»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Let the Flip Flops Begin!!!!!
| The Alley |
|
Let the Flip Flops Begin!!!!! |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
IMMIGRATION 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." ETHANOL PRODUCTION 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 FLAG BURNING 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!  |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I'm about to become one. For 18, going on 19 years now, I've been a registered Republican. Never voted straight party line, but came awful close a few times. But I'm about to change that to Independant, so upset have I become over the Texan Republican Party, Governor and Legislature. So I was for Perry, before I was against him...but still voted for Kinky. And got Perry, whom I think is a RINO in disguise. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I've been a flip flopper for years. I stopped. But only because my arches are falling. sigh I expect, and want adaptation. For example, today, I kinda sorta cooked dinner for folks. When Norma, my vegan friend called, I was like, YIKES, hold on the cubed chicken for the salad--and keep the greens clean of tasso! Was that a flip flop? If it is, then I WANT leadership like that. Because that would indicate I had leadership that had respect, and CARED. and nope, didn't say whom I was voting for, but I think in these times, adaptability coupled with diplomacy is a specific necessity to ensure civility. These directly partisan stabs confuse me. I think they promote division and negativity--and? It's ludicrous, considering how many have jumped party lines to grab the vote in the past. I really wish the hateful partisanship would stop. It's like watching parents argue. "It's tearing us apart..."  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wrong, Serene One. It's what the Alley is about.. THE ALLEY This forum is for flaming, complainin', and screaming your head off. Respectfully, of course. I;m flaming, I'm complainin' and, after 4+ years of Bush bashin' on everything from his college drinking days to his service record to his disregard for prisoners' rights to his disdain for individual rights to his willingness to sell our ports to foreigners to...need I go on?...after 4+ years of that, yep, I'm screamin'...screamin' whenever I think things from the other side should be addressed....because others, like the ones who had nothing to say when government papers where shoved in socks and underwear and then destroyed, will not. If they want to scream partisanship, let them first check their own actions. no worries, Serenity. it doesn't tear us apart. This is the Alley...childish behavior is acceptable  Oh, and by the way, this was about Hillary, with acknowledgement that both sides engage in it and an invitation to view results from others. |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
"I really wish the hateful partisanship would stop." me too...  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's ok. The thread has many valid points, which I expected to be ignored. No problem.. |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
I wasn't attacking the thread, Mike... nor do I question its 'validity'... I just fail to understand why so many feel it necessary to constantly argue the 'points'... What does all the negativity really accomplish?... other than, as Karen pointed out, "tearing us apart..."? In the words of John Lennon... "All we are saying is give peace a chance" |
||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Thank you, Balladeer, for pointing all those out. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about before. Hillary is going along with the "political calculation" tactic. Whereas with many candidates, while one can identify their political movements by their voting records, their movements are generally not immediate and more subtle, whereas with Clinton, every movement they make is obvious, and thus feels so artificial, so opportunistic. There's a cartoon I saw in the newspaper the other day that epitomizes exactly how she welds with the issues; featuring an anti-war parade moving up the boulevard, and Hillary is hiding there on the street corner, shown half-hidden, asking her campaign advisor if she should march out there to the front of the parade and lead it or not. That's also how I feel about her recent four-day trip to Iraq to announce she was opposed to the troop escalation in Iraq and supporting a phased withdrawal, when Clinton was actually FOR funding the troop escalation as recently as a month before then. It was more a PR campaign than anything to make it seem as though she went to Iraq, saw the unrest there, "realized" or was "convinced" of the situation and acted tougher on the Iraq policy when she got back. I've kept a close eye on Clinton for some time now and here's a summary of her history toward her stance on the Iraq war, which you may find coincidentally mirrors the trend of public opinion from favorability to unfavorability: * October 10, 2002: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor in favor of a use-of-force resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying: "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt.” December 15, 2003: As it became more generally recognized that there were no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Clinton said she remained entirely supportive of the policy, saying to the Council on Foreign Relations: "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force. We have no option but to stay involved