17 Comments

• 1. Uncommon  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

  So what? is how I reply to this. I have changed my opinion on many things through out my lifetime. There are things that I adamantly opposed, like less gun restrictions, a couple of years ago and now I would am vehemently for a nation-wide concealed handgun law. If my thoughts and opinions were a matter of public record this would be used against me but so what. People are allowed to change their minds. I am much more fearful/suspicious of people who do not change their minds about anything. Are they politically motivated? I’m sure they are but when people run for office they have to curtail their opinions to meet the wider consensus of the group they are before. You may insist that they shouldn’t do that but we all know what happens to politicians who stick to their guns. Ron Paul could have easily changed his opinion to that of a pro-war stance and kept many of his national issues the same and he would have been much more viable. Candidates also have to play to the national media and win their endorsement as the majority of people are to lazy to look into the candidates themselves. If you don’t like it then stop voting for these idiots that you have to know are lying to get into power - that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

• 2. Uncommon  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

  And if any of you are looking for an alternate pro-life candidate then vote for Ralph Nader who is running yet again. Nader is responsible for saving the lives of millions of Americans, how many other candidates can say that?

• 3. Canuckguy  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:32 pm

  Uncommon:
  Ralph Nader, though I go along that he did a valuable public service regarding car safety, he is just a one trick poney. He should not waste his nor other peoples time to tilt at windmills by running.

• 4. plainjane  |  February 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

  Republicans have the issue with politicians changing positions. None of those are from the very core of the person. I think it is great that Senator Obama has listened and now wants penalties for companies that hire illegal aliens. I think it is great that Senator Clinton is for slowing the pace of any more NAFTA type agreements.

  Now, if this second grade list of flip flops contained flip flops on issues that make up the very moral core of the individual, then we have a problem. If Obama is now for torture when before he wasn’t we would have a problem. If Senator Clinton is abandoning the more positive and progressive direction for the failed Bush administration’s neocon policies we would have a problem.

• 5. BARRASSO  |  February 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

  Wow that is a deadly hit piece, how can the dems recover from that? Should I point out McCain going from sane rejection of religious nuts to sucking up to the religious right, that was a far more substantial selling of his soul.

• 6. sleepygene  |  February 25th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  These are valid flip flops but St. John of Phoenix is not free of flip flops. He was for immigration reform now he is against how he would have like it done, he was against tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and now he for them being permanent, he was against the CIA using waterboarding as it is torture now it is okay for the CIA to use waterboarding. Also, on hardball at Ames, IA he said it was okay for gays to have a civil type ceremony that was akin to marriage and then when he came back from commercial on the same show he backtracked. Wow this is fun, you know sometimes politicians change their minds.

• 7. Kahn  |  February 25th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

  Uncommon said - “Nader is responsible for saving the lives of millions of Americans, how many other candidates can say that?”

  Well that would be George Bush fro stopping atomic weapons development in three hostile nations.

• 8. Ricorun  |  February 25th, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  Kahn: Well that would be George Bush fro stopping atomic weapons development in three hostile nations.

  Apparently you didn’t get the memo — you know, the one reminding people that Bush isn’t a candidate this time around.

• 9. congressive  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:04 pm

  Gotta love that liberal-biased main stream press. Boy, they certainly gave it to the Republicans in THAT article.

• 10. congressive  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

  BTW, the big news outlets just don’t get hyperlinks. In the Obama section, WaPo hyperlink “Obama” just in case you didn’t know who that was… DHOH! But they DON’T hyperlink to the full original story about “described union contributions” so there’s no way to know the truth. Short of a Lexus/Nexus subscription, you can’t see if the whole thing is a fabricated distortion.

  It’s kinda like if Matt ONLY linked the words “Obama” and “Clinton” to Wikipedia or something in this headline story, and didn’t bother linking to the WaPo article at all.

  And they get paid really well for this.

• 11. bagni  |  February 25th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

  markmatt
  deleted again?
  arrghhhhhhhhh
  ack ack

• 12. NeoClown  |  February 26th, 2008 at 7:38 am

  Hillary was right on NAFTA.
  NAFTA helped to keep US manufacturing competitive for more than a decade. China and India are hurting US manufacturing now. China and India even sucked all the jobs out of Mexico.

