Browse By

Video Response to Hillary Clinton “True” Ad on Being Too Busy

Here’s my video response to the Clinton campaign contention that “Hillary Clinton will never be too busy to defend our national security…”

4 thoughts on “Video Response to Hillary Clinton “True” Ad on Being Too Busy”

  1. Iroquois says:

    I don’t know, Jim, I just don’t buy off on it. It’s weak. Hillary was there for the critical votes and even the symbolic votes. None of the stuff she wasn’t there for was important enough to pass, which tells me she was in touch with the leadership and knew exactly what was going on. Maybe even has enough clout to control the timing of really critical votes, like for when she and her twin are going to be in town anyhow for a major presidential speech. On the other hand Afghanistan isn’t doing too well at all, unlike Iraq which had some success after the surge.

    Now if you wanted to argue that both Hillary and Barack have been slow to denounce the stuff like signing statements and extra powers Bush has taken to himself and the executive branch, I might be willing to believe that. You guys probably know better than anybody else which ones are the most egregious and who has made statements about reversing them. My guess is they all pay lip service to restricting presidential powers but they all drool over the possibility of being able to use the powers themselves.

    In which case it might be worthwhile to hold someone’s feet to the fire.

  2. Jim says:

    No, no she wasn’t there “for the critical votes.” Let’s just take one vote: the telecom immunity provision. Hillary Clinton voiced her opposition to telecom immunity. Hillary Clinton promised to oppose telecom immunity. Hillary Clinton wasn’t there for the vote on telecom immunity.

    The notion that only provisions that are “important enough to pass” actually pass is just odd.

  3. Iroquois says:

    Jim everyone and anyone can propose amendments for bills. Sometimes an important constituent insists that a senator ‘do something’, and proposing an amendment that does not have broad support is one way to ‘do something’, although it is totally meaningless. Mostly they don’t get any support, and no one was supporting any of the amendments they were trying to tack on. Lack of support for a motley collection of poorly thought out amendments doesn’t mean a lack of support for a broad policy, you have to look at the final form of the bill that is considered.

  4. Jim says:

    No one? Any? Wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!