and committed.” April 20, 2004: On CNN's "Larry King Live", Clinton said that she did not "regret giving the president the authority,”, adding that Saddam Hussein "had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade.” October 2005: Clinton commented at the Village Voice: "I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don’t think it’s the right time to withdraw.” November 2005: The very next month, Hillary told her constituents in an exclusive letter: "If Congress had been asked [to authorize the war], based on what we know now, we never would have agreed.” December 18, 2006: Once again, the very next month, Clinton said on the "Today" show: "I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.” January 13, 2007: Clinton spoke from Baghdad about President Bush’s call for a troop surge, mentioning: "I don’t know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work.” January 17, 2007: Clinton called for a cap on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq while denouncing the "surge" of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, and suggested withholding funds for the Iraqi government. January 27, 2007: Clinton hit the campaign trail in Iowa and demanded that the president "extricate our country from this before he leaves office.” * Is it merely coincidence that she has gotten increasingly anti-war as the disapproval ratings continue to rise, evolving especially after her party's victories in last November's elections? In many respects, Hillary's biggest opponent for the Democratic nomination in 2008 is.....well.....Hillary! * * Anyway, we all flip-flop time to time. It's natural for people to change their mind about things, or re-consider things, and I have too. But there's an honest and dishonest way about doing so, and I feel quite a few 2008 hopefuls are doing so the dishonest way. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Hey Alicat, glad to have you as a registered Independent buddy with me here! Of course, in my case, I lean Democratic on a majority of issues except for tougher stances on illegal immigration, absolute right to gun ownership and school prayer, which are to an extent traditionally more Republican-favored issues (except for immigration, which has deeply divided the party). The rest of my family are registered Democrats, but I refuse to register as one because in principle I believe they're just as wrapped around the fingers of the elite and corporate oligopoly as the GOP are. My parents often argue wih me about my decision and try to shame me into becoming a Democrat, but I refuse and believe we need to take more principled stands against political correctness. By the way, I'm no Texan resident obviously, but I was rooting for Kinky Friedman all the way in his gubernatorial run and sent $30 to his campaign last July (my sole political campaign contribution of 2006) and have his collectable talking action figure. My parents jokingly threatened to break my action figure after Rick Perry got re-elected, saying I siphoned off support for Chris Bell, yet 1) Bell never impressed me and 2) it doesn't really mater in that I'm no Texan resident thus can't vote there.Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I could give a split vote if the Alley survives Mike. This may be what "The Alley" is about, but it is not what I am about, and I don't even think it's what YOU are about. I have a higher regard for you than that which is found in alleys. You know I hold you in the highest regard of the best of what our nation holds for us, and I promise you, if every citizen, acted as you did in times of crisis, no complaints would be registered. I just think it's time, what, WE, the PEOPLE, of THESE UNITED STATES, UNITE. Let's take care of our people who are cleaning housing projects to no avail, beleiving they will come "home"--let's feed those kids in Tennessee, and get them some books and shoes--let's go to Clint, Michigan, and find a way to revitalize neighborhoods boarded up long before a storm hit. Let's make environmental concerns, not concern, but LAW. And let's quit trying to interpret laws of scripture for others--while we fight amongst ourselves. Does none of this sound familiar? I read it, I read it, I read it and weep. If you, my dear friend, counselor and brother, can't understand my plea for peace, then what chance does a world of differences have? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Seenity gal, that's pretty far out. There's not really a choice between posting in the Alley and feeding the homeless.Both can actually be done This is just a little place on a poetry website where we can let it out once in a while between ourselves. It will not stop revitalizing neighborhoods or cause people to stop cleaning up the environment nor is it apt to tear anyone apart. To you and Vicky both I would say Amen....yes, let's all get along! Let's not have negativity. Let's work towards common goals. Those are admirable targets to aim for. I ask, however, where those pleas have been for the past 6 years? Politicians and the press have dwelled on pure negativity. In a fever to paint the administration with the blackest strokes possible, they have insulted, ridiculed, lowered the reputation of the U.S. in the world, divided the country, attempted to create scandal after scandal, jumped on every opportunity possible to cause divisions among ordinary citizens....where were the cries of "Let's all just get along" then? Where has been the outrage at the actions of the media and congressmen? I find it very interesting that, with the shoe on the other foot, now