Hillary Uncertainly Votes Against Roberts
From Hillary’s press release announcing her vote against John Roberts:
The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women’s rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts’s long history of public service.
Hey, I understand. I also feel uncertain about Hillary’s conscience.
Bwaahahahaha!! Everything is proceding according to plan.
KRove (6128b4) — 9/23/2005 @ 9:27 amHmmm, more of the hildabeast‘s sad assed attempt to fool the fools that support her?
Hmmm, I wonder how many hildabeast lovers know that she used to be on the board of directors for Wal-Mart?
russ (82d5de) — 9/23/2005 @ 9:32 amDoesn’t she get points for honesty. If she can lie and say she’s a moderate to get to be President, shouldn’t Roberts be willing to lie and say he’s right over to the far left with her and the other 10% of Americans, in order to get her vote. Never mind that a far-left nominee could never get enough Republican votes to be confirmed. It’s Hillary’s vote. When she’s President for Life and has done away with this antiquated process that let’s the stupid citizens pick their leaders, she will remember her friends. John Roberts isn’t on that short list. Constitution thumping Neanderthal.
Lew Clark (2b3f3c) — 9/23/2005 @ 9:55 amTranslation: I have to appease my moonbats, but that damn Roberts is so good he leaves me absolutely no justification to vote against him, so I’ll just have to play dumb and count on the media to cover for me. Damn, I hope Karl Rove doesn’t notice.
ras (f9de13) — 9/23/2005 @ 9:56 amHillary would vote against Jesus if he was nominated by George W Bush.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 9/23/2005 @ 10:02 amInteresting double-bind. If she votes for his confirmation, she’s pandering to the middle. Shame on her. If she votes against him, she’s just showing that she’s a moonbat. Both bases are covered there, aren’t they?
Tillman (1cf529) — 9/23/2005 @ 10:13 amNice try at reducing this to a rhoetorical trick, Tillman, but the “double bind” is actually the result of her record, which reflects rampant moonbattery and so-called “moves to the middle” based on sheer expediency. of course, I am prepared to chnage my mind if you can catalogue Hillary’s record of moderation.
eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 9/23/2005 @ 10:24 amHaskell, I think your right about ol’ Hillary. She is, after all, a confessed democrat. But my point remains that she can’t win in this vote, can she? I guess she could skip voting altogether, but that wouldn’t be a wise move either.
Tillman (1cf529) — 9/23/2005 @ 10:34 amHil’s bow to her puppet masters on this one gives lie to her pretensions of moderation. I wish it hadn’t worked out this way. I don’t have illusions about her personal preference for big-government socialism, but she represents, unbelievable as it may sound, some hope for the Democrat party to move toward the center. Her cave-in on this issue represents an admission that it is the left wingnuts of the party that will call the shots, and therefore the Dems will be utterly marginalized, unable any time soon to provide sort of competition that is necessary to keep the Republican party from becoming even more fat, drunk and stupid than it is right now — that’s no way to go through life, and no way to continue to win elections. My fear is that the complacency of the Republican party will get to the point where even the moonbat Dems pose a threat. If they get control, even for a short time, this country will be in deep trouble.
TNugent (6128b4) — 9/23/2005 @ 10:45 am“But my point remains that she can’t win in this vote, can she? ”
Sure! She says “My duty under the constitution is to advise and consent regarding a persons QUALIFICATIONS for the office, not their personal views (or whatever)”.
Don’t expect that one. Hell, read her laundry list of made up/positive rights in her quote from the article.
Sharpshooter (234547) — 9/23/2005 @ 11:02 amSharpshooter, that would be construed as pandering to the middle.
Tillman (1cf529) — 9/23/2005 @ 11:21 amTillman,
It’s not her vote that’s telling; it’s the reason she gives, which is essentialy a non-reason.
After her party finished grilling the candidate for days on end, he was so strong that she cannot come up with a single real justification to oppose him; wow, is that a good nominee or what?
If her real reason for voting no were in the mainstream of society she would not have to hide it. She is fortunate that the MSM will help her on this, but unfortunate that its reach is no longer sufficient to help her enough.
ras (f9de13) — 9/23/2005 @ 12:22 pmBTW, of equal interest to me is that Hillary has judged herself so weak with the Left Wing of her party that she has to vote no. The tail is truly wagging the dog now.
Coupled with Bill’s recent (quite silly) tirade, it’s apparent that the Clintons feel that Hillary could easily lose the Left Wing vote, and that her support there needed serious shoring up.
ras (f9de13) — 9/23/2005 @ 12:27 pmras, if the supposedly mainstream leaders of one of the two major parties in this country has to pander to the modern left, this country is already in the toilet. It’s important that Dems be able to marginalize their left wing, because ultimately our survival as an independent nation requires that the left not ever be given the opportunity to govern. Think about it — there isn’t a lefty country on the face of the earth that stands a snowball’s chance in hell of making it out of the 21st century intact. for example, if the democracies of Western Europe continue to be leftist/socialist, they won’t survive as democracies. The only reason that they’ve survived this long is that we’ve relieved them of the duty to defend themselves (a duty they are unable to fulfill themselves in any case). No one should be under any illusion that the left wing of the Democrat party are merely advocating a benign alternative way — their way means the end of US independence, if not in our lifetime, then during the lifetime of our children or grandchildren.
TNugent (6128b4) — 9/23/2005 @ 12:58 pmShe gives one to the moonbats voting no on Roberts and takes one away by stomping on Sheehan.
Right down the middle ;>)
From the Swamp (26027c) — 9/23/2005 @ 1:03 pmTNugent,
I agree. But I don’t think the Dems will be able to marginalize their Left, which is too powerful. I think the two groups will formally split into separate parties.
Since the moderates have ideas – one presumes, as opposed to the cant and rant of the Left – they can start afresh, whereas the Left desperately needs the vote by rote crowd that comes with the existing Dem brand name. So I expect that, when the split finally comes, it’ll be the moderates who’ll have to leave.
Regardless of who stays and who goes, the danger in this scenario comes from a comb’n of two factors: 1. the MSM will support the Moonbats, and; 2. anything can happen in a 3-way race, leaving the possibility that the moonbats could take power, devoid even of the moderates’ influence, such as it is, in the current Dem party.
Sure, they wouldn’t last long cuz they’d mess everything up, but how much damage would they do first, before that became clear?
ras (f9de13) — 9/23/2005 @ 2:44 pmHer situation would be the same, then. Many in the “MoveOn.com” wing of the Dems would rejoice, other Dems hide their faces, and “mainstream folk” wonder “what the heck?”.
What percentage of the Dem spectrum would rather appoint Karl Marx or Josef Stalin or Fidel Castro than Jesus? Does Sen. Clinton or anyone want to cater to that crowd?
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 9/23/2005 @ 8:24 pmThe American Conservative Union gave
Hillary a perfect rating of ZERO for
2004 (which means as leftist as
possible).
Clearly, Hillary’s a leftist moonbat.
No Problem (2dcd84) — 9/23/2005 @ 9:23 pmHillary is just Cindy Sheehan with
fat thighs.
Well said. I totally agree with you. The point you are making here does make sense. And all those who oppose your views actually lack the basic essence of the subject. You must keep doing the good work.
Tedd (c6e39a) — 9/24/2005 @ 5:22 amTedd
http://www.yahoo.com
Keith Thompson of Sane Nation wrote a couple of months ago that Senatrix Clinton would have to vote against Judge Roberts to secure her base; I disagreed with him, saying that unless her vote was pivotal to defeating Mr. Roberts, she’d vote to confirm, to give her “moderate” points for the 2008 general election.
I guess that Mr. Thompson is smarter than me!
So, should I delete my old article from my website, so I won’t look as dumb?
Dana R. Pico (a071ac) — 9/24/2005 @ 6:26 amAnd don’t forget her cankles…Bill never will.
Old Coot (224bec) — 9/24/2005 @ 6:54 amras, I hope you’re wrong about the Dems being unable to marginalize their left wing. W’s patronage appointments to incompetents like Brownie is very unhelpful in this regard, because it provides an opportunity for the left to join in an argument that is a valid criticism on its own merit.
But accepting their participation in legitimate criticism of the administration as somehow validating them as a legitimate voice is just wrong — the knowing and voluntary association by some Dems with the left, which includes communist groups and various others who sympathize with our enemies, is morally equivalent to a knowing and voluntary association with a nazi group.
This association taints them with the odious views of those extremist anti-democratic groups, regardless of whether they themselves actually share those views. The same argument would be forcefully made by the mainstream media regarding the Republican party if it embraced the David Dukes of the world. That it does not is an important difference between the Republican party today and the Democrats today, but of course you’ll never see that editorial in the NYTimes.
TNugent (6128b4) — 9/26/2005 @ 7:03 am