Rasmussen labels Hillary "left of center"! LOL

[UdoKier]

Rasmussen MUST be a GOP thug pollster.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/23098.htm

HILL 'CENTER' OF ATTENTION
April 7, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — One of the nation's top pollsters has created a new "Hillary Meter" to measure Sen. Clinton's move to the political center for a 2008 White House run - it shows she's made progress but has a long way to go.

"Right now, she's too far away from the center to win unless Republicans nominate someone who is even further away," said independent pollster Scott Rasmussen.


Oh, puh-f**kin'-leeze. Hillary is to the RIGHT of center, no matter how you slice it. Even when she concocted her corporate-friendly "Hillarycare" she was right in the center.


Have I mentioned today how much I fucking HATE these people?

[davidinalameda]

1. maybe if Jesse Helms is being used as an example of Center!

she has moved to the right ever since being elected

[Demit]

2. It's just a mantra. It will never change.

Even if there were to be totally no opposition party left anymore, they would need to invent one. By now, I see this kind of accusation and I say yeah, yeah, yeah...what else is new?

[liberal N proud]

3. These people are so worried about Hillary, it is a joke

Last night I was in an eating establishment and they had a television in the corner with FAUX news on. First I told the manager that I was going to get sick if I had to eat watching that shit.
Second, I noticed the loud mouth Oreally was going on about Hillary. I told my wife that he has a problem because he just can't get past her.
I think the repukes want her to run more than anyone else.

[tx_dem41]

4. She is to the right of YOUR center.

It's all relative, isn't it? To me, she is very slightly to the left of MY center. Of course, it also depends on what issues we are talking about. On some issues she is left of MY center, and on some she is right of MY center. All in all, its a silly exercise.

[UdoKier]

5. What issues is she on the left of? What nonsense!

Her positions on MOST issues would be to the right of most Americans. Most Americans were against NAFTA, she was for it. Most Americans were against Bush's tax cuts, she wanted only a partial rollback. Sher still wholeheartedly supports the illegal Iraq occupation, which most Americans do not. She supports "faith-based" initiatives, whereas most Americans favor a separation of church and state. I don't know of any issues where she is not on the center or to the right. You must be very conservative if she's to your left on anything.

[tx_dem41]

8. "Her positions on MOST issues.".....hmmmm...let's see

Recent scorecards for Hillary Clinton:

NARAL - 100%
National Right to Life - 0%
Fund for Animals - 100%
Humane Society - 100%
National Taxpayers Union (most repubs get 70-100%) - 11%
NAACP - 100%
Human Rights Campaign - 88%
League of Conservation Voters - 92%
National Park Conservation Assoc. - 100%
Sierra Club - 90%
Family Research Council (rabid Conservative) - 0%
AFL-CIO - 100%
UAW - 110% (they give a 10% bonus)
SEIU (union) - 100%
AFSCME - 100%

I just got down to the "L" on issues (stopped with labor).

Yeah, UDOkier, she sure seems like she's to the RIGHT of most Americans on "MOST issues" just like you said. You sure have her pegged. :eyes:

[WindRavenX]

9. bravo

Hillary is NOT a RWer by ANY means- she stands up for women's issues, the enviroment, labor, and middle-class America.
She may not be as liberal as Kerry, but please, we need to stop buying this crap that she's a RW Democrat.

[IrateCitizen]

11. She's a social liberal, a fiscal conservative, and apologist...

... for imperialism. In that sense, she's right in line with the modern-day Democratic Party as defined by the Beltway consensus.

Like I said above, on the Beltway scale, Hillary is certainly left-of-center. However, on a more "real" scale, with socialism on the left and Libertarianism on the right, Hil is certainly right-of-center, along with pretty much all of the Democratic Party.

[tx_dem41]

13. Yep..most "fiscal conservatives" get 100% ratings...

from just about every union in the book and low (0%-20%) rankings from the conservate taxpayer groups. :eyes:


And why would you put "Libertarianism" at the Right when they are for general abolishment of drug laws? To me "fascism" is on the right.

[IrateCitizen]

22. Regarding "Libertarianism"...

There's a specific reason I capitalized the L in that word, because I wanted it to represent more of the views of the Libertarian Party (as embodied by the Cato Institute) than the classic libertarian philosophy brought to the public consciousness by figures such as Bakunin and Emma Goldman. What we are referring to here is a system in which people are largely left to fend for themselves, and society is little more than an amalgamation of individuals.

