"Clinton changed course and insisted that cutting emissions should be put off for 20 years."

[stupidicus]

reads kinda like HC's pov on single-payer, or will at least be the result of her opposition to it, no? Sadly it appears as if her supporters will fall victim to her efforts, much as many did for her husband and the inaction he sought.

And sadly as well, who do we have to blame for the abysmal state of the "liberal" media these days? Sadly, BC thought some action was needed on media CONsolodation, so our watchdog was turned almost completely into a lapdog.

Clinton 2.0 looks more and more like a huge unnnecessary risk considering we have a viable candidate in Bernie who is actually a lefty as opposed to a ....

Then came the backlash. The Global Climate Coalition (funded by over 40 major corporate groups like Amoco, the US Chamber of Commerce, and General Motors) began spending millions of dollars each year to derail the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to help reduce global warming. They held conferences entitled "The Costs of Kyoto," issued press releases and faxes dismissing the scientific evidence for global warming, and spent more than $3 million on newspaper and television ads claiming Kyoto would mean a "50-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax."

The media, in response to flurries of "blast faxes" (a technique in which a press release is simultaneously faxed to thousands of journalists) and accusations of left-wing bias, began backing off from the scientific evidence. A recent study found only 35% of newspaper stories on global warming accurately described the scientific consensus, with the majority implying that scientists who believed in global warming were just as common as global warming deniers (of which there were only a tiny handful, almost all of whom had re ceived funding from energy companies or associated groups).

It all had an incredible effect on the public. In 1993, 88% of Americans thought global warming was a serious problem. By 1997, that number had fallen to 42%, with only 28% saying immediate action was necessary. And so Clinton changed course and insisted that cutting emissions should be put off for 20 years.
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/34242-shifting-the-terms-of-the-debate-how-big-business-covered-up-global-warming

[Motown_Johnny]

1. I wonder if this will cause the Flip-Flop-Flip...

and I wonder when the next Flop will be.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/14/hillary-s-big-iowa-flip-flop.html

Hillary's Big Iowa Flip-Flop

Why Clinton is the biggest hypocrite in the race when it comes to ethanol, an expensive, environmentally destructive fuel that benefits Iowa’s powerful corn lobby.



Now that Hillary Clinton has launched her second bid for the White House, we will see even more scrutiny of her on everything from her time at State to the Clinton Foundation’s funders. But the issue that best exposes Clinton’s enormous ambition — and her readiness to sacrifice the interests of consumers to that ambition — is her flip-flop on the corn ethanol tax.

No other active, high-profile American politician has been as duplicitous on a basic pocketbook issue as Clinton has been on this one. The corn ethanol tax, which was imposed by Congress last decade and is formally known as the Renewable Fuel Standard, now costs American motorists $10 billion per year in additional fuel costs. That works out to about $47 per year for every licensed driver in the country.

During her early years in the US Senate, Clinton was a staunch opponent of the corn ethanol tax. In 2002, she and three of her senate colleagues -- New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer and California Democrats Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer — used that very word, “tax” to describe then-pending legislation that was to require the blending of two billion gallons of corn ethanol per year into domestic gasoline supplies. Their March 21, 2002 letter said the pending measure would add “an astonishing new anti-consumer government mandate — that every US refiner must use an ever-increasing volume of ethanol.”

[Fuddnik]

2. Hillary Clinton: Fresh Ideas From Yesterday For Tomorrow!

The panderthon continues.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. I understand the reasoning process.

In the nineties when I was debating with a Republican, he said, "I know that we are polluting the environment and that it will bring on global environmental change. But, whether that will be 5 years or 50 years is the question. And I won't be around in 50 years.

In other words, the changes won't directly affect him, so why should he have to suffer deprivation?

Strange thing is, that his nearly grown kids were in the room and it didn't seem to make a difference in his opinion. Now, twenty years later, he has grandkids. I wonder if his role as an abuelo will have more of an affect on his selfish conclusion?

[Ferd Berfel]

4. I can't get past this

She will have the same puppet masters as: DWS, the DNC, Bill and Obama.
NAFTA, GATT, WTO, Glass_stegal, Telecommunications ACT & T P P. We can't keep going like this.
To think that Wall Street and transnational corporations are not going to be pulling her strings is delusional.

[ViseGrip]

6. ^^^this^^^

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Evolution has no direction. Up/down, Forward/Backwards, Left/Right, Short/Tall.

It just goes whatever whatever works best. Kinda like political expediency.

[jfern]

7. Clinton was the best Republican President

[Ferd Berfel]

8. Well....since Eisenhower anyway

but even Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 92%

[jfern]

9. Clinton has far more Republican accomplishments that Eisenhower or even Reagan

[Ferd Berfel]

10. Huh? yes.... which is why he was the best republican president since Eisenhower

[Doctor_J]

11. candidate wind sock strikes again

No principles, no morals, just a finger in the wind at all times.