Posted on 11/21/2004 10:36:37 AM PST by kattracks
Our friends at the National Review spotted this post-election howler in an Associated Press dispatch: "For 2008, the presumptive leading presidential candidates are New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Northeastern centrist . . ."[snip]
• The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), the self-styled premier liberal organization that issues annual congressional voting ratings by tallying the votes cast on its 20 most important issues, has given Mrs. Clinton scores (ADA cleverly calls them "liberal quotients") of 95 percent for each of her first three years. Mr. Kennedy's ADA ratings have been 100 percent (2001 and 2002) and 95 percent (2003).
• If the ADA guards the liberal flame in Congress, the American Conservative Union (ACU) performs the same function for conservatives. Mrs. Clinton's average ACU rating (2001-2003) of 11 is not much different from Mr. Kennedy's 5 for the same period.[snip]
She has compiled an average annual rating of 14 percent from the National Taxpayers Union; Mr. Kennedy's is 13 percent.
[snip]
• Each year the nonpartisan National Journal ranks each senator on three separate liberal/conservative continuums according to dozens of votes cast on economic, social and foreign-policy issues. In 2002, not a single U.S. senator was considered more liberal than Mrs. Clinton on economic and social matters.
[snip]
Mrs. Clinton will surely seek to adopt the "centrist" image over the next few years. To this end, she will undoubtedly be helped by her liberal media friends, who, like Hillary, understand how deadly the liberal moniker is to a politician nationwide. In the interest of truth, The Washington Times editorial page will occasionally take a close look at her positions in order to confirm beyond any freshly arising doubt just how entrenched her liberalism truly is.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Hildebeaset is a Socialist who is bent on the destruction of Isreal and the US Constitutional Republic.
bump for later
She thinks Communism will work if done right. She thinks it just hasn't been done right in the past when it was tried. But will she and bill give up their wealth and newfound neuveaux riche lifestyle to become TRUE communists????????? Will she be able to do it without KILLING millions of innocent people in order to take Communist power, as has always happened in the past. Will she be able to do it without forcing Americans to STAY inside the USA borders all the time - with no ability to visit other countries? She doesn't care. She just wants the power. And no she won't give up her lavish lifestyle to live in a commune.... If the Clintons were honest to their true communist leanings when it comes time to do their taxes they wouldn't be deducting $2 per pair for bill's donated undies to charity. They would give their fortune away. No she wants US to live under communism, but she wants all the freedom of an American. She wants to have her cake, and eat it too.
.
"A committed Socialist HILLARY will run for President in 2008, but will rule from the left"
...stated HILLARY's former White House Political Advisor DICK MORRIS on the FoX News Channel last week.
.
.
"A committed Socialist HILLARY will run for President in 2008, but will rule from the left"
...stated HILLARY's former White House Political Advisor DICK MORRIS on the FoX News Channel last week.
.
Hitlery needs to be defeated in '06. Can New York Republicans find a decent candidate? Rudy? Colin? Jim P? Anyone??
I doubt it. New York Republicans are all a bit too liberal. Rudy would be an excellent choice. If he could get a majority of democrats to vote for him to offset the conservatives who won't. He would have to pull a Bloomberg and change parties.
</h8> BUMP!
What an enormous contrast between Hillary and our current President Dubya, who personally looks after his Secret Service members, at no small risk to himself.
Hillary couldn't profit from state run industry. She (and Bill) profit from control over the Justice Dept. No investigations into shady dealings is the ticket. No enforcement of the law for favorites yields political power and filthy lucre. Her path to this power is that of an anarchist.
.
Even worse,
don't we all have to ask ourselves...
in a new Time of War...
in a new Century...
with an Enemy that's now...
just round the corner and...
up your street...
with our own Freedom...
now at stake...
here at home,
BIG TIME...
.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629
.
She is farther out that just a "Liberal" for sure, folks!
Click here or on the pic for the article.
http://acuratings.com/acu.cgi?ACT=1&USER_ID=2788&YEAR=2003
Senator Hillary Clinton (D)
New York
Democrat, Years of Service: 3
ACU Ratings for Senator Clinton: Year 2003 10 Year 2002 10 Lifetime 11
You are correct. In my book leftist and marxist are the same. Sorry for not explaining that.
Chelsea sure don't look like Vince Foster I wonder who produced her? (WH?)
.
HILLARY publically supported our Communist Terrorist enemy HO CHI MINH's Hanoi Radio propaganda lie told to the world all during the Vietnam War that...
There Wasn't a Single Communist North Vietnamese Army Soldier inside a then Free South Vietnam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1278933/posts
...or was there..?
http://www.lzxray.com/guyer_set3.htm
(See my last photo taken ..8 miles.. inside a then Free South Vietnam-November 15, 1965)
.
That should be:farther out thaN .....
BTTT
.
HILLARY's Lifetime M.O. =
Rule making for others,
Rule breaking for herself
...per U.S. News & World Report Political Columnist MICHAEL BARONE-1999
.
Queen Jezebel is no centrist. Trace the path of the serpent. Though Arkansas is probably not as social conservative as some southern states, the Clintons, after having been exposed for their crooked dealings in Arkansas, and the Monica affair, knew Hill's destiny would have to be in more social liberal waters.
An Arkansas carpetbagger fleeing the social conservative south, she gets elected by the feminists and social liberals of NY. She becomes one of our illustrious Marxist senators from NY. Pure political deception. What qualified her for the job? Because she was the wife of a president? The shameless slippery ambitions of the Clintons gag me.
Now the next move of the serpent. Having left the conservative south to get elected in liberal NY, now, knowing the conservative south will kill her in a white house bid, she postures herself as a centrist? Do these slimeball Clintons actually think people are so dumb as to not see what they are doing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
