Courtesy of the Washington Post, the top flip flops of the two remaining Democratic Presidential hopefuls:
(internal links omitted)
[i]Top Obama Flip-Flops
Monday, February 25, 2008; A04
Top Obama Flip-Flops
Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.
Public financing Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”
Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”
Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
Top Clinton Flip-Flops
NAFTA In a January 2004 news conference, Clinton said she thought that “on balance [NAFTA] has been good for New York and good for America.” She now says she has “long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA” and advocates a “time out” from similar trade agreements.
No Child Left Behind Clinton voted in favor of the 2002 education bill that focused on raising student achievement levels, hailing the measure as “a major step forward.” She now attacks the law at campaign rallies and meetings with teachers, describing it as a “test, test, test” approach.
Ending the war in Iraq In June 2006, Clinton restated her long-standing opposition to establishing timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. In a Jan. 15, 2008, Democratic debate in Las Vegas, she proposed to “start withdrawing” troops within 60 days of her inauguration, to bring out “one or two brigades a month” and to have “nearly all of the troops out” by the end of 2009.
4 . Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants In a campaign statement on Oct. 31, 2007, Clinton expressed support for a plan by New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer (D) to offer limited driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, after going back and forth on the matter in a televised debate. In a Nov. 15, 2007, televised debate from Nevada, she replied with a simple “no” when asked if she approved the driver’s license idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration changes.
Florida and Michigan delegates In September 2007, the Clinton campaign formally pledged not to participate in primary or caucus elections staged before Feb. 5, 2008, in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules. She now says delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, despite their flouting of rules that all the major Democratic candidates endorsed.[/i]
Interesting, yet not too surprising. The Clintons have made a career out of mouthing whatever they think the populace wants to hear, at that particular moment. And let’s not forget, they both are in fact, politicians ;-]
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Politicians changing their minds for money or to get elected?
THE WORLD IS ENDING!!! WHO THE FUCK DIVIDED BY ZERO?!?!?!
[/quote]
No one divided by zero, but looking at the candidates’ original positions is instructive of how they would govern if you think they’re inclined to lie during the election. Did they actually change their minds, or are they pandering for votes?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Politicians changing their minds for money or to get elected?
THE WORLD IS ENDING!!! WHO THE FUCK DIVIDED BY ZERO?!?!?!
No one divided by zero, but looking at the candidates’ original positions is instructive of how they would govern if you think they’re inclined to lie during the election. Did they actually change their minds, or are they pandering for votes?[/quote]
But what if their original position was dependent on money? Or getting votes in their district/state? Or any other number of things?
Romney was pro-life/pro-gay marriage before the election. Now, did he change his mind, or was his original opinion the fake? Would he change back post election, and risk losing a reelection? Or are a politicians morals so naturally flimsy that it’s hard to tell where the hell they PERSONALLY stand on anything?
But what if their original position was dependent on money? Or getting votes in their district/state? Or any other number of things?
Romney was pro-life/pro-gay marriage before the election. Now, did he change his mind, or was his original opinion the fake? Would he change back post election, and risk losing a reelection? Or are a politicians morals so naturally flimsy that it’s hard to tell where the hell they PERSONALLY stand on anything?
I happen to believe the later.[/quote]
If that’s the case, how are you evaluating them at all?
W/r/t Romney, he definitely swung leftward to get elected in MA. I suppose one needs to look at each politician’s statements in context of what they were doing at the time. For Barrack and Hillary, they were in essentially no-lose situations, so I think their original positions are quite instructive.
But what if their original position was dependent on money? Or getting votes in their district/state? Or any other number of things?
Romney was pro-life/pro-gay marriage before the election. Now, did he change his mind, or was his original opinion the fake? Would he change back post election, and risk losing a reelection? Or are a politicians morals so naturally flimsy that it’s hard to tell where the hell they PERSONALLY stand on anything?
I happen to believe the later.
If that’s the case, how are you evaluating them at all?
W/r/t Romney, he definitely swung leftward to get elected in MA. I suppose one needs to look at each politician’s statements in context of what they were doing at the time. For Barrack and Hillary, they were in essentially no-lose situations, so I think their original positions are quite instructive.[/quote]
True enough. The no-lose situation does put a good spin on things.
And I tend to evaluate things generally.
“Candidate X is most likely to support Y kind of legislation, and actions in the nature of Z.”
As opposed to - “Candidate X will support Y legislation and will take action Z1, Z2, and Z3 after being elected.”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Courtesy of the Washington Post, the top flip flops of the two remaining Democratic Presidential hopefuls:
(internal links omitted)
[i]Top Obama Flip-Flops
Monday, February 25, 2008; A04
Top Obama Flip-Flops
Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.
Public financing Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.
The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”
Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”
Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.
Top Clinton Flip-Flops
NAFTA In a January 2004 news conference, Clinton said she thought that “on balance [NAFTA] has been good for New York and good for America.” She now says she has “long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA” and advocates a “time out” from similar trade agreements.
No Child Left Behind Clinton voted in favor of the 2002 education bill that focused on raising student achievement levels, hailing the measure as “a major step forward.” She now attacks the law at campaign rallies and meetings with teachers, describing it as a “test, test, test” approach.
Ending the war in Iraq In June 2006, Clinton restated her long-standing opposition to establishing timetables for withdrawing U.S. forces in Iraq. In a Jan. 15, 2008, Democratic debate in Las Vegas, she proposed to “start withdrawing” troops within 60 days of her inauguration, to bring out “one or two brigades a month” and to have “nearly all of the troops out” by the end of 2009.
4 . Driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants In a campaign statement on Oct. 31, 2007, Clinton expressed support for a plan by New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer (D) to offer limited driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, after going back and forth on the matter in a televised debate. In a Nov. 15, 2007, televised debate from Nevada, she replied with a simple “no” when asked if she approved the driver’s license idea in the absence of comprehensive immigration changes.
Florida and Michigan delegates In September 2007, the Clinton campaign formally pledged not to participate in primary or caucus elections staged before Feb. 5, 2008, in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules. She now says delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, despite their flouting of rules that all the major Democratic candidates endorsed.[/i][/quote]
we could do this with every single candidate that’s been in the race or ever been in a race or ever won a race.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
we could do this every single candidate that’s been in the race or ever been in a race or ever won a race.
Yes we could, but since Obama’s only selling point is he is different from all those before him it is important to point out that he is not different. [/quote]
Uhmmm…
There would seem to be multiple ways one could be different, changing your mind or becoming more nuanced on certain issues is probably not the difference Obama is speaking of…
This is slightly different than someone who claims to be the straight talk express, but isn’t actually talking straight.
Yes we could, but since Obama’s only selling point is he is different from all those before him it is important to point out that he is not different.
Uhmmm…
There would seem to be multiple ways one could be different, changing your mind or becoming more nuanced on certain issues is probably not the difference Obama is speaking of…
This is slightly different than someone who claims to be the straight talk express, but isn’t actually talking straight.
[/quote]
Brilliant - so by saying things that don’t mean anything, he can’t be pinned down. That’s so refreshingly different…
Yes we could, but since Obama’s only selling point is he is different from all those before him it is important to point out that he is not different.
Uhmmm…
There would seem to be multiple ways one could be different, changing your mind or becoming more nuanced on certain issues is probably not the difference Obama is speaking of…
This is slightly different than someone who claims to be the straight talk express, but isn’t actually talking straight.
Brilliant - so by saying things that don’t mean anything, he can’t be pinned down. That’s so refreshingly different…[/quote]
I guess you’re right. The only way he could truly bring change to washington is if at the beginning of his political career every position he ever had or would ever have was promptly written in stone. damn it.
That would be such an incisive comment if you were talking about pointing out changes over a long period of time. However, you’ll note that all of the listed Obama flip flops above occurred during the second run of the Bush administration. It would be nice if his opinions, written in clay, had the chance to dry before he flipped over. Of course, it would be even nicer if he would quit embarrassing himself w/r/t foreign policy.