The Battle For A Generation?

"...Those who want Hillary to be famous are for the most part the members of her 1960s generation who shared her Coat and Tie Radicalism and were the targets of Mrs. Quayle's comprehensive ire. They are leftists of various degrees, though years ago they lost sight of Marx or for that matter of any other systematic thinker on the left. In their twenties they went into politics, social work, the media, and the corporate world. They donned bourgeois attire when appropriate, or when advantageous they affected leftist fashions. That is why, since college days, we on the right have called them Coat and Tie Radicals. In the 1980s, they were driven to the peripheries of politics by the surging forces of Goldwater conservatism then led by Reagan. Hillary's husband returned them to power in 1992. Having through the 1970s been billed as the true voices of the 1960s generation, they now felt vindicated. In the Kultursmog, once again, they were presented as the true representative voices of the 1960s, an idealistic and progressive generation that rendered conventional America passe.

Then tragedy struck these left-wingers, and it was worse than the tragedy of Reagan's 1980 victory. In the election of 2000 the other side of their generation rose to a prominence that the media could not ignore. That is to say, the side of the 1960s generation that had not protested and stupefied itself in what was called "flower power" defeated its old rival. A frat boy, George W. Bush (Delta Kappa Epsilon '64), beat Al Gore, a veteran of every 1960s New Age enthusiasm, flower power included. In characteristic 1960s petulance, Gore's people claimed that they won the 2000 election but were denied their victory because of skullduggery in the Florida vote count. Then Bush beat them handily in the 2002 off-year elections, elections in which an incumbent president usually suffers congressional losses. Bush actually increased his margins on Capitol Hill. Then in 2004 Bush beat another of the Coat and Tie Radicals' prodigies, Jean-Francois Kerry, the anti-Vietnam War Vietnam War hero. To be sure, in the 2006 off-year elections Bush suffered losses; but they were basically only the normal losses that a two-term president can expect to suffer in his second off-year election, and many of the newly elected Democrats were spouting conservative lines: pro-life, anti-gun control, no new taxes. The election set the stage for a colossal intragenerational match-up in 2008.

For the past three decades, with only the respites of Boy Clinton's 1992 and 1996 victories, the left-wing wunderkinds of the 1960s have been suffering decline among the American electorate. Among the elites who shape the political culture, however, they have remained preponderant-for instance, in the media. Now, gearing up behind Hillary, they are readying themselves for one final shot at the White House. It will be the last battle between the Coat and Tie Radicals of the 1960s and their hated rivals, the conservatives who took a pass on student protests for leisure time spent by the beer keg and the barbecue pit..."

Bill Clinton was an anomaly, a classic example of right-place, right-time. Bush never took Perot as seriously as he should have and this tells the real story:

Bill Clinton: 44, 909, 806 votes

George H. W. Bush: 39, 104, 550 votes

H. Ross Perot: 19, 743, 821

That's right; Clinton received 43% of the vote while Bush and Perot shared 56.3%. A united Republican Party swamps Clinton in a landslide, and guess what?

This is what makes Hillary salivate. Her handlers are fully aware of the fact that at this point in time there are plenty of G.W. Bush's sharing the spotlight with H. Ross Perot's, but on her side of the aisle the loons will join together to assure that every last left wing vote goes to her, just as it went to her husband.

Hillary doesn't have to win a majority of the nation as a whole. 45% would probably do it, and that's whats scary because there are enough mentally deficient flower children and their yuppy puppies around to hand her that much in the blink of an eye.

But even knowing this, I still wouldn't vote for Julie Annie, and would rather see Hillary fighting through 4 years of a Republican controlled House and Senate.

I will not vote for a liberal candidate no matter what he calls himself, so this is hardly a generational battle at all. Give us a real Conservative Republican and he's a shoo-in, and let's not forget the real culprits working behind the scene. The liberal mainstream media will fight tooth and nail to keep their candidate sacrosanct while heaping scorn upon ours.

Thanks to Lemuel Calhoon for the link.