Hillary now ranked LAST among Dem Senators

[jaysunb]

And this is in the last 48 hours as word has spread about this poll
http://newpoliticalreview.com/poll.php
LIEberman has the deserved honor of being ranked DEAD LAST !

Too bad the media still thinks they can ram her down our throats.


thought I'd better add the following so people understand that this is more survey than poll

Rank the top 100 U. S. Senators on the basis of four criteria: Integrity, honor, dignity and character
Elections are a tried and true way to tell Senators what you think of them...but they only happen every six years. NewPoliticalReview.com presents the Senators Poll: a unique opportunity for you to tell the Senate what you think of the job they are doing...in between elections.

Here's how it works: From September 10, 2006 to July 10, 2007 readers get to vote for their favorite Senator in our exclusive Senatorial poll. The top 20 U.S. Senators that have been selected by our readers, 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans, will be in the finals, July 15, 2007 to September 10, 2007.

The U.S. Senator who receives the most votes for Integrity, Honor, Dignity and Character will receive The Most Trusted Senator Award presented by NewPoliticalReview.com. You may vote for your favorite Senator only 1 time per week.

The most trusted Senator of 2006 is John Kerry; (D-MA).

Rank them. Rate them. Keep them on-track. Vote today!

[MonkeyFunk]

1. oooh!

an internet poll! It's twue it's twue!

[jaysunb]

3. The poll is not about Hillary...

but my post is :evilfrown:

[MonkeyFunk]

7. But it's not a poll

by any reasonable definition of the word.

[jaysunb]

10. You're right...see edit

n/t

[Raskolnik]

5. Baby, I am not from Havana! n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

33. Damn your eyes!

Too late... :crazy:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Good. I contibuted to her "standing" in that poll.

Too bad they didn't provide scores less than "1" in her case.

[papau]

4. An internet Poll ? has been "freeped"? Should we "DU" it? It's important -right? nope n/t

n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. Not freeped -- Kerry is in first place.

It seems Hillary is popular with neither the poll-freepers on the right nor the poll-DUers on the left.

(Whistles as supporters of center-left candidates inch out of the room to go "DU" the poll purely to downrate John Kerry) :yoiks:

[jaysunb]

69. it changes all the time

the final counts will be made in late August.

[WI_DEM]

6. but does she really deserve to be last? behind Landreau, Nelson and some of the more

conservative Senators?

[jaysunb]

27. No...I think not, but you can

rate her up if you want...

[yardwork]

8. There are so many worse choices than Lieberman!

Bad as he is, how can you vote almost any of the Republicans over him? Inhofe? Dole?

[LeftishBrit]

39. While I am fortunate not to know about some of them..

I would place Trent Lott and Bob Corker very far down. And Sam Brownback of course.

[mvd]

9. It just doesn't seem right to me

Clinton below all of the most conservative Democrats?

[jaysunb]

11. you get to rate her up if you like...

that's what it's all about.

[mvd]

14. I rated her up, giving her 4s and a 5, but I still think..

this internet poll has been Freeped to get Clinton that low.

[jaysunb]

15. not really

It actually seems quite the opposite, since all the republicans are under 50. I think once freepers and others get hold of this it will change dramatically.

[mvd]

16. But Freepers HATE Hillary

Some of them might only vote on her.

[jaysunb]

17. Again...this is not about Hillary alone

it's about ALL 100 Senators. I rated lots of them, but my opinions didn't seem to move people one way or the other too much. And like I said...once this years surveys get more wide spread, we'll see different results.

[mvd]

18. It could be a lot of Freepers

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't bother voting for anyone else. That would move it. We agree on the fact that this isn't reflective.

[Irreverend IX]

22. This thing has been up since September...

You'd think they would have visited it already. The site doesn't say how many votes have been received, though.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[L A Woman]

13. OMG, John Kerry?

The idiot who couldn't beat the worst president who ever lived?

Thanks, but I'll take Hillary any day of the week!

