Hillary's Hero: Judge Royce Lamberth
The famously anti-Clinton judge has never done Hillary any favors. But now, he's poised to save her from some serious mudslinging.
Sun Jan. 13, 2008 1:00 AM PST
During the 1990s, U.S. District Court judge Royce Lamberth earned a reputation as a Clinton basher on par with independent counsel Ken Starr. In 1993, the Reagan appointee fined Ira Magaziner nearly $300,000 for lying in court about the makeup of Hillary Clinton's health-care task force. Lamberth allowed Judicial Watch bulldog Larry Klayman to depose scores of White House staffers in lawsuits most judges would have quickly dismissed. In one of those suits, the judge accused President Clinton of criminal behavior and asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to investigate the president's alleged violation of the Privacy Act. And in 1999, he fined former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin more than $600,000 and found them in contempt of court in a lawsuit filed by Native Americans over a trust fund held by the Interior Department.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Lamberth, though, may end up sparing Hillary Clinton from an onslaught of dirty political ads sponsored by one of her long-time right-wing adversaries that’s slated to begin on Monday. On Thursday, Lamberth sat on a three-judge panel to hear a constitutional challenge to the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law filed by the rabid conservative group Citizens United. Citizens United has sued the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in an attempt to air TV ads about a "documentary" film bashing Hillary Clinton during the election season without complying with federal campaign-finance laws.
Hillary: The Movie is scheduled to screen in six states starting right here in Georgetown and then moving to Las Vegas just in time for the Nevada primary, wrapping up in California in early February. Citizens United will also be selling DVDs and running TV ads to promote the movie. Hillary is headlined by a full complement of red-meat regulars who proclaim the New York senator unfit to hold office, call her a liar, and brand her a "European Socialist." Ann Coulter provides the only generous comment about Hillary ("looks nice in a pantsuit").
Citizens United wants Lamberth and his colleagues to rule that its anti-Hillary materials are "issue-oriented" speech and thus exempt from campaign laws that would force the group to disclose its donors. No doubt Citizens United had hoped that Lamberth, with his conservative bona fides, would be sympathetic to its arguments that its new anti-Hillary movie is a fine piece of investigative reporting and not, in fact, a 90-minute campaign ad. Instead, the maverick judge suggested that Citizen United's arguments didn't pass the laugh test, and probably for good reason, given the group’s storied history of throwing mud that GOP candidates don't want to throw themselves.
The group's former chairman, Floyd Brown, is most famous for helping create the Willie Horton ad that sunk Michael Dukakis in 1988. Through a group affiliated with Citizens United, Brown actually ran the ad showing Horton's mug shot, which the Bush campaign itself did not because to do so was so clearly racist. In 1992, Brown created an ad that gave voters the opportunity to "get to know Bill Clinton" by paying $4.95 to call in to hear a snippet of taped calls between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers.
During the 2004 presidential election, Citizens United ran some biting ads against John Kerry that dubbed him a "man of the people" while ticking off his substantial financial assets. The group has worked with some of the best and brightest of the GOP attack-ad makers, including Alex Castellanos, who produced the famous ad against Al Gore that used subliminal messages to brand him a "rat." The group also produced an ad praising George Bush for invading Iraq that was narrated by Fred Thompson, who of course is now running for president himself.
The group has a special loathing for Hillary. President David Bossie worked as an investigator on a Senate Whitewater committee, and according to the Atlantic Monthly’s Josh Green, he has been waiting for years to unleash his attack on her. Four years ago, Bossie showed Green the "Sierra Madre of opposition research" he has assembled in his Capitol Hill basement that’s been sitting there just waiting for Hillary to run for president.
Now that its time has come, Citizens United is ready to roll with its new campaign. Naturally, though, it doesn’t want to disclose who’s paying for it all. It faced a similar problem back in 2004, when it sought to launch a similar media campaign against John Kerry. The FEC ruled that the group could not use unregulated contributions to promote a book and documentary bashing Kerry during the election.
This time around, Citizens United has taken a more proactive approach. In December it sued the FEC, arguing that its film and ads promoting it are protected commercial speech and shouldn’t be subject to donor-disclosure rules. It asked a federal court for an injunction that would allow it to air the ads unfettered. In its brief, Citizens United claims that it is a media outlet, not a political group. As evidence, it points to its other documentary films, such stellar entries as Celsius 41.11: The Truth Behind the Lies of Fahrenheit 9/11; ACLU: At War With America; and Broken Promises: The UN at 60.
Lamberth and two other federal judges heard arguments in the case in D.C. on Thursday. Despite his conservative rep, he wasn't too impressed with Citizens United’s point of view. The AP reports this exchange from the bench between Citizen United’s lawyer and the judges:
Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered "issue-oriented" speech because viewers aren't urged to vote for or against the Democrat.
"What's the issue?" asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.
"That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist," Bopp replied. "That is an issue."
"Which has nothing to do with her campaign?" U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.
"Not specifically, no," Bopp replied.
"Once you say, 'Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,' aren't you saying vote against her?"
Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word "vote."
"Oh, that's ridic. ..." Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.
According to the AP, Lamberth laughed out loud from the bench when Bopp suggested Hillary: The Movie was similar to investigative news shows like 60 Minutes. "You can't compare this to '60 Minutes,'" the judge said. "Did you read this transcript?"
A spokesman from the FEC says the panel is expected to rule on the matter shortly. Given the yuks from Lamberth, the folks at Citizens United probably shouldn’t hold their breath.
Comments
There is sooooo much more of Lamberth's history that needs to be understood.
He's nothing but a tool for the rich and powerful.
At U.S. Urging, Court Throws Lamberth Off Indian Case
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR200607...
By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 12, 2006; Page A13
Michael:
Republicans want to keep the country at war? Really? Do you know your history? Aparently not:
Last I checked it was a Democrat who fabricated the Bay of Tonkin and cost America 50,000 lives in Vietnam. In 1968 alone Johnson, a Democrat, got 16,000 U.S. Soldiers killed. It took a Republican, Nixon, to get the USA the hell our of Vietnam.
Sharon Ash:
Hillary will do or say aything to get elected. Are you one of those who screamed with joy when you watched "Queen Hillary" give you universal pre-K in her Christmas commercial? Obama was the only candidate with a nice, friendly, warm, family oriented, America style ad.
It could equally well be argued that the Reds WANT HRC as a buffer to even worse (for them) policies under an Obama/Edwards presidency.
Remember, the Reds took it on themselves last spring to defacto endorse Clinton for the democratic ticket.
Edwards is the real threat to the country and world the Reds are creating. They are handling him with bogus haircut stories and simple ignoring. Where are the stories comparing his haircuts with President Bush's $3000.00 suits?
(Umm... Let's not talk about that, is where those stories are)
-------
Kill your TV, and free your mind.
Ames Tiedeman: And a nice, warm Christmas ad will fix the $9 trillion national debt, the huge trade deficit, the sinking U.S. dollar, millions of Americans losing their homes in foreclosure, restore our image in the world, stop torture, etc., etc. The Republicans know they might as well run a yellow dog against anything Democrat in 2008 because they will lose, unless they got lucky and were given Obama. That one would be easy for anyone to 'swift boat' and that is why all the efforts to take out Hillary are being stepped up. They know that payback is going to be hell!
Sharon Ash:
The Clinton machine of 1994 gave us NAFTA. Before NAFTA we had a 40 billion a year trade surplus with Mexico. Now we have a 100 billion dollar trade deficit with Mexico. Our last vacuum cleaner company left Ohio three years ago for Mexico. Hillary cares about the little guy? Um..Not
I'm sorry...are you blaming Bush for this??
How will Hillary fix the 9 Trillion national debt? Did you know this fact: All the U.S. has to do is move spending back 48 months and we have a surplus. But guess what, it will not happen. Hillary wants to spend, spend, spend. Her social programs will make the Bush deficits look like nothing. Question, were you opposed or in favor of the 400 billion bush "free pills for seniors program?" Bush gave all the seniors free prescriptions for life. You should love him. These are the hand-outs you expect from your government. Bush is a liberal. I am a conservative. I was oppoed to this plan. You and Ted Kennedy and Hillary probably jumped for joy!
