| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Hillary Clinton is no centrist
You’ve probably noticed over the course of the last several months Senator Hillary Clinton’s shift to the center, no doubt in an effort to cast herself in a more moderate light should she decide to run for president.
Raymond Keating has written an opinion piece in Newsday that examines Sen. Clinton’s votes, and puts to bed the myth now being perpetuated by her and some of her supporters that Mrs. Clinton is ‘middle of the road’:
Well, it certainly is hard to detect any centrism in her overall Senate voting record. Each year, for example, she has scored 95 percent with the left-wing Americans for Democratic Action.
But let’s focus on four key Senate votes that presented opportunities for Democrats to flash their moderate side. In October 2002, 29 Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution. Clinton was one of those 29, and while subsequently critical of how President George W. Bush has handled the war, she has not backed away from her vote. Score one for moderation.
Next came a vote on banning partial-birth abortions in 2003. Clinton made a splash earlier this year by calling abortion a “sad, even tragic choice.”
Nonetheless, she could not bring herself to vote to stop the particularly horrific practice known as partial-birth abortion, although 17 of her fellow Democrats in the Senate did. Score one against moderation (and life).
While her husband generally grasps the benefits of free trade – noting in his speech “trade lifts people out of poverty” – Sen. Clinton opposed the Central American-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement this past June. Ten Senate Democrats voted for it. Another blow against Hillary’s moderation.
Finally, there was the confirmation vote in September for John Roberts as U.S. Supreme Court chief justice. With Roberts’ powerful intellect, obvious mastery of the law and sound temperament, only an ideologue could have voted against him. Twenty-two Democrats gave a thumbs-up for Roberts, including some big-name liberals such as Christopher Dodd (Conn.) and Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.). Hillary Clinton voted against Roberts.
One key vote and some occasional centrist talk do not make a moderate. Just as Bill Clinton the New Democrat was more about political posturing than policy reality, Hillary Clinton’s move to the center lacks credibility. It is simply Clintonian.
Read the whole thing.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
2 Responses to “Hillary Clinton is no centrist”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Compared to this Administration I think Hillary’s platform in 08 will be very much a centrist one.
Great blog
.
After reading what you wrote on your blog on November 2nd Graham, I’d say you are far from knowing what is centrism.
I’ve called myself a centrist/conservative for a long time. Much to my dissapointment “this administration” (as you call it) has governed to the left of center. Both political parties are to the left of center (just one is further left).
I talked to my leftist neighbor yesterday about centrism (I’ll have to talk to him again as I need clarity). He thought Arnold was to the hard right and the election shows that he needs to moderate himself. So I asked my nieghbor what his definition of moderation or centrism was.
I’ll paraphrase here but his answer was illuminating. He said, “The center is dynamic and always moving. It is wherever the public thinks and votes that center to be and wants their representatives to vote.” At first I laughed and responded, “In a few of my college classes and even a high school class the political spectrum was defined (my neighbor has a master’s degree and yet he never heard this definition).” I went on, “if you imagine a graph from -10 through +10, 0 is the center. 0 is neither growing government nor shrinking government.” And then I informed him why I think I’m a centrist conservative and said, “There hasn’t been a shrinking in the federal or state governments for over 60 years. THis country has been moving to the left every year for over 60 years. I as a centrist conservative would LOVE to see a freeze in the amount of federal and state spending levels for 10 years while we re-prioritize what we spend money on.” And then for added benefit as liberals always character assasinate conservatives as non-caring (and after reading your blog GRAHAM I see you do the same thing) I said, “This would allow for us to strengthen the safety net as able-bodied people dilute the safety net for those who are non-able-bodied.”
A few days later I’m still scratching my head about his answer. I’m thinking, “According to his answer, California has never moved left because the state simply is represented according to how the people’s wishes are…”
In his answer he even went into the concept of the living constitution which I didn’t engage him on (for another day). I tried to stick to what the center is.
While, I understand that my definition leaves confusion on the social issues, let me try to address a little bit. On marriage, everytime it’s voted on (even in Oregon and California) the people are choosing much differently than government. If the government were to force upon the people something they didn’t want then that would be BIG / COERCIVE government. For greater clarity, a lot of people are very upset that their taxpayer dollars are used to fund abortions. Unfortunately the federal and state governments spend money towards this. This would be big government.
As far as I can see there would be no reason for federal or state governments to spend taxpayer dollars on stem cell research. I don’t object to this spending on religious grounds. I object to it as a capitalist who realizes that the more government grows/spends/takes the more the government moves left, the less prosperous as a nation we are. Private companies have been investing in stem cell research for a long time and have yielded more results much more efficiently than CA government or the federal government. Private research has found zero uses for embryonic stem cells and over 39 uses for umbilical cord stem cells. Government funding won’t radically change this because private companies are trying to find a supply for a cure because there is a demand for a cure. Supply and demand. Companies meeting the demand with a supply will be rewarded for their risk and investment.
Big government has CAUSED the problem with vaccinations. Over a decade ago there used to be more than 10 times the number of vaccination companies. Now due to lawsuits and whatnot companies have decided to say, “No Thank You” to supply vaccines. Last year there was a problem with one of these companies vaccines and guess what? We had massive shortage. It was due to BIG government. Big government is what has happened for over 60 years and it is what is hurting this country in EVERY SECTOR.
They called it deregulation as the culprit which hurt CA electric market. In fact the “deregulation” was OVER REGULATION. CA companies produce 80% of the electricity that CA needs and new plants weren’t brought on line due to local and state government saying no. CA needs to import up to 20% of it’s electricity during peak needs. Well that usually coincides with times that the other states need this electricity also. Bidding wars started for the last remaining amounts of energy. AND WHY? Because CA LAW (which over regulated) forbid companies from entering into long term contracts and therefore they couldn’t lock in a low rate for large quantities of energy. Then GRAY DAVIS comes along and locks in a long term contract for the entire state (basically breaking the states own law – how’s that for big government) to secure lots of energy to avoid any more grayouts.
Big government my friend Graham is the problem. You are part of that problem. So is the Republicans. So is Hillary. This country has moved left every year for over 60 years and yet the Democrats want to spend time deamonizing the Republicans as being extreme. What will you do Graham when this country finally wakes up and does elect a conservative Congress and/or President. What would the unions in CA do if Arnold really was conservative?
Why am I a centrist conservative? Because I believe it’s the way that we can bridge the gap towards good solutions. We obviously couldn’t cut government spending by 80% (as the libertarians want) as there would be a great depression (government spending improves GDP – but spending shouldn’t be more than revenues as that creates defecits and debt).
This is probably too long. I really did try to stay on topic ST!:razz: