Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer May Back John Bolton?

I hope this is not true, but the right-wing NewsMax is reporting that putative Democrats Clinton and Schumer are considering voting to confirm crazy rage-o-holic Bolton.

It seems that time has cooled off the waters.

It is going to be difficult to build up enough opposition this time to block him.

People get pissed off at a Repug decision and they put it off for a month or two and do it while something huge is in the news.

I recognize this is difficult, and I have suspected that the absolute lack of follow-up stories meant what it usually does in Totalitarian Nations, that the Subjects of said nation just had their faces rubbed in shit again, so it musn't get out.

But have you got a link, any link, to confirm that Dubai now has our ports?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They're a pack of treasonous slugs.

If this rumor pans out, it will be disappointing, but that involves my long-standing distrust of John Bolton, all the way back to Jesse Helms days.

He's a scorpion.

:grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead: :grr: :banghead:

this happens. Clinton-Schumer. NOT candidates for the WH.

I have a difficult time feeling kindly towards those two.

if they were true democrats they would oppose anything or anyone that * supports.

the Senate. Just more NewsMax attempts to split the Dems.

You know why?

Because it has not method for ranking the importance of each vote. It looks at every vote cast, defines which type of vote (yes or no) should be considered "liberal" and that's it. So fifty less impacting, less significant votes are all considered equal to say, a vote authorizing the war in Iraq, or NAFTA, or deregulation, etc. etc.

A guy can come out with a quote that says "hey I'm the most liberal rated guy in the sentate" by voting "liberal" on a bunch of minor bills and voting in favor of big business, corporate croneyism, for war, against poor people, whenever it REALLY counts.

You know the other reason why?

Because the Sentate is so populated by people like Clinton that there are hardly ANY actual liberal democrats in it - which means that NO BILLS ARE GETING TO A VOTE that are actually in the spirit of traditional democrats, proud liberals on a new-dealing social democracy persuation. So bragging about someone being the most "liberal rated" voter in congress in a congress that so far right that its "left" is right and its right is "radical-right" is not really saying MUCH OF ANYTHING.

Now, everyone cut and save what I just said, and RE PASTE it every time someone makes this ridiculously annoying DEFENSE of centrists corporatist politcians!!!!!

And do you understand why no liberal bills get to a vote? Because the Democrats have no way to get them to a vote. Only the Republicans can bring a bill to a vote. Now, copy this and re-paste it on your bathroom mirror so the next time you think you know what you are talking about, you will understand that you don't.

I'll re-print it for you since you ignored it the first time:

The so-called liberal rating means absolutely nothing. Here's why:

Because it has not method for ranking the importance of each vote. It looks at every vote cast, defines which type of vote (yes or no) should be considered "liberal" and that's it. So fifty less impacting, less significant votes are all considered equal to say, a vote authorizing the war in Iraq, or NAFTA, or deregulation, etc. etc.

A guy can come out with a quote that says "hey I'm the most liberal rated guy in the sentate" by voting "liberal" on a bunch of minor bills and voting in favor of big business, corporate croneyism, for war, against poor people, whenever it REALLY counts.

This is not in dispute. You're not disputing it. No one else is disputing it. It's not an "uninformed" statement. It's just a simple truism.

Next, your response - my point when I say no liberal bills are getting to a vote was not clear, so I can see how you latched on to it the way you did. In my frustration I said "bills" when I meant to say ideas. My point was not to take you on a journey of how a bill becomes a law. My point was to say that liberal ideas aren't even making it in the door. They wouldn't be suggested, supported or voted on if there was a democratic majority and a republican minority. Know how I know? Because they weren't when there was one. They are not introduced because there are next to no actual liberals in congress - so that what is labeled "liberal" in the "liberal calculator" that comes up with how "liberal" each senator is turns out to be quite a joke.