Now, do you actually think Hillary will fix the 800 billion dollar trade deficit? We have not had a trade surplus with the world since 1974. Why did your friend Jimmy Carter not fix this? What would you do get the U.S. out of NAFTA and GATT? The trade deficit cannot be fixed without doing this. What do you know about economics and world trade? How will Hillary save the dollar? It has been going down since 1956. Housing? So the goverment should bail eveyrone out? Um...I thought you said Hillary would deal with the budget deficit...Please give me your answers..Thanks!
Sharon:
How much money did FDR spend on his war against Japanese and German Americans when he put them all in concentrations camps in the western states and in Texas? I thought Democrats were all good and Republicans were all bad? Please explain. Thanks!
Sharon Ash:
Hey, did you know Bush is following the lead of your good friend Democrat President Wilson who proposed Democratizing the world by U.S. military force. Have you ever heard of the war in Iraq as very Wilsonian?
I will not blame you if you actually know just about nothing and understand even less. Did you go to an under funded high school? Was that the Republicans fault too? I thought education was a local and state issue...Sorry,
Ames
Sharon:
Did you know that the Clinton's favorite Senator was Senator Fullbright of Arkansas. Bill worked for him. Hillary worshiped him. He was one of the worst Segregationsits ever. He voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act! Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincon was a Republican. Wow, I thought Republicans were evil??? Expain please.
Nice try on the rewrite neo-con scum, tediousman. you foreget to mention that Johnson was a repukeagain, and that the house under Clinton was majority of pukes along with the Senat. irregardless of how you paint your little Kaleidoscopes glass fragments the clarity you seek in honesty is short lived. Your distilled line of Sheit could use a little body to it,umm perhaps some substance instead of the runny swill you proffer heree.
Take a finger and stick it the exit hole where all this swill discharges from.
Then go read some history, you might find that your distortions are a reflection of your own stupidity.
Kyle:
You have a very bad memory if you think the Clinton's were good for America in the 1990's. It was Robert Rubin and some others who made the 90's, not the Clinton's. By the way, last I checked Hillary voted for the War in Iraq. Have you listened to any of Bill's speeches about Iraq pre 2003? He sounded just like the neo-cons ya'll love to hate.
Nightslide,
The sad thing is, I do not distort the truth.
Everything I have stated is a fact. Your boy FDR put over 100,000 Americans in concentration camps in the 1940's. This is a fact. Deal with it. What about this: The only reason the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed is because of Republicans. The racist Democrats in the South said no. The Republicans said yes..and it passed..Go look at the voting record on that you scum bag. You need to study the facts, not Ames Tiedeman. I know my history. Deal with it
[deleted] for brains.
Nightslider,
Are you in dispute with my trade balance facts? With Mexico? Please advise how my numbers are wrong. Oh, and we have not had a trade surplus with Japan since April of 1976.Did you know this? Is this the fault of George Bush too???? I assume you will tell me I have twisted this fact as well?
Star555,
Are you kidding? Eisenhower sent 35 advisros to Vietnam in 1956. Johnson said this then sent 200,000 troops in 1967: "I'm not going to send American boys 10,000 miles away to do what Vietnamese boys should be doing." Your so swisted. Do you work for the Clintons or the Democratic party? Robert MacNamara, the DEMOCRAT Secretary of Defense was getting American boys killed when he knew the war was lost as early as 1966. Did you read his book? Did you see him crying on national television 10 years ago with this admission? The DEMOCRATS have gotten more Americans killed in wars than the Republicans ever had. Get your facts straight. You are a shinning example of the twisted values and moral standing of the Democratic party. You want to provide health care to all, but then you get thousands killed in wars...
Start555,
Johnson was why the Vietnam War escalated. Do you even have a high school diploma? Did you even know Johnson did not run for office in 1968 because he got to many Amrican boys killed? What do you know about American history? Do you hate the Republican party for the sake of hating? What do you know about the Democrat Woodrow Wilson? What can you tell me about him?
