Posted by Curt on 25 January, 2006 at 5:34 pm. 1 comment.


First there was news that Hillary’s numbers don’t look so good:

Most voters now say there’s no way they’d vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 – while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

CNNGALLUP found that 51 percent say they definitely won’t vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her. That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1. The poll suggests she can forget about crossover votes – 90 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives say there’s no way they’d back her.

Meanwhile, 46% said they would oppose Secretary of State Rice if she ran for President – a step Rice has repeatedly said she won’t take.

Man, I wish Rice would run.

Anyways, it doesn’t look good for her but hell, we’re 3 years out so it’s quite early to start making predictions. Dafydd from The Big Lizard doesn’t agree with me since he has come out and declared that Hillary will NOT be the nominee:

I absolutely believe, conventional wisdom notwithstanding, that Hillary Rodham Clinton Rodham will never be the Democratic nominee for president. (She might not even be a candidate, if she thinks she’s going to lose; but her ego may compel her to try, just as John Kerry’s did.)

The reason is fairly simple: because she simply cannot win election, and she will be tainted by the Kerry Kurse. Bluntly put, senators are simply not elected president unless they have achieved a position closer to the idea of a chief executive of the country… such as a governorship or the vice presidency.

He makes great points and I sorta agree with him. The thing is with Democrats, they are never predictable. Look at Howard Dean as the Democrat Leader, if this doesn’t show you how out of touch with reality these people are then nothing will.

So she’s not looking good at the polls so what does she do? She opens her big mouth and makes herself look pretty damn foolish in the process:

“Obviously, I support tracking down terrorists. I think that’s our obligation. But I think it can be done in a lawful way,” the New York Democrat said.

Oh give me a break. Is she a lawyer or not? The wiretaps authorized by Bush were completely lawful. This kind of statement is just continuing to make her and her cohorts look like fools. But wait:

Clinton, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, told reporters she did not yet know whether the administration’s eavesdropping without warrants broke any laws. But the senator said she did not buy the White House’s main justification for the tactic.

Ok, so now she doesn’t KNOW if they were lawful or not. But didn’t she just allege that they were unlawful? I smell some waffles.

“Their argument that it’s rooted in the Constitution inherently is kind of strange because we have FISA and FISA operated very effectively and it wasn’t that hard to get their permission,” she said. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was established by Congress to approve eavesdropping warrants, even retroactively, but Bush has argued that the process often takes too long.

Maybe she should of listened to our Attorney General’s speech yesterday:

The FISA Court of Review, the special court of appeals charged with hearing appeals of decisions by the FISA court, stated in 2002 that, quote, ?[w]e take for granted that the President does have that [inherent] authority? and, ?assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President?s constitutional power.? We do not have to decide whether, when we are at war and there is a vital need for the terrorist surveillance program, FISA unconstitutionally encroaches ? or places an unconstitutional constraint upon ? the President’s Article II powers. We can avoid that tough question because Congress gave the President the Force Resolution, and that statute removes any possible tension between what Congress said in 1978 in FISA and the President’s constitutional authority today.

Either way you look at it the lefties will lose this one once again. They continue to fall flat on their faces because in their smug arrogant little minds they believe we should ALL think like them. So they continue to push issues such as this.

I’m still curious what she thought about her husband’s use of physical searches without a warrant?

the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority” to order physical searches ? including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens ? for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress’s decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

Another example of it’s good for them, but not good for us.

Shame on these people for putting our country at even greater risk.

Other’s Blogging:

Either way you look at it the lefties will lose this one once again. They continue to fall flat on their faces because in their smug arrogant little minds they believe we should ALL think like them. So they continue to push issues such as this.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x