[RC]

19. Kerry? The most trusted Senator?

Even though she doesn't have a track record yet, I pick Amy Klobuchar of MN.
Kerry - give me a break.

[jaysunb]

24. That was in 2006 ( Kerry )

this is the 2007 edition

[RC]

28. Oh, sorry. I must have missed that coat of cheap paint

that semi-glossed over the old Kerry. Mostly looked the same to me.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. OMG, Kerry? The guy who recruited and funded Jim Webb?

Give me a break... just another DINO. :crazy:

[LittleClarkie]

60. Who did more in 2006 to elect Dems in 2006

That guy? We hate him, we does, my preciousssssssss.

[globalvillage]

64. I think it was Kerry, the guy who campaigned for Ned Lamont.

or the guy who raised more money for '06 candidates than any other Dem, or who, with Russ Feingold, proposed binding legislation last June to get us out of Iraq, or who lead the filibuster against Alito because it was the right thing to do.
The guy who was subject to the same kind of attacks in '03-04 that the current crop of candidates are suffering now.

That Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

66. The FIEND!

How terrible of him.

[jaysunb]

67. too funny....and

too true. :thumbsup:

[seabeyond]

37. only those with a chip dont see all kerry did and does.... good for kerry

shows how the media operates getting kerry all the negative media presenting a made of character, and reality.... most trusted

[GreenInNC]

20. My 2

The two from my state are #63 and #91, WOOHOO!

[Irreverend IX]

21. Not a single Republican above a Democrat? Wow.

Nice to see Holy Joe at #100, with McCain right next to him.

[bobthedrummer]

23. Senator Russ Feingold is #1 regardless of this "poll" as far as the characteristics go eom

[dogday]

31. Yes he is and I wished he would reconsider

and run... Go Russ, he is the man :bounce: :yourock: :headbang:

[Beelzebud]

32. At least he shut up the haters that said he was grandstanding.

[bigtree]

36. Hey, he was grandstanding. He can't do a thing but protest without the cooperation

of the folks he was railing against.

He can buck the agenda of the leadership and the majority in our party from now until '08, but, to what effect? We'll see. I don't think our soldiers can afford to wait until the next round of elections, so I'm hoping for some sort of compromise which has a path to a clear withdrawal. We're going to see a flurry of actions which are designed to confront the republicans and the WH, even with the understanding that they'll be vetoed or filibustered. That's probably inevitable and useful, but, at the end, if the opposition prevails, our troops will still be stuck in Iraq.

What's Russ' end game? I hope he's not just going to spend the next term bucking around in circles like a maverick instead of sidling up beside his colleagues and helping pull the load together.

btw, I like his Iraq withdrawal plan

[dogday]

38. If you knew anything about Russ, you would know

he came to Washington to protect the constitution..(Those are his exact words) That simple..

He doesn't care what others think, he had made his path as someone who has a conscience and a lot of us appreciate that...

[jaysunb]

40. He is truly, the Statesman of our time

and I'm sure history will prove that out.

[bigtree]

44. statesman

2 entries found for statesman.

1 : one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies (check)

2 : one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship (oops!)

[jaysunb]

50. Well...looks like I got it right

on both accounts....

[bigtree]

43. and this means he's infalible?

beyond criticism?

He can do no wrong?

C'mon.

[dogday]

68. When he does something that merits it

Your criticism is just your pre-disposition...

[Hippo_Tron]

41. He can make the Democrats come to their senses and cut off the funding

That won't require 60 votes.

[bigtree]

45. they HAVE to come up with some kind of funding bill

How can we have a complete cutoff of funds and (rightly) argue at the same time that republicans are shortchanging the troops?

[Hippo_Tron]

46. We made that argument in 2004 and nobody seemed to care

I'm not denying that Feingold's solution is politically risky and therefore you can chose to dismiss it if you want. I'm saying that perhaps the Democrats should ignore the consequences of the next election all together and just worry about governing.

[bigtree]

47. That type of proposal is a political non-starter.

It would be used as a club against our party from now until beyond '08. It would go NOWHERE, and result in absolutely nothing accomplished . . . except for our party to go on record pulling the rug out from under our soldiers in the field.