News for you all:
IF YOU THINK ANYTING WILL CHANGE IF IT IS HILLARY, OR CLINTON, OR MCCAIN, OR ANY OF THEM, YOU ARE NUTS. THE STATUS QUO IS ALIVE AND WELL IN AMERICA. SHARON ASH ACTUALLY THINKS HILLARY WILL FIX THE TRADE DEFICIT. IS THIS A JOKE? WE HAVE NOT HAD A TRADE SURPLUS WITH THE WORLD SINCE 1974. HILLARY WILL CHANGE THIS???? THE SAME FAMILY THAT GAVE US GATT AND NAFTA? HOW STUPID ARE SOME OF YOU?
@Everyone:
Note: I am a life long proud Democrat
I have read each and every post here. Those of you who are arguing with Ames Tiedeman that his facts are incorrect, are wrong. Everything he has said about the Johnson administration and trade are factually correct. Look it up. I find nothing to argue with him about in any of his many posting. Let me ask you all, as Ames has, do any of you actually think the political parties are that much different?
Sharon:
Ok..I get it now. You want the country to be mired in hell. You want to see battle royal at the expense of doing the business of the people. I knew your true and vile colors would surely come out soon. You are the problem. It is people like you who ruin America. I am sure you hated Ronald Reagan too, who won 49 states in 1984. Are you always this angry?
NO MATTER WHO WINS, HILLARY, OBAMA, MCCAIN, EDWARDS, MITT, OR HUCK OR OTHER, I WANT AMERICA TO SUCCEED AND THE PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY. THIS IS WHAT MAKES ME AN AMERICAN. LOVE OF MY COUNTRY AND PEOPLE OVER PETTY STUPIDITY AND BICKERING. I AM AN AMERICAN, WHAT ARE YOU?
Sharon:
Give me a break. I love my country. You want nothing but gridlock and garbage. Your statement that you want to punish the neo-cons speaks volumes. It is pure rubish and so very un-American. If you love your country then you will want to see our parties work together to face the tough challenges ahead. I am amazed that you so hate the neo-cons yet you dismiss the vile behavior against Japanese Americas just a few decades ago by FDR. You say nothing about how the Johnson administration got 16,000 of our boys killed in 1968 alone. Your understading of how this country has been run for the past 50 or 60 years appear to be lacking. You have very littel depth of understadning of the real issues. You chose to hate rather than fix. You chose to be un-wise, rather than smart. We did not defeat Hitler as a divided nation. We will never tackle problems like the trade deficit if we simply fight one another instead of the issues. Perhaps you need to schedule one of your pyche sessions with yourself. Think about it, please.
Sharon:
Also, I hold no animosity toward you. The fact that you see issues differently than me is what makes America great. If we all thought the same life would be a bore and the country would be far worse off.
Besides, we would then have no one to debate and that would be the pits!
Have a great 2008!
Ames: This is a good sign, you have stopped using all caps....some anger is subsiding. I think we all love our country, but there is a lot of frustration because the stack of problems are so very high. However, we must never forget what our country has gone through under the Bush Administration and the neocons. If we fail to get everything brought into the light, out into the open, the same elements that brought our country to the brinks of disaster and shamed us throughout the world can rise again. The only possible good that come from the disastrous Bush Administration is that perhaps more Americans will recognize they must get involved in their government and pay attention to what is going on. I agree, no more hate in 2008 would be great. But all these crimes and misdeeds must be brought to light, and it will be hell for the neocons.
Sharon:
Both parties are to blame. In 1980 our total national debt was under 900 billion. It is now 9 trillion. Our trade deficit was 19 billion in 1980. It is now almost 800 billion. We need a new begining with new policies and new outcomes. Free trade has failed the American worker. Free spending has failed the nation. In the next 5 years if we do not get entitlements under control you will have to tax the people 75% of their wages to keep up. It is all one giant mess. We cannot keep paying the bills of China and Japan by buying up all their exports and closing U.S. plants. We need an industrial base to pay our own bills. Until this is corrected we will continue to suffer. Printing more money is not the answer. Bubbles are killing us. Look at real estate. Inflated prices and now inflated pain..
