quite the opposite. Since January 19, she has given two public speeches in which she espouses a strong “faith in God,” and even claims to be sympathetic to the cause of the pro-life movement. But when contrasted against the backdrop of President Bush’s stunning inaugural address, her comments appear weak and insipid.
Unfortunately, on another front, the President makes it easy for Hillary to politically posture herself to his right. Concerning the issue of illegal immigration, in regard to which President Bush seems determined to obliterate the nation’s southern border, Hillary has staked out a position that, were she sincere, would be extremely attractive to those who cherish America’s sovereignty.
Worse yet, among “movers and shakers” within the Republican Party, several disturbing trends are becoming apparent. Joann Davidson, the new co-chair of the Republican National Committee, is staunchly pro-abortion and supportive of same-sex “marriage.” And in early anticipation of the next presidential race, the names most frequently being floated are former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani and Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
It is always in the best interests of the Democrats to “blur” the philosophical lines that divide them from conservatives. Conversely, a stark contrast between conservative Republicans and the liberal ideology of the left will overwhelmingly work against the Democrats.
It is altogether inarguable that this contrast was what won the day for the GOP in ‘94, as well as in last year’s presidential race. And it is just as inarguable that such contrast is the very thing Hillary sought to eradicate by her recent comments.
Certainly, Mayor Guiliani was exemplary in his handling of the September 11 attacks, and Dr. Rice has likewise performed her duties as National Security Advisor with the utmost degree of professionalism and competence. Yet on domestic social issues, neither can be considered “conservative.”
And if either one is the Republican nominee in 2008, it is all but assured that the networks will trumpet their liberal philosophies with a zeal that would make Dan Rather green with envy. And they won’t need any forged memos to do so.
|