Actual liberal ideas in the spirit of traditional democrats, proud liberals on a new-dealing social democracy persuation are not on anyone's agenda - not democratic senators, not republican senators, not anyone's. So going around talking about how x senator has the most "liberal" voting record in a congress that is so far right its extreme left end does not even represent the "center" of the spectrum of political thought - is really not saying much of anything at all.

By the way, another reason the "most liberal ranked" senator comment is ridiculous, meaningless bullshit is this: who is doing the ranking? And based on what? People latch onto phrases they like without ever really investigating them. Jon Stewart said it best when the radical RIGHT was using "most liberal ranked member of the senate" to attack John Edwards when he was announced for VP in 2004. He pretended to be an average viewer of fox news and, after playing 25 clips of media pundits saying the same thing over and over (most liberal ranked member) he said, "WOW....that guy must be LIBERAL! And gosh...even though I don't really...know what that stat means, or who's coming up with it, or how they get their rankings, or what this is based on at all...... I sure don't like the sound of it!" :)

The ACLU, which carefully considers which votes are important, gives Ms. Clinton only a 60% rating - she votes against civil liberties almost half the time!

Congress has gone so far to the Right that even Eisenhower would be considered a flaming Liberal by today's standards - far, far to the left of the Clintons.

to Bolton that they may be considering not opposing him, and they cite a semi-reputable source as saying that "important friends" of Schumer and Clinton have confided to him that the senators are "seriously reconsidering" their position on Bolton.

I'll wait for the movie on this one. I'll be very surprised and very disappointed if Clinton changes her opinion on this. SOunds more to me like NewsMax taking another opportunity to Swiftboat Clinton as a rightie. 90% of the crap people post about her being a DINO comes straight from Newsmax--anyone see pattern?

Bolton, there is no reason to trust a very RW source that is pushing a story with no real merit.

What might make since, is for New Yorkers to call or email them asking they not support Bolton. Jobycom is 100% correct, the people who most want the Democrats in disarray now are the RW. As others have said the opposition has faded, maybe we all need to contact our Senators.

It's one thing to not put up a huge fight it another to vote for this bat shit crazy idiot.

just have to wait it out and see what Clinton and Schumer eventually do . . .

if they support Bolton, my already rather low opinion of them will drop even lower . . .

and yes, they're my senators . . . unfortunately . . .

I think that what's amazing is that, as you say, it could be true. I could definitely see Hillary "I helped Walmart to pioneer lowest-wage policies" Clinton and Chuck "My DSCC might support Lieberman as an Independent" Schumer as using Bolton to triangulate.

Marvelous.

I wonder what I'm fighting for! Democrats have been so wimpy for 6 years and we have had very little representation from them, and NOW it seems they are becoming clones of Repukes!

I don't know if I even want to bother as a opposition anymore, we are losing ground. Even if Dems take control of Congress, what will we really be getting? More of the same seems to me.

I've been at the edge for a very very very long time.... we seriously need another political Party or maybe even two more political parties. I'm so frustrated and depressed ALL THE TIME!! How can I fight for a Party that won't fight or represent what I feel?? For sure, Repukes represent a sure way to poverty for many Americans, but will the Dems do any better? I don't see much difference anymore and contacting them doesn't seem to affect them at all.

I recently wrote several of them, and NOT ONE of them even replied! I'll name just two, John Kerry & John Conyers. If THEY won't reply who will????

Democrats are not the anti-GOP. They are just the center-left party. We don't have a left-wing party in America. The closest thing is the Greens and they are lucky to get 4% of the vote.

Look at the history and you will see that the GOP was formed as a revolt inside the Democratic party in the 1850s. And they allied with other 3rd parties like the old Whig party. That is how they grew so fast.

And to make it even more confusing...the GOP was originally the anti-slavery and pro-women party. Lincoln was GOP.

Democrats have never been the left-wing party that many want them to be. And they arnt left-wing today either. The only reason many think they are left wing is because the GOP propaganda and the media both say they are.
But yeah...in reality, the Democrats are a moderate party for the most part.

Democrats used to be the party of the average Joe and Jane. Now they've become the other party of the rich and the powerful.

