Vass thoughts on Senator Clinton

Senator Clinton is back in the national press, this time both defending her vote for the Iraq war and taking advantage of the President's low approval rating. While I agree that the reasons for the war were not accurate, the fact that Saddam needed to be removed is very viable. For various reasons, including oil and strategic positioning in the middle east, our involvement is a good thing. Our timing and manner in enacting this involvement could have been better executed though.

The fact that Sen. Clinton is pumping up her public profile, as she prepares for her re-election bid in 2006 is consistent with her actions. Those how have seen my post Politics for elections know my feelings about Sen. Clinton's publicity efforts. The fact that the Democratic Party is largely anti-war and seeks immediate removal of troops should not influence her statements nor her support of our troops. Immediate removal of troops does not promote democracy or stability in Iraq or the middle east. It shows lack of stregth and ambivalence on the part of the U.S. that we abandon a nation in its infancy for the mere fact that polls are negative. In my opinion we will be back, to fight yet another war, if we leave with the job half-done. The safety of our troops is also put into question as politicians demand timetables for removal while troops are still under-fire. Does anyone truly think that radicals are less likely to continue or increase attacks if we rush to set up a time to leave Iraq?

But as for Sen. Clinton, much is not publicized that needs to be. While she wasted no effort to condem a video game, for adult content (largely ignoring serveral other disturbing factors of the game), and blame the interactive gaming industry for this one company no one has commented on her failure to vote to restore education programs that had been cut or her No vote to repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benifits.

Some other votes made by Sen. Clinton include {the outcome of the votes, or my personal views on the issues picked is not the question. There are many more votes and the descriptions I provide are summaries by me}:

Numerous votes to enable low-to-median income families to be excluded, via various exemtions, from responsiblity of debts and allow access to bankruptcy.

Yes to reject any plan that requires deep benefit cuts and/or massive increases in national debt for Social Security.

No to express the the sense of the Senate that not addressing Social Security will result in massive debt, deep benefit cuts and tax increases.

No to increase the death gratuity to 100k for soldiers in combat since Oct 2001.

No to provide motorcycle safety programs

Yes to improve safety of non-motorized transportation (including bicycles)

No to treat Ethanol like all other vehicle fuel (ie no payments for environmental damages)

No to increase renewable fuel, and raising the national fuel independance

No to protect classified information and protect servicemen

Yes to increase by $360 million funds for procurement of tatical wheeled vehicles to deploy in Iraq and Afghanistan

Yes to not increase the Congress pay in 2006

Yes to increase the minimum wage

No to increase funding for the AIDS drug assistance programs

There are more votes, my point is Sen. Clinton seems very confused on several issues. Sen. Clinton promotes the idea that she is for families and individuals (ie raise wages, leaving SS alone, improving bicycle safety) yet she also has voted to do the opposite (no motorcycle safety, repeal '93 tax, ethanol, AIDS funding). My thoughts are not about the outcome of the actual votes, but how Sen. Clinton has voted. That is far more important. It seems to project an image of someone looking to say anything to get elected, but not caring what the constiuents want as much once elected. Do we want that kind of a politician? Worse yet, do we want that kind of Presidential candidate? {Obviously I don't as I'm republican.}

I am sure some of the above will be mentioned in Sen. Clinton's bid for re-election, but I doubt the conflicting votes will be mentioned. I would enjoy hearing why Motorcycle saftey is not an issue but bicycle saftey is, or why low income families need an increase in minimum wage and exclusions so they can be fiscally irresposible and claim bankruptcy, but assistance for low income individuals with AIDS is not a priority. I may not agree with many of the views of democrats but I think its nice to be consistent in your message. The real message stated by voting in the Senate and not the soundbites provided via the TV or news releases.

What do you think?