Hillary Clinton Co-Sponsors Anti-Flag Burning Bill
December 05, 2005
Senator Hillary Clinton is supporting a bill that would ban flag burning, but she is opposed to a constitutional ban on the act.
Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else's flag.
A spokesperson for the Senator says Clinton supports making flag burning a crime, but is hesitant to amend the Constitution.
Clinton's move to co-sponsor the bill is seen by many observers as an apparent attempt to win over conservative voters as she preps for a possible run for the White House in 2008.
Sen. Clinton is trying to butter her bread on both sides. While she says she opposes a Constitutional amendment banning the burning of the flag, she says it should be a crime to burn it on federal property or to use it to intimidate someone or to burn their flag. This is horrible politics, and her move to gain more voters by moving to the right where she is more comfortable will likely backfire.
The last two are already illegal. Threats are not protected speech. Destruction of someone's property is illegal. But burning a flag on federal property? That absolutely should be protected. Federal property includes national parks, monuments and memorials. In fact, it would include most of Washington, D.C.!
I have long claimed Hillary Clinton was a moderate and even zagged into conservative terratory at times. Her reputation as a leftie is greatly eggagerated by her affiliation wil nationalized health care. She is responsible for some of the tugging to the right Bill Clinton endured in the mid-1990s. She is no leftie. She even used to be a "Goldwater Girl."
Sen. Clinton makes this move at a time when she knows the right to dissent should be protected and affirmed. Now, more than ever, the freedom to speak out and protest -- even while repulsive to some -- must be guarded. Sen. Clinton would trade temporary political gain with a sliver of the electorate for the trust placed in her by not only her constituents but millions of Americans who have seen her as a leader and thoughtful voice from the left. What will most likely happen is that the people she hopes to gain favor with will see this for what it is -- a sop -- and those who helped her get where she is will start looking for someone who does not smack of tracking-poll politics as much as her husband did.
This stings, Hillary. I thought you were better than this. You lost my respect and you probably lost my vote.
-- Wenatchee, Wash.
17 comments:
Think what you want about Clinton, but I challenge you to find 5 conservatives who don't think she's very liberal.
Of course they would. That's why they're conservatives. She'll be left of any of them even though she's fairly moderate.
Nah, Joe Lieberman's a moderate. So is McCain...imo.
Lieberman needs to cross the aisle where he belongs and McCain hides his true conservatism well.
Think what you want about Clinton, but I challenge you to find 5 conservatives who don't think she's very liberal.
So? I don't base my opinions on polls of the misinformed.
I hate to say this, because the right does so despise her, but I wouldn't vote for Hillary in a million years -- nor for any Democrat who supports this war.
*SIGH* I have to wonder why I'm the only person who posts on my ex-journalism teachers blog that's not a war hating coward. What's trendy isn't always what's right.
Looks like Hillary won't get elected if she runs. Two reasons.
1)The true right knows who she really is.
2)She's turning off the left by trying to butter the right.
*SIGH* I have to wonder why I'm the only person who posts on my ex-journalism teachers blog that's not a war hating coward.
You're so brave, Mr. Last Name Withheld. I wish I had the balls to want young people to die in a pre-emptive attack launched for made-up reasons.
Tom Peyer
I'm starting to think people are so blase (spelling?) about this war because they aren't connected to it. With Vietnam the draft made the war personal. With so much of this war on TV (almost creating a movie for viewers to enjoy at home) and so few deaths hitting every hometown, it's easy to be aloof and distant.
What people aren't so quick to see either is that this war is creating a higher number of amputees and permanently disabled veterans (rather than deaths) because of medical advances. Field medicine has truly progressed.
It's sad to see such blind faith in a war that should never have started, wasn't really justified, and continues with no end in sight. How long have we been in Germany and Korea? I think that's what we have to look forward to.
You're slacking off again Logie. Post something new!
Yeah superfrankenstein, you don't have balls and it shows. This is the kind of bullshit I'm talking about. You've obviously lived a sheltered life or have watched way too many movies, because you're one of many people who think that there's no reason for people to die anymore. Yeah, it sounds morbid, and that's why your views are so popular today. Socialism is EASY to sell.
"Our young boys are dying! Yet you still suppor this war!? Why do you want people to die?"
"Free lunch programs feed starving children!? You don't hate children do you!!!?"
"Socialized healthcare means everyone gets healthcare for free!? How could that possibly be bad you idiot!??!"
"If we outlaw guns, then nobody will shoot eachother anymore! Why would you be against that!?"
Oh well, if you thinking undermining this war so that we don't win and thinking negatively is a much better approach, that's fine with me, but that's seriously the last time I ever want to hear another cheap shot about young people dying at war.
This is the first time there has been a "pre-emptive" war started by the U.S. Iraq did not attack the U.S. so the "keeping the U.S. safer" line doesn't work, and don't give me the "keeping the world safer for democracy" because a genocide is occurring right now in the Sudan and our government does nothing. Next, we'll hear the line about terrorists taking shelter in Iraq, but that occurred after we invaded and disbanded the Iraqi army leaving the borders so porous as to be undefendable or patrollable.
Genocides are happening in a lot of places and there are just as evil people as Saddam too, I agree. However, while we have troops in other countries and allies fighting elsewhere, a nice pro-United States government being set up in Iraq will grant us a huge advantage over the terrorists of radical islam. Besides, when the 3 best intelligence agencies in the world claim evidence of a possible (no matter how far-fetched the information was and no matter how doubtful the adminstration was) attack on the United States, why risk anything?
So, we'll be attacking China, North Korea, Iran, and others when we finish in Iraq, eh?
"no matter how far-fetched the information was and no matter how doubtful the adminstration was" That is scary reasoning to justify a war!
"no matter how far-fetched the information was and no matter how doubtful the adminstration was"
Even considering the threat?
Suddam was no threat to the U.S. Osama attacked the U.S., not the Iraqis. This is exactly the type of innuendo the gullible public has swallowed because of the Bush Administration's creative statements. While the White House doesn't directly connect the two (Iraq and 9-11), they repeat the names in close proximity to allow the minds of the weak to connect them, thus justifying your reasoning. Again, what was the threat to the U.S. from Saddam?
You've obviously lived a sheltered life or have watched way too many movies
Adam, I'm rubber, you're glue.
Okay then, even considering the perceived threat?
That percieved threat being WMD's and links to the terrorist organization that DID attack the united states. Of course it proved to be all untrue, but what if it weren't? The information was doubted by many, Saddam was a pain in the ass with inpections, and at what point should the decision be made? We took the conservative approach in going in before something happens but Bush made a mistake by not giving other good reasons to invade Iraq whether or not the intelligence was true.
Post a Comment