The Politics of Flag Burning...how HC is screwing herself

Has there been a recent rash of flag burning? And if not, why is Hillary co-sponsoring a bill to criminalize it?

Is she really THAT stupid? I mean, ok, let's think about this for a second, from a purely political standpoint. Who supports a flag burning law and/or amendment? Generally, the fundies. Who thinks a flag burning law is unconstitutional? Well, aside from the Supreme Court, generally liberals. So Hillary's stand on this issue will piss off liberals, aka people who vote for her. And it will likely be seen as pandering (probably because it IS) by conservatives.

Hillary's political problem is this: she's the senator of one of the bluest states. People have already formed an opinion of her, particularly those who think she's a fascist commie pig. Those people are virtually 100% unlikely to change that opinion based on a single co-sponsorship of a bill they support. However, combine that lovely little step across the aisle with other recent conservative behavior and you can darn well bet that she's going to lose some of the liberals.

Does she not want to be senator? Perhaps. But this isn't going to make her president either. She seems to have forgotten that she has to win a couple of primaries before she becomes the Democratic nominee, and well, I don't like her chances. Given the choice between Little-Miss-Aisle-Jumper and virtually any other Dem, I'm gonna have to go for the other guy (or gal).

Note to Hillary: I used to worship the ground you walked on. I was often quoted as saying that if you ever ran for President, I'd drop whatever I was doing, rush to your campaign headquarters and volunteer. In the past 6 years, my dear, you have managed to fuck up so badly that now I'm fairly certain I wouldn't even vote for you. Way to go.

On edit...I changed the subject, and the first sentence no longer made sense :dunce:

No matter what Senator Clinton does or fails to do, she simply will not help Democrats in the red and purple states where they need to make greater inroads up-and-down the ticket.

Nominate Hillary in 2008 = possibly a narrow Democratic electoral college victory for her

Nominate Hillary in 2008 = Democrats definitely lose any shot at taking back a Congressional majority (regardless of what gains are made in '06)

The fundies have been crying for a Constitutional Ammendment to ban flag burning. They're just trying to create another wedge issue. HC has said many times that she does NOT support an Ammendment, but she'd vote for a law to man it.

I think she's creatively eliminating a Pub wedge issue.

Personally, I don't care if there's a law or an Ammendment against it. I'm not even sure why some think it should even be an issue at all!

The only people I've seen burn the American flag in a very long time are doing it in other countries, and our laws don't apply!

by pandering to the right. Sure. That's a fabulous idea. :eyeroll:

Maybe the Dems should try that on all of the wedge issues. We don't support constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, but we'll co-sponsor a bill that makes it illegal. We don't want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but we'll lead a nationwide charge to make it illegal in every state so that they don't have to...

Positively ridiculous.

tomorrow? Have you ever burned one? I haven't, and really don't intend to!

Why fight over something that really doesn't affect anyone's life?

The other issues you mentioned have direct impact on MANY, and of course we should stick to our guns in opposing them.

but I damn well want to keep my right to have one.

How often someone engages in the practice is entirely beside the point. Making flag burning illegal strikes a major blow to first amendment rights, which all of us use daily.

And it is not strictly a rw issue...polls I have seen indicate pretty broad support for an amendment...let alone a law. I think she is very skillfully removing the possiblity of a bigger push for an amendment, and at the same time burnishing her moderate credentials.

Support for a law is one thing, but how many of these people who say they support a flag burning amendment would actually CHANGE THEIR VOTE and vote for someone who co-sponsored it?

In other words, sure they support it on principle, but when it comes down to it, how important is it really? Would someone who is otherwise opposed to Hillary because she's pro-choice suddenly say "oooh, buuuut, she's against flag burning! I am SO voting for her!" Um...no.

It is one of the ways she is positioning herself with independents and moderates. It's a cumulative effect. She supports, or appears to support some aspect of these issues at the margin without really making any substantive shift in her stand, but gets lazy MSM coverage which plays it up as this move to thr right.

Despite what people in the DU bubble think of her, she is perceived in the country as a liberal (and she is). For her it is important to have that perception shifted somewhat.

people who think she's a liberal aren't going to change their minds just because she supports some stupid flag burning law. They think she's satan incarnate. I say this as someone who, until 2 months ago, lived my entire life in Nebraska. They HATE her, and nothing that minor is going to change their minds.

Meanwhile, those of us who would actually be predisposed to voting for her are getting darn sick of the "cumulative effect" and are NOT going to vote for her. She is, in fact, screwing herself.

Her target market are people who used to be called "Reagan Democrats," for example. People who are probably with her on economic issues, but dislike liberals on social issues. It's the same strategy Bill used with his condemnation of Sister Soulja for example. There is this large middle group of people who are uncomfortable with Democrats on social issues, who can be persuaded.