That's how it will be presented, over and over. And progressives did NOTHING to effectively stop the drumbeat against Kerry, even though Cheney had identical votes to his when he was in Congress. How will they defend against a direct cuttoff? I'm not going out on that limb just to be shot down. That's not governing, it's political suicide for our party right when we need them to be rock solid with the public..

[Hippo_Tron]

48. We were told the same thing about the IWR

And look where it got us. I'm tired of worrying about the next election or what our part will look like. For once I just want to see us do something extremely unpopular because it is the RIGHT thing to do.

[bigtree]

49. It would be one thing if we had the votes. But, the outcome matters.

If we don't face the fact that we need republican votes to actually pass anything and sustain that bill against Bush's veto, we will have to resort to tearing the WH down just to turn them on Iraq. Either that, or we just keep up the strident rhetoric and the partisan, non-starter proposals and hope we can turn the tide in '08.

I fail to see what the value is in using our legislature as a mere protest gallery. What is "right" about leaving our troops in place while Russ or anyone else digs their heels in defending some sort of political purity?

If they can manage a bipartisan withdrawal agreement which advances to Bush, it may move him off of his insistence that we stay. That would be the product of 'politics'. That's what the institution is all about - compromise. They all come to the table with their own solid positions and work to compromise, realizing that no one in their institution is a dictator and can effectively legislate alone.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. We don't need the votes

You don't need 60 votes to withhold funding. All you need to do is introduce a military appropriations bill that only funds activities to withdraw from Iraq.

[bigtree]

52. That bill will have to proceed to the Senate for passage

subjecting it to the same legislative hurdles as any other legislation.

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Actually we can bypass a filibuster via reconciliation

Since this will be a budgetary matter.

[bigtree]

54. reconciliation isn't bullet-proof

Enactment of Reconciliation Legislation — Reconciliation measures, unlike the concurrent resolution on the budget, are subject to Presidential veto. The first reconciliation bill was enacted in 1980 for fiscal year 1981. As of fiscal year 2005, 16 reconciliation bills have been enacted and three have been vetoed.

http://budget.house.gov/analyses/06reconciliation_dear_colleague.pdf

[Hippo_Tron]

55. So he vetoes it and the war goes without funding...

Therefore the war can't continue. Either way Bush's hand is forced and the war is over.

[bigtree]

56. Reconciliation bills are also subject to points of order . . .

. . . against language (like provisions directing Bush in Iraq) which is "unrelated to spending or taxes and protects to some extent its intended purpose as a tool to reduce the deficit."

The Byrd rule (Section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act) prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” measures in reconciliation. A point of order may be raised by any Senator opposed to an extraneous provision in the reported bill, amendments, or the conference report. Provisions struck through a Byrd rule point of order cannot be offered later as amendments. A Byrd rule point of order can be waived by the vote of 60 Senators. The Byrd rule defines the following items as extraneous:

-measures with no budgetary effect (i.e., no change in outlays or revenues);

-measures that increase outlays or decrease revenues when the committee has not complied with reconciliation levels;

-measures outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision;

- measures that produce a budgetary effect that is merely incidental;

- measures that increase deficits or reduce surpluses outside the reconciliation window
(after fiscal year 2010, for this budget resolution); and

- measures that affect Social Security.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Nothing extraneous about an appropriations bill

All we have to do is word it very specifically...

"This is how much will be spent on transporting our equipment"

"This is how much will be spent on transporting our troops back to the United States"

Provide no funding for any activities that don't involve leaving.

[bigtree]

58. do you really think Bush will be moved by such ambiguities?

Besides, you are underestimating the effect of the Byrd amendment. This is not my personal analysis. The potential for the raising of a point of order is seen as inevitable if there is any language at all which isn't within the guidelines.

And, I would go back to the point about signing statements, over 800 of them so far, which would almost certainly be used to ignore any congressional intent spelled out in the bill.

