I heard she likes girls. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted on 08/08/2005 12:24:47 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers
If Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s rightward march continues, her media cheerleaders will relaunch her as “Hillary Rodham Goldwater.” Sympathetic commentators have ballyhooed the New York Democrat’s shift toward the center. Each of her less-than-socialist utterings confirms her mounting moderation.
Don’t believe the hype: The Duchess of Chappaqua remains a committed liberal Democrat. Her capture of the White House would advance limited government about as much as a Walter Mondale or an Al Gore victory would have.
Clinton’s votes, rated by both conservative and liberal groups, expose her as an Exacta-grade thoroughbred to statist liberals and a scoliotic nag to free-market conservatives. From 0 to 100, “the middle” should rest somewhere between 33 and 66. Clinton scores well below 33 on conservative vote tallies and far higher than 66 on liberal evaluations.
The American Conservative Union gave Clinton a zero for her 2004 Senate votes. Her career ACU rating is just 9. Among other things, Clinton opposed a bill to criminalize the injury or death of a fetus during a violent offense. She also favored hiking the top tax rate from 35 percent to 36 percent and spurned legislation to promote testing and deployment of a missile defense shield.
For her 2004 Senate votes, the National Taxpayer’s Union gave Clinton an 11 percent rating — an F.
In addition, NTU’s Bill Tally for the 108th Congress revealed that Clinton is the Senate’s second biggest spender, right behind Jon Corzine (D., N.J.). She sponsored or cosponsored 211 bills to boost expenditures and only three to curb outlays. Were they all enacted, new federal spending would have jumped $378.2 billion annually.
“That’s the largest number of bills to increase spending supported by any Senator,” says NTU’s Pete Sepp. “Corzine would have spent more money annually ($440.7 billion), but he backed fewer pieces of legislation than did Hillary Clinton.”
Clinton’s 2004 votes scored her 8 percent approval from Citizens Against Government Waste, matching her 8 percent lifetime rating.
“Hillary Clinton’s 2004 rating, the 19th worst in the entire Senate, was far below average for a Senate Democrat,” according to CAGW president Tom Schatz. “Senate Democrats had an average rating of 16 percent in 2004 and 19 percent lifetime. The entire Senate’s average rating in 2004 was 40 percent.” CAGW’s complete 2004 ratings will be released later this month.
Clinton and New York’s senior Democratic senator, Charles Schumer, were CAGW’s “Porkers of the Month” last February for fighting President Bush’s proposed reforms of the Community Development Block Grant Program. While Clinton called it “a lifeline for many individuals already struggling to make ends meet,” the administration has criticized its “unclear purpose, loose targeting requirements, and lack of results.” These grants included $25,000 to help construct a music conservatory and $500,000 for “streetscape improvements” — both in Westchester, one of America’s poshest counties.
The American Security Council, a conservative foreign-policy organization, gave Clinton a 20 for her record in the 108th Congress. Her votes to shift $5.03 billion from Iraqi reconstruction to domestic programs and to strike research funds on a nuclear “bunker buster” weapon, among others, violated ASC’s credo: “Peace through strength.”
Clinton’s grand slams on the left parallel her strikeouts on the right.
Americans for Democratic Action calls its ratings “the standard measure of political liberalism.” The April 2005 ADA Today awarded Clinton a 95 rating for opposing nearly all of the “vile reactionary projects that this extremist regime raised before Congress this past year.”
For her 2003 votes, Ralph Nader’s Public Interest Research Group gave Clinton a 95 percent rating, exceeding her 87-percent career average.
Clinton earned a 100 percent rating for 2004 from AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the bureaucrats’ union. This matched her perfect career record for advancing the agenda of government workers.
Clinton scored a 100 percent rating for 2004 from NARAL Pro-Choice America, the former National Abortion Rights Action League. It applauded Clinton for opposing the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. As its website explains: “The legislation would recognize the ‘unborn child’ as a seperate [sic] victim when a pregnant woman is assualted [sic] or killed.”
