Time Magazine Picks 10 Best Senators

[Dr Grump]

Can you say you've ever voted for a dem?

Nope!

 

[5stringJeff]

I think you're confusing "conservative" with right wing extremist. They aren't the same thing at all. I told you what my definition is of conservatism. And yes, I'd consider myself fiscally conservative, socially liberal. But that also means my government shouldn't think it can live on the "credit card" of national debt or destroy the line between church and state.

Don't worry, though.... I don't claim membership in the GOP, though, like I said, I've only voted for repub mayors. Can you say you've ever voted for a dem?

Read up on the topic. I think you are using the term "conservative" to mean "classical conservative," which has fallen out of current usage. When I say conservative, I mean the base of the GOP: those of us who are socially conservative, fiscally conservative, and in favor of small government. See Nuc's sig for my succinct definition.

And yes, I have voted Democrat before. Then I got smart.

 

[KarlMarx]

I think Schumer was right to try to keep Alito off the Court. He doesn't belong there. And the radical right hated Harriet Miers, so forced her to withdraw from the process.

And I think he was wrong. Alito is a qualified jurist, Harriet Miers was not, that is why many of us on the right were upset with Harriet Miers as a choice. It had nothing to do with her position on anything (which no one knew anyway). Actually, the main reason for Schumer and the Dems being opposed to Justices Alito, Gonzalez, Brown, Bork, Thomas, Roberts and so on has to do with Roe vs. Wade.

Actually, the vast majority of people in this country DO NOT agree with the right wing radical agenda. That's wishful thinking on your part.

More like that's wishful thinking on your part. "Vast majority????" like where? San Francisco? What is the "radical right wing" agenda anyway? Most people find homosexuality revolting and believe it is morally wrong, even if they are willing to accept gays as neighbors, coworkers or friends. Most don't believe homosexual marriage is a right (in all states where it has come up for a vote, it's been voted down. Massachussets has it only by judicial fiat), most parents object to having the gay lifestyle taught in schools. Most of Hollywood, despite their supposed tolerance, won't sit through a screening of "Brokeback Mountain" because to be honest, they find the sight of two men having sex unpleasant. So--- I think the "radical right wing" describes Mr and Mrs Joe Average American to be honest.

And Senator Santorum was not necessarily being homophobic (whatever that means --- there is no such mental illness in the DSM manual). He was concerned with the liberties that the Supreme Court took when it decided in favor of Lawrence in Lawrence vs Texas.

The Court has, since Marbury, been construing the Constitution. It has never been a literal document, except when distorted by cases like Dred Scott and Plessy...and those have always been remediated when the political climate changed.

As far as I know, Marbury vs Madison was a power grab by the judiciary. The Founding Fathers did not intend the judiciary to have the power to interpret the Constitution and declare a law unconstitutional.

Yes....and the chief Justice on the Dred Scott case was a southerner who wanted to make sure that slavery could extend to the territories without obstruction. His misjudgment moved this country more than a step closer to the Civil War. And as for Plessy, it was a stupid decision, later remedied by Brown v. Board of Ed, Topeka, Kansas. But, based on your comments, I suspect you would have cheered for Dred Scott and Plessy as championing "states' rights" and Brown as an unreasonable pandering to "liberal" interests. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I'm right.

Denying a person the right to life, liberty and property without the due process of law in direct violation of the 5th amendment? That isn't something that I, nor any other conservative, stand for.

Now... let's talk about the Left. Roe vs. Wade, one of the cornerstones of American liberalism --- denies a person the right to life without due process of law. Also makes the unborn baby the property of the mother to do with as she pleases. To me, Roe vs Wade is little different than Dred Scott decision.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I'm actually a little suprised Hillary's name is not on the list.

It would have lost all credibility. She is only a one term Senator that has had no real impact within the Senate chamber. She is merely gets alot of publicity.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I think Schumer was right to try to keep Alito off the Court. He doesn't belong there. And the radical right hated Harriet Miers, so forced her to withdraw from the process.



Actually, the vast majority of people in this country DO NOT agree with the right wing radical agenda. That's wishful thinking on your part.



The Court has, since Marbury, been construing the Constitution. It has never been a literal document, except when distorted by cases like Dred Scott and Plessy...and those have always been remediated when the political climate changed.