Ames:I agree with you that both parties are to blame, but certainly our country has never before seen the likes of the Bush Administration and the neocons. It is a new low, low for our country. And, we got in this situation, through the years, because greed is rampant and the ignorance (failing to become informed) of the voting public permits it to continue. But for this election, I just want someone to get in who knows our government, can navigate us to calm waters, until we get back on our feet. Real change has to come, but first we just need to stop the hemorrhage. P.S. I am through with this post for the day, have no more time for it, so you can have the last word! Later..
To Mr. Tiedeman: I can't believe that you are trying to say Nixon got us out of the war! We got out due to public pressure, and the fact that we could no longer withstand the losses. Generally, Republicans are a war-profiteering party, at least the neo-cons we now have in office. Unfortunately, the polititians don't have half the power people think they have; they are the instruments of power, but not the weilders. The people behind the scenes--the Bilderbergs and such--billionaire banklords, people in the Federal Reserve (which is a group of private banks working under a central, private bank-the "Federal" Reserve)etc, etc. Now, there are some of these true power players that also hold public office--usually, but not always, the Office of the President, the vice President, the SecDef, etc...these people continually go through the "swinging door." Like Dick Cheney: for several years he's C.E.O. of Haliburton corporation; then he's vice-President for 8 years, putting in place , for one real-life example, the geo-political conditions--and this is done through our military action in Iraq, and our negotiations and suchwith Pakistan. And this is also why we went to war (the real reason) in Afganistan (among some other reasons concerning the opium fields and the N.Alliance)and why we won there so quickly, and also why it is not listed as a terrorist sponsoring state, even though it is one of the largest. You see, we're running out of oil and the ground under Iraq and Iran contain some of the last major reserves. There was a plan to run a pipeline from the iraqi oil-fields all the way to the Pakistani coast, where ships could pick it up. Now guess who's building the pipeline? Haliburton. Guess what? Now we've appointed a mock Afgani government, and so the building of such, which had been put on hold because Afganistan didn't have a stable government, could now continue..and it will pass through Iraq. Which is why, at least to some degree, we're never leaving Iraq. Guess where the military bases we're building (which proves that we're not going anywhere)are located? Right along-side the projected path of the pipeline, which is now back on full schedule! And guess who's getting ready to need a new job, since he'll be leaving the White House? Dick Cheney, that's who. Any guesses as to where he might "apply"? Even if he doesn't retake his position of C.E.O. officially, my guess is that he owns most the stock, and/or will control from behind the scenes. Those who control money (and especially true wealth, and real money like gold, water, and food) control the world. Our country ceased to be free in 1913, when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, giving over to a private banking corporation headed up by John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Paul Warburg, one of the government's most--if not THE most--important of its powers, granted to it by the U.S. Constitution: the power to coin and regulate money. Also, in 1913, he bribed Phillander Knox to lie to the American people and say that the 16th amendment (the so-called income tax amendment)had been legally ratified by all the States; but this was not true..several key States never ratified the bill. But now the people started having to pay an income tax on their wages--an un-Constitutional Tax because the Constitution only allows 2 types of tx, direct and undirect, and direct--like an income tx--has to apportioned. The income tax, therefore, was a 3rd and un-Constitutional Tax because it was an un-apportioned direct tax. And in several early Supreme Court rulings, that have never been overturned, the Supreme Court ruled that "the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation to the government." Unfortunately, now, the I.R.S.rules by intimidation and because Congress needs that Income Tax money not for infrastructure,but to pay the interest it owes to the federal Reserve for the money the F.R. prints for the government. So, even our income tax money ends up in the pockets of these bankers, as Interest...even though, Congree does have the power to shut down the "Federal" Reserve, Congress has been corrupted...otherwise, why would they pay interest on money they could print themselves without any interest???It's because they never have enough money, so they get the Federal reserve the manipulate economics in this country so that we can continue for as long as possibly with printing money like ours tody--a "fiat" currency that has no real backing at all. Every time this has ben tried it has failed, but Americans have amnesia, among being possessed by greed. Which is why the economic collapse that's coming will make all past depressions look like "booming times." Unless we get off our assess NOW and take back our country, restore the Constitution, and kick out these aging, mad , power-hungry madmen and redistribute their wealth.`Americans--and this is due largely by the excesses of those at the top, but we could all do better at wasting less, etd--take up 5% of the world's population, but we use 25%! A quater! of its resources!!! And it is because of this that children around the world, and adults in our own country (cause we'll do anything for a baby..protect the babies, don't use protection that prevents pregnancy, outlaw abortion...and then, soon as they're 18, ship'em off to war.)are starving and homeless.
