...Who is the biggest flip flopper of all time?

Question

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

Answer 1

My votes goes to Hillary Clinton, who in one debate managed to flip-flop on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in two consecutive sentences.

Answer 2

George Bush SR.

"Read my lips, no new taxes."

and his boy

"I don't think our troops should be used for what's called nation building."

Answer 3

I would say John Kerry and his Democrat Gangs.

"I(we) voted against the War before I(we) vote for it after I(we) voted against it again."

Answer 4

Mccain who changes his mind at every dollar that lines his pockets.

Answer 5

Obama ...

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets ...

(1 OBAMAISM) The Illinois Senator incorrectly says Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan (but Afghans don’t speak Arabic). Later corrected mistake.

(2 OBAMAISM) Obama also stressed need for agricultural specialists in Afghanistan to help develop other crops than heroin poppies (but oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance).

(PREVIOUS OBAMAISM #1) “I am a patriotic citizen of the United States — all 57 of them!”

(PREVIOUS OBAMAISM #2) “Timmuh, er, Matt, er Timmuh, er Matt” (he repeatedly confused Matt Lauer with Tim Russert — which is impossible, even if one only considers the dramatic physical differences!)

(PREVIOUS OBAMAISM #3) In early May, he talked to 30 supporters and told them the story of the “modest” background of himself and his wife — 10 minutes later, he told the same story all over again to the same people.

(PREVIOUS OBAMAISM #4) In a speech, he poignantly referred to his “father’s” flag-draped coffin — except that he really meant his grandfather’s, who was a WWII veteran, and not his father, who died a Kenyan. (Even Howie Kurtz noted the oddity.)

From the ABC News report:

[I]n Rush Limbaugh’s hometown, Sen. Barack Obama came up with some novel reasons why the U.S. may be struggling in the war in Afghanistan.

"We don’t have enough capacity right now to deal with it — and it’s not just the troops," Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

Obama posited — incorrectly — that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan — forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don’t speak Arabic.

"We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.

The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population.

Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that’s Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it’s any of a half dozen other languages — including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.

No sooner did Obama realize his mistake — and correct himself — but he immediately made another.

"We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

So far, so good.

"But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they’re not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn’t one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.

There are other infrastructure problems both countries share that U.S. advisors have struggled to address — a lack of safe roads, schools, adequate electricity, etc. — but Obama did not mention these.

Obama’s overall point may well be true: that U.S. efforts in Iraq have come at the expense of the battle against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Still it’s not asking too much to expect the man many say will soon be the Democratic nominee to cite the right facts to back up his thesis. …

DO NOT MISS THESE VERY RECENT ARTICLES HERE:

(1) “Is Barack Obama Mentally Fatigued?” — by LARRY JOHNSON

(2) [Citizen Alert Update] “My Name Is Barack, and I Am — Where, Who, What Did I Just Say?” — which included this update:

CITIZEN ALERT UPDATE: In the first comment below, WestPalm4Hillary noted, “Great, and THIS is the guy the Democrats want with control of ‘the button’.” Which reminded me of something we haven’t written about in a while — one of BO’s many (and they are countless) excuses for the votes he made, didn’t make, maybe made, or Planned Parenthood or the mob Chicago pols forced him to make, or was just “present” to make in the Illinois State Senate. Via the LA Times, January 8, 2008:

Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes

     He pushed the wrong button, he asserted at the time. Two of the admitted flubs were on hotly contested issues.

Susan’s Note: You know, it’s one thing to go “oops” when you (yeah, right) push the wrong button in a state senate vote, but … in the White House?! God help us all! (And, um, dare I ask … what might have affected his brain so adversely??? Huh?)

Obama's latest stunning gaffes

Clarice Feldman

How are we supposed to take this man seriously for the position of commander in chief?  Little Green Footballs snags Obama in a stunning error, and it is not just the name of the town he is in or the number of states.

On Friday Barack Obama spelled out his Latin America policy [snip]:

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.

This is pathetic. Hugo Chavez came to power during the Clinton Administration, and was first elected President of Venezuela in 1998, two years before the Bush Administration took office.

But Jake Tapper notes this is small potatoes compared to his song and dance on FARC and Venezuela:

More recently, Obama as he traveled through Florida seemed to give some contradictory statements about Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the Colombian terrorist group FARC.

On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and "one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about."

OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on.

But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments," he said in a speech in Miami.  "This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand."

So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?