Election Central Saturday Roundup
NYT Magazine Profile Of Ron Paul: Not So Bad, After All
This weekend's New York Times Magazine feature on Ron Paul paints a picture of an earnest, hard-working man motivated by his sincere beliefs in the issues at hand. For example, Paul discusses doing Army physicals decades ago for "gung-ho" young men volunteering to go off to Vietnam — and how he is haunted by the thought of how many of them didn't come back. On the other hand, Paul's campaign has attracted a colorful variety of supporters, to say the least, including Birchers and 9/11 Truthers. And while Paul is quick to say he doesn't necessarily agree with some of the conspiracy theorists attracted to his campaign, he is not about to send them away, either.
Fred Thompson's Real Similarity To Reagan: Teflon
The Washington Post reports that social conservative activists are still flocking to Fred Thompson despite records showing he did lobbying work for a pro-choice group in the early 1990's. A major reason for this is that his pro-life record while serving in the Senate serves as an ultimate backing for his credentials with them. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, noted another similarity Fred Thompson has with Reagan, besides being a conservative actor-politician: "He also has the same Teflon coating that Reagan had: Bad stuff just doesn't stick."
Obama Calls Out Bush Administration Logic On Iraq And Ethnic Strife
Barack Obama said that the Bush Administration has been logically inconsistent in its warning of ethnic strife if the United States were to leave Iraq. Obama said, "by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done." Instead, Obama added, the idea that such a thing would be unworkable prevents unilateral intervention in Sudan, and in turn ought to counsel against a continued unilateral intervention in Iraq.
An Optimistic Hillary: "I Would Say I Am Winning"
During a meeting with the Des Moines Register, Hillary Clinton expressed confidence in her campaign: "I would say I am winning." She elaborated further: "If you look at the polls that are being taken - I personally think they're snapshots in time - but as opposed to talking hypothetically if you talk based on the information that we have, I am winning. I am winning. I am beating the Republicans." Also during her trip to Des Moines, Hillary rallied an AFSCME convention with her support for a proposal in Congress to make it easier for workers to form a union.
Gingrich Less Likely To Run If/When Thompson Gets In
Newt Gingrich told the Associated Press that he'll be much likely to run for president if Fred Thompson gets into the race. "If Fred Thompson runs and he does well, then I think that makes it easier for me to not run," Gingrich said — though he did leave himself some wiggle room. "On the other hand, just given what you've seen with McCain the last few months, how can you predict?"
Shays Curses Out Capitol Hill Policeman
Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), the sole Republican House member from New England, cursed out a Capitol Hill police officer, after Shays felt the officer was not being sufficiently helpful to a Shays intern and a group of constituents who had become lost on a tour. Shays grabbed the officer's lapel — in order to better see his badge, Shays says — and swore at him. "I know Chris swore, and he probably did use the f-bomb," an aide told CNN. Shays has apologized for his actions.
Sununu: I Would Not Campaign With Bush Next Year
Senator John Sununu (R-NH) told Bloomberg News that he would not campaign with the president "in this climate" for his own re-election contest next year. Sununu said, "the president's popularity, unfortunately, is at a fairly low level." The president campaigned twice in person for Sununu in his 2002 campaign, when he narrowly defeated then-Governor Jeanne Shaheen.
Kerry Tells Dirty Limerick About Vitter
Last weekend at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in his native Massachusetts, John Kerry decided to tell a limerick about the current woes of Senator David Vitter (R-LA), who has been caught in the D.C. Madam scandal. "There once was a man named Vitter/Who vowed that he wasn't a quitter," Kerry began. "But with stories of women/And all of his sinnin'/He knows his career's in the — oh, never mind." And fittingly enough, the DSCC even was being held in ... Nantucket.
Hillary says: "If you look at the polls that are being taken - I personally think they're snapshots in time - but as opposed to talking hypothetically if you talk based on the information that we have, I am winning. I am winning. I am beating the Republicans." Huh? What? Now that's sentence structure and clarity worthy of George W. Bush
July 21, 2007 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention illogic.
At the moment, Hillary isn't beating "the Republicans" but only some Republicans in some polls. Her nomination would likely be very bad news for many Democratic congressional hopefuls.
Best, Terry
July 21, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually no, the last several hypothetical match-up polls I've seen show now Clinton consistently beating all the republicans, with or without Bloomberg. Obabma too for that matter, albeit by slightly smaller margins in general and only more recently in his case.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
But of course these really are only snapshots in time, just like the lady said. Nov. 4, 2008 is still a loooong way off and a lot can happen in a single day in politics.