people want to avoid facts and say "Let's just forget it and live in peace". I would have liked to have had that for the past 6 years. As Noah was able to see, all I did was point out several areas where Hillary said one thing and then later said the exact opposite. That's supposed to tear us apart? Is Hillary so pristine that she should not be tarnished by any negative facts against her being made public here? An attack on Hillary now translates into hateful political rhetoric? I could take calls for peace a lot more seriously if I had seen them during the past half dozen years here...but I didn't. So why now? Instead of debating the facts (which would be a little difficult since her comments are actual quotes on record), I simply see people ignoring them and attacking the exposure of them instead. I'm sorry if it bother you, my friend. DISCLAIMER: The environment was not harmed not was any homeless person left hungry by the making of this thread. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
How is an ID card system opposing a plan to make illegals legal? I don't see how the two cancel each other out- both are possibleat the same time. And maybe she was just against making flag burning constitutionally illegal- an amendment to our constitution, to me, is much more fundamental than a law which seems in line with the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' aspect of free speech. And to the ones you've posted that could be more legitimately called flip-flops (I completley agree that she should stop defending her stance on the iraq war and just admit 'I made a mistake')... unfortunately mistakes and chaging one's mind on an issue is political suicide. But if Bush had said 'We made a mistake on the WMD's in Iraq' instead of continuously chaniging the rationalization (from WMD's to links with Osama Bin Laden to humanitarian rights) for war, I would have had a lot more respect for him. I understand that right now, even though it was a mistake to go in (IMO)- we are in the situation. Saying "Well, Saddam's no longer torturing poeple," or "I wouldn't ahve voted for it if I had known," neither of those points of view help where we are now. So instead of image, I think both sides should be looking at this realistically and in a non-partisan way. Unfortunately, as evidenced by this thread (and others, yes Mike, you're not the only one) that cannot happen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
yanno Deer, I wish we would all, recognize, that it isn't or shouldn't be about the party, or one or two issues....but an all around best person for the job. Lets say for instance, abortion...Abortion has been around since before we were born, and it's going to be around a long time after we're gone....so no matter what, the issue will always exist, but there has to be more to a person's capabilities other then how they feel on abortion, or on the gays... And yanno, it is a shame, they always, always put an independent runner in there who hasn't got a chance in the world, but will indeed take votes away from one or the other side. But to, it surely isn't a perfect world, and when ever you have two people, you will always have two different opinions....and wars have been fought from the beginning of time because of differences of opinions... yeah, Hillary certainly did flip flop, and the more she talks, the more she scares me...I don't believe in my heart, that Hillary will make a good president. She is "very" intelligent, but she is also, I believe ruthless...and doesn't look at the entire big picture of the effects of what her decissions have on others, she to me, and I could be wrong, is only concerned about being right. And also, she seems to be bashing Bush an awful lot...and to me, that isn't a fair or mature thing to be doing. We all know Bush is not on her top 10 list of Favorites, but I think she should now be concentrating on the future and issues... I think, we all should be asking her, ok, enough with the Bush bashing, thats in the past, if your running for President, I want to know, what you plan on doing about the War, from beginning to end, what do you plan to do about immigration, crime, corporate and political crimes...what do you intend to do about special interest groups....I believe is what we should be asking...each and every candidate. It isn't about the party, or how much money the interest groups give to their campigns, but it should be about the best man fitting into the position with all around qualifcations, including but not limited to, character and foreign policies as well. Mike, a very captivating thread...I'll be back to check in and thanks for the opportunity to join in. [This message has been edited by LeeJ (02-12-2007 10:53 AM).] |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Let me also make it clear that while I may seem coming out too strongly on Clinton here, I don't personally have any ill feelings toward Hillary Clinton. I believe there are some great intellectual qualities to her, and obviously most people admire her in New York as a U.S Senator. I'm just weary of any candidate who is this inconsistent on the issues, and it makes me question their ability to lead and govern this nation. While I believe there's a huge problem with having someone who is too stubborn and dismisses public opinion altogether, I also believe there's a problem when you have someone who is the opposite of that, and bases all their positionings solely on public polls and won't stand up for much based on intuition. I believe you need a medium of strength and flexibility. Anyway, this thread is dedicated to all contenders' flip-flops, and I'm about to share some from another hopeful. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. If Bush were in the bulls eye there would be less concern. I also suspect if Obama is even approached with the sort of criticism that Rice faces, (I recently read how one news reporter in a new book characterized her as the most incompetent Secretary of State in the history of the office), charges of racism will fly. . |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Next up in our "Know Your Candidates, Know Their Flip-Flops" series: John McCain. There's many more, but I've chosen five issues to summarize: * 1) *****Roe V. Wade***** FLIP: Washington Post: August 24, 1999 "I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." FLOP: On November 19th, 2006, McCain appeared on ABC's This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, said the following: * STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest. MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done? MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that? MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade. * 2) *****Jerry Falwell***** FLIP: CNN: February 28, 2000 "I am a pro-life, pro-family fiscal conservative, an advocate of a strong defense, and yet Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and a few Washington leaders of the pro-life movement call me an unacceptable presidential candidate. They distort my pro-life positions and smear the reputations of my supporters. Why? Because I don't pander to them, because I don't ascribe to their failed philosophy that money is our message. Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right." FLOP: McCain delivered the Commencement message at Liberty University on May 13th, 2006, in the Liberty University Vines Center, marking his first ever appearance at Liberty University. Meet The Press: April 2nd, 2006 McCain's office also confirmed that McCain had met with Falwell, and McCain later appeared on NBC's "Meet The Press" with Tim Russert on April 2nd, 2006, saying this: * RUSSERT: Do you think that Jerry Falwell’s ideas are now good for the Republican Party? MCCAIN: I believe that the “Christian Right” has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason is because they’re so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party. I don’t have to agree with everything they stand for, nor do I have to agree with everything that’s on the liberal side of the Republican Party. If we have to agree on every issue, we’re not a Republican Party. I believe in open and honest debate. Was I unhappy in the year 2000 that I lost the primary and there were some attacks on me that I thought was unfair? Of course. Should I get over it? Should I serve — can I serve the people of Arizona best by looking back in anger or moving forward? RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance? MCCAIN: No, I don’t. I think that Jerry Falwell can explain how his views on this program when you have him on. * 3) *****TAX CUTS***** FLIP: When Bush’s 2001 tax cuts went to the Senate floor, McCain was one of only two Senate Republicans to vote “no.” He said at the time, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” Two years later, another tax-cut bill came to the floor, and McCain voted against it again, citing the rising deficit. FLOP: Washington Times: February 27th, 2006 "Sen. John McCain, who has consistently opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, recently voted to extend some of them, a move conservatives say is a political flip-flop intended to further his White House ambitions. The Arizona Republican, who is the early front-runner for his party’s presidential nomination in 2008, surprised tax-cut proponents last week when he voted to continue Mr. Bush’s tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and other tax breaks in a $70 billion Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act." Wall Street Journal: February 2006 When asked to explain his decision, McCain said: “American businesses and investors need a stable and predictable tax policy to continue contributing to the growth of the economy.”, while not mentioning the issue of the deficit nor income and service inequality. * 4) *****THE WYLYS***** FLIP: International Herald Tribune: March 6th, 2000 In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, accusing them of spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. Not only did he file a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly: * "Mr. McCain also denounced $2.5 million in ads, paid for by two Texas businessmen, Sam Wyly and his brother Charles, that attacked his environmental record. "the message itself is, of course, ridiculous," the Arizona senator said Sunday. He called the ads, to which the Bush camp denies any connection, an effort to circumvent campaign spending limits. "Are we going to allow two Texas cronies of George W. Bush to hijack an election?" he said earlier in Boston. "Tell them to keep their dirty money in the state of Texas, don't spread it all over." * FLOP: Washington Post Politics Blog: April 21, 2006 McCain reaches out to the Wylys for support at a May 15th fundraiser: * "The most interesting names on the host committee? Sam and Charles Wyly -- the wealthy Dallas-based brothers who funded and ran "Republicans for Clean Air," a 527 group that attacked McCain for his environmental record during the 2000 primaries. In the aftermath of his defeat, McCain specifically cited the group in his plea for more and better campaign finance reform, saying the groups