I’m glad to see that CNN has booked two African-Americans agreeing that Hillary Clinton was wrong to compare the Republican House to a plantation, so that’s good. The poncy Republican is calling for her to resign but the other thinks that probably isn’t necessary. We’re getting fair and balanced coverage on this issue.
Apparently, this is an outrageous thing to say. I wonder if anybody thought this article by Joseph Farrah of World Net Daily called “Racism on Dem plantation” (available today only on Google cache for some reason)was out of line. Or how about this one on on Townhall by Cal Thomas who refers to “the Democratic Party and its plantation mentality.” And then there’s Rush Limbaugh who’s been know to refer to anybody who’s in the leadership position in the Democratic Party” as “pimps” who attempt to deceive black people into remaining on the “Democratic plantation.”
Here’s the thing. When the Republicans talk about the “plantation” they are specifically talking about race, claiming that the Democrats are using (presumably stupid) Black Americans against their own interests.
Hillary was talking about the fact that the Republican leadership treats their own caucus (not to mention the minority) like they are slaves.
Now which of those views is racist?
Yet, the Republicans are all over this and they will probably end up getting her to apologise because Democratic politicians have never learned how to respond to being called racist. Until they do, the Republicans are going to use this ridiculous epistemic relativism against them.
Update: As a couple of commenters remind me, perhaps the most famous of these plantation comments cane from none other than Newtie:
“…on the eve of his great electoral victory ten years ago, the speaker-to-be told a reporter he was leading a “slave rebellion” against the Democrats who “run the plantation.”
I agree with Kevin that the ineffectiveness of the illegal wiretap program is not the most important issue. The president having unlimited power, even to the extent that he is not bound by the law or the constitution, is the fundamental threat and this wiretap program is just the most recent example of it.
However, this revelation that the illegal wiretapping is a waste of time does refute the most important argument of the other side. That argument is best articulated by today’s winner of the Golden Globe for best tease, Trent Lott:
“I don’t agree with the libertarians,” said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). “I want my security first. I’ll deal with all the details after that.”
If the details show that the FBI is wasting valuable man hours chasing its tail, it’s not exactly giving you “your security” is it? Not only is the president breaking the law, he’s wasting the valuable time and energy of the FBI which could be spent preventing terrorism and catching criminals. Why on earth would that make a frightened little bedwetter like Trent Lott feel safer? It should scare the lil’ guy to death.
Josh Marshall has an insightful post up today about Al Gore’s speech yesterday that speaks to how these issues all work together.
The point Gore makes in his speech that I think is most key is the connection between authoritarianism, official secrecy and incompetence.
The president’s critics are always accusing him of law-breaking or unconstitutional acts and then also berating the incompetence of his governance. And it’s often treated as, well … he’s power-hungry and incompetent to boot! Imagine that! The point though is that they are directly connected. Authoritarianism and secrecy breed incompetence; the two feed on each other. It’s a vicious cycle. Governments with authoritarian tendencies point to what is in fact their own incompetence as the rationale for giving them yet more power. Katrina was a good example of this.
The basic structure of our Republic really is in danger from a president who militantly insists that he is above the law.
The illegal wiretap scandal is a perfect example of this — authoritarianism, official secrecy and incompetence. (No wonder they call it “the president’s program.”) When you add in endemic corruption, you have a recipe for a constitutional crisis and a political tyranny — which is exactly what they have been cooking up.
It’s awfully hard to respect people who are so frightened they don’t know they are helping the terrorists to achieve what the terrorists couldn’t achieve on their own.
Incumbent Senator Trent Lott called a press conference to announce whether he’s running again. He’d hinted that he might not, so the suspense was palpable. A Democrat, after all, was favored to win if Lott didn’t run. Would he or wouldn’t he? What was going to happen? Oooh, it’s the kind of thing that sends chills down your spine. After about ten minutes of stirring oratory celebrating all the fine people he’s worked with over the years, he soulfully looks into the camera, nods his head to his staff and then announces … he’s running again.
And now Ed Henry talking about how this sets the stage for him to make a great comeback and win back the majority leader job! Is Trent awesome or what?
None of the CNN anchors even have the decency to look sheepish about being played for morons. But then, why would they?
In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Brownback said he was heartened by the hearings. He argued that in the 2004 elections, Republicans had showed Democrats that “we can run on abortion rights and win the public,” adding, “they are trimming their sails some on it.”
The apparent outcome of the Alito nomination may call into question a political assessment that Mr. Specter made after those elections. Mr. Specter said at the time that it was highly unlikely that a Supreme Court nominee who would change abortion rights precedents could be confirmed, in part because of the determined opposition of the Democrats. Some leading Democratic senators publicly agreed.
Conservatives, upset at Mr. Specter’s comment, almost unseated him from the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee.
After the hearings ended on Friday, Mr. Specter said he would vote for confirmation and declined to revisit his earlier comments. But he said it was impossible to know how Judge Alito might vote as a Supreme Court justice. He said abortion rights groups had also opposed Justice David Souter, Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor – all Republican nominees who have voted from the bench to uphold the core abortion rights precedents.
“There are weighty considerations involved in changing Roe v. Wade, very weighty considerations in modifying that principle and a woman’s right to choose,” Mr. Specter said.
This is why everyone should laugh in Arlen Specter’s face when he says this:
A top US Republican senator on Sunday for the first time mentioned impeachment in connection with President George W Bush’s authorisation of electronic surveillance inside the United States without a court warrant.
Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, cautioned it was too early to draw any conclusions as his committee gears up for public hearings into the growing controversy early next month.
But in his appearance on ABC’s “This Week” program, Specter insisted the Senate was not going to give the president what he called “a blank cheque.”
When asked what could happen if lawmakers find Bush in violation of the law, Specter answered: “Impeachment is a remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy … under our society is to pay a political price.”
He made it a point to clarify, however, that he was speaking theoretically and was “not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis” for a presidential impeachment at this moment.
[…]
He added that the issue of wartime presidential powers was “a very knotty question” that “ought to be thoroughly examined.”
Specter assured he was prepared to listen to the administration’s explanations, but warned, “I’m going to wear my skepticism on my sleeve.”
Uh huh. This man has run for years as a pro-choice Republican in a swing state. This is probably his last term. And he tossed abortion rights out the window without a second thought. This emerging narrative that Arlen is going to be tough on the administration on these wiretapping charges is total bullshit:
Gonzales said he had agreed with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, to testify in hearings on the controversial program that eavesdrops on U.S. phone calls and e-mails.
Gonzales said he would not discuss any operational details at the hearing and would only explain the legal justification.
The testimony will take place in Senate hearings that are expected to be held early next month.
It was unclear whether the judiciary committee would also hear testimony from senior intelligence officials such as the NSA director, Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, or Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, the No. 2 U.S. intelligence official who ran the NSA when the eavesdropping program began.
“What we‘re thinking is that this is primarily the attorney general‘s show,” said an official who spoke on condition of anonymity because plans for the hearing had not been finalized.
Yeah. Arlen’s in charge allright.
Here’s what’s going to happen. The Republicans will carefully plan and coordinate their strategy. Guys like Jeff Sessions will be in charge of fear-mongering and ad hominem attacks on dissent. Huckleberry Graham will express grave concerns about liberty only to be convinced by the end of the hearing that the gravest threat to the nation is Democratic rudeness. Gonzales will then say this is nothing but a high tech illegal deportation across the Rio Grande. Sam Brownback will offer objections to abuse of presidential power but will concede that it is necessary since godless abortionist terrorists are trying to kill us all in our sleep. His wife will inexplicably start crying and run out of the room. Everyone will agree that Alberto Gonzales has been remarkably forthcoming. Arlen will concede that the constitution does indeed provide for a King.
