Posted on 09/29/2005 4:03:10 PM PDT by MikeA
Glug, Glug, Glug . . . Well, as usual, we guessed wrong. Two weeks ago we confidently predicted that Sen. Hillary Clinton would vote with the majority of the Democrats on the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts.
The red-blue divide was clear. Democrats from states where George W. Bush beat John Kerry* favored Roberts 13-3, while Kerry-carry-staters opposed him 19-10.
As for Mrs. Clinton, her vote shows her to be an extremist, to the left even of the Democratic Party. As New York's other senator might say, she has drifted far outside the mainstream and is headed for an iceberg, and if she doesn't stop rearranging the deck chairs before she finds herself in the fishbowl of a presidential campaign, she will have to row and wade frantically just to avoid sinking into the quicksand of a watery grave.
* Sorry, we don't remember who he is either.
The Tally How Senate Democrats (and Jeffords) voted on John Roberts.
Yes (23) No (22) Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) Barbara Boxer (Calif.) Mark Pryor (Ark.) Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) Ken Salazar (Colo.) Joe Biden (Del.) Chris Dodd (Conn.) Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) Joe Lieberman (Conn.) Daniel Ionuye (Hawaii) Tom Carper (Del.) Dick Durbin (Ill.) Bill Nelson (Fla.) Barack Obama (Ill.) Mary Landrieu (La.) Evan Bayh (Ind.) Carl Levin (Mich.) Tom Harkin (Iowa) Max Baucus (Mont.) Ted Kennedy (Mass.) Ben Nelson (Neb.) John Kerry (Mass.) Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) Barbara Mikulski (Md.) Kent Conrad (N.D.) Paul Sarbanes (Md.) Byron Dorgan (N.D.) Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) Ron Wyden (Ore.) Mark Dayton (Minn.) Tim Johnson (S.D.) Harry Reid (Nev.) Jim Jeffords (Vt.) Jon Corzine (N.J.) Pat Leahy (Vt.) Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) Patty Murray (Wash.) Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) Robert Byrd (W.Va.) Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) Jack Reed (R.I.) Russ Feingold (Wis.) Maria Cantwell (Wash.) Herb Kohl (Wis.)
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
> I know, I was really surprised by Patty Murray's vote. She's usually an abortion/feminism fanatic.
Don't be fooled. This is the 'RAT version of "strategery." They are trying to look balanced now (on what was clearly a lost cause for them) so that their radical opposition to the next candidate could be portrayed as "principled."
Sooooo true. It's painful to listen to Joe. Seems like a good healthy grunt could take care of his problem.
But, all that aside, I do think he's a basically decent man who has the right ideas about defense. I can't say he would have spent too much cuz look at what we have now.
If it had been him instead of sKerry in 2004, it would not have bothered me if he won. I would still have voted for W but it would not have bothered me to see Joe as prez.
dunno...
my opinion of him has been based on his speaking to issues at various tv appearances. He comes across as reasonable and smooth talking but I for one have seen this snake oil salesman for what he is.
He's not my senator. I have the proud distinction of being represented by Sarbanes and Miii.....kkk..sorry, it's hard to get out...Mikulski.
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.