Super Lawyers
William C. Altreuter
visit superlawyers.com

Monday, April 06, 2015

Let’s remember who she’s beaten in her career: Rick Lazio and John Spencer.” While I agree that HRC has seemed clumsy in her recent appearances, I think there are mitigating circumstances. First of all, when you are on defense it is hard to not seem defensive. I think this is aggravated somewhat by the fact that the stuff  that they come at her with is so trivial. The email thing is stupid two ways: it was stupid of her to use her own server-- but it is also stupid to make a big deal about it. At this point she has lost one election, and that one she lost for two reasons. First, Barrack Obama was going to be tough to beat; and second, she got lousy strategic advise on how to roll up the delegates she needed to win. I can't help but think that ol' Bill was kept somewhat at arms' length as well, a mistake that poor Al Gore also made. That won't happen a third time. When you have Bill Clinton, you use Bill Clinton.

The other consideration in thinking about the Upcoming is that from what I can see there really isn't anyone in the Republican field who is likely to have much appeal outside of the core third of the probable electorate. I'm sure I will be surprised, but this group of prospective candidates impresses me as even more loathsome than the last batch. I also think that right now, on social issues, the Republican party is reading the country wrong. HRC should resist her somewhat perverse inclination to run to the right, and run as a Democrat.

| Comments:
I'm just hoping there's someone in the Democratic primary to pull HRC left, although that's not going to help much once she's the nominee, let alone after she's in office. As for the Repugnants, everyone they've got, mostly still on the sidelines, is appealing only to the foamers, except that apparently "Hispanic" dude, Jeb Bush (seriously, how can there not be an anti-Bush song already done to the tune of the Beverley Hillbillies theme? Gotta work on that.): Rand Paul is the candidate for Republicans who went to university but never learned anything after high school; Marco Rubio is the jacket-shirt-and-tie-and-that's-it college graduate Republican; and Ted Cruz is the candidate for Republicans who want an intellectual candidate but not one who's actually all that smart, just enough to be a bully. And then who? Sarah Palin? Reactionaries still afraid of an African-American getting into the Oval Office. Whoops, missed that boat, fellas (and you're all fellas, ain't ya?) The best part of the next eighteen months? The comedy routines.
 
I'd add that the chief reason that Rick Lazio seems like such a laughable opponent now is that HRC trounced him so thoroughly. No one thought beforehand that that would happen.
 
And just think: if HRC wins the Presidency, the Republican 2020 slate will be EVEN CRAZIER. That's when Tom Cotton will get a look-see, among others. The only thing that will ever pull the Republican Party in the direction of sanity again is sustained electoral defeat. Losing the White House but rallying for mid-term beat-downs of the Democrats will only stoke their lunacy. They need to be out of power, COMPLETELY, for three or four complete cycles, and I frankly don't like the prospects of that happening any time soon, unless Democrats can start figuring out how to actually show up and vote at midterm time.
 
alkali, I was going to say something to that effect-- I think you are on the money there. These sorts of comparisons frequently require context which we don't get. I don't follow the politics of other states so closely as to know who the rinsing stars are in other states, but Lazio was certainly a legitimate contender at the time.

Kelly, I think the Republican Party may be close to permanently broken as anything more than a local/regional force. In general I dislike Left/Middle/Right analogies; at one time they were useful in describing the political spectrum from Socialism to Fascism, but for the most part that's not what we are looking at in American politics in the 21st century. What we have now is a party that believes in governance, and a party that is opposed to government. Occasionally there are social issues that break out along those lines, but that seems rare to me. Even a purported libertarian like Rand Paul can't hew consistently to the line he says he believes in. Sure, he is against government regulation, but he'll make an exception for women's health issues, e.g..

And Greg, yeah. It has seemed to me for some time not that Republican Presidents since Nixon are pretty much front men (always men, always white men) for the people who actually formulate policy. Ford was an accident and relied on those Nixon people who were left unindicted to make his policy for him; Reagan was, let's face it, a boob; Bush pere was a stooge; and Bush fils made Jerry Mahoney look like Stephen Hawking. Say what you will about ol' Bill Clinton-- his Administration was his idea-- concept, strategy, the works. I think the same is true of Obama. Nixon was pretty clearly the smartest cat in the room when he was in office, and that's likewise been true with Clinton and Obama.


 

Post a Comment



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?