Hillary Flip-Flops Again

[ferdville]

Several pundits have noted a move to the right by Hillary, especially in her thoughts on the war and immigration. Backers prefer to call her flexible. Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Centinel said " She's whatever she needs to be in order to advance the only agenda to which she is unwaveringly loyal: the power of Hillary Clinton."

Parker points out that after a ceremony for 9/11, she said that she was "adamantly against illegal immigrants." Hey, good news - someone in Washington who actually cares. Certainly Bush hasn't answered the doorbell on this issue.

However, one week after the London bombings, Clinton quietly voted against amendments to the Department of Homeland security spending bill that would have paid for more border agents next year.

In July, speaking to a Hispanic rights group, according to Parker of the Orlando Centinel, Clinton promised everything but the kitchen sink . She promised that she would support the DREAM act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minorities) which if it passes "would guarantee in-state college tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants, as well as amnesty to illegal immigrant students who graduate from high school each year."

Imagine what would happen if she wasn't "adamantly against" illegals. By the way, some of this is already law in California. You get to pay in-state tuition if you are an illegal immigrant. Which means if you come out from another state you are required to pay more despite the fact that you are a US citizen.

 

[ryson]

COMMENTARY
Hillary waffles while security suffers

"Clinton is reliably flexible. What she personally believes seems to depend largely on the audience."


8/7/2005
By KATHLEEN PARKER

The conventional wisdom is that Sen. Hillary Clinton has moved right, becoming hawkish on war, socially centrist and tough on immigration as she prepares for a presidential bid in 2008. No, wait, the conventional wisdom is that Clinton has always been a social moderate and is just reiterating positions she's always held. No, scratch that. The conventional wisdom is that Clinton is a socialist ideologue who secretly hates the military and wants to create a nanny state through universal health care and government-run day care.

Which of these is true principally depends on which you want to be true, as one can find some evidence for all. Clinton is, if nothing else, reliably flexible. What she personally believes seems to depend largely on the audience.

That's both the beauty and the problem of Clinton. She's whatever she needs to be to advance the only agenda to which she is unwaveringly loyal: the power of Hillary Clinton. And like all politicians, she benefits from the Uzi-style news cycle that numbs Americans into sensory exhaustion and glazed-eye passivity. Who can remember the last thing anybody said?

Illegal immigration, one of the issues Clinton glommed onto after Sept. 11, is a case in point. If you caught Clinton's WABC Radio interview back in February 2003, you heard her say that she is "you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."

This quote has been resurrected repeatedly to demonstrate Clinton's shift to the right, especially as a direct comparison to President George W. Bush, who seems more interested in schmoozing Mexican President Vicente Fox and, like Clinton, attracting Hispanic voters than in taking seriously the problem of sealing our porous borders.

How bad is it? The day of the London bombings, while the world was riveted on body counts, the Texas Border Sheriffs' Coalition was meeting in Del Rio, Texas, where those living closest to the problem described plausible and sickening doomsday scenarios. With 6,000 to 7,000 trucks daily crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, we are extremely vulnerable to a deadly attack, they warned.

Of greatest concern among illegals are non-Mexicans. Typically, Mexicans are returned home while non-Mexicans are taken to U.S. detention centers, where limited space means most are released and ordered to return for detention hearings.

To date, some 1 million non-Mexicans have entered the U.S. through Mexico, of which about 700,000 have disappeared, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News. No one knows how many might be terrorists, though rough estimates are that about 70,000 of those non-Mexicans are Saudis between the ages of 18 and 34. Ponder that as you abhor racial profiling and replenish your stores of duct tape.

Now, if you were Sen. Hillary Clinton and were, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants, you might do everything in your considerable power to tighten our borders. Instead, one week after the London bombings, Clinton voted against amendments to the Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would have paid for more border agents and more detention beds in fiscal 2006.

More telling than a particular vote may be Clinton's mid-July speech to the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic human rights organization. Speaking to thunderous applause, Clinton mentioned nary a word about immigration and all but launched into a hat dance while pushing every hot button near and dear to Hispanic (and especially Mexican) hearts.

But if you're serious about national security, then you're serious about illegal immigration. And if you're serious about illegal immigration, then you don't reward illegal immigrants with expensive promises while failing to make good on pledges to keep illegal aliens out. If Clinton is serious about being president, she'd better make up her mind.


Orlando Sentinel

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

The ultimate political add
--they say a pic is worth a thousand words--how about this for the ultimate campaign ad--without a word spoken--
--run these small video clips in succession--
>Dean and his vein poping rant--
>Bill and the ole scowling finger shake professing his innocense--
>Hiliary being last on her feet in standing ovation on war on terror speech giving the ole followed by a yawn--

Then add a few select print quotes of Reid- Durben and Kennedy dissing our troops.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

>Hiliary being last on her feet in standing ovation on war on terror speech giving the ole followed by a yawn--

I knew as soon as I saw that she was officially "unelect-ible" . Bad timing.

 

[djv]

We all should be last on our feet with that speech. Such constant B S. Now Iraq is a noble cause. More B S. I wonder what new words will be used next speech. You talk about flip flop.

 

[StevieD]

Follow those clips with the one Bush declaring he doesn't think much of bin Laden. That's the biggest flip flop of AAALLLLL TIIIIIMMEEEE

 

[ferdville]

This isn't about Bush, this is about Hillary. I think we have seen plenty of criticism of Bush.

 

[StevieD]

LOL why don't you call out DTB for bringing Monica and Dean into it. I know it must have went under your centrist radar! LOL!!! Not to mention Reid and Kennedy. Your true colors are showing Ferd.

 

[ferdville]

My colors are showing??? I think I am a lot more flexible than you are in regards to partison politics. My post was about Hillary and her ability to change her position on topics at this early date. Is she the only one who does it? Of course not. But my post was about her and didn't concern Bush or anybody else. The trouble with some people is that they just cannot accept any negative comments about a democrat. I bash Bush all the time. Don't remember you ever bashing a democrat, though I admittedly have no idea. Your stripes are showing...again and again.... Hopefully, you won't seek an "equal time" provision for this forum where every time a democrat is criticized, we also have to criticize a republican. If that is the new policy, it doesn't seem to apply to Bush bashing which is an easy thing to do.

 

[StevieD]

Ferd, your post doesn't make sense. You attack me for bashing Bush and you say this was a thread about Hillary, but you didn't bash DTB who bashed others also. I admit, I hate the lying SOB Bush. Feel free to bash me all you want for hating him. But if you want to say this is a thread about Hillary then call out all who brought up other names. Like DTB for instance. And don't think just because I bash Bush I am a democrat. I happen to bash the liar because he is the one in power who made the bad decisions.

 

[djv]

I don't care what Senator we talk about call all 100 flip flops. It's part of all there jargin. So I try to pick on them all. Lets face it they all bend over to special interest groups.
All I know is if we keep pro big business and there buddies in power a litte longer. We may get what we don't want. A nice rich class and the rest. And you can kiss a true middle class good by.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I didn't say a word about Monica--I do find it facinating that some equate any short comings of Bill as Monicas fault--

--back on topic - I used others in ad as physcological tie in to her and others to same party--not fair by any means but would be quite effective.

--As with Bobby --the minute she did the ole eyes roll thing my 1st thought was BIG mistake on her part. Extremely bad timing on her part. If she runs and they don't use it against her I would be greatly surprised.

 

[ferdville]

In the spirit of our evidently new policy on "equal time", I will say that it is apparent that Bill Frist has flip-flopped his position on stem cell research. At first he was in line with W's thinking, then he changed his mind. He has flipped.

DTB/DJV/Stevie D. feel free to comment

 

[djv]

Ferd I said it above they all flip at times and march to special interest groups. We may al come to believe our only out is term limits. Look at the new energy bill. Not one thing to try and help hold down cost now. Not even next year. But about 5 to 10 years out it might start to help. Sure we need that long range help. We also need some balls for right now. And the pork in it is on-real.

 

[StevieD]

Ferd, I notice you still have not called out DTB.
DTB you mentioned Monica when you said ">Bill and the ole scowling finger shake professing his innocense."
My only point being that none of your post is about Hillary as Ferd declared when he took me to task for doing the same thing you did. I picked on Bush and you picked on the other side is the only difference I can see..

 

[ferdville]

You might be right - but I still want you to criticize one Demo. Come on, you can find somebody if you try.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

I'm sure he would have no problem critisizing Lieberman, if he even knows who that is.

 

[StevieD]

I will start with Kerry. Here is a guy accused of flip flopping on one hand and also was criticized for being the most liberal senator. That means he had the most consistent voting record. Also a real war hero running against a guy who dodged the draft but he couldn't get that point across either. A great disappointment to me especially since he showed so much promise in his Veterans Against The War days.

Okay your turn go get a red stater!

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Kerry a war hero???? :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

Omg don't even open that can of worms I'll have a field day. Start an new thread if you're going to be making those priceless claims. :clap:

 

[IntenseOperator]

COMMENTARY
Hillary waffles while security suffers

Which of these is true principally depends on which you want to be true, as one can find some evidence for all. Clinton is, if nothing else, reliably flexible. What she personally believes seems to depend largely on the audience.

Give them enough rope.......... :clap: