Morris correctly predicted early withdrawal from New York Senate race -- but got candidate wrong
SUMMARY: For months, Dick Morris has predicted that New York Republican Senate candidate Jeanine Pirro was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's "worst nightmare" and that Clinton would end her re-election campaign rather than face Pirro. But, trailing badly in the polls, Pirro dropped out of the race.
In columns in The Hill and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and in appearances on Fox News over the past several months, Clinton-hating pundit Dick Morris repeatedly touted New York Republican Jeanine Pirro's Senate campaign against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- even suggesting that Pirro is such a strong candidate that Clinton would have to drop out of the race.
When Morris says something about the Clintons, it's usually a safe bet that he's wrong -- and his Pirro predictions have proven to be no exception. Pirro, trailing badly in polls, dropped out of the race on December 21 and announced instead that she plans to run for New York attorney general.
Following are some of Morris's predictions about the Clinton-Pirro race.
FNC's The O'Reilly Factor, 4/14/05: Morris predicted Clinton might "take a pass" rather than face Pirro:
MORRIS: Could I just mention one other thought about Hillary, on your previous subject? There is a very interesting fight shaping up in '06 in New York state. Because Hillary, you know has to run for re-election to the Senate before she runs for president.
BILL O'REILLY (host): Right.
MORRIS: I personally would advise her to skip it and just run for president. What does she need a re-election fight for? But I've heard that there's some possibility that a pro-choice, pro-assault rifle ban, pro-affirmative action woman might run against her, Jeanine Pirro, the attorney general -- district attorney of Westchester who's on Fox News a lot.
O'REILLY: Yes.
MORRIS: That would be something.
O'REILLY: That's in the air. That's in the air. And you know, but Hillary is so much money. But that would be a competitive race. And if that happens --
MORRIS: Because she -- Hillary needs to run against someone like a [Newt] Gingrich.
O'REILLY: Yes.
MORRIS: Hillary needs to run against somebody like a Gingrich, who's anti-choice, and you know, pro anti-gun control. But again, someone who in essence is so much like her on the policy issues, Hillary would find herself fighting herself.
O'REILLY: It would be interesting. But I think Hillary might take your advice, if Ms. Pirro does declare, she might say, "I'm going to run for president."
MORRIS: Yes. She might just take a pass. What does she need to spend $10 million getting re-elected to the Senate for?
The Hill, 6/22/05: Morris called Pirro "Hillary's worst nightmare," predicted Clinton would drop out of race
In New York state, Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro seems to be getting closer to running against her [Clinton] in the 2006 race for the Senate. Pirro has to be Hillary's worst nightmare. She is a pro-choice woman who even backs Medicaid funding for abortion and a supporter of gun control, affirmative action and gay civil unions.
[...]
Hillary has always thrived off right-wing challengers who flunk the litmus tests imposed by New York's liberal electorate. But, in Pirro, she has met someone whom she can't browbeat over abortion or the usual Democratic issues.
Clinton is especially vulnerable to Pirro because Hillary can't pledge to serve out her term if she is reelected. Polls show that her refusal to do so strikes New Yorkers very badly. Having extended the welcome mat to this carpetbagger and taken her at her word that she wanted to be part of the Big Apple, they feel they are being treated like doormats in reelecting someone who will obviously begin to miss votes and focus all her energy on running for president as soon as she is reelected.
If Pirro attracts the massive national funding she is likely to get, she can wage a very strong race against Hillary. My bet is that Clinton thinks the better of it and drops out of the race if Pirro comes on strong. Why should she risk the presidency - and have to spend $20 million - just to get reelected to her old job?
And ... if Hillary drops out after Pirro has built up a head of steam, it could give the GOP a Senate seat in the most unlikely of places -- Clinton's back yard.
Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 8/8/05: Morris says Clinton would be "crazy" to run against Pirro
O'REILLY: .OK, how would you go after Pirro?
MORRIS: Well, the first thing I would tell Hillary, if I were advising Hillary, is you're crazy to run for the Senate. What do you need to spend $30 million or $40 million for, in a race that will probably become a nip-and-tuck race. It'll be within five or eight points. And you win by five points.
And then you go around the country explaining how come I was elected by 12 [percentage points] but re-elected by only five. It's a no-win game.
And what does she get? A Senate seat that she wants to vacate. Whereas - and I would go back to her and I would say, Hillary, do you remember when we were talking in 1990 about whether Bill should run for re-election as governor of Arkansas before he runs '92? And you said he shouldn't because you said he needs the full time to campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire? And do you remember how right you were then? What are you getting involved in this for?
[NOTE: Bill Clinton did run for re-election as governor in 1990; he won. Then he was elected president in 1992. It isn't clear why Morris thinks this proves that Hillary Clinton shouldn't run for re-election.]
O'REILLY: Yes, but pride? Isn't it pride? Because she's obviously said --
MORRIS: She can be real proud in the White House. And --
O'REILLY: So you would advise her to just not run for the Senate, and say to the people in New York, "Look, I don't want to run because I'm not going to be here for the full commitment. I'm going to run for president." She's not going to do that. What are the odds of her doing that?
MORRIS: Well, that depends on whether she has a cakewalk or not. When it only looked like [attorney and Richard Nixon son-in-law Edward] Cox would run, that was a cakewalk for Hillary.
O'REILLY: Yes. Pirro's no cakewalk.
MORRIS: Pirro's no cakewalk.
O'REILLY: No.
MORRIS: And if Pirro demonstrates over the fall that she can really put the points on the board and really close the gap --
O'REILLY: Raises --
MORRIS: .-- and raises a lot of dough from around the country.
O'REILLY: Right, which she will.
MORRIS: Which she will, then I think Hillary has to look at that again. And she has to say, "One of my big advantages is I will enter this race with an ability to spend $100 million."
O'REILLY: But it looks like --
MORRIS: "But if I've already blown $40 million of that --"
O'REILLY: -- it looks like she's chicken, though, if she doesn't.
MORRIS: No.
O'REILLY: No?
MORRIS: Not if she pulls out when she still has a 10 or 15-point lead, but she realizes it's down from 32. She'll say, "I had a 12-point lead. What do you mean? I was certain to win re-election."
O'REILLY: If she doesn't pull out, do you think it's going to be nasty? You think -- I would -- with all due respect, I know Ms. Pirro. Not well, but you know, I know her. I don't know Mrs. Clinton. I've never spoken to her. But I wouldn't want to get in between those two ladies. Is this going to get nasty?
MORRIS: I don't think so.
O'REILLY: No?
MORRIS: I think that Hillary is going to plant all kinds of stories about Jeanine's husband [who has served prison time for tax fraud and has fathered a child out of wedlock].
O'REILLY: Do you really think that?
MORRIS: But then Jeanine can basically come back and say, "Why don't we leave both of our husbands out of it?"
O'REILLY: Yes.
MORRIS: "My husband, who served time for tax evasion, and your husband who lost his law license for perjury." And I think that's a pretty effective argument.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 8/14/05: Morris called Pirro-Clinton race a "battle royale," said Clinton "may read the handwriting on the wall and she may pull out of the race"
Jeanine Pirro has formally announced her candidacy for U.S. Senate from New York, which will pit her against Hillary Clinton in a battle royale. This is just the kind of fight that Sen. Clinton hoped to avoid.
While Hillary would have no problem dispatching an opponent like Nixon son-in-law Edward Cox or Yonkers Mayor John Spencer (the two other possible GOP contenders), Pirro presents a real problem.
Jeanine Pirro is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay-civil unions and pro-immigration. And, of course, she's a woman.
[...]
And, at some point, Mrs. Clinton may feel Pirro gaining on her and wonder if it is worth the battle.
It's worth remembering that Hillary did not want Bill to run for re-election for governor of Arkansas in 1990 as he contemplated a race for president in 1992. (Back then she had a better idea: She would run in his place.)
[...]
If Pirro posts some early gains, particularly upstate, where it is cheap to do early advertising, Hillary and Bill may read the handwriting on the wall and she may pull out of the race.
The Hill, 9/21/05: Morris claimed "Hillary has a real fight on her hands," said Pirro "might just beat" Clinton
Ed Cox, Nixon's son-in-law, and John Spencer, former Yonkers mayor, were not the sort to confront Hillary with a potent challenge. But now that Jeanine Pirro has declared her candidacy, Hillary has a real fight on her hands.
[...]
Already, since Pirro announced -- and despite her embarrassing 32 seconds of silence while she groped for her speech text -- the Westchester Republican, a district attorney, has closed the gap with Hillary. The Democratic senator led Pirro by a gigantic 30-point margin, 61-31 percent, before Jeanine announced. But afterward Pirro trailed by only 55-34.
[...]
Armed with the doubts of New Yorkers about Hillary's fealty and protected by her social liberalism, Pirro will make a very effective challenger. She will almost certainly make the race closer than the 12 points that separated Hillary from her 2000 Republican challenger, Rep. Rick Lazio. And Pirro will make her work hard and spend tens of millions of dollars.
And she might just beat Hillary. Which raises the question: Why is Hillary running for reelection to a job she wants to leave? New Yorkers will all be asking, so Hillary might want to ask herself.
Finally, Morris gets a prediction half right. There will be no stopping him now. He will have to make all of the rounds on the talk-shows to gloat (or more likely change the subject).
Dick Morris couldn't predict the time with a clock in front of him.
I had just read about this story on my homepage . . . I remember how former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani had to drop out of the NY senate race in 2000 . . . it was primarily about his health {I forgot what it was he had to undergo treatment for}, but it was also about: 1} his branding of Chicago native Clinton a "carpetbagger" - which he had to backpedal from when it was discovered that he had, as a democrat in the mid-60's, endorsed another "carpetbagger" for the Senate from NY, Robert F. Kennedy, and 2} the allegations that he was having an affair while married to his then-wife, Donna Hanover, effectively preventing him from bringing up Bill Clinton's infidelities.
After Rudy withdrew, the NY GOP then put up Rick Lazio to run against Hilary, and he, too, tried to use the carpetbagger argument . . . but Hilary handed him his arse in debates held upstate - and did the same in the election. Lazio apparently didn't learn one thing: when it comes to representation in congress, to upstate New Yorkers {and since I was born and raised there, I know}, once you step outside the five boroughs, YOU'RE considered a carpetbagger.
The NY GOP is now left a former Yonkers mayor and a tax attorney - neither of whom is well-known statewide - to run against Clinton. Memo to the NY GOP: If you really wish to remove Hilary Clinton, you may want to start with a candidate who a} is known outside NYC and b} can stick through the entire campaign. Good luck . . .
"I think the Philadelphia Eagles will win the Super Bowl this year." - evil neo-con, August 2005
Okay, so we're not all perfect with our predictions. Whoop-de-freakin-doo.
Enjoy your early Christmas, er... winter solstice present I guess. You guys know this just opens the door for a real candidate like Rudy Giuliani now, right?
Good one!
You almost made me spill my beer with that joke about that joke Giuliani.
Please cease this ridiculous, trite, overblown tactic of painting the Democratic Party as the party of "godless secularists".
If the founding fathers had wanted it to be the Jesus States of America, we'd all be attending church on Sundays else it's into the stockade. And there is cause and effect of why they excluded an established religion from the founding document: religion is the number one cause of irrational behavior. Like thinking your superior for saying Merry Christmas vs. Happy HOLY-days.
Merry Christmas, Evil Neo-Con!
The " Godless Democrats" B/S is old and tired. I wish people would tend to their own relationship with God instead of judging others on theirs.
Here Evil Neo-Con, try this on for size...
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."
That would be Matthew, Chapter 7, verses 1 through 5.
Re: "You guys know this just opens the door for a real candidate like Rudy Giuliani now, right?":
Seems more like a revolving door with you guys.
