Getting Elected Versus Conviction

Washington Times Insider Politics Blog: "Not too long ago Mrs. Clinton's husband (and chief political adviser), Bill Clinton, told the liberal American Prospect magazine that the trick to uniting the left wing and centrist camp of the party was a balancing act in which you could not afford to alienate either side. But Mrs. Clinton did just that a couple of weeks ago when she told a liberal, heavily anti-war conference of Democrats that it was not smart strategy to set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. military forces in Iraq, eliciting boos and enflaming her party's antiwar forces."

Now, Hillary is backpedaling. The well-known strategy for getting elected is play to your base before the primaries, then move to the center for the election.

Politicians are always doing a balancing act. Bill Clinton was a master at it. George Bush is tough on terrorists and friendly to business, but accommodating to illegal immigrants. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger leans so far left that he's going to tip over soon. I guess you have to do this to get elected.

On the other hand, where is the conviction? Can a politician stay true to her principles? Harry Truman is now considered to have been a great president. Yet, at the end of his last term he couldn't have been elected dogcatcher. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on the other hand, seemed to have conviction and popularity. How did he get away with it?

I believe the answer is leadership. George Bush has conviction on the issue of the war in Iraq. He believes that this is a just war that will make America safer. He is opposed by a majority of Americans on this matter, yet he stays the course. This is one reason, I believe, that history will one day judge him as a great president.

Contrast this with Hillary, and John Kerry, who speak out of both sides of their mouths. I don't sense from them that they care about America. I don't sense that they care about the troops. They just want to get elected.