July 21, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's funny. Shows that Kerrey is familair with The Daily Show. They run a joke every now and then that's a "John Kerrey Comedy Album."
In it, Kerrey screws up a limerick: "Hick dickory dock, a woman fellated my penis...:"
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 21, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Obama has been out-performing Hillary for quite a bit now on head-to-heads, basically since ~April
check it out. Shouldn't look at individual polls, averages are much more reliable (plus we tend to remember the polls that confirm our beliefs and forget the ones that don't. Another reason why averages are a good idea)
July 21, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
With one hand you think? :-)
Breaking news for you. Only one Republican will be nominated unless they change the rules.
Polls need to be read rather carefully to have any meaning.
Indeed.
I don't know if the MSM will ever get around to examining the issues in any sort of depth instead of just presenting the horse race. Early polls are notorious for being largely a matter of name recognition.
The polls showing Sunnunu being trounced overwhelmingly by Shaheen but beating every other named Democratic candidate makes the point better than any I know of.
For my money, you could beat Sunnunnu.
Best, Terry
July 21, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is destroying all republicans head to head.
she is beating Rudy by 6% and is beating Romney by 15%.
that is a huge advantage in a general election.. that would translate to a landslide electoral victory.
i predict she wins some 2004 red states like Nevada, Colorado, NM, Ohio, Iowa, FL, and even Arkansas and maybe steals Virginia too.
and why do you think she would be bad for congressional hopefuls? you need to backup your statements cause if you read the blogs it clearly states that Sununu for example doesn't want to campaign with Bush. it is BUSH who will hurt congressional candidates on the republican side.
July 21, 2007 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you bothered looking at her approval/disapproval ratings?
Have you considered she has still not shown the slightest remorse for voting for war and indeed supports continuing involvement?
Do you care about her contempt for workers while turmpeting the DLC Republican Lite message?
Have you noticed who party activists on the left support and who supports Hillary?
Should Hillary and Giuliani both be nominated, the insipid debates will be mainly over who wears the dresses most often and who is more manly.
It won't likely be notably inspiring to folks looking for a new beginning.
Best, Terry
July 21, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, my bad. That sentence should have read "Obabma too for that matter, albeit by slightly smaller margins recently in his case." Anyway my point was obviously that the substance of Clinton's statement that everyone was making fun of was absolutely correct, even if it did come out a little sideways.
As for averaging polls, it's a wonderful thing when you have a lot of poll data to work with. I've been a fan of Charles Franklin ever since he first started his Political Arithmetik blog. A year from now when there are 25 polls coming in every month, everybody who is anybody is in the field every 2-4 weeks and we pretty much know who the actual candidates are going to be, I will look no farther than the good professor's excellent charts at pollster.com to see who's up and who's down. (Before they came along I used to do my own in Excel.)
Averaging is not a panacea though. It works not nearly as well when you have maybe half a dozen polls in a month, all from different sources. Use use a wide enough time window to smooth your curve and you can easily mask pretty significant developments. Use a more reasonable window size you get maybe 1-3 polls in any one time slice, so you risk having an outlyer, a poll done to measure reaction to a specific event, or house effects in individual polls can all have undue influences in your trend lines. So if you're looking for trends you're really better off looking at histories from individual pollsters right now, I think.
As for Sununu, his re-elect numbers may suck but he's still a sitting senator in a historically republican-leaning swing state. They're not going to throw him out for just any Tom, Dick or Harry. I believe Shaheen is the only democrat being discussed right now that can match him in terms of name recognition, which is about all that a poll for a senatorial race is going to be measuring this early in the season.
Now, what was it someone said about thinking with one's hand?
July 21, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I've noticed who the largest pluralities of likely primary voters seem to lean toward by pretty significant margins, both nationally and in most of the early primary states. Do any of those people count for anything?
July 21, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Shays grabs a cop, and there's no massive media freakout a' la Cynthia McKinney? Once again...
July 21, 2007 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not much or we wouldn't have had a series of Republican presidents interrupted only by a Republican Lite over the past few decades.
What happened to McCain? Wasn't he The Maximum Leader just a short time ago?