The actual R candidate is practically irrelevant. The tactics will be the same and that's what wins the races for them. That people fall for those tactics.
You were invited on which show to share your predictions?
was being on the stage and, having misplaced a SINGLE page of her speech, lapsing into 30 seconds of fumferring confusion before she could finish a simple sentence any competent person would have rehearsed earlier and known by heart. What a helium head.
Both so full of themselves and yet so consistantly wrong.
If it wasn't for their history of being disgusting sleazoids, they'd almost be loveable.
Think about how cool it is to be a Fox News analyst.
All you have to do is say whatever comes to mind that agrees with whatever the red-meat host says or asks, and you get paid for it!
There's very little thinking involved. The hardest part is thinking of some new or novel way to say something anti-Clinton.
Just say whatever! Wheeee! I'm on Fox news, agreeing with Bill O'Reilly! Wheeee!!!
At the risk of being off-topic, what type of bass do you play? I'm an electric bass player, too, and my main two performance basses are a David King six-string fretted and a Modulus Quantum six-string fretless.
Later!
I had wondered why the press in New York were hyping Pirro. She always seemed such a no-hoper. Looks like the Republican publicity machine failed here. I just can't understand how they manage to get the media here in New York to think that someone like Pirro could stand a chance, and discuss her seriously.
One thing that never ceases to amaze me about the rogues gallery of erstwhile political pundits that are chronicled regularly here is the mile-wide streak of shameless they all seem to possess. Every time I hear Morris (always in a friendly environment) he's treated like some sort of 21st century Nostradamus, predicting this and that, just dazzling the listeners with his political insight. Doesn't he know, deep down inside, that he's just another putrified gasbag whose only message, really, is that Bill and Hillary are the great Satans of our time? I guess as ling as Fox is signing the checks he'll keep the schtick going, but what a worthless one trick pony he is. All of these guys must need some heavy duty sedatives so they can sleep at night. Probably don't have mirrors at home either.
"One thing that never ceases to amaze me about the rogues gallery of erstwhile political pundits that are chronicled regularly here is the mile-wide streak of shameless they all seem to possess."
-----
"Erstwhile" means "former." You're probably thinking of the words "steadfast in their know-nothingness," or "determined to be wrong."
Thanks for that. Don't know why, but I always thought it meant so-called or alleged, but you are correct, sir. I wish most of them were former at this point.
Only the neocons would listen to a guy who was forced out of politics due to an extramarital affair with a prostitute (Sherry Rowlands in 1996!!!). Dick Morris is a fat loser who resigned as a total disgrace. Remember, he was letting his hooker girlfriend listen to phone calls with the president...unbelievable! So it only figures that he now has a second career on FOX News by railing against the people that made his career to begin with.
If only his parents had practiced early withdrawal...
Dick Morris strikes me as smarmy and arrogant. Of course he hates Clinton who dumped him when he was hanging out with a hooker. Why does this never come up? Decency is to be respected, but would he extend that courtesy?
Smarmy describes him well. The way the righties see it, if you'r on their side, what you did in the past doen't matter (Morris, Liddy, North, etc,) but if you're against them every trivial detail of your past will be constantly brought up, whether it's true or not.
Perhaps Bull O'Really? should ask Dick Morris a question on a topic Morris really knows - like toe-sucking.
Bull and Dick - what a pair!
In June of 2003, as soon as the insurgency had begun killing American soliders, Dick Morris smugly asserted that the American forces would deal with the insurgency and eliminate them in two weeks.
I don't get it.
He didn't misrepresent anyone. He didn't twist the facts. He made a stupid prediction and got it wrong. That's all it is.
When commentators smugly and arrogantly make predicitions, they should be held accountable. Morris is typical of commentators who like to taunt. If Morris had been right, he and other right-wingers would have touted just how right the right wing are and how stupid and pathetic the left is, a bunch of losers. That has been the script we have been hearing for two decades.
If Morris had simply made a normal prediction, and wasn't always such a smug jerk, his being wrong wouldn't be news.