Yes....and the chief Justice on the Dred Scott case was a southerner who wanted to make sure that slavery could extend to the territories without obstruction. His misjudgment moved this country more than a step closer to the Civil War. And as for Plessy, it was a stupid decision, later remedied by Brown v. Board of Ed, Topeka, Kansas. But, based on your comments, I suspect you would have cheered for Dred Scott and Plessy as championing "states' rights" and Brown as an unreasonable pandering to "liberal" interests. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I'm right.

Now..talk about University of California Regents v Bakke and we might have some agreement.

First, who are you to decide who gets to be on the court? That Constitutional responsibility rests soley in the hands of 101 people in the Federal govt. 102, in the case of a tie. Unless you are one of those then there really shouldn't be any "debate" whatsoever about how qualified a person is. Personally, I'm glad Miers isn't on the court, but it is a constitutional travesty that she didn't get to sit in front of the Senate. Where do liberals get off, thinking that a smear campaign against a President's court nominee is good for the country?

As for the majority of people not agreeing with what you call the "right wing radical agenda," I want to see numbers. SHow me some proof. If you can't provide links, I'll provide my address so you can mail me the info. I'll even pay for postage. That fact is that the Republican Agenda has been referred to as "radical" since the party's inception on July 6, 1854. Being anti-slavery was radical. Anti-trust was radical. So was cutting taxes and rebuilding a military in a time of "virtual peace." Care to challenge any of these "radical" policies of the Republican Party?

The Court has, since Marbury, been construing the Constitution. It has never been a literal document, except when distorted by cases like Dred Scott and Plessy...and those have always been remediated when the political climate changed.

What the hell does this mean? It is exactly a "literal" document. If it weren't it would worth about as much as the charmin extra soft you wipe your ass with. It is ironclad, but flexible. But it is a "literal" document and should be treated as such.

 

[jillian]

First, who are you to decide who gets to be on the court?

I don't. But it IS the responsibility of the people on the Committee to get all the information they can about someone. You're the one who called Schumer obstructionist because he wouldn't be a rubber stamp. Not inappropriate where the guy's pov is the direct opposite of Schumer's constituency, the folk to whom he has his first responsibility.

That Constitutional responsibility rests soley in the hands of 101 people in the Federal govt. 102, in the case of a tie. Unless you are one of those then there really shouldn't be any "debate" whatsoever about how qualified a person is.

I have every right to a personal judgment as to a jurist's qualifications. The effect of that opinion is, obviously, without weight, but nonetheless I am entitled to my personal judgment, as are you.

Personally, I'm glad Miers isn't on the court, but it is a constitutional travesty that she didn't get to sit in front of the Senate.

I agree. But while I may have questioned her experience, she wouldn't have been the first Justice to lack prior judicial credentials. She should have had her turn to make her case.

Where do liberals get off, thinking that a smear campaign against a President's court nominee is good for the country?

There's another way of looking at it, you know.... One might easily ask where a president comes off choosing someone who, in the view of many (and not just "liberals"), will reshape the Constitution and destroy individual liberties for the next three generations? How can he think dividing the country in that manner and taking intentionally divisive positions by focusing on wedge issues is good for the country? Perhaps if he didn't want criticism, he should have chosen a conservative who could have led the Court like Sandra Day O'Connor did.

As for the majority of people not agreeing with what you call the "right wing radical agenda," I want to see numbers. SHow me some proof. If you can't provide links, I'll provide my address so you can mail me the info. I'll even pay for postage.

That is a very kind offer. But I'll refer you to Bush's poll numbers. He doesn't have the support of 2/3 of the country. Iraq is part of the reason, but mostly he's getting dinged on the "direction" in which he's taken the country.

That fact is that the Republican Agenda has been referred to as "radical" since the party's inception on July 6, 1854.

Yes. But *that* Republican party was like today's Democrats and all the people who scream about "liberals" would have been yelling that Lincoln's "Repoublicans" were radical.

Being anti-slavery was radical.

Yes. And today's Republican party would not be...

Anti-trust was radical.

Yes, and Republicans today are corporatists who are opposed to any corporate regulation. They scream that Democrats are "sociailist" and want "big government" because they believe that corporate regulation is important.

So was cutting taxes and rebuilding a military in a time of "virtual peace."

