Thursday, January 22, 2009

Voters against Clinton


Ninety-four senators voted to confirm Senator Hillary Clinton as our new Secretary of State. Two senators were opposed.

It is possible that two of 96 senators were so convinced that Hillary Clinton would be a really bad Secretary of State that they could not in good conscience vote for her confirmation. It is possible that two of 96 senators were feeling their ethical oats and instead of going along with the crowd, stood on principle and voted no.

But then we learn who those two senators were: Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and David Vitter of Louisiana.

I have written on several occasions about Jim DeMint and David Vitter and those articles can be accessed by simply typing their names in the "Search" bar on the right side of the blog.

Perhaps the most important DeMint article is here, and the most important Vitter articles is here.


Suffice it to say that neither of these two nogoodniks worry much about ethics or morals. Their negative votes on Clinton's confirmation had nothing to do with principle. DeMint, known better as the Candy Man, deplores the lack of religious values in our country. Vitter is best known for his adulation and thus, solicitation, of prostitutes (but God and his wife have forgiven him).

Neither of these men voted negatively on Clinton because they were trying to do what they believed the "right" thing. Their votes were carefully calculated political maneuvers pandering the the rightwing fruitcakes in their respective districts. They are soon up for re-election.


It is so wonderful, though, to know that unlike past years, people like da Candy Man and Vitter are out of power and huff and puff though they may, they cannot blow down the house of Obama and the people.

More on Jim DeMint here.


1 comment:

Bob Poris said...

These guys put off not only Clinton’s vote and confirmation; they delayed the appointments of both Holbrooke and Mitchell. It delayed the start up of the State Department for no good reason. Both knew she would be confirmed. They represent the problem that tars their party with petty nonsense. I trust the voters of their states will throw them out at the next election. In these troubled times, it is important to show solidarity whenever possible, unless there is a valid reason to delay a vote. Their reason re Bill Clinton’s private affairs is not a valid reason. He is doing good work and stopping foreign contributions on the off chance that it would influence his wife’s role is insulting and not productive. Do we ask all spouses for similar guarantees or is it only the Clintons?

opinions powered by SendLove.to