And I'm sorry but the puny number of votes she may lose with people who populate these sites will be more than offset by the other. And to tell you the truth, most of the people here who rail against her now will end up voting for her. As her voting record shows, she is well ensconced in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and contrary to what people here would wish, she is very popular among Democrats as a whole, and I think we will find she is more popular in the country than many here would wish as well

Nebraska specifically isn't her target market, but the city of Lincoln actually provides a decent cross-section of voters. It's basically white (as in neither blue nor red), contains ultra-liberals, ultra-conservatives, and a large percentage of moderates and Reagan Democrats. That's where I'm from and where my generalization is based.

The thing is, I don't agree that it's only people on liberal sites that are being completely turned off by her pandering. I think the lack of success by Democrats in general has proven that running to the middle doesn't win elections. I think that in Hillary's case this is even more true as she has fewer people who don't already have a very strong opinion of her.

DLC candidates have won the last four Presidential elections...

If other Democrats are being turned off by her pandersing it is not turning up in the polls which still show her well in front.

People always say they don't want pandering in their politicians...but the fact is some pandering works if it is applied correctly. And virtually every politician does it, no matter how liberal or conservative. And people always want to be pandered to when it the issue they are concerned about.

Politicians who don't pander lose...that's just a sad fact of political life in America.

didn't pander to the moderates. Neither did the vast majority of Republicans in Congress.

There's a difference between pandering and coming out as a hellfire, my way or the highway liberal. IMO, the Dems need to find the balance, and quickly.

What do you think "compassionate conservatism" was all about...the biggest pander of the last 10 years if you ask me.

Bush "won" in 2004 because of the war...plain and simple. As Jimmy Carter says, there are 10-15% of people in this country will vote for the commander in chief during a war, no matter who he is.

I would argue his Katrina response was a pander, his drug eenfit fiasco is a pander...he panders all over the place. He's obvious and not that good at being convincing...but he panders like crazy

I meant that Bush does not pander to the middle. He certainly does pander, but it's to the extreme right.

My argument was that one does not win elections by running to the middle. Bush certainly didn't do this, neither did the vast majority of Republican Congresspeople.

I would say the whole "compassionate conservatism" push was a pander to the middle, as was the lame medicare drug benefit debacle

No doubt he panders to the right too...

"compassionate conservativism" to be pandering. It was nothing more than a hollow campaign stump speech. To me, for someone to pander to a group of people they actually have to DO something. Like co-sponsor a bill, enact legislation, etc. for the purpose of enticing a group of people to support them. In my opinion, Bush didn't pander to the middle...he told them what they wanted to hear, sure, but it lacked the follow through required to be actual pandering. ;)

from future charges that she "voted to support flag-burning" when/if she votes against an amendment. :shrug:

Cuz that's where I think the GOP is going with this.

Byrd, Conrad, Durbin...just a few that have co-sponsored the flag burning bill over the years (going back into the 1990s). Why? Because its good politics. Its a ploy, but guess what? Ploys work. Its why the repubs use them so much. I have no problem with Democrats fighting back with ploys of their own. This bill didn't pass last year, or the year before, or the year before, etc etc. But it also has helped fend off the Constitutional amendment that the repubs would like.

So, IMHO, HC is not screwing herself, she's helping screw the repubs.

onenote

I would agree with you. But she's sided with them so many times recently, I find it hard to believe she's the least bit interested in screwing them. She's too busy screwing us.

in 1989. Five of the nine "no" votes were repubs. Moreover, Bush I refused to sign the law because he wanted a Constitutional amendment. He let it go into effect without his signature and it was subsequently struck down by the SCOTUS.

Now, if you want to condemn every Democrat that ever supported flag burning legislation, you're gonna have a long list.

Its how the game is played.

onenote

based solely on her co-sponsorship of the flag burning bill. To me it's merely the lastest example of a long display of pandering to the right. Voting for war, her recent comments defending that vote, the Bankruptcy Bill, defending BushCo (or not speaking out against them)...the list goes on...

It may well be how the game is played, but in Hillary's case I think she's going to lose.

Centrist.

you do know that, don't you.

Gives perfect time twice per day.

people that might like to vote for Hillary, but are asking themselves, is Clinton really as evil as those conservatives are saying?

Clinton wants those people to conclude, no, she's not the antichrist.

where Hillary is concerned? It seems to me like most people have made up their minds. Well, except for those of us who used to like her and don't so much anymore.

I'm from Nebraska though, and I can assure you that this will be seen as pandering and everyone who thought she was Satan yesterday is still going to think that today.

She's losing friends on the liberal side, certainly isn't gaining any from the other side, and frankly, I don't think there are that many undecideds in the middle when it comes to her.