Hillary's Voting Record

Post by **Dardedar** » Wed May 17, 2006 7:34 am

Hillary's voting record:

HERE

And in this country, she is painted as a liberal extremist.

Amazing.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Wed May 17, 2006 8:26 am

Hillary's painted as a liberal extremist by the MSM under orders of the RWNM. That way they can really rile the wingnuts - getting their money and support - and even sometimes snooker the left-leaning independents and the wishful-thinking feminist Dems. A win-win for the Rs. Hillary's voting record gets better or worse, depending on the subject. It's reasonably good on the environment, absolutely solid on anything to do with children, and piss poor on anything economic (that's the reason her "peace" record was only 60% - it included votes on funding war-related activities). She's a former Goldwater girl, do-gooder Methodist, who only left her natal party because of its record on children and family matters. She makes a reasonably good Senator, she'd make a lousy president. Barbara Jordan would have made a good president. Ann Richards would make a good president. Diane Feinstein might make a good president. Not Hillary. Leave her where she is.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Wed May 17, 2006 11:26 am

Note that Hitlery is 100% warmonger. Recently she was quoted as saying, in effect, that she wanted to keep troops and bases in Iraq so that the US could engage in a first strike against Iran.

Hitlery expects to keep the vote of the braindead liberal democrats - who, despite their talk, would vote for any Democrat regardless of how warlike and anti-civil-libertarian they are. So she's in a position to capture the moderate vote by being a hawkish populist panderer outbushing Bush. The USAmerican electorate is so ignorant and brainwashed that it will probably work. Of course, I'm hoping refuse to vote wins again.

DiFi (Dianne Feinstein) is a fascist hypocrite. She reversed (former mayor of SF, the one who got assassinated) Moscone's don't enforce cannabis prohibition in San Francisco policy; she supported the "peace dividend" base closures, then immediately pulled political strings to keep most California bases open. She opposes freedom of speech - she led crusades against books, flag-burning, and for monstrosities such as the Communications Decency Act and its descendents like COPA.

"She is in the forefront of senators voting against the Internet," said Jerry Berman, executive director of the liberal Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C. "On a scale of 1 to 10, in terms of being on the side of Internet freedom, she gets a 1."

DiFi is also against the right of self-defense, voting for every victim-disarmament law she sees. Here's what the SF Bay Guardian wrote about her:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was the best friend of real estate developers and landlords when she was mayor of San Francisco, has developed a high national profile in the Senate. She was on everyone's short list as a Democratic vice presidential candidate. But her record hasn't improved a bit: She's still pro-big business, and now she's pro-big military and pro-globalization. And she supports almost every repressive crime bill that comes before her. Her record on defense and foreign policy includes voting for the $1.7 billion drug war military aid package to Columbia, supporting a national missile defense system, backing unfair trade laws like "NAFTA for Africa," and supporting China's admission to the World Trade Organization. She also voted to eliminate the estate tax, which would benefit wealthy Americans like Feinstein and her financier husband, Richard Blum, who are estimated to be worth more than $50 million (making her the fifth richest member of Congress). She voted for "Three Strikes" mandatory sentencing and strongly supports the death penalty.

And some people wonder why I don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two factions of the War Party.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Thu May 18, 2006 10:19 am

I don't wonder why Hogeye doesn't see any difference, I know. He refuses to accept anything counter to his proclamations.

Most of the nastier votes Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton have done (along with Blanche Lincoln, for that matter) is because they include riders that the Senators in question want, hope will at least be a step in the right direction, or will at least ameliorate the damage done by the bill in question. An example is the Energy bill - it's a tax giveaway to the major fossil fuel corporations, but it has riders providing some funding for alternate energy and conservation programs. Given the choice between getting NO money for alternate energy or getting some, when the corporate energy pork bill is going to pass anyway, they've voted for the energy bill. I don't like it, but I understand their logic. And as I noted before, Hillary is only really solid on anything to do with children and families.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:28 am

Barbara, are you saying that, despite her warmongering, you'd vote for her anyway?

Post by **Dardedar** » Thu May 18, 2006 11:51 am

Hillary's rating by the the ADA:

"2005 Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005."

LINK

See all of congress rated here:

LINK

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Thu May 18, 2006 12:15 pm

Apparently the Americans for Democratic Action didn't mind Hitlery's support for the Patriot Act, giving Bush carte blanc war powers, or the occupation and mass-murder in Iraq against her. ADAs web site doesn't give their criteria for rating. You have to draw your own conclusions from their general spiel - they support government redistribution of other people's wealth, higher taxes, and praise the ultra-statist economist Galbraith.

Speaking of Galbraith, here's one obit:

J.K. Galbraith Celebrated Power, Not Freedom

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Fri May 19, 2006 9:02 am

Believe it or not (and Hogeye won't) there were some good things in the Patriot Act - largely having to do with expanding and equipping First Responders. There were somethings that just pandered to the scared, because we were already doing them (like sharing information between the intelligence groups), or at least had been under Clinton, so the laws were already on the books. These are the kinds of things Hillary would vote for, as would almost any true conservative (not the "neocons" - they're the ones responsible for the unconstitutional invasions of privacy that were and are the primary nasties of that bill). That's the kind of "Catch-22" I mentioned earlier that basically conservative Dems have had to face for the last 6 years - anything they want to vote for will be attached to something nasty. They either have to vote against their own issues or vote for the whole fascist bill.

As to whether or not I would vote for Hillary, it depends who she was running against and in which race. If a Congressional one, it might also depend on the "balance of power" in Congress at the time.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Fri May 19, 2006 9:42 am

FYI - the Patriot Act does not authorize Bush to use the supposed war powers for depotic purposes - actually nothing authorizes Bush for "unitary executive" or despotic powers, he's just doing it because he wants to and so far has been able to get away with it. Bush is part of that "under 10%" I mentioned in a different thread that breaks the systems based on "rational self-interest".

Betsy · Post by **Betsy** » Sat May 20, 2006 9:36 am

[quote=

As to whether or not I would vote for Hillary, it depends who she was running against and in which race. If a Congressional one, it might also depend on the "balance of power" in Congress at the time.[/quote]

Good answer, Barbara. I was trying to figure out how I would answer that question and, as usual, you were right on the mark.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Sat May 20, 2006 10:43 am

Ducking the question, huh? Let me expand...

Suppose the presidential election is like last time, with both factions of the War Party fielding pro-war candidates. Suppose the choice is between Hitlery for the Dem faction, and McCain for the Rep faction. Suppose like before, virtually all non-WarParty candidates, be they Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalist or whatever, are against the war. Would you vote, and if so for which candidate?

My take is that most braindead Dems will vote for Hitlery - even those who claim that they are against the war. E.g. The majority of Omni members would vote for Hitlery anyway, belying their supposed antiwar sentiment. (Just as most of them are calling for military invasion of Daifur.) With "peaceniks" like this, who needs warmongers?

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Mon May 22, 2006 10:03 am

Not ducking the question, Hogeye, earlier you didn't give me specifics - I would not vote for Hillary in some circumstances, but the one you just listed - you are correct, I would vote for Hillary because a vote for anyone else would be a vote for McCain. While I disagree with Hillary on many things - including the war in Iraq - I agree with her on most social issues and some economic ones. I disagree with McCain on more issues - especially since he started sucking up to the R's "leadership". If that makes me "braindead" so be it.

Hogeye · Post by **Hogeye** » Mon May 22, 2006 11:44 am

That logic is why the US will continue to get Tweedledee or Tweedledum until it breaks up. Most voters consider an election to be a horse race (bet on a winner) rather than a means to communicate their preferrence. E.g. You could vote for the Green Party candidate, support all of your socialist democrat platform that Hitlery would, plus get an anti-war candidate. The Green Party candidate would "dominate" Hitlery in game theory parlance - in all ways the Green would be equal or better. Yet you bet on the horse race.

Have you heard my song about this? Here are the lyrics:

Tweedledee or Tweedledum - Hogeye Bill

Tweedledee or Tweedledum
The zombies vote to choose the one
To rule them here and lead them there
And meanwhile pick their pockets bare

Tweedledum or Tweedledee
Prechosen mediocrity
To gull and dull the zombie mind
And keep the death machine on-line

You don't have to beg a politician
You don't have to take shit and pay
You don't have to beg a ruler for your due
Do it voluntarily and show them the way
There's education - teach them the way
And demonstration - show them the way
And consummation - just do it anyway
Seize your freedom - you own your life

Tweedledee or Tweedledum
Choose the lesser sleazy bum
The same elites are calling shots
Whoever gets the MC spot

Tweedledum or Tweedledee
All too few of us can see
Condoning rule is violence veiled
To vote is saying peace has failed

Don't vote.

Barbara Fitzpatrick · Post by **Barbara Fitzpatrick** » Tue May 23, 2006 9:02 am

Until Green Party candidates have managed to get local and then state elections under their belts, voting for them in the federal elections equals voting for the Republican candidates. Ditto the Libertarians - a vote for a Libertarian in a federal election is a vote for the Democratic candidate. Clinton won in 1992 because Buchanan's 3rd Party took more votes from Bush I than Nadar's 3rd Party took from Clinton. Wilson won in 1912 because TR's 3rd Party took a chunk of votes from Taft. Nixon almost didn't make it because the Dixiecrats voted for Wallace's 3rd Party when they bolted the Dems in 1968 - and Nixon's landslide in 1972 was because the Dixiecrats had moved all the way into the Republican Party by then.

As far as I can tell, 3rd party candidates want the Hollywood version of politics - the right platform wins the day. And they mostly shoot for the high profile slots, like president or governor, instead of starting at the school board and city council and working their way up. Reality is the right platform has to be combined with a recognized candidate and the funds to get the message and the face to all the voters. You can only afford to make a statement with your vote if there is no way to stop the party/person you are opposed to (Molly Ivins rule) - if the Republican candidate has a district wrapped up (say 60+% of the vote), fine to vote Green and express disapproval of both major party stands (and give the Greens a little more political "umph") - but if that Republican candidate polls at 51% with a 3 point margin of error, voting Green puts that Republican in office. I'd rather get a "good" Democrat in office than give "umph" to a "best" Green while putting the "bad" Republican in office. That's pragmatic, that's reality.