home > archive > 2002 > this article
Dr. Laura for President?
By Bruce Walker
Dr. Laura Schlessinger has stated that "If Hillary ran, I would have to run against her." That shot across the bow should be enough to send the cowardly, lazy, aging Ms. Rodham back into the safe harbor of the elitist, quasi-Marxist Manhattan salons and out of mainstream American politics, particularly if Dr. Laura intends to challenge Ms. Rodham for the Democrat Party nomination, but even when Ms. Rodham takes a craven and calculating retreat from a real fight, Dr. Laura should still run for the Democrat nomination in 2004.
Liberals would doubtless pounce upon Dr. Laura as utterly out of step with the Democrat Party, and she should face these critics directly and say:
Anyone who has seen or heard Dr. Laura knows that she is a tough cookie: articulate, quick witted, and uncompromising. She is comfortable talking to millions of people and facing leftist muckraking. Dr. Laura also has an army of loyal listeners. What a Dr. Laura candidacy do?
Her candidacy would provide Democrats with an instant, serious problem with women voters. Dr. Laura is very popular with many women because she expresses so well the values that they yearn to see in their lives: those missing elements in any discussion of women today that have to do with personal responsibility and ethical duty. Many of these Dr. Laura listeners are nominal Democrats who are politically apathetic.
She could create a legion of suddenly active women voters and activists, and on their behalf she could ask Democrat candidates what he said about Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaddrick, or any of the other Kleenex that Clinton used and discarded. She could even bring these women along with her on the campaign trail and to any debates.
Dr. Laura could also present a true voice of opposition in Democrat presidential debates - those silly and dull performances of empty suits about who feels more the pain of core Democrat constituencies. What if the party leaders tried to keep her out of the debates? She could respond by publicly calling them cowards and backroom power brokers, afraid of the people. She could insist that these "debates" be considered campaign expenditures, and demand equal time.
Keeping her out of the debates would also leave Democrats open to a wide variety of charges: (1) The men of the Democrat Party are afraid of strong women; (2) Democrat leaders do not allow diversity of opinion; (3) Democrats do not like religiously serious Jews; (4) The whole nomination process is a fraud. And it would call even more attention to the uniqueness of her candidacy.
Democrats would have to let her in the debates, and facing the jello of modern liberalism, her coherent and intelligent voice of opposition, utterly uncompromising on any of her principles, could chide those Democrats who use weasel words and dummy distinctions to avoid honest answers. Consider the following possible exchange between Dr. Laura and Senator "Pretty Boy" Edwards of North Carolina on abortion:
Get the drift? Dr. Laura, already vilified as hopelessly politically
incorrect, can take on the left with rhetorical aggression and no risks
about her reputation with liberal nabobs. Dr. Laura would gut someone
like "Pretty Boy" Edwards quicker than an old fisherman can
filet a perch.
Conservatives running for the Democrat nomination typically face the hardened ideologues and party hacks who dominate caucus states, but Dr. Laura could bring large numbers of housewives, retired grandmothers and working women who would be strong supporters in these caucus selections where intensity matters more than popularity.
Then comes the Democrat Convention, where Dr. Laura could a clear and unwavering voice for Democrats to abandon past practices of political expediency and to accept blame for past mistakes. She could directly condemn the party for supporting liars, adulterers, and creeps like Clinton, Rodham and Gore. That is, if she was allowed to speak. .
And if she is allowed to speak, this could create a national groundswell of support that would make her the most popular Democrat in America, and the Democrat leadership would be forced to pull out every stop to deny her the nomination.
What if she speaks, and Democrats boo? Then the whole Democrat Convention becomes a nasty mess, with her delegates booing other Democrats, and fierce demands for votes on platform language. If the majority of her supporters and delegates were women, then these delegates could assert that "the good old boys" ran the Democrat Party. They could boo or chant while other Democrats tried to speak.
So what if Dr. Laura won the nomination? She could choose a conservative black man, someone like Alan Keyes, or an Hispanic woman like Linda Chavez as her running mate. If that happens, then Dr. Laura could fight, and perhaps win, control of the Democrat National Committee and gain control of the Democrat Party from within. Her campaign against President Bush could be based upon his being too liberal.
The short term impact would be to insure that the conservative message dominated the national political agenda to the extent that public opinion polls show that it should. She would be winning, on behalf of the peasants, those castles of the Democrat nobility.
The long term impacts would be much greater. Women would begin to seriously reexamine their political agenda and their ideology. Democrats would be very wary about ever again tolerating the sort of sleaze that Clinton, Rodham and Gore wallowed in for eight years. And that dull dinosaur - the Democrat Party - might just do what Marx once predicted capitalism would do: wither away to nothing.
Walker is a senior writer with Enter Stage Right. He is also a contributor
to Citizens View, The Common Conservative, Conservative Truth and Port
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!
© 1996-2018, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.