were "making a mockery of existing campaign finance laws." * McCain later quietly returned the money after he discovered they were under investigation for tax evasion. * 5) *****THE WAR IN IRAQ***** FLIP: Larry King Live: September 24, 2006 "I believe that success will be fairly easy." Wolf Blitzer: September 29, 2002 "I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." ABC News: August 22nd, 2006 "The American people ... were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach which many of us, uh, fully understood from the very beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking." * FLOP: Hardblogger: January 4, 2007 "I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough. And those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry they were mistaken. Maybe they didn't know what they were voting for." * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hush, the ID program was to identify legals and catch illegals. The flip-flop point of the matter, though, was the following; (1) "I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants," Clinton said in a Feb. 2003 radio interview. (2) 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. In the first, she is adamantly against and, in the second, criticizing Republicans adamantly against and instead offering illegals opportunities. On the flag, she co-sponsored a bill to make it a crime to burn the American flag but says she opposes a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.....she co-sponsors and condemns the same thing! I agree with you, Hush, on how Bush should have handled the rhetoric on Iraq and also that looking at the issues in a completely non-partisan way is the only answer. Unfortunately, I do not see Congress being able to do that. We can't even do it here. I thank you for taking the time to read and an excellent reply. LeeJ, yes, you have it exactly. There always seems to be some question meant to be a litmus test for a candidate and, should they fail that one test, it means they are unqualified. Asking them how they feel about Roe vs Wade has always been a standard. Politicians always come up with the same hot buttons every election.....health care, taxes, minimum wage. They can just keep the posters and re-use them every four years (the only difference being the Democrats threw away their "It's the Economy, Stupid!" buttons after Clinton left and they couldn't use them against Bush). Yes, Hillary is Bush-bashing but that is the norm. As Pelosi got caught with her extravagant demands for a 757, her reply was that it was a plot by the administration to make her look bad. Nothing is ever anyone's own fault. Noah, now you have it! Those are excellent examples. McCain is a pretty good flip-flopper himself as you have clearly shown. One wonders how such individuals considered to be so intelligent can keep shooting themselves in their own foot. They have to know that their comments are on public record and yet they contradict themselves anyway, as if no one will remember what they had said before. They go in so many directions they can't remember where they are. Serenity, Vicky and the rest, this is not hateful partisanship rhetoric. The presidential election season is upon us - way too early, in my opinion - but it's here. Candidates are self-proclaiming themselves and the wagons are loading up to head down the campaign trails. Every wannabe president will have issues that he or she will present to the public, goals that he or she intend to set, standards that they will claim they stand for. It is up to us to decide which ones we feel are being honest with us in the presentation of their platforms. How do we decide? We listen to their words and judge their actions. We look to see if they are consistent in what they tell us or if they are just pandering to whatever group happens to be in front of them at the moment. For those who have their minds made up - like to vote for Hillary, for example, no matter what - this kind of information doesn't matter but for those who sincerely want to look at all candidates and select the one which embodies their own priorities and is one they feel they can trust to follow through with his/her promises, information like this can be invaluable. I confess that McCain has been high on my list of candidates. Today, on the radio, I heard reports of how he is accumulating the "soft money" he has so often condemned in the past. Noah has added some fuel to that. I will have to look at McCain a lot closer than I would have without this information. That's fine. I need to know if he's a person I could believe in or not. That should be what all of us are looking for and factual information like this is an asset and very accessible to all, thanks to the internet. Information will help us to make more intelligent choices. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Again, I want to make clear that I'm not pointing out these flip-flops by means of disgracing or slanderizing the individual. I believe every candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, and I respect John McCain immensely for dedicating decades of his life serving this country, from the military to his job as a senator. I simply believe we need to consider the consistencies of EVERY candidate in the race, and there's some who are more consistent than others, and those who are more honest when they mature or change their mind on the issues than others. And while I certainly don't question the passion and dedication of either Clinton nor McCain, nor would ever accuse them of being bad people or anything, I also admit I don't trust them intuitively leading our country, gauging by their frequent, and abrupt, swaying on a breadth of issues. That's what I believe this thread is all about, or hope it'll be about, just as I believe was Michael's intent; analyzing each candidate's take on the issues and questioning what might explain 90 or even 180 degree departures in instances. Candidates from both parties will be analyzed, and I'm sure much can be brought up about, say, Mitt Romney and John Edwards easily as well. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. My own opinion is that civilization prospers not because but despite its leaders John . |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
yes, John, you may be right, but also, when corruption comes from the top, it filters or trickles down into all else eventually. I don't know how, but somehow, people have to be held accountable and responsible for their actions.... How do you clean up this coutry? How do you clean up it's politics? All this stuff didn't just start with the Bush Administration, it's been going on for years and years...subtly.... Michael, I'd be interested to know what your take is on all this...I mean, during the debates a person can say they're going to do this and that, but in reality, once in...they can completely turn things around...I suppose you gotta hope your voting for someone who honestly cares about doing a job for the people...I sometimes think, our government forgets who pays them? Thanks for this thread. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's what I believe this thread is all about, or hope it'll be about, just as I believe was Michael's intent; analyzing each candidate's take on the issues and questioning what might explain 90 or even 180 degree departures in instances. Yes, you are right, Noah, although I confess that I DO question the passion and dedication of Hillary, not it's presence but it's aim. Her record is too long. She has a long list of very dubious dealings which were meant to further her interests and nothing else. Yes, I believe she is passionate about wanting to be President, but but only for her personal interests and not because she wants to serve the United States. If a choice came down between her own interests and the interests of the United States I feel the US would be a distant second. I also believe that many people can see that on both sides of the aisle. It would actually be interesting if she WERE to get the Democrat nomination because then she would be questioned on points that were basically swept under the rug by the media with Bill in office. Points such as.... The disappearance of the Rose law firm billing records, their later discovery in the White House and Hillary Clinton's inability to explain how they got there. - Her role in the Whitewater development which was - although the media refuses to admit it - simply a land resort scam and one that was particularly aimed at seniors.Two months after commencing the Whitewater scam, Hillary Clinton invests $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she has a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million. - Her role in the White House travel office firings apparently aimed at favoring the travel firm that bankrolled Bill Clinton's campaign by delayed billing .The White House fired seven long-term employees for alleged mismanagement and kickbacks. The director, Billy Dale, charged with embezzlement, would be acquitted in less than two hours by the jury. An FBI agent involved in the case, IC Smith, would write later, "The White House Travel Office matter sent a clear message to the Congress as well as independent counsels that this White House would be different. Lying, withholding evidence, and considering - even expecting - underlings to be expendable so the Clintons could avoid accountability for their actions would become the norm." - Her role in the use of FBI files on political opponents and the open question of what information from these files she still possesses. - A case, still in court, involving the alleged failure to report over a million dollars in campaign contributions. Clinton's Senate campaign has already been fined by the FEC for failing to accurately report $700,000 in contributions. - Her relationship with such indisputably dubious persons such as Johnny Chung, John Huang, Ng Lap Seng, Mochtar Riady, the McDougalds, Craig Livingstone, Webster Hubbell and Jorge Cabrera. She will also have some explaining to do to the unions about her six years on the Board of Directors for Wal-Mart. These things were all barely touched by the media but they will surely come out for more investigation should Hillary get the nod. Of course, she will claim they are simply throwing mud and using despicable tactics by digging into the past but she will still be called on them, I assure you. That's why I say, Noah, that I feel she would be bad for the country and that I feel the country would receive less consideration from her than her own personal drive for power and gain. What do Democrats think about her? BRETT ARENDS BOSTON HERALD - Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he's never seen anything like it. "Lying b---- . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.". . . These weren't Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren't even independents. These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as "likely" voters in the pivotal state's Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying. . . Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He's been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors. . . "Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.". . . We're not talking about "soft" negatives like, say, "out of touch" or "arrogant." We're talking: "Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak." http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=151737 On all of the other candidates, I do believe they would run for President believing that they could do a good job for the country and it will be interesting to see if and how their campaign "promises" conflict or hold true. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
We're not talking about "soft" negatives like, say, "out of touch" or "arrogant." We're talking: "Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak." my girlfriend once said the very same thing about her...and also Rice sheesh, Mike???? I'm shocked, some of this stuff I knew about and forgot, but a lot of it I didn't know about. Thanks so much for doing your homework. I really don't want to see someone with that kind of background in leadership of our country. I'm going to send your comment to my girlfriend, if you don't mind. She will be very interested in this. now, I'm going off to hit my head against the wall for forgetting this stuff....  Many thanks |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I absolutely agree with you on Hillary too, Michael, and those things you pointed out are actually epitomal to why I haven't trusted Hillary as a 2008 hopeful from the beginning, which I have been well aware of as well. There's something artificial as it is of saying you're going to run for the U.S Senate just after your husband has left office, and then announce after your first term you have high presidential aspirations. I believe she knew well that getting elected to the U.S Senate would provide an expressway to the presidency for her, and there truly isn't any state like New York to set off that kind of promotional blitz. Without a doubt I believe it's Republicans who are far more ecstatic about Hillary running than most Democrats. You might recall just after the 2004 presidential elections that cable news programs were already discussing the viability of a 2008 Hillary Clinton run for the White House, and Newt Gingrich came on one program to discuss it and was actually praising Hillary and saying how credible of a candidate she is. And it's absolutely obvious why this would happen four years before the next presidential election; they know Hillary will all but certainly lose a general election because the GOP KNOWS they instantly have over 200 electoral votes in the bag because of all the rural states, and could simply concentrate their vast efforts and wads of cash on those several swing states they need to take the election. Plus, 94% of the American public already has its minds made up about her, and that reflects how incredibly polarizing of a political figure she is, who appears anything but forthcoming when she tries to re-define herself and undo her previous votes on positions. I believe the real reason many have been silent about Hillary's corruption problems is because the GOP KNOWS it's wise to wait, watch Clinton dominate the fundraising race, dominate Super Tuesday with California and Florida moving up in the primary calendars, win the Democratic nomination, and THEN use all of Hillary's wobbliness against her. It's the PERFECT strategy for an assured 2008 White House victory for the GOP, and it's absolutely smart. If anything, I'm surprised it's not members of Hillary's OWN PARTY that are publicly bringing up these charges, particularly that 45% you reveal in that poll, when the money race has already begun and Hillary has a clear advantage. If I were the chairman of the RNC, I would be all smiles about that. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I don't agree with flag burning being a crime. I actually think it is ridiculous. Clothing manufacturers make American flag underwear; does that seem strange to you? What some people do in their American flag underpants is fifty times worse then burning it. (Talk about profiting from everything.) I don't know about this nonsense that burning a flag invokes violence. Bull. Burning a flag is a product of violence and anger not the other way around. Let's say someone in the U.S. burns an Iraqi flag; will that make you want to join the army and shoot some Iraqi people? I doubt it. So if they outlaw American flag underpants, then they can justify flag burning but until then... Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Balladeer, I have something here I believe you would be most interested in reading, as indeed I have been just now regarding Hillary Clinton: * National Ledger: February 13, 2007 * I believe the following are indeed questions that are on the minds of many Americans, regardless of political affliation. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Mike - evidence of the transition... http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=360722 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Love it, Chris! I e-mailed it to my pal Bill and he got a kick out of it, too  |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Gosh Mike, I didn't know you and Bill were that close. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Awwww! That's "Hilarious." But this one could very well represent the downfall of all American men and women. http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=360551 The cheeseburger, of course. Hehe. I'm thinkin' they all wear flip-flops with their outfits. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