Yes. But even Regan raised taxes to cover the cost of the military build-up. He didn't both cut taxes for the wealthiest one percent of wageearners AND run up huge bills. Bush is the first leader in history, as far as I know, to cut taxes in a time of war. Irresponsible fiscal management, IMO, and that's a chick that will come home to roost when China calls in our debt.

Care to challenge any of these "radical" policies of the Republican Party?

As policies? They were good ones. They just wouldn't be part of the Republican party agenda today.

What the hell does this mean? It is exactly a "literal" document. If it weren't it would worth about as much as the charmin extra soft you wipe your ass with. It is ironclad, but flexible. But it is a "literal" document and should be treated as such.

I think you'd better go back and check out Marbury v. Madison and its progeny. No where in the Constitution does the Supreme Court specifically have the right to judicial oversight .... it was simply deemed to be a logical extenstion of the powers granted by the Constitution. So yes, while the words are what they are, they have always been open to application and Constitutional construction. They were NEVER intended as literal, in that fashion because the founders couldn't foresee the issues to which the words would be applied. Thus, the flexibility of the document.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I don't. But it IS the responsibility of the people on the Committee to get all the information they can about someone. You're the one who called Schumer obstructionist because he wouldn't be a rubber stamp. Not inappropriate where the guy's pov is the direct opposite of Schumer's constituency, the folk to whom he has his first responsibility.

I didn't call Schumer an obstuctionist. I've always maintained that Schumer pandered to his liberal base, rather than uphold his Constitutional responsibilities, which are his first responsibility. He is a US Senator. That means the whole country.


I have every right to a personal judgment as to a jurist's qualifications. The effect of that opinion is, obviously, without weight, but nonetheless I am entitled to my personal judgment, as are you.

I have no problems with personal opinions. I have a huge problem with those personal opinions interfereing with the constitutional process.

I agree. But while I may have questioned her experience, she wouldn't have been the first Justice to lack prior judicial credentials. She should have had her turn to make her case.

We agree. She should have had the oppurtunity to "interview." The biased media couldn't allow that though.

There's another way of looking at it, you know.... One might easily ask where a president comes off choosing someone who, in the view of many (and not just "liberals"), will reshape the Constitution and destroy individual liberties for the next three generations? How can he think dividing the country in that manner and taking intentionally divisive positions by focusing on wedge issues is good for the country? Perhaps if he didn't want criticism, he should have chosen a conservative who could have led the Court like Sandra Day O'Connor did.

The President gets off exactly where the Framers told him to. He gets to nominate anybody. It doesn't matter if it is a Rhodes scholar or his cleaning lady. He gets to nominate whoever. It is the Senate that gets to decide if that candidate is qualified. Not the media.


That is a very kind offer. But I'll refer you to Bush's poll numbers. He doesn't have the support of 2/3 of the country. Iraq is part of the reason, but mostly he's getting dinged on the "direction" in which he's taken the country.

The President's poll numbers have nothing to do with the Republican Agenda. They are merely a reflection of his exucution of that agenda. The President and the Party are not one and the same.


Yes. But *that* Republican party was like today's Democrats and all the people who scream about "liberals" would have been yelling that Lincoln's "Repoublicans" were radical.

Only a Democrat would try to counter an argument, by saying that the current Democrat Party is the old Republican Party. If the communists had had any popular policies, the Democrats would claim them too.

Any questions?

 

[Adam's Apple]

Time's 10 Best (Liberal) Senators
By: Robert B. Bluey, Human Events
4/16/06

Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) should be flattered after making Time Magazine’s list of the 10 best senators. As the only conservative on the list, Kyl is lucky he didn’t get stuck on Time’s other list: the five worst senators.

Time’s exercise of ranking the best and worst senators makes clear where the magazine’s political preferences fall. Of the 10 senators on the list, three of the Democrats—Teddy Kennedy (Mass.), Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Carl Levin (Mich.)—fall into the ultra-liberal category. The fourth Democrat, Kent Conrad (N.D.), is a moderate within his party.

What about the five other Republicans besides Kyl? They all have one thing in common: They’re not conservatives. Let’s start alphabetically with Thad Cochran (Miss.), whose chairmanship of the free-spending Appropriations Committee automatically disqualifies him. Then there’s Richard Lugar (Ind.), who supports to the internationalist Law of the Sea Treaty. Then we have John McCain (Ariz.), who likes to pretend he’s a conservative but has given us the anti-free speech law known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The two other Republicans on the list: Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pa.) are to the left of some Democrats in Congress. Granted, Specter should be commended for his work during the hearings for Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Sam Alito, but that doesn’t excuse his years of supporting liberal policies.

Average the 10 senators’ lifetime American Conservative Union ratings and you’ll come up with a Democrat-like score of 47.2%. Here’s the complete breakdown of ACU ratings:

The Best Senators
Thad Cochran: 81%
Kent Conrad: 20%
Dick Durbin: 7%
Ted Kennedy: 3%
Jon Kyl: 97%
Carl Levin: 7%
Richard Lugar: 79%
John McCain: 83%
Olympia J. Snowe: 50%
Arlen Specter: 45%

So there you have it: three ultra-liberal Democrats, one moderate Democrat, two liberal Republicans, three moderate Republicans and one true conservative. Who is Time trying to fool?

Meanwhile, a glance at the list of the five worst senators reveals that if you’re conservative, you’re bad. Senators Wayne Allard (Colo.), Jim Bunning (Ky.) and Conrad Burns (Mont.) all made the list. What do they have in common, you wonder? All have ACU scores over 90% during their careers in Congress.

The Worst Senators
Daniel Akaka: 8%
Wayne Allard: 96%
Jim Bunning: 95%
Conrad Burns: 91%
Mark Dayton: 11%

And finally, the third list Time offers is of up-and-comers in the Senate. This list is a joy because not only do we get two Democrat stars (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton), but also two Republicans (Lindsey Graham and John Sununu) who probably were included for their disputes with President Bush on some high-profile issues.

The Up-and-Comers
Barack Obama: 8%
Lindsey Graham: 91%
Hillary Clinton: 9%
John Sununu: 94%
Mark Pryor: 25%

So what can Time’s readers make of this? Read the profiles for yourself, but I sensed a clear anti-Bush bias—even in the story about Kyl. That’s too bad because Top 10 lists, as we’ve discovered at Human Events, can be beneficial.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=14071

 

[Stephanie]

Time's 10 Best (Liberal) Senators
By: Robert B. Bluey, Human Events
4/16/06

Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.) should be flattered after making Time Magazine’s list of the 10 best senators. As the only conservative on the list, Kyl is lucky he didn’t get stuck on Time’s other list: the five worst senators.

Time’s exercise of ranking the best and worst senators makes clear where the magazine’s political preferences fall. Of the 10 senators on the list, three of the Democrats—Teddy Kennedy (Mass.), Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Carl Levin (Mich.)—fall into the ultra-liberal category. The fourth Democrat, Kent Conrad (N.D.), is a moderate within his party.

What about the five other Republicans besides Kyl? They all have one thing in common: They’re not conservatives. Let’s start alphabetically with Thad Cochran (Miss.), whose chairmanship of the free-spending Appropriations Committee automatically disqualifies him. Then there’s Richard Lugar (Ind.), who supports to the internationalist Law of the Sea Treaty. Then we have John McCain (Ariz.), who likes to pretend he’s a conservative but has given us the anti-free speech law known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The two other Republicans on the list: Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Arlen Specter (Pa.) are to the left of some Democrats in Congress. Granted, Specter should be commended for his work during the hearings for Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Sam Alito, but that doesn’t excuse his years of supporting liberal policies.

Average the 10 senators’ lifetime American Conservative Union ratings and you’ll come up with a Democrat-like score of 47.2%. Here’s the complete breakdown of ACU ratings:

The Best Senators
Thad Cochran: 81%
Kent Conrad: 20%
Dick Durbin: 7%
Ted Kennedy: 3%
Jon Kyl: 97%
Carl Levin: 7%
Richard Lugar: 79%
John McCain: 83%
Olympia J. Snowe: 50%
Arlen Specter: 45%

So there you have it: three ultra-liberal Democrats, one moderate Democrat, two liberal Republicans, three moderate Republicans and one true conservative. Who is Time trying to fool?

Meanwhile, a glance at the list of the five worst senators reveals that if you’re conservative, you’re bad. Senators Wayne Allard (Colo.), Jim Bunning (Ky.) and Conrad Burns (Mont.) all made the list. What do they have in common, you wonder? All have ACU scores over 90% during their careers in Congress.