What about Clinton’s call last January for Americans to find “common ground” on abortion? What the press trumpeted as an overture to pro-lifers “turns out to be recycled remarks from when her husband was still president,” the New York Post’s Eric Fettmann discovered. Clinton delivered the same remarks to NARAL gatherings in 1999 and 2005, only this time they somehow showed her sympathy for the pro-life cause. Fettmann isn’t buying: “Same speech, same sentiments, same audience. Doesn’t anyone use Google anymore?”
Even by the nonpartisan National Journal’s analysis, Clinton is solidly left of center. For 2004, the Washington-based publication gave her a composite liberal score of 71 and a composite conservative rating of 29.
Clinton’s secret weapon may be star-struck Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who love to be seen in public with her. Gingrich — who once famously said about Bill Clinton, “I have a real problem. I melt when I’m around him” — looked like a runny pat of butter beside the former First Lady as they promoted a health-records modernization proposal last May.
So, with Republican help, the fake’s progress continues. As journalists wave their pom-poms, Hillary Rodham Clinton blurs her image and increasingly calls the political center her base. Just one little thing spoils this pretty picture: Her Senate vote record.
— Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Fairfax, Virginia.
I understand from people who have met him that Bill Clinton is genuinely charismatic and likeable in person. I could easily imagine that he'd be a fun guy to have a beer or two with. Unfortunately, we also know that Clinton is seriesly damaged goods as a human being.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: we know Hillary's pretend march to the center is BS, because her liberal base is being quiet about it. They know it's an act. It's the case of the dog that didn't bark.
Ping.
PING for a later read.
While I too am frustrated with the lack of control over spending, I'm not so frustrated that I want to see Hillary making SCOTUS appointments or, God Forbid, becoming Commander-in-Chief over our armed forces.
She wants to give felons the right to vote and take away Military recruiters access to campuses. Yet she wants to increase the military by 80,000 people.
She want to stop illegal immigration, but she voted against a bill to increase border patrol manpower.
There's no way to believe anything the Beast says. You just have to look at the way she votes.
Not stupid enough, evidently, which is why she wants to give felons the right to vote.
-------
Well put -- yes, they need every scumbag vote they can muster up -- it is their constituency. The contry's losers.
There's no way to believe anything the Beast says. You just have to look at the way she votes.
-------
The way she votes, and what she says that is believable...
** WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THINGS AWAY FROM YOU, FOR THE COMMON GOOD **
(Hammer and sickle on wall behind her)...
I heard she likes girls. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Thanks
Another example of the fact that democrats simply cannot run for office on who they really are, and what they really stand for. The "centrists" of their party - by that I mean non-radicals (like my 75 year old in-laws) who think they're still voting for Harry Truman - seem to be continuously fooled by this tactic. So, John Kerry - a true traitor, a citizen of the "global community" as represented by the United Nations, a wealthy elitist, and non-religious socialist - passes himself off as a "church-going," patriotic American "war hero," (did I mention he "served" in Vietnam?) who's one of the humble little people.
Fortunately, a clear majority of voters who really are Americans saw through the charade. But Hillary is starting her "makeover" early. I hope people indeed will archive this information for future reference, so when her charade starts in earnest she'll be recognized as the phony she really is.
- knightshadow.
bttt
I like women, too, which my wife will attest. Of course, I'm a guy.
- knightshadow.
Hey, I never said it would be a good thing, only that maybe the repubs might develop a spending backbone.
She's showing the wear-and-tear of all that evil conniving....
TRUTH BUMP!
She's been a senator from New York for four years. I cannot for the life of me find anything that she's done for her constituents. All I have seen her do is use the senate seat to further her presidential aspirations.
Surely the people of New York are too intelligent to be taken in by this fraud.
Surely the people of New York are too intelligent to be taken in by this fraud."
I have a friend who has spent 1 1/2 years in the Boston area doing ministry work, and she reported to me that there are many, many, immigrants, refugees there. Virtually none reads paper nor watch TV. And they worship the ground Kennedy had walked. They also hold Kerry in high regard. Their emphasis is "gimmie more" "gimmie more"! And The Dynamic Duos deliver!
So I would imagine New York City is in similiar situation!
Blech!
I don't have any faith in these guys. The last thing I would expect them to do is to band together during a Hellary reign.
I admire your optimism, though.
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.