Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
F L I P
Thursday, March 9, 2006 10:19 a.m. EST
2008 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton complained Wednesday that some Republicans want to impose a "police state" to deal with illegal immigration, arguing instead that illegals should be allowed to earn their U.S. citizenship.
F L O P
But just three short years ago, Mrs. Clinton took a different tack, boasting that she was "adamantly against" foreigners who enter the country illegally and saying that the U.S. should consider imposing a national ID card system.
"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview.
Clinton said the U.S. "might have to move toward an ID system even for citizens" in order to combat illegal border crossings, or implement "at least a visa ID, some kind of an entry and exit ID."
F L I P
Monday, Jan. 29, 2007 2:49 p.m. EST
During her first visit as a presidential candidate to early-caucus state Iowa, Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke out strongly in favor of boosting the production of ethanol in the United States.
But that’s a complete turnaround from her earlier actions regarding the alternative fuel, which is made from corn – and could provide a big boost to the economy of agricultural Iowa.
At a town hall meeting in Des Moines, the state capital, on January 27, Clinton said: "I believe we’ve got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that’s being produced here.”
According to an article in the Chicago Tribune cited in a release from the Republican National Committee, Clinton "took questions and spoke of boosting production of ethanol.”
And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Clinton "genuflected before ethanol, which is big business in Iowa.”
F L O P
But as a Senator from New York, Clinton has voted at least 17 times against measures promoting ethanol production, the RNC noted.
During a question-and-answer session in 2004, Clinton was asked about "her outspoken opposition to legislation that would double the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive,” the Des Moines Register reported at the time.
"She was momentarily stumped by a question as to why she opposed the ethanol mandate, but then said she was concerned that it would raise gasoline prices for her constituents.”
Clinton reportedly said: "I have to look to first protecting and supporting the needs of the people I represent right now.”
In 2002, Clinton even signed a letter that read in part: "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol.”
I R A Q I N V A S I O N
F L I P
Posted on 02/03/2007 7:47:13 AM PST by Ed Sistrunk
In perhaps her strongest statement to date, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Democratic National Committee members Friday that she would never have invaded Iraq in the first place and, if elected president, would end U.S. involvement.”If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war,” Clinton told the party faithful, some of them concerned about her 2003 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq — a vote she has not directly called a mistake.
F L O P
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
F L A G B U R N I N G
F L I P - F L O P
ST PETERSBURG TIMES EDITORIAL, 2005 - Sen. Hillary Clinton's decision to co-sponsor a bill to make it a crime to burn the American flag amounts to political pandering of the worst kind. She was against outlawing flag-burning before she was for it.
The New York Democrat says she opposes a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning but has signed on to a bill that would ostensibly accomplish the same thing by federal statute. Her position is unprincipled. Clinton may think this is a middle-ground position with broad political appeal, but most people will see it for what it is. . .
The measure she has co-sponsored along with Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, is the Flag Protection Act of 2005. One provision would make it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail and a $100,000 fine, to burn an American flag of "any size" if a person knows that it is "likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace."
The crime is not the act of burning the flag (since old and tattered flags are burned regularly by veteran groups) but to burn a flag in criticism of the American government when someone is nearby who cannot control his impulses. This gives remarkable power to those in our society who resort to violence in response to disturbing speech and messages.
T O R T U R E
F L I P - F L O P
BEN SMITH, NY DAILY NEWS - Despite her apparent opposition to torture, Hillary Clinton said in a Daily News editorial board meeting yesterday that the practice is acceptable in some circumstances. Clinton got a rousing reception from the human rights community, and seemed to take an uncharacteristically bright-line stance, in a recent statement on the Senate floor during the debate over torture.
"Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach?" she asked at one point, and left anti-torture commentators, and even Clinton critics like Andrew Sullivan, with the impression that she'd emerged into a kind of un-Clintonian moral clarity and said no to torture.
But at yesterday's Daily News editorial board meeting, it emerged that she's not actually against torture in all instances, and that her dispute with McCain and Bush is largely procedural.
She was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning water-boarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.
"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "
G A Y M A R R I A G E
F L I P - F L O P
DICK MORRIS, NEW YORK POST - AS she prepares for her presidential race, confident that New Yorkers will re-elect her, Hillary Clinton is working to position herself properly to win the Democratic nomination by adjusting, tweaking and, where necessary, reversing her issue positions. But last week's flip-flop on gay marriage, in which she said she would approve of state action to legalize it, came with some reconstructed history that tried to paper over her switch by obfuscating the historical record.
Her statement dismissed her support of her husband's Defense of Marriage Act as "a strategic decision to help derail a constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage."
Nonsense. I was in the room at the White House strategy meeting and was sitting next to the president when he decided to promote and sign the bill. Nobody was even talking about a constitutional amendment back then - 1995-96 - and no one in the meeting so much as mentioned the possibility. His decision to sign the bill closely followed my announcement of polling data that suggested overwhelming support for the legislation. . . Hillary supported her husband's decision to sign the bill and has often reiterated her position. Her recent announcement that she would now approve of state action to allow gay marriage is a flip-flop, pure and simple.
During the discussion at the White House strategy meeting at which the president told us he would sign the bill, adviser George Stephanopoulos cautioned President Clinton to "give us several days" to break the decision to White House staffers who might object. "Tell them we've created 4 million new jobs," the president said sharply, "and that they ought to go out and take a few of them."
H E R O W N N A M E !!!
F L I P F L O P
ON AN ASIAN TOUR, Hillary Clinton told New Zealand television that she had been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Pretty good trick, since Hillary was an unknown beekeeper the year of Mrs. Clinton's birth.
HRC ADMITS SIR EDMUND HILLARY STORY WAS FALSE
DANNY HAKIM, NY TIMES, 2006 - For more than a decade, one piece of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's informal biography has been that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, the conqueror of Mount Everest. The story was even recounted in Bill Clinton's autobiography. But yesterday, Mrs. Clinton's campaign said she was not named for Sir Edmund after all.
"It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add," said Jennifer Hanley, a spokeswoman for the campaign. . . But one big hole has been poked in the story over the years, both in cyberspace and elsewhere: Sir Edmund became famous only after climbing Everest in 1953. Mrs. Clinton, as it happens, was born in 1947.
Well, let's see now. Flip-flops on immigration, ethanol, health care, Iraq, gay marriage, flag burning......and several I haven't listed. Kerry's King Flip-flop crown is in jeopardy!!!! I am certainly not claiming that Hillary is the only flip-flopper around or that, as many people feel, flip-flopping is a Democrat tradition. I'm sure the vast majority of politicians on both sides have engaged in the sport at one time or another....but one can hope not while running for President. Anyone out there know of any flip-floppers, with actual quotes? Share them with us!