Editor’s Note – The Clintons and their advisors sure are cocky, or is it dense, to think they could walk out “Hillary-2015 talk,” knowing full well, her “Hillary-2003 talk” is diametrically opposed. Who is she now? What will “Hillary-2016” be, or the following versions in later years?
The are cocky, because they think America will forget the 90’s scandals, and the Benghazi scandal, and the Missing Emails, and the “home-brew” server, and the Clinton Foundation, and Bill’s speaking fees, and Bill’s libido and shady friends…etc., etc., etc, well maybe the Democrats will.
Just a week ago, before the audio clip was found, she was already being called a “Pander-bear“:
If a candidate reverses a long-held position is it a “flip-flop” or someone who is “not afraid to run as her own woman?” That seems to depend on who’s doing the flopping. In the three weeks since the official launch of her second presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, has been moving left in a hurry. (Read more at Fox News here.)
Read on about the audio uncovered and then read a tongue-in-cheek op/ed on it below with two videos:
Though you wouldn’t know it from her remarks earlier this week, Hillary Clinton was once “adamantly” against illegal immigration and was for erecting a border fence similar to one that protects Israel.
“I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” then-Sen. Clinton said on the John Grambling radio show in Feb. 2003. “Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders,” she said, adding that, “people have to stop employing illegal immigrants.”
The interview was unearthed and released by the Republican National Committee on Thursday. Notably absent from her remarks this week was the issue of border security.
In 2006, she told the New York Daily News that while she favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, she also wanted to build a fence in some areas along the southern border. “A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations,” she told the New York Daily News in April 2006.
“There is technology that would be in the fence that could spot people coming from 250 or 300 yards away and signal patrol agents who could respond,” she continued, while suggesting that the U.S. could model its fence after the one protecting Israel.
But Clinton did not utter the words “border” or “fence” during her remarks Tuesday. She also did not speak of opposing “illegal immigrants” or “illegal immigration” as she did in 2003. The interview was unearthed and released by the Republican National Committee on Thursday.
“Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties,” Clinton continued. “Stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to get yard work, and construction work, and domestic work.”
Those remarks are remnants of a distant political past for Clinton, who unveiled her new stance on immigration at a roundtable discussion at a Las Vegas high school on Tuesday. Clinton called for a path to citizenship for all and said that she would act unilaterally to extend amnesty to many more undocumented immigrants in the country. (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller by Chuck Ross.)
That pretty much wraps up the huge flip-flop that even out does Obama’s change in stance on same-sex marriage that he took to get elected, and then to stay elected.
As usual, the Democrats will say and do anything to get elected – its about the power, not the good deeds. If America elects someone willing to go further left than Obama, say goodbye to what is left of the once grand and powerful USA.
No for a little tongue in cheek explanation of what may happen from AllahPundit at Hot Air:
Audio: “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” says … Hillary Clinton
Via Jeff Dunetz, a time capsule from 2003 rescued from the memory hole by GOP oppo researchers. We already knew she said this, but knowing it and having it available as a soundbite for attack ads are two different things.
It’ll come in handy next summer when she’s busy trying to convince Latinos that our inevitably pro-amnesty Republican nominee, who may well himself be Latino or have children who are Latino and who’ll probably have a Latino running mate, hates illegals because many are Latino.
The attack ads won’t work, though. The whole point of Tuesday’s pander-monium with DREAMers in Nevada was to assure amnesty fans that she’ll say or do virtually anything to make Latinos show up for her the way they did for O. Legal status for parents of young illegals? Consider it done, even though the Obama White House says the president lacks the authority to do that. (Seriously. Watch the [
second] clip below.)
Legal status for adult illegals who don’t even have kids? No word on that yet, but all immigration activists have to do is ask. If anything, this soundbite is useful leverage for the open-borders left to extort even bolder campaign promises from her. “How can we trust someone who once said she adamantly opposes illegal immigrants unless she promises to unilaterally legalize America’s entire illegal population as president?”
I wonder if there’s any old position of Hillary’s, in fact, that will be held against her by the left despite her furious attempts to get right with them before Warren 2016 gains real momentum. Your best bet is her opposition to gay marriage, partly because it’s achieved the status of a moral litmus test on the left that immigration reform hasn’t and partly because Hillary can always point out that Obama has also disappointed liberals on immigration. (Executive amnesty made them happy but a comprehensive immigration bill passed when he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would have made them happier.)
The irony is, while SSM fans can tell themselves, correctly, that Hillary will do more for them as president than a Republican would, it’s actually not necessarily true that she’d do more for them on immigration than a Republican would. If you’re eager to see fragile executive action replaced with durable statutory solutions, President Jeb Bush is probably more likely to broker a compromise in Congress than President Hillary Clinton is.
Republicans in Congress might oppose a Hillary White House on immigration simply to land a blow against a new Democratic president; with a Bush White House, they’d be inclined to hand him a major victory to start his term. But there’s no point trying to argue strategy on this. Hillary will pull 65 percent of the Latino vote at a minimum, “adamant” opposition to illegal immigrants or not.