On Democrats, Surveillance and Being Flaccid
We are often bothered by politicians “flip-flops,” think Kerry. Then we have those that are likely not flip flops, but the necessity in the necessary revealing the opposite of your public positions or pronouncements (denouncement is fitting as well.).
At the first column, top position sets “Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers,” with the summary sentence of:
“Democrats remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.”
Democrats will be hard pressed in doing the right thing when so often, at least in part doing the right thing is that which they have pilloried endlessly in the past. This tends to cut off legitimate options that if allowed to be cut from debate and/or discussion will leave them with little of worth or substance to work with; a fact that would make the “soft” on security.
Regarding a bill being offered by the Democrats on NSA surveillance from foreign locations:
“The House bill would also require the administration to disclose details of the program. Democrats say they plan to push the administration to turn over internal documents laying out the legal rationale for the program, something the administration has refused to do.”
Why might there be a hesitation at handing over something of this importance? Sure, there is the “they’re up to something bad, so wish to protect their evil enterprise;” but there also is the concern that honest review and debate about these legal rationales will be used more for partisan political purposes and leaked all over so the media can do its usual misrepresentation and leading reporting.
I submit that their concern at the time was more in line with thwarting the present administration in an effort to garner popularity and paint the administration as evil or criminal. Rather than support the idea and attempt to work within its difficulties, the Democrats along with the media portrayed it as spying, eavesdropping and anything else that would serve the connotation of negativity and Big Brother.
This makes what is necessary in surveillance all the more difficult due to its being painted and misrepresented at times as nothing more than Orwellian. Make no mistake there should be concerns about what is being reviewed and the purposes for review of communications for activities other than security.
The debate on this subject has never been healthy and now that Democrats actually have to vote or stand on something and be held accountable to it, it is only about a concern for not appearing weak on security, when in reality they likely did not have the deeper concerns they shouted from the rooftops earlier.
Just like working on ethics reform and/or just about anything else since taking the majority last November, when they have to do something it’s a lot harder than they remembered. Democrats now have to relearn how to legislate as they have become too comfortable and expert at vilification without having to offer anything of substance in its stead.
Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union is quoted as saying:
“There’s a ‘keep the majority’ mentality, which is understandable, but we think they’re putting themselves in more danger by not standing on principle.”
The NY Times, Caroline Frederickson and many others feel comfortable in considering the Democrat aims or concerns as “keeping the majority;” would it be that these supporters applied the same skeptical criterion or view of the Left that they do the Right, they might accidentally enlighten themselves.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Wont any party do what they need to do to remain in office?
I think for the most part that is very true; politics can be ugly and stupid. I guess where I come in on it though (and this doesn't mean it's fair) is that we're looking at a very different scenario here, which many like to point out (myself included), ie. this isn't WWII/Vietnam/Is/Isn't. The pols play the game and as time goes by they play it harder with more aggression, partisanship etc. Time now seems to move more quickly and not just because I'm getting older; news moves the time along quickly and more feverishly. Tactics that once allowed for some clean up time afterward may not work so well due to the over reaction to actions here and abroad. If we are truly dealing with the threat I believe we are (and again, it may not be fair), the Dems are putting our safety at grave risk by playing the politics as usual game without looking further ahead to what this might do to our detriment. It has been BUSH bad, evil, stupid and whatever, ever since Gore protested the vote results and it has only gotten louder and more aggressive with time. Just using withdrawing from Iraq as an example: we can see how our being in Iraq has bothered the international community and obviously here on the home front as well, and knowing this we can kind of get the idea that it will more or less continue that way. On the other hand boogeying out really IS an unknown. I definitely fall into the stay and prop the Iraqis up until it is more likely they can handle the bulk themselves and believe the risks of Iran, al Qaeda, and all over the place seeing this as a sign of U.S. weakness (without going on and on with detail as I'm lazy) would be a huge kick in the crotch for us….I'm not just talking pride and/or ego here. This would be a loss on so many different levels that we cannot comprehend it. All the above said, it is the Dems that have for the most part been "anti" the arguments; so unfortunately for them they are the ones that would have to bend a bit more in my opinion. Unfair? Yes, but to me that doesn't make it any less so. I hope I made some sense here….I'm in a very interruptational area at the moment as always.
Changing ones mind, based on new information is one thing. Flip-flopping for political reasons and to get votes or follow what the most recent poll says is a pathetic way to live - and that my friends doesn't matter which side of the isle one stands. Nice post Blandly!
Pastor, One could call it deception.
No, PG, there are big differences here. The left has an overriding agenda that dictates their every move — to defeat and undermine Bush and the Republicans, at any cost. ANY COST. If Bush et al put forth a proposal to safeguard our country from terrorist attack, they WILL come out against it. And God help the American public. The Repubs have an agenda too — it is to protect our country and to win the war. This country is under attack, and if the Dems have their way, we lose. Period.
i guess I should be putting my comments in as Roger Gardner. Sorry.
That would do it
But isn't that based on the fact that people think dems don't care about our countries protection/security. While, the dems are for freedom and such, I still think they want peace and no more attacks on US soil. I think the dems just have a different way of achieving that goal as compared the right.
I don't think they want attacks here at home, but their different way is more of the same status quo/let's just talk/diplomacy is the only way route, which isn't quite the way to go across the board. I really think they are holding onto broken old ways. Not to say the fire at will is the all out way. They're too big on talk and no action; although I wouldn't be surprised if they slipped up trying to prove they're tough cookies.
What is frightening to me is the vehemence of their hatred. I have to trust my instincts with this and say that anyone that demonstrates such an absolute and infinite vengeance cannot be completely sane. Saying that about 1/2 of the people in our country is terrifying. Have they all lost their collective minds?