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 (D-NY).
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,
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
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
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 19th,
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 Giuliani 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 Giuliani
was exemplary in his handling of the September 11th 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.