Alan:
Nice dissertation. You would be a great guy to debate in person. I appreciate your passion. Let me start by answering your statement about U.S. energy consumption. You are correct that we are 5% of the worlds population and use 25% of the energy produced. But, please keep in mind that our GDP is over 14 Trillion. More than any nation. More than tripple the size of the economy of Japan. Surely you would expect the largest, most productive economy in the world to use a lot of energy? On another point, Presidents and congress start and stop wars. Nixon laid the ground work to end the Vietnam War. Of course the public played a role. Keep in mind however that the anti-war movement peaked in 1969/70. We left Vietnam in April, 1975. This is a historical fact.
That one is really a hoot. Even their own brethren can see right through this smear. It's good to see that justice does get done from time to time. Funny that they have such an issue with revealing their financiers. Who are they trying to hide?
NEWS FLASH: Blacks Learning
'Goldwater Girl' Hillary Was AGAINST
the Civil Rights Act of 1964....Feel Deceived !
A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her 'civil rights experience' during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: "As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." But Novak's article states that there's a big problem with her statement.
The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes "...how then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?" He continues, "...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.' (Hillary worked on Golwater's presidential campaign)
Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College.
The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton's temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy." Novak adds, "What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign's panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton's plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.
While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago's suburbs who never really existed."
Blacks are stating their feeling of betrayment now that these truths are being exposed as they come to the conclusion that the fact is, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. King died for and as a 'Goldwater Girl' she was even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop. !
Greg 'Peace Song' Jones
Greg:
Great piece of work. Many forget that Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl." She was raised a Republican. She became liberal like so many, in college. I have not hear for a fact that she was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is well documented that Goldwater himself was against the measure. Many Republicans and Democrats were. George H.W, Bush voted against the Act when he was a young Texas Congressman. The Act passed when a number of Republicans actually crossed party lines and voted with a number of Democrats. Still fascinating is the number of Democrats who abandoned President Johnsosn on this one. The "Southern Belt" saw many Democrats say no. Thus the Blue Dog Demorcats and the Dixiecrats were born. Now, I want to see evience of Hillary actually stating she was against the Act before I will belive it. Senator Fullbright of Arkansas was against it. He was a staunch segregationist. Bill worked for him and Hillary admired him. Thsi would have been later than 1964, however.
Greg 'Peace Song' Jones:
I amnot sure where Novak got his facts. What sources did he site as clear references to Hillary being opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act? I cannot find anything credible on the web. Please advise.
Thanks,
Ames Tiedeman
Hillary just lost her legal battle in Nevada. A very smart judge ruled that folks can Caucus in the Casino's. I find it revolting that Hillary took this matter to court. Shouldn't someone running for President want to see an expansion of Democracy, not a contraction? She did not want the hotel workers to vote for Obama. How is this any different that the Republican party in Florida being accused of preventing minorities form voting? Who do you think works in the Casino's doing the beds and laundry?
Ralph: I have no idea what Mitt will do. There is no clear Republican leader so why would he drop out of the race? On Hillary, I now think she may win Nevada. The polls have her at 41 to 30 something for Obama. I still say South Carolina goes to Huckabee and Obama. We shall see soon.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