I avoided fascism this time around (I put it on the first post) because it describes a system of authoritarian capitalism, and is better represented by the x-y political axis that consists of socialism/capitalism on the x-axis and libertarianism/authoritarianism on the y-axis. In this sense, Hillary -- along with pretty much every other sitting member of Congress except for a few select Democrats -- would be in the upper right quadrant of authoritarian capitalism. None would be in the lower left libertarian socialism quadrant.

I guess, given this I should have stuck with the initial definition of fascism vs. socialism....

The problem with your first statement and the :eyes: is that it only serves to make my point in that Hillary is left-of-center per the Beltway consensus. Those ratings are based solely on what issues come up for vote. If the bills that come to vote are overwhelmingly right-of-center, then it's not too difficult to achieve a left-of-center rating. However, when one considers issues that don't manage to make it to the floor of the House and/or Senate for vote -- such as universal single-payer health care, withdrawl of overseas military bases and an end to massive Pentagon spending, living wage laws, wealth taxes, ending corporate welfare, etc. -- then the basis of judgement becomes much, much different.

I certainly have leftist political/economic views, and I don't pretend that my views are very represented in Congress. However, at the same time, I'm not about to pretend that those I consider center-right are actually "liberal" in any sense outside of the Beltway consensus.

[tx_dem41]

33. Thanks for your thoughtful response and the time you took to write

it. I agree that all of these terms are quite relative (Beltway vs. historical vs. etc), which is why I stated that these exercises are quite silly. But, here I am devoting time towards it as well. So, I'll send a ":eyes:" in my direction to make it fair.

[UdoKier]

26. Fascism is on the right, but authoritarianism can be right or left.

There are plenty of right-wing libertarians. They want their tax cut AND their pot.

[tx_dem41]

34. I agree....I see libertarianism existing all over the spectrum....

Its the classic "cafeteria-style" -ism for intellectually lazy people IMO, which is why I don't like it as an all-encompassing worldview.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Define Fiscal Conservative

Other than the Right Wing definition, which is wrong, define that term. Hillary is not a liberal. And these scorecards are so narrowly defined by individual issues and specific votes as to be meaningless to ID someone on a political spectrum. The definition of fiscal conservative does not include what the right wing would have us believe. They've abrogated the term and tried to change its meaning. That doesn't make them right.

You are right, about fascism being the far right, btw. Liberterianism is actually the politically philosophical opposite of fascism. (Based on the XY freedom for business, freedom for the individual graph.) So, the left right scale, one dimension, is fascism to communism. Liberterian philosophy doesn't even belong.

The Professor

[IrateCitizen]

30. Hi Professor!

If you look, you'll see I corrected myself regarding Libertarianism. However, I was careful to use the "Libertarianism" as opposed to "libertarianism" to differentiate.

Actually, on the x-y scale, socialism is on the left and capitalism is on the right. Fascism and Communism actually are very close to one another, at the top of the y-scale, because they are both more about authoritarianism. Myself, I'm a libertarian socialist (bottom left quadrant), but I hardly consider myself to have anything in common, economically-speaking, with the modern-day Libertarian Party.

[ProfessorGAC]

31. XY I Agree

Fascism and Commuism are polar opposites in a single dimension, though. That PoliSci 101 stuff. You know me well enough to know i don't think the world works as simply as described in 101 textbooks in any field, though.

I was just illustrating a point. The idea that fiscal conservativism is somehow not a liberal trait (it usually is) and is used to define someone's overall political position galls me. I just couldn't let it go unchallenged. At the same time, i did agree with Tx_Dem's position on fascism v. liberterianim. Didn't want to challenge without showing some point of agreement when it was clearly extant.
The Professor

[IrateCitizen]

35. Not looking to pick a fight, Prof

I think I do know you well enough from these boards to know that you look at things in many shades of gray and from many different angles.

I also backed off on the use of "Libertarian" in a subsequent post, and essentially agreed with tx_dem41's take that it should be fascism on the other end, which strangely enough was the place that I started from before I changed it to "Libertarian".

OK, my head is spinning now from all of this.... :P

[ProfessorGAC]

37. We Ain't Fightin'

We seldom do. There are two political philosophy spectra in common parlance. One is 1D, and just a line. The other is 2D and includes a distinction between the economic and personal liberties. The latter is obviously far more descriptive and generally places fascism in the far upper right, with liberterian in the far lower left. Liberalism tends left, but higher up the y axis. Conservativism tends right but lower on the y axis. Been used for a hundred years i think.

I think we're pretty much agreeing, excepting some minor semantics.
The Professor

[UdoKier]

32. ALL liberals are fiscally conservative.

As far as I know, none of them believe in running outsized deficits as most republicans do.

