Enough With The Hillary-Bashing...

B

b22

Moderator
says Hannity.

Dick Morris was on Hannity & Colmes last night, 5/29/07, to gloat about two upcoming books with damaging information on Hillary Clinton. But his glee was quickly tempered by Sean Hannity’s surprising lack of interest. To Morris’ obvious disappointment, Hannity maintained that attacking Clinton is a losing strategy for Republicans. But Morris could not let go of his Hillary obsession. No matter how many times Hannity reiterated his point, Morris reverted back to talking about Clinton.

Hannity began his first of two go-rounds with Morris by saying, “I may surprise you here. I think Republicans, in terms of a political calculation, are making a big mistake if they want to regurgitate these old Clinton scandals.
Click to expand...
http://www.newshounds.us/2007/05/30/hannity_to_dick_morris_enough_with_the_hillarybashing.php#more


I wonder why a Fox News anchor would want to avoid saying bad things about Hillary? Maybe this has something to do with it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1423351/posts
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/61faabde-deb8-11da-acee-0000779e2340.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/577ecd2e-df...age=80fdaff6-cbe5-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html
 
Is it possible that Mr Hannity knows or atleast reasonably belives that that Hillary "Rod'em" Clinton is going to be the next President of the United States? Which would probably mean that she will sign the "Fairness Doctrine" into law. Which in turn would mean that Mr. Hannity would be out of a job and then would have to go back to hanging sheet rock, or in the least get a real job, instead of jacking his jaws.
 
Very interesting info at those links, b22. I wasn't aware of the connection between neocon Rupert Murdoch and Hillary Rotten Clinton. It doesn't surprise me too much, though, since neocons like Murdoch and Hannity aren't real conservatives anyway.
 
Morris knows her better than most, but he's pretty much already said everything he has to say. I'm not sure why Hannity wasn't piling on (I'd expect him to), but maybe he's moderating things a bit- he seems a bit gaga over Giuliani, which you wouldn't have expected out of him.
 
If you look at it a certain way...

Then it does make some sense. Hillary lovers are not going to be swayed by any repetitions of past scandals. For Hillary haters, it isn't going to change anything either, and there is the possibility that fence-sitters may be turned away from the Republican side by what will be made out to be "personal attacks" against this "poor woman". Anybody remember the "vast right wing conspiracy?"

No matter what the talking heads may say, it isn't a done deal yet. And it won't be until after the results are counted in November. And if the Dems don't win, maybe not even then!
 
Rather than tying this in to some Murdoch Illuminatti conspiracy I think the simplest answer is probably the coorect one. Simply bashing Hillary for old scandals is not going to win the Reps an election against her. It faield to work twice against her husband as president and twice against her as senator. Useing the same strategy four times and loosing each time should be a good indicator that a new strategy is needed.
 
Well, what did Hillary know, and when did she know it? :D Just kiddin'.

They can at least hold off on the bashing until the race heats up a little more. But I think for Obama's sake, he'd better start diggin' up some dirt on Hillary real soon.
 
Hannity has a point. Kerry's biggest platform plank was "I'm not Bush, and that's why I should be president." If the Republican candidate for '08 has only "I'm not the EEEEVIL demon feminazi Hillary Clinton, vote for me!" as his platform he'll crash and burn. The center does not care that Hillary Clinton is enemy #1 for conservative America and never will, just like they did not care that Bush was enemy #1 for the anti-war left in '04.
 
Gun owners and Republicans.

It seems that the Republicans have two very obvious reasons to stop bashing Hillary. So obvious in fact that most conspiracy theorists, exaggerators, and political alarmists probably wouldn't even pick up on them.

1) Bashing another party makes them look EVEN MORE childish and silly than they already have for the last few years.

2) There are much bigger and more important issues at stake than 10 year old scandals from a former administration.

Seems like SH, who I don't always agree with mind you, was actually trying to say something intelligent that might save the Republicans some heartache down the road.

Not unlike us here on the board (and the rest of the 'net) a mature attitude and focus on the issues currently at hand could make or break the future, both for the 2A supporters and the Republican party.
 
With Bush's record,

The republicans should do better than try to malign a female candidate.
They have to show that they have better ideas, try to deal with the thorny
issue of Iraq, and get away from the Bush fiascoes.

The old right wing crap that we're moral and imply that if you are not with us
then God is not with you, does not work this time. We need a REpublican who
is not only Good, but bright and smart and can do the job. Or maybe, it's
too late, and take the first female president for 4 or 8 years, then back again.
 
What they said.

Sean Hannity and I do not often agree, but I would say that right about now Republicans need to be talkin' more about how they're gonna do better than than what they've shown the last six years and less about how terrible the Dems are gonna be.
The electorate is in a very foul mood with Republicans in general and Bush supporters in particular.
 
They would do well to keep their powder dry until she is nominated. Going after her now would grow very old by the time '08 rolls around. Even though anyone alive will do better than the president we have now I wouldn't care to see her running as much as I would Obama. Everyone else has the words but they got no music.
 
Do you mean bash as in criticize her record or bash as in rant and whine about her looks, taste in men and other basically non-political things?

John
 
Even though anyone alive will do better than the president we have now
Click to expand...

Trendy to write that but it is only your opinion. A reminder that Bush's approval rating is not zero or close to it.
 
Let's just cut the crap...

Forget party politics and actually vote for real people for once instead of going by party lines. If it were up to me, I'd say Ron Paul or Barrack Obama are two people I'd consider voting for. Although Paul appeals to me more. (Wow, one of the few Republicans I actually like!) Can anyone tell me issues with Obama? I've yet to really hear any criticism of him running as a candidate.


Epyon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top