Ann Coulter says it well, here:

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.

There is certainly much in the way of history to back what she’s saying here.

Look, Hillary Clinton has higher negative ratings … in both parties…. than any other presidential candidate in recent memory. Given that we’re talking about such people as Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and George McGovern, and other various nitwits and wannabes that roll off everyone’s tounge like so much drool, that’s really saying something. So how is it she managed even get this close to the nomination?

From where I sit, the largest question revolves around who it is that she’s running against. What we ended up with… Clinton and Obama, is not because they’re particularly good, it’s that the remainder are particularly BAD….. Think about all the various Democrats that came up in this cycle, that nobody wanted anything to do with. We are talking here about the largest collection of self implosions as has ever graced the headlines of the nation’s newspapers. To give you an idea of just how bad all those candidates were, let me just point out that she and Barack Obama got by all of them. For Obama’s part, he managed to do so, despite being linked to a screaming racist, and a large group of politically questionable individuals who worship the ground that Marx is under, and having what is arguably the shortest qualifications list for the job that this country has ever seen, inclduing that of Jimmy Carter.  Despite this distinctly anti-American grouping, he managed to make it to the final round, only to come very close indeed to losing to somebody who is only slightly more popular than used Spam snot. Such is the popularity of Barack Obama, and frankly, such is the quality of our candidates today.

All of the foregoing should not be read to imply that the Republicans are in a better shape at the moment. On the Republican side, we have John McCain. (OK, granted, that he was chosen from the party opposite.) The Democrats, apparently seeing the crop of presidential candidates that they had on their side of the aisle was the best reason to vote Republican, apparently decided to mitigate those circumstances somewhat by crossing the political aisle and voting in Republican primaries for John McCain. Interestingly, when Rush Limbaugh,and the aforementioned Ann Coulter, tried the same thing, the Democrats had a cow. (Of course, they later changed their minds thinking Cow flatulance would add to global warming.)

For all that McCain could be running as a Democrat or as an independent as easily as he has managed to rise to the top of the heap in the Republican party, he still ends up being the best choice from the Republican point of view. Unfortunately, in this particular cycle at the least, choosing a president ends up being a game of margins.

But here’s the thing; If McCain is only marginally better than Obama, and Obama only marginally better than the Clintons, what are we in for in the next four years? Ann says it herself:

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.)

So, in short, since Hillary Clinton was really running things back in the 90’s and not Bill, what we’re going to end up with is something that is only slightly better than the Vietnam war and the Great Depression, Gee… I know I feel a whole bunch better, don’t you?

And how did we on the Republican side get to this stage?

Recently, when John Hawkins wrote and asked me to provide him with a list of the 25 most influential people on the right, I could only come up with a dozen of them… barely what he asked us for. I was appalled  to find so few that I could place in such a list. I told him via mail:

I must say I’m a little frightened by what I have found in my examination of my personal list of influential people. That is to say, what I found was a lack of people to fill the list with. There are certainly a few more than I’ve given you here, who I would consider very influential. But not a great deal more. .

One other thing I pointed out to him was that none of the people who I would consider both influential and conservative, are current office holders. None. certainly, there are many ostensibly on the right who are influential. Certainly, there are many ostensibly on the right who are conservative. However, none are both. I think, for example, that it’s arguable that John McCain is influential. Whether or not he is a conservative, seems to me a totally different question. Amazingly, McCain ends up being more influential than do true conservatives. And for anybody with a conservative bone in their body that should be a large area of concern.

Newt Gingrich a few days ago, issued a patent for the Republicans in the Congress that they face an election Day disaster come fall.

“Either congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November,” Gingrich wrote on Tuesday in HumanEvents.com, a leading conservative voice.

it’s interesting; the Democrats have been screaming for some time about change, and certainly Barrack has been using a manta chant of ‘change’ to his own advantage in his campaign. However in all those circumstances, ‘change’ is not defined.

Apparently in the case of the Democrats, the only thing they’re concerned about is whether or not the same faces inhabit the same seats. The only change that Hillary Clinton offers is that she isn’t George Bush.  Similarly, that’s the only real change that Obama offers. And, I see, similarly, the only change that John McCain offers is that he has none of the first three. Yeah, that’ll sell.

The obvious conclusion to draw here is that the best thing that the Republicans could possibly do is to offer real change in the form of a real conservative, as opposed to a middle-of-the-road milquetoast like John McCain, or more liberalism, bordering on socialism such as Clinton, or outright socialism, such as Obama. Unfortunately, that decision has already been made for us in terms of John McCain, and perhaps now in terms of Obama… But we can save the Republican Party, and the nation as a whole, the complete and utter disaster that surely awaits us with any of the three presidential candidates, working in concert with a Democrat Congress, by offering the people real conservatism for a change. Imagine a Congress packed with real conservatives.

Here’s the secret to getting there;  Offering change, people, does not mean that we have to change to be like the people we’re running against. As a matter of fact, changing ourselves to be more like the people we’re running against is the change at all. We’ve had centrists and leftists out our ears. How about some real change? How about offering real conservatism, instead of just lip service? Anything else is simply more of the same. Frankly, the American people won’t stand for it. Are you listening, RNC?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,