The Democrats, meanwhile, will take a much needed week long vacation before the hearings. They’ll meet up in the mens room just before they begin, to discuss a strategy. (Dianne will watch the door.) Kennedy will suggest that he attack Gonzales on presidential power and Shumer will snap that he’s sick of Kennedy getting all the good attacks and insists that Kennedy takes that boring Unitary Executive bullshit this time. Biden will request that he lead the questioning which will make Pat Leahy tell him to go fuck himself. Joe will remind the whole group that he once had a phone call overheard in college so he’s been the victim of warrantless wiretapping and can bring the personal touch to the hearings. Feinstein will ask, “what are these hearings about again?” In the end the Democrats will strongly object to Arlen’s conclusions that the constitution provides for a King.
Senator Reid: I’m begging you, man. If there is any way you can move these hearings to another venue, please, please do it. I can’t go through this again so soon.
I can’t tell you how moved I was by Bush’s speech commemorating Martin Luther King today. Particularly this:
Bush told the crowd at the annual “Let Freedom Ring” performance that Congress must renew provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that are set to expire next year. The president had previously declined to support the renewal until last month, and the crowd erupted in applause when Bush insisted that it be renewed.
They applauded because he said it as if he had just crawled across the Edmund Pettus Bridge himself. Which was surprising since it was only a year ago that Bush told members of the NAACP that he was “unfamiliar” with the voting Rights Act, which I’m sure was true.
There really is nothing more sickening than seeing the right wing suck up on Martin Luther King Day after all the years they demonized him and how hard they fought to keep this day from beocming a national holiday.
Rick Perlstein writes in to remind me that back in the day some of our most revered conservative icons had a different way of looking at things:
Reagan after the King assassination:
it was just the sort of “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break.”
Strom Thurmond:
“We are now witnessing the whirlwind sowed years ago when some preachers and teachers began telling people that each man could be his own judge in his own case.”
Just in case it isn’t clear, by “people choosing which laws they’d break” and “telling people that each man could be his own judge in his own case,” they referred to King’s doctrine of civil disobedience.
That, in other words, King brought his own assassination upon himself.
I recall as a kid hearing a lot of that kind of talk. Civil disobedience and passive resistence were considered the work of the commies by many on the right. But then I’m sure they considered Henry David Thoreau a commie too, even if he didn’t know it. It was his all-American idea of civil disobedience, after all, that went half way around the world and back again inspiring Ghandi and King and resulting in the liberation and conference of civil rights upon millions of people. You can’t get any more commie than that. Anybody who espouses that kind of talk is just asking to be killed.
Congratulations to Jane Hamsher and her readers for single handedly driving down the sales of Kato Beirne’s latest atrocity. I’m pretty sure it qualifies her for sainthood.
Kato’s book is just the latest in a long line of tough as nails Republican career women who make money writing books reassuring smug conservative housewives and their impotent husbands that they are better off being second class citizens. It’s a racket that goes all the way back to the original beehived Republican icon, Phyllis Schlaffly.
Whenever I see Kato on television lecturing the public about real womanhood, I’m reminded of TBOGG’s famous catch some years back featuring Kate and some hot wingnut chicks talkin’ bout dick:
ERICA WALTER: Manliness has experienced a renaissance for two reasons: The Bush/Cheney administration has set the tone for the political culture. And 9/11, of course. Why did America fall in love with soldiers and firemen and traditional male occupations? Because we realized we’re at risk. The comeback of manliness is here to stay as long as national security is an issue.
[snip]
CHARLOTTE HAYS: The modern-day loss of respect for manliness is an aberration. Men and their virtues have always been prized. The great epics aren’t about women and their virtues. The post-9/11 love affair with police, firemen, and soldiers is a return of normal relations between men and women. Most people today never needed to be carried out of a burning building. But once they see 3,000 people that need to be rescued, they know it takes men.
O’BEIRNE: We were reminded on 9/11 and again during the military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq that we depend on manly characteristics to keep us safe. Every single one of the dead firemen heroes on 9/11 were men. This was one group where liberals didn’t ask why there wasn’t a more pleasing gender balance. Because the Upper West Side is not fireproof. What happens in combat in some distant field is abstract to Upper West Side liberals, but they can understand the need to have strong, brave, reckless men in their fire department.
>WALTER: When it comes to role confusion among men themselves, though, I believe the damage of the ’60s and ’70s has persisted. During my first pregnancy, I rode the Washington, D.C. subway every day. I was amazed at the number of men who didn’t offer me their seat, didn’t lift a finger for me. A Marine friend of mine, who is a normal, manly man, got so angry that he rode the subway with me, and in full cars pointedly asked men: “Would you please give up your seat for this young lady?” The request meant: “Will you do what you’re supposed to do?”
[snip]
O’BEIRNE: I don’t think there has to be a trade off. Men will behave however women demand they behave. I don’t spend time with male boors, so I don’t think most American men lack manners. British men are terribly mannerly, but they’re all wimps. I think well-raised American men have the ability to be thoroughly masculine and mannerly at the same time.
[snip]
O’BEIRNE: Anyone married with children appreciates why children need fathers. The typical mother of a second-grade boy is destroyed if he’s not invited to a certain birthday party. Mothers would wrap sons in cotton. It’s the fathers who instill the sense of risk-taking, of the stiff upper lip.
NAOMI SCHAEFER: But what about daughters? They often need to know how to keep a stiff upper lip, too. Whatever the problems with feminism, I guess I’m sort of glad that it all happened.
CHAREN: It would be wrong not to give feminism some credit for improving women’s place in the world. But I believe many of these changes would have happened organically anyway—with rising prosperity, labor-saving devices in the home, and widespread education. You didn’t need a bunch of bra-burners for that.
[snip]
…and a conversation among these women wouldn’t be complete with mentioning….The Clenis™:
ROLLINS: What is your definition of virility? Does it have a role in political leadership?
WALTER: It’s a nebulous quality for a political leader. Bill Clinton was virile—in a very sleazy way. There’s also the sex appeal of someone like Don Rumsfeld. President Bush possesses this intangible something—you really saw it on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Testosterone and camaraderie—many people responded to it. In George W. Bush, people see a contained, channeled virility. They see a man who does what he says, whose every speech and act is not calculated. Bill Clinton showed a lot of outward empathy and he was very articulate but I don’t think many of us would have trusted him with our daughters.
GAVORA: If virility equates with strength, then there is no question that Bill Clinton lacked it completely. Bush has shown that he has it. His willingness to go after terrorism root and branch despite the widespread opposition among our European allies and even some at home, and to withstand that pressure, is strength. Bill Clinton made surface gestures. He refused to go against the media, popular opinion, the pinstriped boys at the State Department, because he lacked that strength.
HAYS: The most masculine man I ever knew was my grandfather, who supported seven children and never failed to stand when a woman came into the room. Bill Clinton is virile, but he’s not masculine or mature. He never became a grown man.
O’BEIRNE: When I heard that he grew up jumping rope with the girls in his neighborhood, I knew everything I needed to know about Bill Clinton. There’s no contest between Clinton and Bush on masculinity. Bill Clinton couldn’t credibly wear jogging shorts, and look at George Bush in that flight suit.
ROLLINS: But why do so many American women love Bill Clinton?
SCHAEFER: You can learn a lot jumping rope with girls. It won’t make you sexually attractive, but it will make you a more effective, patient listener.
O’BEIRNE: Bill Clinton did understand, from the matriarchy he grew up in, how to appeal to women in that modern way.
HAYS: Clinton could feel your pain like one of your girlfriends. But he could never make a decision like Bush has had to make. He would still be trying to negotiate with the terrorists. The use of force, which until recently was passé, has come back. Clinton couldn’t use force except in a motel room.
Ok. I know that was unfair so soon after lunch, so I’ll give you a moment to purge.
Are you ok now? Good.
Thank you Jane. Destroying her book sales on Amazon is a public service. You are a patriot and a credit to women everywhere.
Update: Kudos also to RenaRF for her superb rant that started the whole thing off. .
The number one story on Wolf Blitzer’s “The Situation Room”
Blitzer: Unleashing powerful new accusations against the man who defeated him, the Democratic 2000 presidential nominee is today accusing President Bush of criminal behavior by authorizing secret domestic slying. And Al gore is calling for appointment of a special counsel to investigate what he calls a “direct assault on the constitution.”
Our correspondents are covering this story, the political motives, the legal fallout of this showdown over spying.
Kenny Boy Mehlman’s response to Gore’s claims was weak as a newborn kitten. And William Schneider just brought up the “I” word.
Now, everyone is pretending that Arlen Specter is capable of holding serious hearings, but at least we are moving in the right direction. First things first.
Update: Ken Adelman is on now. I sure wish that Wolf would ask him if dealing with a nuclear armed Iran will be a cakewalk.
MYDD has commissioned a poll and could use a little financial help to get its fundraising over the top.
Here’s what they are doing:
Our groundbreaking poll, which will challenge conventional wisdom on a variety of topics—Iraq, withdrawal, terrorism, Bush approval, domestic spying—is about to be brought to the public. This will be the first comprehensive nationwide public survey where the questions are informed by the collective knowledge of the netroots and the blogosphere. You helped to make these questions, and with your help this poll will serve as a direct challenge to the entire field of public polling as it is run by commercial news organizations. Now, we need your help in order to bring the answers to the public.
This is a useful blogospheric project from which we can all benefit. We know the mainstream pollsters refuse to ask questions outside the narrow interests of the beltway establishment and that prevents us from knowing the real lay of the land. That’s what this new polling operation proposes to challenge. And because it is blogosphere based, it is not beholden to either the corporate media or the party, which makes it a valuable tool for grassroots opinion makers — whether it’s for blogging, the local Democratic club or around the office water cooler. Check it out. This could be the first of many opportunities we have to find out what the people will say when they are asked real questions.
Al Gore has become the conscience of the Democratic Party. Following the lead of the new media, and the blogosphere in particular, he just laid out the case as to how the invertebrate Republican congress has sold out its constitutional duty to a president who sees himself as above the law and why this poses an unprecedented threat to our constitution.
There are reasons for concern this time around that conditions may be changing and that the cycle [of presidential overreach during wartime] may not repeat itself. For one thing, we have for decades been witnessing the slow and steady accumulation of presidential power. In a global environment of nuclear weapons and cold war tensions, Congress and the American people accepted ever enlarging spheres of presidential initiative to conduct intelligence and counter intelligence activities and to allocate our military forces on the global stage. When military force has been used as an instrument of foreign policy or in response to humanitarian demands, it has almost always been as the result of presidential initiative and leadership. As Justice Frankfurter wrote in the Steel Seizure Case, “The accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.”
A second reason to believe we may be experiencing something new is that we are told by the Administration that the war footing upon which he has tried to place the country is going to “last for the rest of our lives.” So we are told that the conditions of national threat that have been used by other Presidents to justify arrogations of power will persist in near perpetuity.
Third, we need to be aware of the advances in eavesdropping and surveillance technologies with their capacity to sweep up and analyze enormous quantities of information and to mine it for intelligence. This adds significant vulnerability to the privacy and freedom of enormous numbers of innocent people at the same time as the potential power of those technologies. These techologies have the potential for shifting the balance of power between the apparatus of the state and the freedom of the individual in ways both subtle and profound.
Don’t misunderstand me: the threat of additional terror strikes is all too real and their concerted efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction does create a real imperative to exercise the powers of the Executive Branch with swiftness and agility. Moreover, there is in fact an inherent power that is conferred by the Constitution to the President to take unilateral action to protect the nation from a sudden and immediate threat, but it is simply not possible to precisely define in legalistic terms exactly when that power is appropriate and when it is not.
But the existence of that inherent power cannot be used to justify a gross and excessive power grab lasting for years that produces a serious imbalance in the relationship between the executive and the other two branches of government.
There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended.
This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president’s powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President’s authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress. President Bush has pushed the implications of this idea to its maximum by continually stressing his role as Commander-in-Chief, invoking it has frequently as he can, conflating it with his other roles, domestic and foreign. When added to the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch quite literally as far into the future as we can imagine.