Anyway, their plan is very different from the one you propose - for the reasons I've outlined and others - and not from any cowardice or ignorance on the lawmaker's part.

from today:

Here’s how the moves seem likely to play out over the next several weeks:

* Led by Murtha, the Democratic-controlled House will vote to approve the $100 billion in funds next month, but will attach conditions to the funding such as limiting the length of deployment of soldiers and Marines, requiring the Army chief of staff and Marine Corps commandant to certify that units are sufficiently trained and equipped before being dispatched to Iraq, and perhaps requiring that Bush close the detainee center at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba.

* Next, the $100 billion bill, with the Murtha limits attached, would go to the Senate. But comments of senators in both parties Thursday indicated it is unlikely that a bill with Murtha’s conditions would get the 60 votes needed to ensure passage.

* If the Senate OKs the $100 billion without Murtha’s conditions, House Democrats, most of whom oppose Bush’s policy, would have to choose whether to go along and approve the funds.

more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17167344 /

[bigtree]

59. did you know that Democrats opposed the republican's manipulation of reconciliation last year?

http://budget.house.gov/reconciliation.htm

[Hippo_Tron]

61. Big deal, we're in power now it's our turn to manipulate the process for our benefit

The Republicans rammed through a huge ass tax cut that would've never passed if it had gone through normal Senate procedures now it's our turn to use the process for things that won't pass through normal Senate procedures.

And as for signing statements, we'll worry about that bridge when we cross it. IMO, signing statements only work when the public doesn't pay attention to them. If Bush signs this very high profile bill and somehow we're escalating things in Iraq, the MSM will definitely have take notice.

[bigtree]

63. Now see, this is the type of bluster that obscures political reality

and denigrates folks who care as much about furthering these issues as you and I.

I've spelled out the process, and I really can't explain any more. Tax bills were purely about the money and were determined within monetary limits, not micromanaging defense policy.

If Bush does ignore any of the strident, purely confrontational moves, then it will be up to the public to rise up, but you saw how effective that's been. I just don't see the purpose in repeatedly crafting legislation which is purely confrontational with no expectation of completion to law outside of some miraculous cave-in by the demonstratively obstinate White House.

Hippo_Tron (and any other readers) I'm going to be constrained by the same forces that constrain you in translating advocacy into effective action, so please don't think I'm your adversary on this. I'm exploring our options right along with you.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. The White House has been stubborn because we've never forced them into confrontation

I believe that after enough confrontation somebody from the Republican hierarchy will walk into the Oval Office and say "Mr. President, you need to give up or you will doom the Republican Party to a decade or more of minority status."

Furthermore, I don't see any other way to confront the President since the Republicans have already shown that they refuse to accept even a meaningless non-binding resolution. Since Senate rules apparently don't allow us to force them to sit on the Senate Floor for hours on end and read the phone book, I don't see how we can get anything done.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. With All Due Respect, It's Pretty Silly To Use This Obscure Poll As Legitimate Argument Towards

anything. You know that right? I mean, might be fun to click on the Senators and see how your favs are doing and all, but to use it as an even slightly realistic barometer while declaring "see media! you don't know what you're talking about!"? C'mon, that's just plain silly.

[jaysunb]

26. I respectfully suggest

you go back and read the sites intentions. Actually, I block quoted the polls purpose and how it functions.

If you want to take exception to the title of my post, ok, because I intentionally wrote it to be provocative, but to suggest this is some silly internet poll means you missed the entire premise of the sites intention.

[Skidmore]

29. Lieberman and McCain at the very bottom of this one.

It was fun to go over there just to give all 1s to some of the more loathesome Republics. Too bad "zero" was not an option, especially in the honor and integrity categories.

[jaysunb]

30. It was fun,wasn't it...

I was smiling the whole while. :evilgrin:

[shadowknows69]

42. Well by all means then lets make her our president

do i need my sarcasm thingie?

[goforit]

62. Not according to Fox news....She is ranked #1 dem to them. Phoney polls

on Fox strike again.