Re: Bummer for the Libs

On Fri, 9 May 2008 09:03:55 -0700, "Scott" <not@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


ONE DOWN, TWO TO GO
by Ann Coulter
May 7, 2008

Well, it looks like it's the end of the road for Hillary. Time for her to
pack up her pantsuits and go back to -- wherever it is she's pretending to
be living these days. Now we just have to get rid of the other two. Perhaps
if I endorse Obama ...

This week, Bill Clinton lost his second presidential election for a protege.

Ronald Reagan was so popular, he not only won a 49-state landslide
re-election for himself, but he also won a symbolic third term for his boob
of a vice president, George Herbert Walker Bush (who immediately blew it by
breaking his own "no new taxes" pledge).

By contrast, in addition to not being able to get half the country to vote
for him in two tries, Clinton's connection to any other presidential
candidate spells utter doom. Both his vice president and his wife have been
defeated in elections they should have won, but lost because of their
unfortunate association with him. The country has spoken. It wants to be rid
of the Clintons.

The reason two elections in recent history -- the 2000 presidential election
and the 2008 Democratic primary -- were razor-close is that in both cases
there was some strange, foreboding, otherworldly force dragging down the
presumptive winner.

Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, lost an election that should have been
his in a walk. In fact, he was the first incumbent president or vice
president in 100 years to lose an election in peacetime with a good economy.
Mind you, that was before we even knew that Gore was a deranged conspiracy
theorist who believes the Earth is in serious peril from cow flatulence.

What was the mystery factor to explain such a historic loss?

The media's pollsters may have lied to the public about Clinton's vaunted
popularity, but Gore's pollsters got paid not to lie to him. And they told
Gore the truth: Clinton was killing him.

After the election, Gore pollster -- and erstwhile Clinton pollster --
Stanley Greenberg told Vanity Fair magazine that if Clinton had helped, he
would have "had Bill Clinton carry Al Gore around on his back." (This was
when one man could still actually carry Al Gore on his back.) But research
showed that whenever Clinton was mentioned, Gore's numbers went down faster
than -- oh, never mind.

Steve Rosenthal, political director of the AFL-CIO, also blamed Clinton for
Gore's loss, saying polls showed that voters who cared about character voted
for Bush. (I know, I know. Are there actually people who care about
character and vote Democrat? Yes, apparently they exist.)

Poor Gore did everything he could to distance himself from Clinton, publicly
criticizing Clinton's sexual exploits with an intern, refusing to allow
Clinton to campaign with him and taking as his vice president Joe
Lieberman -- the first Democratic senator to scathingly denounce Clinton's
antics with Lewinsky from the Senate floor.

But voters couldn't forget Gore's boss, the purple-faced lecher.

As election predictors go, the Dow Jones has been remarkably accurate. If
the Dow goes up from the end of July to the end of October, the incumbent
president or vice president wins; if it goes down, the incumbent loses. It
has been wrong only four times since the Dow was created in 1896.

Thus, on Nov. 1, 2000, an article in The New York Times began: "The verdict
of the Dow Jones industrial average is in, and it says Al Gore is headed for
the White House."

And yet Gore lost. It was only the third time in more than a century that
the Dow went up in the three months before the election and the incumbent
lost. The two other times were: (1) Herbert Hoover in the middle of the
Great Depression, and (2) Hubert Humphrey in the middle of the Vietnam War.
(The only time the Dow went down and the incumbent won anyway was for
popular Dwight Eisenhower.)

So we have documented proof: Americans rank Bill Clinton with national
misfortunes on the order of the Great Depression and the Vietnam War. (This,
of course, is an overreaction: The Great Depression wasn't that bad.)

And now Bill Clinton has wrecked Hillary's campaign, too. He's like the
creepy guy who graduated last year but still hangs around the high school
cafeteria chatting up sophomores.

In a Time magazine poll taken earlier this year, more than twice as many
voters said Bill Clinton's involvement in Hillary's campaign made them less
likely to vote for her as said they were more likely to vote for her. (Some
even said that "having Bill Clinton around makes me less likely to vote for
What's-Her-Name." One-third of the respondents were upset Bill didn't call
the next day, like he promised.)

So before remembering that we are now left with two dangerous choices for
president -- a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old
liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy -- take a moment to revel in the
fact that our long national nightmare is over. It turns out getting rid of
the Clintons was the change we've been waiting for.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111


Scott
You gotta stop quoiteing that ***, she ain't that smart, and
she ain't that sexy.
Cut it any way you want, we have no one to vote for, and everyone to
vote against.

.

Loading