The Amazing Fizzling Hillary and shadowboxing the boogeyman

A few months ago, I blogged about how I wasn’t as fearful of Hill@ry C|inton as many other conservatives seem to be. And according to a poll released earlier this week, I was apparently well founded in my belief. When a majority of Americans are already saying they would vote against Hill@ry, I just don’t see the need in getting all riled up over the prospect of her candidacy.

That isn’t to say, of course, that conservatives should start celebrating victory and totally begin ignoring “Lady M@cBeth,” as she is sometimes called. Politics is a dirty, dirty game. So while it seems that Hill@ry is down for the moment, she should not be beyond a proverbial kicking. I’m not advocating mud slinging or character assassination, but there are certainly things about her that are legitimately worthy of criticism. Of course, with numbers like that, I’m perfectly willing to keep my conservative powder dry until she gets the nomination and then ruthlessly bombard her in the general election. (See, this is why I don’t like politics. It gets me thinking like a cutthroat sleazeball.)

As far as the Democr@ts go, it never ceases to amaze me how consistently they can be thrown a hanging slider and completely whiff it. There were times last year when I was genuinely fearful that Democr@ts were going to take advantage of a Republic@n misstep and gain the upper hand in the political sphere. This, as yet, has not happened.

Far be it for me to offer political advice to my opponents, but they’re going about this all wrong. For the last five years, the Demcr@ts, and liberals in general, have directed virtually all of their political energy toward slinging mud at Ge0rge \/\/. Bush and his administration.

It’s almost comical, really. The amount of vile hatred directed at the President is staggering. People that oppose the President have become so blinded by their rage or detached from reality that they claim that Ge0rge \/\/. Bush is not their president, or that he’s Hi+ler, or that we invaded Iraq for oil/to benefit Ha|iburton, that he’s spying on Americans talking to their grandmothers, that the Iran crisis is a farce to cover an economic agenda, or any number of the crazy things liberals say. Ignoring for the moment that each one of those accusations is demonstrably untrue, let’s say for the sake of argument that they are true.

President Bush is a lame duck. He can’t run again, and there is no reason to believe that Cheney is going to run. Thus, this unprecedented amount of hatred being leveled against the President is truly an exercise in futility — or, to use my new favorite word, nugation. Liberals are shadowboxing the boogeyman. They are expending so much energy trying to impress each other with how much they can hate Bush that they’re setting themselves up for another disappointment in 2008.

J0hn Kerry’s main platform in 2004 was that he wasn’t Ge0rge \/\/. Bush. Oh, and he would’ve nicer to France. That sort of platform isn’t going to fly in 2008. 2008 is going to be a truly open-field election. The Republic@n candidate isn’t going to the Ge0rge \/\/. Bush, and the Democr@ts aren’t going to be able to get away with their bash-Bush platform. The problem is, by the time the campaign rolls around, the Democr@ts are going to be so over-invested in the “Bush is Hi+ler” mantra that they’re going to be utterly incapable of piecing together a coherent policy platform. Personally, I’m alright with this prospect. One of the first rules of politics is: if you’re opponent is shooting himself in the foot, for Heaven’s sake, don’t interfere.

I say let the Democr@ts go nuts over Bush. By the time they realize that he’s no longer their opponent, they’ll already be well on their way to being routed by Ge0rge Allen.