This effort to rework America’s carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary is-ironically-accompanied by an effort by the same administration to rework America’s foreign policy from one that is based primarily on U.S. moral authority into one that is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.
The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.
Yes. A president who can so easily toss aside international law, treaties and decades of mutual understanding is now showing that he looks upon the rule of law within our own country much the same way. We should not be surprised. It’s clear that this particular political faction has an instinct to dominate and control. It’s a facet of human nature and those whose personalities feature it strongly tend to gather together under the banner of authoritarianism.
The Enlightenment was in many ways a study of human nature and those who were educated in its ideas, like the founders of this country, used those observations to understand how power works. Knowing that some leaders will seek ever expanding power is exactly why the constitution was designed with its careful system of checks and balances and why the Bill of Rights was written. It’s a flaw in our species which, if recognized, can be held at bay by systemic roadblocks. That’s what’s being fiddled with here and it’s dangerous.
Gore went on to point out the obvious — that this (oft repeated on the right) aphorism “the constitution isn’t a suicide pact” in terms of islamic fundamentalism is absurd considering the threats we’ve faced in the past:
One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information is by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. As President Eisenhower said, “Any who act as if freedom’s defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America.”
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”
The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.
Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.
Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment’s notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?
It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
He goes on to say that we must do four specific things:
1) demand a special counsel to investigate the wiretapping leaks. This is exactly the kind of investigation that should not be left in the hands of an executive branch appointee who approved the measures in question.
2) demand comprehensive hearings and go where the facts lead. I and others in the blogosphere have been calling for a select committee to invetigate the wiretap leaks so that we can have legal counsel rather than elected bloviators lead the questioning. This is absolutely necessary.
3) we must not rubber stamp the Patriot Act
4) demand that telecommunications companies cease and desist in their illegal invasion of Americans’ privacy.
The Liberty Coalition sponsored this speech today and it looks like they are a non-partisan group working on privacy issues. I’m all for that. Here’s their mission statement:
The Liberty Coalition works to help organize, support, and coordinate transpartisan public policy activities related to civil liberties and basic human rights. We work in conjunction with groups of partner organizations that are interested in preserving the Bill of Rights, personal autonomy and individual privacy.
The Liberty Coalition is concerned about the threat to Americans’ fundamental and inalienable rights. The Coalition is dedicated to upholding and protecting our basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In order to accomplish our task, we seek to protect those freedoms as articulated in the Bill of Rights. We base our concerns on the fundamental values and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, particularly the separation of powers and federalism, and Bill of Rights. These are also embodied in the 14th amendment, especially the due process and privileges and immunities clauses.
To accomplish this mission, the Liberty Coalition seeks to restore, maintain, and improve individuals’ right through developing a networked forum for information and policy education and advocacy. The Coalition examines and expresses opinions on legislation and other government actions that would, on the one hand, limit the rights of citizens that would, on the other, advance efforts to enhance citizens’ rights.
Our primary focus is on restrictions on privacy, autonomy and liberty related issue such as the Patriot Act, National Identification Cards/National Drivers License and government databanks. We are also concerned with medical and financial privacy and confidentiality, and work more broadly as appropriate The Liberty Coalition seeks politically and judicially to retain our liberty while increasing our safety.
When it comes to this issue of presidential overreach and government spying, the most effective action will be bi-partisan. (Townhall is ostensibly part of the coalition which I’ll believe it when they pull their noses out of Bush’s spidey hole.) But any conservative or libertarian with intellectual integrity should be on board with this. I can guarantee you that if a Democrat tried what Bus has done I would feel exactly the same way about it. These are not transitory partisan issues, they are fundamental American values.
If you didn’t get a chance to see Al Gore give his speech, at least read the transcript (via Raw Story.) He’s singing our song today. If he’s crazy then so am I and I’m proud of it.
Julia has the skinny on Shadegg and the rest of his class of 94 “reformers.” What an inspiring group. Shadegg, the self-styled “clean” and principled candidate seeking to replace Tom Delay ran pretty much specifically on the idea of term limits. He strongly believed that politicians shouldn’t make a career out of politics. Now, not so much.