As If We Didn't Know...

Few things are as nauseating as Hillary Clinton's attempt to masquerade as a "centrist." Unfortunately, she is convincing some less informed people that she is just that. A simple look at her record proves her true colors. Deroy Murdock over at NRO nicely deconstructs Hillary's latest disguise.

Don’t believe the hype: The Duchess of Chappaqua remains a committed liberal Democrat. Her capture of the White House would advance limited government about as much as a Walter Mondale or an Al Gore victory would have.

Amen to that. Does anybody *really* believe that Hillary Clinton would govern as a centrist? She's more liberal than her sickening husband.

Clinton’s votes, rated by both conservative and liberal groups, expose her as an Exacta-grade thoroughbred to statist liberals and a scoliotic nag to free-market conservatives. From 0 to 100, “the middle” should rest somewhere between 33 and 66. Clinton scores well below 33 on conservative vote tallies and far higher than 66 on liberal evaluations.

Again, is this really surprising to anyone? All it takes is a quick look at her voting record.

For her 2004 Senate votes, the National Taxpayer’s Union gave Clinton an 11 percent rating — an F.

In addition, NTU’s Bill Tally for the 108th Congress revealed that Clinton is the Senate’s second biggest spender, right behind Jon Corzine (D., N.J.). She sponsored or cosponsored 211 bills to boost expenditures and only three to curb outlays. Were they all enacted, new federal spending would have jumped $378.2 billion annually.

“That’s the largest number of bills to increase spending supported by any Senator,” says NTU’s Pete Sepp. “Corzine would have spent more money annually ($440.7 billion), but he backed fewer pieces of legislation than did Hillary Clinton.”

Yeah, that's our Hillary...Ms. Moderate.

Clinton’s 2004 votes scored her 8 percent approval from Citizens Against Government Waste, matching her 8 percent lifetime rating.

“Hillary Clinton’s 2004 rating, the 19th worst in the entire Senate, was far below average for a Senate Democrat,” according to CAGW president Tom Schatz. “Senate Democrats had an average rating of 16 percent in 2004 and 19 percent lifetime. The entire Senate’s average rating in 2004 was 40 percent.” CAGW’s complete 2004 ratings will be released later this month.

Clinton and New York’s senior Democratic senator, Charles Schumer, were CAGW’s “Porkers of the Month” last February for fighting President Bush’s proposed reforms of the Community Development Block Grant Program. While Clinton called it “a lifeline for many individuals already struggling to make ends meet,” the administration has criticized its “unclear purpose, loose targeting requirements, and lack of results.” These grants included $25,000 to help construct a music conservatory and $500,000 for “streetscape improvements” — both in Westchester, one of America’s poshest counties.

There is a lot more in the article, take the time to read it. Most of us already know what Hillary Clinton is, but the word needs to be spread. Her fawning sycophants in the press want everyone to think she is moderate, because they know she'll never be elected if the truth is widely disseminated...just like any liberal. They have to pretend to be what they're not in order to have a chance.

I don't share Jim's view that Hillary will be our next president. Granted, Jim's prescience was was grandly proven with his predictions of the outcome of the last election...but somehow I can't believe the American people, after having George W. Bush for 8 years and seeing what a difference an honest man can make in this country, will be willing to vote another Clinton in office.

But then...I thought Bob Dole was going to win...[g]