I suggest that you check out the first inaugural address - a true Democrat. It has lots of stuff like:

"Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True, they have tried. But their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit, they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish."

and

"Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation is asking for action, and action now."

I'm a "boomer" and I KNOW I've seen a different Democratic Party. I know I lived through a different Democratic Party, and I supported different Democratic Leaders, and they were people who worked "for the people" or so it seemed. If not, they hid it well. Even those who had the big bucks did reach out with a helping hand. Regardless of all the crap thrown around about the Kennedy's I do think that for the most part they were taught and they did go out and work "for the people!" And they DID have the bucks, and they did have the scandals, but in the end they seemed to be out there promoting a fair amount of Democracy. Nothing like the well-heeled idiots of today.

What I see today is not like any Democratic Party I grew up with. But then so many of us got killed in Viet Nam! I had my problems with LBJ even though I wasn't able to "not vote" for him. I did however go out and campaign for McGovern.... my first foray into campaigning for a national political candidate, what an experience. I still love McGovern and miss Paul Wellstone every day. I wonder what HE would be saying about things today!

And where the hell is Bernie Sanders all of a sudden???

I'm sure a lot of it is due to advances in technology, but really.... where has all the caring gone???

being made and the ugly, hurtful, truth is that someone is attempting to destory our country and those someones are in the Repbulican Party.

me to donate money this morning - I told him that until the Dems started representing me and quit letting *Co run over the citizens (just like Schumer and Hil Clinton in this piece), there was no chance in hell that I would give them a red cent.

Might as well let the GOP continue to have control so that there is no mistaking exactly who is running this country into the ground.

nm

positioning herself to the center for the 2008 election. She may think it is the only way to get elected in the general election.

But then, does she win the primaries? She's pissing off a lot of the left. Some of them may think that once in office she will govern from the left, and they are probably right. But others won't trust her because they've been lied to.

So, is it worth it for Hillary? I'm assumming that the right won't vote for her no matter what she says or does? How big, exactly, is the middle.

I'm just asking questions; I don't know the answers. But it is going to be interesting over the next 2 years as politicians of all stripes contort their positions and themselves unbelievably in order to become President.

Like I said, I don't know the answers, but if I were to make a prediction, I would say that at the end, the politician who pretzled up the least will be President.

http://www.nysun.com/article/36756?page_no=1

I suspect Clinton won't back him in the long run -- she is aware of how much she has strained her relationship with the "base" already, and Schumer is not going to join Nelson of Nebraska all by himself. Hope I am not wrong.

I live in NJ and am in NYC all the time - I have a daughter living there - and I never heard of the NY SUN until Nov 2004 when I read (on Dkos) an election day smear piece on Kerry. I have never seen the paper since then on any newspaper stand.

This paper is owned by the Moonies. Hillary is not my first choice (or second), but DU should not have a thread on her or any Democrat based on the NY Sun.

Most likely. Schumer might be a willing acomplis.

The Dems have embraced the "Brave Sir Robin" Strategy as first documented by Monty Python:

Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!")
Bravely ran away, away. ("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled. ("No!")
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about ("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out. ("I never did!")
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat, ("All lies!")
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin! ("I never!")

He is packing it in,
And packing it up,
And sneaking away,
And buggering off,
And chickening out,
And pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

Since it's all speculation from a tabloid and a right-wing source.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

C'mon :eyes:

LOL

Along with his good friend Joementum Limpmann

It is going to get very nasty because of the war(s)!

Lieberman voted against Bolton. Will he do so again?

The way I heard it on the news a few minutes ago was that several Jewish groups are happy with Bolton's performance in the UN the last couple of weeks and the support they are showing for Israel. So they are asking Clinton and Schumer not to fillibuster or screw around with Bolton basically. If I was just to guess I would think that of all the states New York has one of if not the highest percentage of Jewish people making up it's population so that does kind of make sense. That's what is being reported anyway.

Your support in the senate for the big chimpanzee and Kindasleezy did amerika PROUD.