To me, when I hear a democrat described as "fiscally conservative" I hear code for "beholden to business interests, willing to vote for tax cuts for the rich, indifferent to labor issues"

At least she's come out in favor of increasing the paltry minimum wage - again the least any democrat worth a damn could do.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. The True Definition Of Fiscal Conservative

This is based upon at least 50 years of accepted economic theory, is that a fiscal conservative does not believe in gov't spending money beyond that it receives in revenue. That's it.

Social liberal economists, (or analysts/modelers like me), however, b elieve that if the gov't programs are providing some greater benefit and are promoting the general welfare, then we don't cut them to balance the budget, but raise marginal tax rate to enhance revenue.

The right has appropriated the term to suggest that fiscal conservatives want lower taxes and less spending. That's not true. Being one only means that absent a true emergent situation, we should always assure that inflow and outflow are balanced.

They've stolen the term and they use it wrongly.

And, i agree with your sentiment on the minimum wage. This is another provably false economic canard. There is absolutely zero evidence that wage floors create fewer jobs, increase inflation, or lead to overall upward wage pressures. It's all nonsense. Raising the minimum wage so poor people are a trifle less poor hurts nobody economically.
The Professor

[WindRavenX]

14. Based on your contexts, then I will say I agree

However, on a more "real" scale, with socialism on the left and Libertarianism on the right, Hil is certainly right-of-center, along with pretty much all of the Democratic Party.. This I agree with. However,as I said, compared to the current politcal scale, I don't think it can be argued that she is in the top 5 senators for being most "liberal" (relative terms again).
I still think she'd make a great president.

[IrateCitizen]

25. She's far from top-5 liberals...

I'll just name some more liberal Senators off the top of my head -- Feingold, Sarbanes, Leahy, Kennedy, Boxer, Durban, Harkin, and even Kerry and Schumer.

How anyone could construe her recent remarks regarding national security and the war in Iraq as "liberal" is totally beyond my comprehension.

And for the record, I think she'd be a horrible President. She's my Senator, and I've come to view her as willing to shift her position on ANYTHING in order to pander to specific voting groups. I really am often left wondering if she really stands for ANYTHING.

[UdoKier]

12. Kerry's not all that liberal either.

Yet another war-hawk.

[WindRavenX]

15. You don't think Kerry is that liberal?

He's one of 3 senators that voted against Clinton's asinine DOMA.

[UdoKier]

19. Because it's all about economic issues for me.

Wedge issues like DOMA are there to keep the bible nuts in a tizzy. They are not intended to affect real change. If I were in office, I would vote against it, but my priority will always be the perpetually screwed American worker. Gay rights, abortion, etc. are not left-right issues anyway. They are libertarian/authoritarian issues.

[WindRavenX]

21. gotcha

What specifically about Kerry's (and Hillary's) stance on economic issues really galls you?
I'm curious.

[UdoKier]

29. That they are not RAILING against this crap coming down the pike.

That they are not coming our in favor of PROGRESSIVE solutions to our problems (Clinton is more guilty of this than Kerry) Clinton's support of "faith-based" and her vote for the bankruptcy bill just cinched for me. She is a politician first and foremost, beholden to corporate masters and oblivious to the problems plaguing the people the serves.

[UdoKier]

17. Scorecards, schmorecards. On the things that count, she has ...

voted to] install Bush's right-wing judges, she failed to stand up against the fraud in Ohio with Barbara Boxer, she ENTHUSIASTICALLY supported Bush's murderous war, even enlisting her husband to to try and add some credibility to Bush's obvious WMD lies.

Wow. She voted against the ban on"partial-birth abortion". A meaningless gesture against a meaningless law on a wedge issue.

But then she votes FOR the cruel bankruptcy bill. She used to work for Wal-mart, a gesture of support for their child-labor and slave-labor practices.


I'm glad she got some high marks, but that's most likely because ALL of the legislation coming down the pike is unconscionable, anti-worker, fascist garbage. She should be voting against ALL Bush crap. There is NOTHING good coming from these people. The compromises she has made have been high-profile and damaging.

[tx_dem41]

18. If I take the logical intersection of your various definitions of what ...

...a liberal is, there are no liberals in the Senate. But, perhaps that's YOUR point.

[UdoKier]

23. There are precious few, that is true.

Boxer, Feingold....nobody else comes to mind.


The senate is overrun with center-right and extreme-right-wingers. Where are the extreme left-wingers? Oh yeah, there are none! Just a handful of holdout mainstream liberals who resisted the DLC's clarion call...

[tx_dem41]

36. I believe, if you check out the Senate roll-calls...

Boxer and Feingold have voted for a majority of those Bush "right-wing" judicial appointees.