Best, Terry
July 21, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks more and more like the Republican nominee will be Romney. He's ahead in IA and NH and there is a lot of Republican money waiting for the nominee to emerge. Romney will have an impact in IA on who the Democrats choose, won't he? If Romney is the nominee, would "experience" matter any more? All of the Democrats have more experience than Romney. Romney is affable and his wife is a very attractive campaigner, IMO. How does Hillary Clinton look in contrast to Romney's strengths?
July 21, 2007 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Gravy!
Looking at averages is exactly the wrong way to look at election polls.
Example:
George W. Bush's Current Approval Rating 31% (July 12-15, 2007)
George W. Bush's Second Term Average 41%
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1723
If bush had to face an election on July 16 31% would go to the polls approving of bush. For an election the 41% average is meaningless. On Sep. 21-22, 2001 bush's approval was 90%. If he had to face an election on July 16 that would drag up his average but wouldn't help him a bit at the polls.
If you are looking at trends OK. Just the single number, the average, can mislead and doesn't say much.
July 21, 2007 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can think of many reasons to shudder when considering a Hillary Clinton presidency. Her negatives are astronomical, and she is a lightening rod for the right wing to focus its anger and hatred on.
But, instead: let's just perform this little mathematical exercise, eh?
8 years with George Bush Sr in the White House as Vice President
4 years with George Bush Sr in the White House as President
8 years with Bill Clinton in the White House as President
8 years with [the chimp] in the White House as President
8 years with Hillary Clinton in the White House as President
Sum them. That's 36 unbroken years with a Bush family member or Clinton family member serving as either President or Vice President. 36 unbroken years: more than a third of a century!
That outcome alone should be enough to erase her candicacy from the minds of any reasonable individual. Why doesn't this thought terrify almost everyone?
July 21, 2007 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Examples please.
July 21, 2007 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I know it's early, but isn't the leading Republican contender at the moment 'none of the above' rather than Giuliani, Romney, McCain or the rest of the declared field? A recent poll identifies 'none of the above' as the leader with 25% of the respondents making that choice.
And after the Macaca moment today, one has to wonder if Mitt Romney can survive his own clumsy candicacy to survive and become the Republican nominee. Seriously. He's done, or soon will be.
July 21, 2007 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I figured. If the people could be be trusted to make their own decisions about who to vote for then Ralph Nader would be president. Right, Terry? Time to throw out that whole antiquated democracy thing and turn important decision-making over to someone who really knows what's best: Terry.
Can I assume "a Republican Lite" refers to Bill Clinton? Yeah, Republicans loved him alright. LOL!
PS: I think hadenough is still waiting for some examples from you of the activists flocking to Obama (below).
July 22, 2007 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Romney has experience running a state. That's generally considered one of the better resume items for a presidential candidate. Americans tend to like promoting governors to the White House. Four of our last five presidents were former governors. So yes, experience is still a very nice-to-have if Romney bags the Republican nomination. (Also comes in handy if elected president.)
July 22, 2007 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Might have something to do with the fact that most democrats and independents thought Bill Clinton was a pretty decent president.
July 22, 2007 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right? And he's at least as crazy as McKinney. I can never hear Shays' name now without picturing him telling ol' Heck-of-a-job Brownie that Thomas Jefferson was a good Federalist. What a putz.
July 22, 2007 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Among others.
Like Mrs. Bill Clinton, for instance.
You're not as dense as you often appear.
Internecine warfare is always the bitterest.
The DLC made no bones about its interest in wanting to copy the Republican ideology so Democrats too could be elected. It worked.
Wrong.
If the voters were always right, there would be no Bushes or Clintons elected to any office where they could harm the country. Ralph Nader is hardly an adequate replacement. His nightmarish prescriptions for controlling the population have only the advantage of being most unlikely and unworkdable. Nader was nothing more than a protest against you wingers.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ~ Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~ Winston Churchill
Best, Terry
July 22, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some more quotes from cynical old dead white men:
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~ Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
~ Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
~ James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
~ John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States
"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
~ John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835
And, of course, Plato called democracy the second worst form of government.
Most people outside of the political world seem to recognize the ultimate truth that those successfully running for office have mostly disqualified themselves as being fit for the office.
Occasionally there are "accidental" flashes of light that brighten the picture for even the most realistic.
Russ Feingold is one that even the dimmest here seem able to understand. Jim Webb is another. Obama or Edwards may turn out to be a third.
Best, Terry
July 22, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scares the crap out of me.