The Worst Senators
Daniel Akaka: 8%
Wayne Allard: 96%
Jim Bunning: 95%
Conrad Burns: 91%
Mark Dayton: 11%

And finally, the third list Time offers is of up-and-comers in the Senate. This list is a joy because not only do we get two Democrat stars (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton), but also two Republicans (Lindsey Graham and John Sununu) who probably were included for their disputes with President Bush on some high-profile issues.

The Up-and-Comers
Barack Obama: 8%
Lindsey Graham: 91%
Hillary Clinton: 9%
John Sununu: 94%
Mark Pryor: 25%

So what can Time’s readers make of this? Read the profiles for yourself, but I sensed a clear anti-Bush bias—even in the story about Kyl. That’s too bad because Top 10 lists, as we’ve discovered at Human Events, can be beneficial.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=14071

Excellent, Adams Apple.... But then you have to look at the source. It is Time magazine, a rag for the Democrats, thats been known for a long time now. I wont buy the mag or their propaganda.

 

[KarlMarx]

I don't. But it IS the responsibility of the people on the Committee to get all the information they can about someone. You're the one who called Schumer obstructionist because he wouldn't be a rubber stamp. Not inappropriate where the guy's pov is the direct opposite of Schumer's constituency, the folk to whom he has his first responsibility.

At this point, KarlMarx, looses total bladder control from laughing so hard.

Ah-hemm --- I am one of Chucky Boy's so-called constituents. Both of my Senators do not represent me, nor do they represent Upstate New York. In fact, they are prostitutes for NYC. Upstate New York is pretty much "red" i.e. we vote Republican. The problem is that New York City, Long Island and Westchester county have enough population to counteract our wishes. Being in represented by Schumer and Clinton is the closest I've ever been to knowing what an orphan feels like.

Alito, Thomas, Gonzalez are Catholic... which Upstate New York has lots and lots of.

The claim that Chuck Schumer was looking after the wishes of his constituents is somewhat correct. Your error is that you assume that constituency means "the people of New York State" when, in fact, his constituency is comprised of the big wig multi-millionaires who contribute to his campaigns and share his Loopy-Leftwing-Lunatic world view.

P.S. I can tell you about what happens when Hillary Clinton comes to the Lockheed plant here in Owego.... and how people avoid going to see her, some opt to work from home instead....

P.P.S. And oh by the way, Upstate New York isn't inhabited by millionaires, but by working class joes like myself. Whatever wealth we have was acquired by hard work, not government handouts. Hillary Clinton lives in Chattaqua, an exclusive neighborhood. She actually doesn't live there, she just claims residency. From what I hear, she has a townhouse in Georgetown where she actually lives... so much for being represented.....

 

[jillian]

At this point, KarlMarx, looses total bladder control from laughing so hard.

Ah-hemm --- I am one of Chucky Boy's so-called constituents. Both of my Senators do not represent me, nor do they represent Upstate New York. In fact, they are prostitutes for NYC. Upstate New York is pretty much "red" i.e. we vote Republican. The problem is that New York City, Long Island and Westchester county have enough population to counteract our wishes. Being in represented by Schumer and Clinton is the closest I've ever been to knowing what an orphan feels like.

Alito, Thomas, Gonzalez are Catholic... which Upstate New York has lots and lots of.

The claim that Chuck Schumer was looking after the wishes of his constituents is somewhat correct. Your error is that you assume that constituency means "the people of New York State" when, in fact, his constituency is comprised of the big wig multi-millionaires who contribute to his campaigns and share his Loopy-Leftwing-Lunatic world view.

P.S. I can tell you about what happens when Hillary Clinton comes to the Lockheed plant here in Owego.... and how people avoid going to see her, some opt to work from home instead....

P.P.S. And oh by the way, Upstate New York isn't inhabited by millionaires, but by working class joes like myself. Whatever wealth we have was acquired by hard work, not government handouts. Hillary Clinton lives in Chattaqua, an exclusive neighborhood. She actually doesn't live there, she just claims residency. From what I hear, she has a townhouse in Georgetown where she actually lives... so much for being represented.....

Owego, huh? And I am more than a little familiar with upstate New York. Way more,..... Your assumption that I wouldn't know about the area is kind of funny, actually.