[tx_dem41]

20. Additionally, on a list of "things that count" to a liberal...

I would think that issues like abortion-rights, civil-rights, environment, labor, and gay-rights would "count". Since, by your words, they don't "count" (or you didn't include them on your list of "things that count"), I have to ask a question....Are you a liberal?

[UdoKier]

24. Those are NOT left-right issues.

Abortion and civil rights (incl. gay rights) are libertarian/authoritarian issues. There are more than a few repugs that vote "our way" on those wedge/distraction issues.

As for labor and the environment, what the hell has she done, except vote against absolutely unconscionable GOP legislation? It's the least she can do!



It's not that I think those issues don't count, they just have no impact on the ability of working people to feed their kids, and I personally don't buy into the notion that the right actually cares about them. They use them to whip their nutty supporters in a frenzy, but they never really try to pass anything meaningful, because it would mean the loss of their favorite wedge issues.

[tx_dem41]

38. Interesting point on the "libertarian/authoritarian" angle. n/t

[UdoKier]

40. I just feel like it's all a big con game.

The wedge issues allow repugs to stealthily pass tax cuts and anti-worker legislation that actually harms their base, while at the same time, it allows "moderate" dems to appear to be taking stands on "liberal" issues while in fact getting nothing done that really furthers the cause of working people. I realize that we are in the minority now, but what about in 1993? Why is it that all we have to show for the Clinton years is the hollowing out caused by NAFTA, UNPAID family leave, and millions of people thrown off welfare? Forgive me, but I had actually hoped for something more. I realize that it's unrealistic to expect that now, but I do expect democrats to oppose the repugs on EVERY proposal, because every proposal they ever make is unacceptable. There is no middle ground any more, because we gave it all up over the last 25 years.

[IrateCitizen]

41. The libertarian/authoritarian angle is a more accurate picture...

Because it describes politics in two dimensions rather than one. For an excellent description of it, go to the following site:
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

FWIW, I'm a solid libertarian socialist (I'm sure it comes as a shock).

[tx_dem41]

43. I have taken that test before, but I just took it again...

I got a -6.5, -6.77. Puts me to the left of the Dalai Lama (I think on both scales).

[IrateCitizen]

45. Damn! You're down in my realm!

BTW -- pretty much every sitting member of Congress is in the upper right quadrant, outside of a few Democratic House backbenchers and VT Independent Bernie Sanders....

After just taking the test again, I scored an economic -8.00, social -6.77.

[tx_dem41]

47. I tend to be very left on general topics (as posed in the test)...

when it comes to specifics and knowing that compromise is a political art form (I know a lot of purely ideological DUers are puking right now), I tend to pull a little bit more towards the center.

[IrateCitizen]

6. The Beltway center and the real center are two different things...

If you're talking the Beltway center, then you could say it was defined by the likes of Sens. Olympia Snowe, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. By this measurement, even Joe Lieberman would be considered slightly left-of-center, primarily due to his stances on environmental matters.

If you're talking the "real center", OTOH, with fascism on the right and socialism on the left, then Hillary is certainly center-right, as is the Democratic Party as a whole.

[saltpoint]

7. If Senator Clinton were left of center, I would be more open to --

-- her candidacy.

She isn't left-of-center NOW, and she's moving further and further right all the time.

"O, Gingerbread Man, the river here is swift and deep! Best to ride on my nose for safe passage!"

I believe the wheels will fly off of Hillary Clinton's presidential bandwagon in Iowa, where I think she'll finish no better than third and possibly fourth behind Edwards, Bayh, and Feingold.

[Tactical Progressive]

10. Did Rasmussen give us a 'Bush-meter'

to show America how far Bush's 2000 'govern from the middle' - 'uniter not divider' campaign pretenses were from any kind of reality? Has he done 'humble foreign policy' and 'not the world's policeman' meters since selection? I've never seen any politician lie so hugely and so fundamentally about how they were planning on governing as BushCo did in 2000. Nothing even close.

The Hillary meter to me shows quite obvious political bias. He's basically telling America that Hillary is lying and he's going to continually show how much. "Fascination" my ass. This guy is no pollster.

[karynnj]

16. If he has the same measure for Kerry, his comment would look dumb

Kerry is by most accounts significantly to the left of Hillary and he nearly won. So, using his logic, Hillary being closer to the center would win more votes and it doesn't take very many more to win.

That said, I don't think winning boils down to who's closer to center. Bush is very far off center.

[Triana]

28. TWO things:

1. IF she WAS left of center - BIG DEAL! That's a BAD thing?

2. She ISN'T. She's very conservative by progressive/liberal standards.

The 'liberal', 'left-of-center' label is indefensible and that's why they use it. What's she going to say, "I'm not liberal"? I don't think so.

