8.12.2005

Hillary's Battle, And Ours

She is a strong, independent woman. Though her husband has held a prominent position, she has managed to establish herself very successfully on her own. Her husband, as a matter of fact, would actually more of a liability than an asset in her bid for office. She's a feminist and she strongly pro-abortion. And, she is running for Senate in New York. "She" is not Hillary Clinton; she's Jeanine Pirro.

Don't get me wrong. Hillary Clinton is absolutely running for re-election in New York. But, she has some competition. Pirro has a 30-year career in law enforcement in New York. She appears to be genuinely motivated to continue in her service to her state in the capacity of a senator of New York.

Pirro is not as popular as Clinton right now. And, it's too early to say whether she'll be able to give Hillary a run for her money. Some of that will depend on how much money she'll be able to raise very quickly.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm thrilled to see a strong woman candidate who will challenge Clinton on her real motivation for re-election. Does she intend to finish out her term? Or, is this a mere stepping stone to the White House? As long as Pirro gains enough popularity to make it even a slight challenge, she will have served both New York and the nation. For that reason alone, I can see reason for some hope in the conservative camp.

However, Pirro is really very similar to Rudy Giuliani in her conservatism. She is a strong advocate of law enforcement, defense and a conservative fiscal policy but is more moderate on social issues.

Sometimes the goal is to simply move the ball down the field. And, that means that there are times and places for this type of "conservative." I live in California. I am not ashamed of having cast my vote for Arnold. But, I did so because I realized that he had little to no authority over the issues with which I differ with him the most. We elected him to clean up our fiscal mess. Perhaps this is another one of those times.

I hope her role is just that. To move the ball down the field in our direction. Let's just be a little more cautious about how excited we get about someone who simply has an "(R)" behind their name on a screen.


13 Comments:

At 8/11/2005 12:38:00 PM, Anonymous David said...

Let's see what is more important here for Republicans: their anti-abortion stand or their hatred of Clinton. It should be interesesting to see the spin.

 
At 8/11/2005 04:36:00 PM, Blogger shelbymiddleton said...

What would really be astounding is seeing a woman run for NY senate that offers a worldview AND an agenda that may turn New York heads to the center.
See, as a woman in the "big apple" I have come to understand in a greater way how misunderstood women are by both genders. For example, yesterday in the subway I saw TWO gentlemen give up their seats to ladies. One woman struggling with a stroller and a young 3-4 year old. And another elderly woman probably in her 70s. Trust me, this doesn't ever happen. I was surprised at first to see the lack of "chivalry" here in the city, but then i realized that most men and women think that has become the social norm. That women don't want to be treated any different or with and respect because we need to pull down the "man's world" we live in. But I offer this, only a wounded woman rejects the strength of a man. And only a wounded man rejects the beauty of a woman.
I was truly delighted to see that young man give up his seat for the elderly woman, and I told him so. He smiled and just said he wasn't from NY. A sad commentary.
As far as Hillary or Jeanine...I love to see strength come out of women. A strength and grace to step into those places we used to soley reserve for men. But that doesn't mean that we, as women, have to hold to a standard of rigid "feministic" values. That doesn't mean that I don't want to ever sit down on the subway!! What, then, IS feminism? Why do left-winged women get to define that term? Give me a go, I dare you...

 
At 8/11/2005 09:31:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

david, this is not about what conservatives are against. this is about wanting a candidate who more fully represents conservative values.

i would begrudge no liberal the same desire. it's got to be frustrating for Democrats to see the "(D)" after Zell Miller's name on the screen.

 
At 8/11/2005 10:02:00 PM, Blogger Poison Pero said...

A few points from a Conservative who hopes Hillary runs hard in this Senatorial Election.
----
1. Pirro has no chance in Hell of winning....But sometimes you have to have smaller goals. Those goals follow.

2. I'm assuming Hillary is also running in 2008.

3. Running for the Senate in 2006 hurts Hillary in 2008.
- She will blow some of her warchest in this election.....Each dollar lost in 06' will have to be replaced, and can't be spent in 08'. --> She is a cash cow, but there are limits to every purse.
- She will expose herself to the brutality of another election prior to 08'......Never a good thing, especially in NY politics.
- Since she's going to win, she will have to have her hand in many Senate votes from 2006-08......She will be quotable and have to take a stand
--- If she votes Conservative (the Pendulum Lady), she will piss her base off, and more important she will piss off Teddy, Kerry, and the other Lefties.
--- If she votes Liberal she will show her true colors.......And won't be able to "swing to the Right" because her actual voting record will speak for itself.

All of this will cost her huge cash in 08'.........And hopefully votes.
-----------------
So why is she running in 06', when it is widely accepted it will hurt her in 08'?

PRIDE!! --> Plus she isn't sold she can win in 08', and isn't willing to give away her place in the spotlight (Like Kerry in 04')

 
At 8/11/2005 10:29:00 PM, Blogger Poison Pero said...

McAuliffe: Hillary May Drop Out
Former Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe is reportedly predicting that presumed 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will drop out of her 2006 Senate re-election race if a challenger like Jeanine Pirro forces her to spend campaign cash earmarked for her presidential race.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/10/221118.shtml
--------------

I think I just said that.......

 
At 8/11/2005 11:09:00 PM, Anonymous Perkins said...

Well. I'm going to say that of the two, Pirro is definitely the better choice. She seems more honest than Mrs. Clinton, and less the type who will make promises they have no way of fulfilling to get elected.

That said, I really doubt she will win. And if I were her I would tread lightly and watch my back closely. No amount of spin seems to be beneath Hillary when it comes to damaging the reputation of her political enemies. And it is rather disturbing how many of those who threatened the Clintons politically have suddenly found themselves dead. Pirro is one brave woman who gets my respect. And that's not something I give lightly.

 
At 8/12/2005 12:32:00 AM, Blogger Layman said...

Pirro is more Pro-Life, or less Pro-Abortion, than Clinton. Thus, if the abortion issue is the most important to a voter, their choice is clear.

Does not have anything to do with hatred.


For those not in the know, Pirro has come out against partial-birth abortion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/10/nyregion/metrocampaigns/10pirro.html

 
At 8/12/2005 03:22:00 AM, Anonymous AJ said...

If you are a conservative I say in your party primary vote 100% for the candidate who is most closely aligned with your beliefs on issues in general, but when it comes to a general election matchup of (R) vs. (d) it's time to adopt the "Party Trumps Person" mentality.

This is best expressed by our local radio talk show host here in Denver, Mike Rosen of 850am KOA. Each election cycle he updates a column that he orignally wrote many years ago, "Party Trumps Person".

Mike's most recent version of this column leading upto last year's 2004 election:

With just 80 days to go before the election, it's time for my quadrennial column on party vs. person. I've been offering and updating this polemic for more than 20 years. For veteran voters, this may be review; for rookies, perhaps, a new concept.

A time-honored cliche heard every election year goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. It's your vote, cast it any way you like - or not at all. But idealism and naivete about the way our electoral process and system of government works shouldn't be mistaken for wisdom or savvy.

For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican, George W. Bush, or a Democrat, John Kerry, is going to be elected president in November. No one else has a chance.

Not Ralph Nader, not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers - like Nader costing Gore the presidency in 2000 - but they don't win presidential elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.

In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are formed first.

The Republican coalition includes, for the most part, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, pro-market and pro-business forces, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.

The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.

I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the coalition will be served.

A Democratic president, whether a liberal or a moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can't survive the nominating process), can operate only within the political boundaries of his party and its coalition. The party that wins the presidency gets to staff all the discretionary positions in the executive and judicial branches of government. Members of its coalition are awarded vital policy-making government jobs, judgeships, ambassadorships and appointments to boards and commissions, as well as a host of plum jobs handed out to those who have political IOUs to cash in.

A vote for Bush is a vote for the Republican agenda and conservative players in key posts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the influence of the National Education Association, the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union and the likes of Al Sharpton and Michael Moore.

The legislative branch is no different. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a figurative nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins. That victory carries with it control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.

Now, let's say you're a registered Republican voter who clearly prefers the Republican philosophy of governance. And you're a good-natured, well-intentioned person who happens to like an individual Democrat, a Senate candidate, who's somewhat conservative. You decide to cross party lines and vote for him.

As it turns out, he wins, beating a Republican and giving the Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49, in the U.S. Senate.

Congratulations! You just got Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs, and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.

That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils? You bet it does. That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.

If we had 280 million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match.

But that's not practical.

You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a boutique party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives. Your vote, your choice.

http://www.850koa.com/shows/rosen/party-trumps-person.html#trumps

 
At 8/12/2005 03:25:00 AM, Blogger Poison Pero said...

Hey Perkins, you saying Pirro may be "Fosterized"?

Oops.......I forgot, he committed suicide in a park, and did so in a place that would be easy to find, but he wasn't found easily, until his body magically appeared after the police had been searching awhile.
------------

All kidding aside.......Hillary can't run this race. She has to get out of the Senate in order to have any chance in 08'.

 
At 8/12/2005 03:58:00 AM, Anonymous Perkins said...

aj has the situation pretty well nailed down. However, he is neglecting the reason why the situation is what it is. There have been several shifts in political parties in the past. I doubt there will be any more. The problem is that the parties have gotten control of the election process. In many states, people are required to vote the party line in the primaries. Which means that they can vote Democratic, Republican, or sometimes third party (Usually either Libertarian or Green depending on the state). If they want to vote for a minor party candidate, they forfeit the right to vote for anything but minor party candidates. Needless to say, the minor party candidates almost never win an election. What's more, in Washington, where I live, we used to have a blanket primary. You could vote for anyone. Democrats and Republicans were still most of the winners, but it wasn't all that unusual to get at least a couple outsiders into some position.

The major parties have since successfully sued to force us to go to the party line ballots. Something about "The right of the party to choose their own candidates." Excuse me?!! The right of the parties to spend public money to select their candidates and cheat anyone else out of a chance of winning maybe? The parties need to get OUT of the election process. Then maybe we'll be able to get some decent people into office.

 
At 8/12/2005 11:42:00 AM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

What do Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have in common? They both ran for, and were elected, governor of their respective states with the public knowing full well that they would be running for president and leaving their governorships early if they won. To single out Hillary for this is silly.

Secondly, in Canada for a Conservative to win (s)he has to be what we refer to here as a "Red Tory". (Our party colour scheme is different here.) Brian Mulroney, ok. Stephen Harper - back to the drawing board. The same is true of Republicans in New York, just as you have to be a more conservative Democrat to win in certain states.

 
At 8/12/2005 06:18:00 PM, Blogger Layman said...

Jay,

I agree to an extent. Were Texans really upset that their Governor became President? Unlikely.

But what I hate is when politicians, of either stripe, insist that they will serve out their full terms and not seek higher office but then do so anyway.

 
At 8/12/2005 07:44:00 PM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

pero and perkins: good point(s)!

layman: thanks for the reminder and the link. that is an important distinction.

aj: thanks for re-posting the article. that's a good one. it'll be a good reference for future elections too!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home