July 22, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if it isn't that you think voters should not be allowed to make their own decisions about who to vote for — and it's OK if you do you know, you just can admit it, most ideologues are authoritarian elitists, it's just part of who you are and nothing to be ashamed of — and you think Bill Clinton was "a Republican Lite" (LOL!) among an otherwise unbroken series of right-wing crazies, then is it your contention that real Democrats (i.e., those who agree with you, and a group certainly not including Bill Clinton who in fact did win elections) keep losing presidential elections because they have not been nominating candidates who are acceptable enough... (wait for it)... to the far left?!?!?
(I just laughed so hard I think I may have pulled a muscle.)
July 22, 2007 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are snapshots in time, yes Hillary. I can see how that works for you.
A huge canvas is available, i.e., a canvas of months of time for reports on and studying of all the specific movements and offerings of all the candidates. What these daily polls really accomplish is to negate attention to that richly detailed canvas by continually drawing attention to a few figures in the foreground. This blurring away of the whole background, whether intended or not, perpetuates the very problem of an uninformed electorate. Seems like a self-fullfilling vicious cycle to me.......name recognition creates a foreground position, polls reflect that, reporting of poll results increases the 'inevitability' meme, short circuiting deeper study, and on and on.
Imagine a situation of no more daily polls in which those pollsters [whom I suspect are part of status quo power structures anyway] were replaced with reporters offering daily detailed accounts of all the candidates' histories, positions and statements. Imagine the differences possible to democratic outcomes from thoroughly zooming in on the rich details available in the whole canvas before us.
July 22, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most people? But you've just been contending (ad nauseum) that the majority (i.e., most people) are ignorant of politics, prone to making bad decisions about political candidates; basically unfit to choose their own leaders. Now they're suddenly an authority on the subject?
July 22, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds great. Mrs. Clinton might very well agree if you asked her. But polls are still snapshots in time. And they do still show her beating the potential Republicans across the board of late, just like the lady said.
July 22, 2007 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Cal D, for demonstrating my point about the pitfalls of relying on polls. I wrote about the value of overviewing the large canvas details rather than limiting our grasp of the candidates to snapshots from polling. You read that and promptly brought the focus back to snapshots. I brought up the value of seeing the forest, and you responded with, "well, but, look again everyone, look at this tree, because this is an important tree."
If there were more focus on details, those polls might be able to ask questions of an informed electorate such as, "Do you feel you have sufficient knowledge of the monetary interests behind each candidate?" or "Do you think it important that a candidate disclose his/her earmark requests in order to inform voters of tie-ins to special interest groups?"
July 22, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And I would cheerfully vote for any of the Democrats (or an ol' yellow dog, for that matter) before I'd vote for any Republican running. And make no mistake about it, a Democrat or a Republican is going to win the next presidential election. And yes, it does make a difference which.
July 22, 2007 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should Hillary and Julie both be nominated, I predict a New Yorker will be elected but neither of those two wingers. It will instead be a third winger.
Predicting is easy. Being omniscient is more difficult. My guess is that Giuliani will quickly fade. I thought Hillary would but now am not so sure.
Best, Terry
July 22, 2007 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, Clinton was going to fade -- like a steam roller. She may lack the natural charisma of her better half, but she was always the planner in the family and she has done this kind of work before. I wouldn't count on her making a lot of big mistakes.
I'm kind of with you on Giuliani though. I will admit to some initial astonishment that he's stayed this popular this long but I also think that's at least as attributable to McCain's implosion as any other factor. What's not so surprising is that their rank and file may be willing to overlook a few warts in the interest of a perceived centrist appeal. They do seem to get it that half a loaf is better than none. Besides, they've got no bench.
I would not rule out that Romney could get around him though, or at least turn it into a dog fight. I do imagine that even Republicans may eventually demand more of their candidate than vacuous, folksy platitudes delivered in dialect-coach-perfect Tennessean, so I am not at this moment expecting great things of Thompson (now, watch him prove me wrong). But there's such dissatisfaction with the whole field on the Republican side, it's still ripe for another white knight to jump in who could completely change the dynamic of the race.
July 22, 2007 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Hillary will give it a shot. She has all the qualifications and is, after all, white. :-)
Best, Terry
July 22, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republican -- who ever it is -- will win. You heard it here first.
The problem will not be her disapproval from the right. It will be her disapproval from the left. I personally will not vote for anyone who authored legislation criminalizing free speech, voted for the AUMF, and still thinks it was the right thing to do. (Although I'm sure she will flip on that last one just before the Iowa caucuses.)