  Hillary was right on No Child Left Behind.
  Dubya sold NCLB as a way to improve education and hold schools accountable for their failures. Hillary had no way of knowing that BushCo had no intention of funding NCLB. Bush failed, not Hillary.

  Hillary is right on Iraq.
  Hillary says now, and always has said that the US should leave some troops in Iraq for as long as necessary.

  Hillary was right on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
  Someone is going to have to deal with this issue. Hillary was being honest and using common sense when she said illegal’s need to be identified. Maybe a driver’s license with a big red “I” stamped on it is a way to go. She did back pedal on this issue because of right-wing pressure.

  Hillary was right on Michigan.
  She said she would not participate in the Michigan Primary and she didn’t. She never said anything about Michigan delegates being seated at the convention.

• 13. NeoClown  |  February 26th, 2008 at 7:47 am

  Kahn,

  North Korea has not dismantled its Nuclear Program. NK says the US has been too slow with its fuel oil shipments so they have stopped the program.

  Iran has stepped-up its nuclear program.

  Who is the third country you are talking about? Libya? That’s funny. What was Momar working on, an exploding goat?

• 14. plainjane  |  February 26th, 2008 at 7:50 am

  Speaking fo flip fops; By the way, that reminds me of that “100 year thing”. My friends, the war will be over “soon”.

  Can’t nail the Repugs on a definition for Victory in the Iraq Civil war there is no way McCain will define “soon”.

• 15. Some Assembly Required  |  February 26th, 2008 at 7:53 am

  “Hillary was right on NAFTA.
  NAFTA helped to keep US manufacturing competitive for more than a decade. China and India are hurting US manufacturing now. China and India even sucked all the jobs out of Mexico.”

  The Government should apply heavy taxes to corporations who outsource jobs to other countries for cheaper labor. With such a tax it would in effect be cheaper to keep the jobs in country. Hillary has flipped on NAFTA and has tried and is still trying to distance herself from policy that her husband enacted with her support. I’m personally not entirely sure if she is trust worthy. But, then again how much can you really trust ANY politician.

  “Hillary was right on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
  Someone is going to have to deal with this issue. Hillary was being honest and using common sense when she said illegal’s need to be identified. Maybe a driver’s license with a big red “I” stamped on it is a way to go. She did back pedal on this issue because of right-wing pressure.”

  Nazi’s did something similar to jewish people during WWII. But instead of big red ‘I’s on their license’s it was the Star of David patches on their clothing.

  “Hillary was right on Michigan.
  She said she would not participate in the Michigan Primary and she didn’t. She never said anything about Michigan delegates being seated at the convention.”

  Her name was the only one on the ballot. I don’t know about you but I call that participation. Also, going after the delegates afterwards is ridiculous, not only because the Dem. party ruled against counting the delegates, but also because she is the only candidate whose name was on the ballot.

  I still believe any dem. nom. whether Obama or Clinton will be the next president in November. However I hope it’s Obama. He seems to have the most realistic solutions to the muck the Bush administration has put the US into.

• 16. Dave  |  February 27th, 2008 at 12:58 pm

  You crap all over WaPo at every opportunity and now use it as a source. Hilarious.

• 17. Almiranta  |  February 27th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

  Serious question here. Honest.

  Why and how did No Child Left Behind need funding? I keep hearing this complaint, yet no one has ever been able to explain why, if a teacher is already hired, to teach, asking that this teacher do his or her job well enough to be able to show that the children learned would cost more money.

  I am truly not being sarcastic.

  Is there one level of funding for teachers and another for teachers whose students actually learn something?

  Did NCLB require additional textbooks, materials?

  It has always seemed to me that if a school district, for example, had always been dedicated to the proposition that its teachers were there to teach the children, it would have already have hired good teachers, bought good textbooks, and made sure that the job was being done. It has always seemed to me that implementing a testing system, which was only intended to make sure that all children in all schools across the country were taught to the same level, would only have a negative impact on the really bad schools that had not been teaching to this level.

  So those bad schools might have to hire different teachers. Not more, just different.

  So what additional funding was necessary?

  Since Bush and NCLB have been introduced to a thread about current candidates changing their positions…….