"Among female senators she's certainly the most conservative....."
Damning with faint praise, my friend. Compared to the gals from Maine? Please.
She's fine on WOT agenda items. But on domestic policy, she's shaky as hell. Do you not know how the ACU ratings system works?
As for Vital Voices -- check out their board sometime at www.vitalvoices.org. It is a who's who of Hillary and her friends. They take wheelbarrows of government grant money and go from third world country to third world country to expand feminism. And yes, one of their platforms to solve trafficking is to make prostitution a "career option" for those in poor nations who have no other apparent means of support. Not kidding here.
If you dig putting 12 year old little girls into prostitution as a career rather than prosecuting traffickers, well, I think we'll have to part company on that idea.
ACU's ratings are based on record votes, you can learn more here: http://www.acuratings.org/
Anyway, I'm not arguing she's the most conservatest of conservativedom, or whatever standard most freepers want, but that she deserves some credit and I'm glad the Times pointed it out. Why should our guys go further if they get no support from us and nothing but flack from the bad guys? This hold their feet to the flame/stay home on Election day stuff only works up to a point, beyond which you're just forfeiting the game.
[ACU] ratings encompass three general categories: (1) economic and budget matters; (2) social and cultural issues, and (3) defense and foreign policy. ACU endeavors to analyze votes from each category in order to obtain a balanced, comprehensive picture of an individual member's ideological predisposition based upon recorded records.You had something else in mind?
Source