And you're quite right.... neither Schumer nor Clinton would be in line with your interests... but you aren't who votes for them... nor would you under any set of circumstances. So, while your interests are of "concern" to them, they are no more likely to jump for your needs than Bush is to jump for NYC's.... since NYC doesn't vote for him. Politics is kinda like that... an imperfect system.

I like your description about feeling like an orphan with your senators. I've felt like that about the president and Congress for the past 6 years and now feel that way about the Court. So welcome to the club.

Oh...and NYC is approximately 68% Catholic...And NYC has a great disparity wealthwise -- from the richest to the poorest. Upstate doesn't have the lock on working hard.

And Chuck isn't in office because of "millionaires", nor is Hillary.... they have huge support downstate. And I'll tell you something... Hillary would never have gotten her senate seat had Rick Lazio not shoved that paper into her face during the debates. He looked like he was abusing a woman. When I saw that on TV, I watched all the Republican Dreams of beating her go down the tubes.

oh...and trying to run Jean Pirro for the seat just made the NY Repubs look really stupid.... the woman paid her driver $250,000 last year to take her from TV appearance to TV appearance and her husband's a crook. This is who they run for senate???? By the time she pulled out of the race the Repubs were pretty much dead for the senate seat.... Pataki wanted to beat her senseless, I think. Heh!

 

[KarlMarx]

Owego, huh? And I am more than a little familiar with upstate New York. Way more,..... Your assumption that I wouldn't know about the area is kind of funny, actually.

And you're quite right.... neither Schumer nor Clinton would be in line with your interests... but you aren't who votes for them... nor would you under any set of circumstances. So, while your interests are of "concern" to them, they are no more likely to jump for your needs than Bush is to jump for NYC's.... since NYC doesn't vote for him. Politics is kinda like that... an imperfect system.

I like your description about feeling like an orphan with your senators. I've felt like that about the president and Congress for the past 6 years and now feel that way about the Court. So welcome to the club.

Oh...and NYC is approximately 68% Catholic...And NYC has a great disparity wealthwise -- from the richest to the poorest. Upstate doesn't have the lock on working hard.

And Chuck isn't in office because of "millionaires", nor is Hillary.... they have huge support downstate. And I'll tell you something... Hillary would never have gotten her senate seat had Rick Lazio not shoved that paper into her face during the debates. He looked like he was abusing a woman. When I saw that on TV, I watched all the Republican Dreams of beating her go down the tubes.

oh...and trying to run Jean Pirro for the seat just made the NY Repubs look really stupid.... the woman paid her driver $250,000 last year to take her from TV appearance to TV appearance and her husband's a crook. This is who they run for senate???? By the time she pulled out of the race the Repubs were pretty much dead for the senate seat.... Pataki wanted to beat her senseless, I think. Heh!

You may have gone to school at good ol' Binghamton University (aka "Bolshevik University")... regardlesss

Hillary would have won regardless. What decided that race was Guilianni leaving, not the episode you mention with Rick Lazio.

And yes, Schumer and Hillary are in office because of millionaires. Many Democrats are....Warren Buffet, George Soros, Gates, most of Hollywood, and the list goes on... The average campaign donation to the DNC is in the thousands, while the average campaign donation to the RNC is in the tens. That explains why the DNC is so out of touch, their donors are few but well monied and the DNC listens to them.

I wouldn't be too hard on Jean Pirro and calling her husband a crook. Hillary Clinton has a lot of baggage, even without her so-called "husband". There were the assorted "gates".... Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater... to name a few.

Hillary also promised jobs for the Upstate... not that I hold her to it, I don't think any Senator has that power... but she made the promise of 200,000 new jobs in New York State if she were elected.....I don't believe she actually believed that she could or would provide those jobs, she just said it because she thought people were gullible (I guess she was right). Also, she carpet bagged her way into the Senate. She wasn't a resident until about a month or two before throwing her hat in the ring....

 

[jillian]

You may have gone to school at good ol' Binghamton University (aka "Bolshevik University")... regardlesss

Binghamton was a great place to go to school. I don't recall any Bolshevik studies though. :cof:

Hillary would have won regardless. What decided that race was Guilianni leaving, not the episode you mention with Rick Lazio.

Every woman I know who would have voted against Hillary changed their vote during that debate. But Giuliani leaving had a huge effect. He'd have been handed the job on a silver platter, and deservedly so, IMO.

That explains why the DNC is so out of touch, their donors are few but well monied and the DNC listens to them.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. It's the radical right of the republican party which is out of touch...hence the poll numbers. You also forget that most Dem support is in urban areas...where there is huge population density and while the radicals donate huge money to the republicans, so do the corporate interests. I think if you look, you'll see that Wal-Mart, Clear Channel and other huge donors made up the bulk of RNC donations.

I wouldn't be too hard on Jean Pirro and calling her husband a crook. Hillary Clinton has a lot of baggage, even without her so-called "husband". There were the assorted "gates".... Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater... to name a few.

All of which Ken Starr was salivating over, spent our tax money on ...and found nothing. I can assure you that had he found anything, we'd have heard about it. In the meantime, Starr's report mentioned Whitewater once and the blue dress over 1,000 times.

Hillary also promised jobs for the Upstate... not that I hold her to it, I don't think any Senator has that power... but she made the promise of 200,000 new jobs in New York State if she were elected.....I don't believe she actually believed that she could or would provide those jobs, she just said it because she thought people were gullible (I guess she was right). Also, she carpet bagged her way into the Senate. She wasn't a resident until about a month or two before throwing her hat in the ring....

I don't know about her thinking people are gullible. I think all pols make promises they can't keep. That's why I laugh when I hear people running for office in local government and raising issues which aren't in their purview.

But yeah...she carpetbagged. Like I said. I'd have voted for Giuliani... But I'd also have voted for Lazio if he hadn't been such a jerk. I'm not much of a Hillary fan and really don't have any interest in defending her.

 

[Gunny]

America's 10 Best Senators
By Massimo Calabresi and Perry Bacon, Jr., Time Magazine
April 17, 2006

Time spoke to dozens of academics, political scientists and current and former Senators to pick the 10 best of the 109th Congress. One made it because he puts unsexy but important issues on the national agenda, another because his backroom negotiating turns conflict into consensus. A third got on the list for his diligent bird-dogging of Enron, Homeland Security and the Pentagon. Then there's the prodigious across-the-aisle dealer, the fierce defender of her constituents and the expert who sees around corners. As with any all-star team, we sought a broad range of gifts rather than settling on 10 great pitchers or middle linebackers.

They say the Senate is the world's most exclusive club. But the real elite is made up not of those who break in but of those who make a difference once they get there. Here are 10 who do. (From the Apr. 24, 2006 issue of TIME magazine)

The Best Senators
Thad Cochran
Kent Conrad
Dick Durbin
Ted Kennedy
Jon Kyl
Carl Levin
Richard Lugar
John McCain
Olympia J.

The Worst Senators
Daniel Akaka
Wayne Allard
Jim Bunning
Conrad Burns
Mark Dayton

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1184028,00.html

Any "Best of ..." list with Ted Kennedy's name on it has zero credibility with me.

Well, unless it's the "Best of Murderers Who Got Away With It."

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Any "Best of ..." list with Ted Kennedy's name on it has zero credibility with me.

Well, unless it's the "Best of Murderers Who Got Away With It."

There once was a Senator from Mass,
Who went in search of some ass,
He lucked up and found it,
and fucked up and drowned it,
and that was the end of his ass.

 

[KarlMarx]

Binghamton was a great place to go to school. I don't recall any Bolshevik studies though. :cof:



Every woman I know who would have voted against Hillary changed their vote during that debate. But Giuliani leaving had a huge effect. He'd have been handed the job on a silver platter, and deservedly so, IMO.



I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. It's the radical right of the republican party which is out of touch...hence the poll numbers. You also forget that most Dem support is in urban areas...where there is huge population density and while the radicals donate huge money to the republicans, so do the corporate interests. I think if you look, you'll see that Wal-Mart, Clear Channel and other huge donors made up the bulk of RNC donations.



All of which Ken Starr was salivating over, spent our tax money on ...and found nothing. I can assure you that had he found anything, we'd have heard about it. In the meantime, Starr's report mentioned Whitewater once and the blue dress over 1,000 times.



I don't know about her thinking people are gullible. I think all pols make promises they can't keep. That's why I laugh when I hear people running for office in local government and raising issues which aren't in their purview.

But yeah...she carpetbagged. Like I said. I'd have voted for Giuliani... But I'd also have voted for Lazio if he hadn't been such a jerk. I'm not much of a Hillary fan and really don't have any interest in defending her.

BU has a long history of being radically left... but it may not seem that way to you.

I remember, as a kid, seeing Harpur College (which is what it was called back then) students carrying the North Vietnamese flag up and down Riverside Drive as a protest.

I wouldn't dismiss Kenn Starr's investigations. He was appointed by Clinton. The office of Special Prosecutor was started as a result of the hysteria that followed Watergate. The fact that President Clinton was impeached shows that there was substance to what he found. The only reason Clinton wasn't found guilty, IMO, was purely politics. For one thing, perjuring yourself and instructing others to do so in and of themselves are enough to get you jail time.

Lazio's race was a disaster, whether he acted like a jerk or not.... once Guilianni quit, IMO, Hillary won the election.

 

[jillian]

BU has a long history of being radically left... but it may not seem that way to you

.

Maybe in the '60's/early 70's... not when I went there. Different era...

I remember, as a kid, seeing Harpur College (which is what it was called back then) students carrying the North Vietnamese flag up and down Riverside Drive as a protest.

That was pretty much every college campus was like at the time, no? Like I said, not when I went there. It was all about the grind.

I wouldn't dismiss Kenn Starr's investigations. He was appointed by Clinton.

I would.... it was a witch hunt and still they fond nothing but a blue dress.

The office of Special Prosecutor was started as a result of the hysteria that followed Watergate.

Yes...and after the Repubs saw how they could use it politically, they got rid of it before it could be turned on them.

The fact that President Clinton was impeached shows that there was substance to what he found.

No...the fact that he was impeached proves nothing more than there was a bloodthirsty group of folk in the House who couldn't wait to try to take down a dem president. Luckily the Senate was a bit more restrained

The only reason Clinton wasn't found guilty, IMO, was purely politics.

As was the impeachment process itself.

Mmmmmmm....I always saw it as the Senate acting like the grown-ups holding back the children in the House...

Thing is, Starr couldn't wait to find something -- anything --- and the fact that he didn't have anything but the blue dress to write about in his report speaks volumes.

For one thing, perjuring yourself and instructing others to do so in and of themselves are enough to get you jail time.

Well...thing is, no civil suit had ever proceded against a sitting president. They had always been stayed while the Pres was in office and re-commenced after. That is... until the issue came before Rhenquist, Thomas, Scalia, O'Connor and Kennedy, who were all more than happy to let the Paula Jones thing proceed during the Clinton presidency. Had things been "normal" in the first place, he never would have been questioned about his sex life during the deposition on the Paula Jones matter and thus his lie about sex would never have been an issue.

Lazio's race was a disaster, whether he acted like a jerk or not.... once Guilianni quit, IMO, Hillary won the election.

Fair enough... at least we agree Lazio was a disaster.

 

[NATO AIR]

No Clinton (strike 1, love or hate her, she gets things done and is widely seen as the only competent democrat leader, and that's a stretch)

Durbin instead of Obama? (Strike 2) gimme a break, Durbin is also a spent force who shot himself in the head politically with most senators and citizens with his comparison of US troops to nazis.

No Sam Brownback (Strike Freaking 3).... this is an insult of insults. The man is the leading social conservative in the Senate (Santorum is a spent force of little consequence and intellect who is about to be an ex-senator from PA), has brokered more "good" bipartisan agreements and bills than even McCain, is the most active member in the Senate promoting common-sense, affordable solutions and treatments to long-standing social problems from prison overcrowding to abortion... not to mention the most active foreign policy Senator of conscience...

Time has offically, really, actually jumped the shark. They must have talked to Kos, um, maybe a few token moderates and maybe for fun a Michelle Malkin or David Brooks. Gimme a break people.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Excellent, Adams Apple.... But then you have to look at the source. It is Time magazine, a rag for the Democrats, thats been known for a long time now. I wont buy the mag or their propaganda.

Yes, you do have to look at the source. Our local newspaper had an article about Senator Lugar's being selected for Time's list. I went to Time Online to check out who else had been named to the list, and I was astonished that Time had the audacity to call it's list the "10 Best Senators".

Did you know that some years back Time was a Republican magazine (when it was owned by the Luce family)? Republicans read Time, and Democrats read Newsweek. Now they're practically the same magazine. I cancelled my subscription a long time ago, after it became apparent that the new owners weren't going to follow the Luce family's tradition.