It's bu$hit, folks....manipulation, propaganda. Period.

[RBHam]

42. Hillary is a silent supporter of the Christian Right, also...

EXPOSÉ: THE “CHRISTIAN” MAFIA
By Wayne Madsen
http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm
excerpt:
One of the more interesting affiliates of the Fellowship is Senator and former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). A former “Goldwater Girl” in the 1964 presidential campaign, Mrs. Clinton seemed to have partially recovered some of her earlier conservative underpinnings. According to her autobiography, Living History, after her husband became president, Clinton paid a visit to a women’s meeting at the Cedars on February 24, 1993. Present were Susan Baker (wife of the first Bush’s Secretary of State, James Baker III), Grace Nelson (wife of Florida’s Bill Nelson), Joanne Kemp (wife of former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp), Linda LeSourd Lader (wife of Clinton ambassador to Britain and founder of the Renaissance Weekend Phil Lader – the Renaissance Weekend in Charleston, South Carolina is billed by Lader as a “spiritual” event<3>), and Holly Leachman of the Falls Church Episcopal Church (one of the churches taken over by the Fellowship). Leachman and her husband Jerry had been involved in 1997 with a Cleveland, Ohio Fellowship adjunct called the Family Forum. The Leachmans were interviewed by ABC’s Nightline on February 25, 2004. They extolled the virtues of Mel Gibson’s controversial film, The Passion of the Christ, along with other evangelicals, including some Jewish converts to Christianity.



Senator Clinton admits to having a continuing close relationship with Susan Baker, through Baker’s visits to Capitol Hill and the letters she and other Fellowship wives wrote her during the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Even Bill Clinton seemed to have been taken in by the Fellowship. In his autobiography, My Life, Clinton brags that he never missed a National Prayer Breakfast. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton erroneously writes that it was not until 2000 that Coe invited the first Jew, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), to speak at the breakfast. However, New York Mayor Ed Koch spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1981 Senator Jacob Javits in 1984, and Arthur Burns in 1986.



Ironically, it was Susan Baker’s husband who served as the political fix-it man for Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore in delivering Florida’s 25 electoral votes to George W. Bush in 2000, costing Gore the White House. In fact, Senator Clinton wrote that all of her relationships with the Fellowship began with the luncheon she attended in 1993. In her biography, Senator Clinton writes of Douglas Coe, “ is a genuinely loving spiritual mentor . . . Doug Coe became a source of strength and friendship.” Of course, Clinton is referring to the period of time when her husband was being harassed by conservative Republicans out for blood – the Whitewater investigation and impeachment hearings brought about by what she called the “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband. It is amazing that Mrs. Clinton would have established such a trusting relationship with people who were the “vast right-wing conspiracy” that she complained about so vociferously.



Nevertheless, Mrs. Clinton remained close to Coe, who she invited to accompany her as a member of the U.S. delegation that attended Mother Theresa’s state funeral in Calcutta in 1997. Mother Theresa had spoken at Coe’s National Prayer Breakfast meeting in Washington in 1994. From that platform, Mother Theresa launched a verbal broadside against President Clinton’s pro-abortion policy. For Coe, being at Mother Theresa’s state funeral was a strange juxtaposition from his reported attendance at Bohemian Grove meetings of San Francisco’s elite Bohemian Club – festivities that are replete with pagan rites. But as one senior Pentagon official said, “the Fellowship has nothing to do with God or Jesus, it is a capitalist cult.”

[tx_dem41]

44. "By Wayne Madsen"...

ummm...thanks anyway.

[RBHam]

46. So, he's lying?

Hillary never cozied up to the Fellowship?

Good to know.

[tx_dem41]

49. Read post #48...

OKNancy said what I was going to say...only more fully.

[OKNancy]

48. This is the same guy who said the Plame

indictments were a sure thing in July --- last July, that there would be a strike on Iran BEFORE the election, links an auto accident of Marvin Bush's babysitter to 911, Israeli agents were responsible for the McGreevey resignation, said there would be massive vote fraud in California, his Florida election bs, and the topper: Barny Frank = pedophile.
You are right...thanks anyway

[TwilightZone]

50. She is left of center.

http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Summary at the bottom. Looks left of center to me.

Edit: and I'd have to agree that this post points out that she's obviously left of center:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3440548&mesg_id=3440742&page=

[IrateCitizen]

51. Beltway center or real center?

If it's the first, then she certainly is. If it's the second, then she's solidly center-right.

See the following post for an explanation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3440548#3440672