July 22, 2007 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it? One baseless, race-baiting, trollish pot-shot? No snide, sanctimonious, pseudo-progressive politico-babble? No squid-like cloud of ink (or pixels in this case) spewed out to try and mask the fact that you haven't a hint of a clue of what you're talking about and absolutely nothing of any substance or worth to say? Not even a page torn out of your Bartlett's Famous Quotations? Nothing?
You're slipping, son. I'm disappointed in you.
July 22, 2007 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are definitely not my father and, praise be the Lord, not my son either. As an Irish immigrant, my father loved to fight but he didn't go off on baseless rants like a banshee.
A beloved mayor of Rome, NY, ran in both Democratic and Republican primaries and won the nomination of both parties. The damage he then wrought was incalculable. It was all quite predictable - so predictable I predicted it.
It is not exactly a novel opinion that the DLC, Hillary's true party, is a disaster for Democrats. The puposeful turn to the right has been very destructive for Democrats.
Wish you luck in your search for your son but I can see why he might not want to be found.
Best, Terry
July 23, 2007 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton "authored legislation criminalizing free speech?" This, I've got to hear.
July 23, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. So I guess we know you don't get that from your father's side of the family. (snark, snark, snark)
But seriously, that was a little more like it. Misdirection. Irrelevance. A touch of obfuscation. Much more in line with the kind of work I've come to expect of you.
July 23, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't.
It's criminal.
Don't ask, don't tell.
Best, Terry
July 23, 2007 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
He did so little that it's hard to count that as experience. Once voters find out that he spent over 200 days of the last year of his one term as governor out of state running for president. (he would NOT have been re-elected), they might think differently.
July 23, 2007 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, in criminal law, grabbing a cop's lapel = assault on a police officer. It's exactly the same as the McKinney situation.
Where's the outrage? Or is it different b/c Shays is an angry white man and McKinney is an angry black woman?
I am waiting for the response on NRO's The Corner blog. If they don't post, it seems we are free to conclude that they are just racists.
July 23, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me twice. First for misspeaking. She did not write the bill that criminalizes flag burning, she was merely the sole Democrat sponsor.
Next, pardon me for assuming that well-informed lefties would know about it. As you see from this WaPo editorial, this means either that her politics are to the right of Scalia's, or that she is a worse panderer than GWB.
Either way, no thanks. This country can't stand much more of that.
July 23, 2007 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The flag burning ban is a perennial safe vote to appease the trailer park demographic. It hasn't a prayer of passing and everyone knows it. They only do it to impress the rubes. Dennis Kucinich has voted for it like, every year since he's been in congress.
Clinton generally earns high marks on the ADA and ACLU score cards though. Obama has been pretty much dead even with her since he's been there. Feingold runs ahead of the two of them by a nose. They're all well to the left of John Edwards when he was in the senate.
July 24, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The flag burning ban is a safe vote to appease the trailer park demographic.
I see. Well, in that case her vote was eminently honorable, wan't it? What America needs in a leader to follow Dubya is one who strives "to appease the trailer park demographic." Certainly she deserves our support now that you 'splained it. If the Democrat Party is really, really smart, it will nominate a pandering poll-watcher. That's the way to whip Rudy, Fred, or Mitt.
(Not so incidentally, you seem to be confusing Hillary's flag descecration legislation with the flag descecration amendment to the Constitution. Kucinich did vote for the amendment, but Hillary voted against it -- to her credit. OTOH, she was the sole Democrat to sponsor the legislation -- written by Utah's Bob Bennett -- that was worded with the intent of weasling around the Supreme Court's many rulings that such legislation is unconstitutional.)
I suppose her votes in support of AUMF and USAPATRIOT (twice!) were also just pandering?
Clinton generally earns high marks on the ADA and ACLU score cards though.
The ACLU is a vital force in protecting the Bill of Rights, but that scorecard is a simple vote count, reflecting votes on bills they select. If a legislator votes the right way four times on pro-choice bills and once to name GWB Emperor of North America and Grand Potentate of Puerto Rico, she gets an 80% grade. This is not a particularly precise insight into a person's commitment to constitutional rule of law.
In any event, Hillary's ACLU score in the current Congress is 33%, tied with Joe Lieberman, John Kyl, and Trent Lott, but trailing noted civil libertarians Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Sununu, Orrin Hatch, and the sage Jim Inhofe.
July 24, 2007 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink