I'm usually hot or cold with Steve Chapman, columnist for the Chicago Tribune, but he really hit the nail on the head with his latest column, "Palin Exposes the Partyers."
His basic assertion is that the Tea Party people--AKA "Classic Liberals"--basically use the Constitution only when it suits them.
Judging from the applause for Sarah Palin at its convention, the movement's suspicion of government power is exceeded only by its worship of government power.
I noticed that as well but had yet to formulate it so well.
Because if her speech made anything clear, it's that the shallow, ill-informed, truth-twisting demagogue seen in the 2008 presidential campaign is all she is and all she wants to be.
Hmm...I guess I'm not the only one who is "obsessed" with her.
When it comes to economic affairs, the tea partyers agree that — as Palin put it — "the government that governs least, governs best." When it comes to war and national security, however, her audience apparently thinks there is no such thing as too much government.
No shit. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I have to say that I am now finished with any amount of respect I have for these folks when they start talking about how they are "strict Constructionists." Come back to me when you actually give a shit about the Constitution. Until then, I have two words for you. "Fuck" and "off."
The conventioneers applauded when Palin denounced President Barack Obama for his approach to the war on terrorists. Why? Because he lets himself be too confined by the annoying limits imposed by the Constitution. "To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law," she declares.
Is her point that Obama is allergic to the use of military power or can't bear to fulfill his responsibility as head of the armed forces? That would come as a surprise to Iraqis, who have seen Obama stick to President George W. Bush's timetable for withdrawal.
It would come as a surprise to Afghans, who have seen him embark on a massive buildup of U.S. troops in their country. It would come as a surprise to Pakistanis, who have seen an increase in U.S. drone missile attacks on their soil.
This would be the twisting of facts part that we have seen on this blog of late--President Obama is "weak" on terror. Like I have said many times, they just make whatever they want to fit their dream.
Her chief gripe, though, is that federal agents read the alleged Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, his Miranda rights shortly after his arrest, at which point, she claims, he "lawyered up and invoked our U.S. constitutional right to remain silent."
Not for long, he didn't. The FBI says Abdulmutallab provided a wealth of useful information under questioning after he got a lawyer. For that matter, as FBI Director Robert Mueller and National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said last week, he is still being interrogated.
Really? Hmm, I did not know that he provided a wealth of information. And still is. Let's double check Steve's assertion.
What do you know? He's right. Gee, I'm shocked.
In addition, some of these tea partyers may be begging to have those rights if they ever decide to launch their own holy war. I wonder if they will bitch then about not being mirandized.
But facts have never been Palin's strong suit. Nor do they matter because what infuriates her is the mere idea that constitutional protections would apply to "a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution."
As well as many others I know who like to whack off to people being tortured even though it has been show by experts that this sort of interrogation is pretty much worthless.
This is not some bizarre paradox. Lots of people who despise our Constitution — Nazis, communists, Klansmen, Alaska secessionists — enjoy its protections. Does she think the Bill of Rights should apply only to people who share her views?
Yes, Steve, she and they do.
Besides, Obama didn't invent the heretical notion of accepting limits on the government's latitude with jihadists. The Bush administration turned hundreds of terrorism cases over to the federal courts, without audible complaint from the right. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution extends even to accused foreign terrorists held at Guantanamo.
Yep.
The advantage of having a former law professor in the Oval Office is that he doesn't have to be tutored in such elementary realities. But Palin evinces a bitter resentment of any information that contradicts her blind faith in a benevolent, all-powerful security regime. She's more than willing to trade liberty for safety.
Didn't our very own last in line and just dave say several times on this blog that they were all too willing to allow the government to listen to their conversations? And yet they complain about their tax dollars spent in "un-Constitutional ways." Hmmm...
That went over conspicuously well in Nashville, where tea partyers cheered a leader who places excessive trust in government, disdains constitutional freedoms and promotes a cult of personality. So remind me: What is it they don't like about Barack Obama?
Right! Isn't that EXACTLY how they view Barack Obama? What a fucking riot...well done, Steve.
25 comments:
OK, how about we hear from someone who was actually there, just for fun...
Pundits claim the tea partiers are angry—and they are—but the most striking thing about the atmosphere in Nashville was how cheerful everyone seemed to be. I spoke with dozens of people, and the responses were surprisingly similar. Hardly any had ever been involved in politics before. Having gotten started, they were finding it to be not just worthwhile, but actually fun.
Press attention focused on Sarah Palin's speech, which was well-received by the crowd. But the attendees I met weren't looking to her for direction. They were hoping she would move in theirs. Right now, the tea party isn't looking for leaders so much as leaders are looking to align themselves with the tea party.
Of course, I'm sure it is a lot more fun to rant about how stupid and evil the 'teabaggers' are - and that just reinforces the superiority of your tribal vision (at least within the tribe). Lord knows, I wouldn't want to actually make one of you think. I mean, after all, how are all of those stupid, evil people going to come to their senses if they don't heed the preaching?
I've long been baffled by conservatives who rail against Big Government, but then support unlimited police powers for search and seizure, allowing evidence obtained illegally to be used in court, elimination of appeals and broad application of the death penalty.
If you can't trust Big Government, why would you give them the power of life and death over anyone they care to frame? Yet that's exactly what conservatives demanded in droves during the Bush administration.
And then they themselves appear distrust the immense power they have heaped on government when they're bitching about guns and and the lousy treatment Eric Rudolph and Terry Nichols received at the hands of the FBI. But when the question turns to similar terrorist acts made by someone who disagrees with them philosophically, like, say the shoe bomber, they think he should be declared an illegal combatant, tortured and executed after a mock trial.
The only consistency in conservative thought seems to be "if it's someone I hate, kill 'em. If it's someone I like, they're innocent."
The acts you commit are what matters. Torture is torture, murder is murder. Justifications are not relevant. The terrorists are just as firmly convinced that their killing of Americans is justified and ordained by God as some conservative Americans are convinced that we should just kill all Muslims. Faith is never an excuse for a crime.
I've long been baffled by conservatives who rail against Big Government, but then support unlimited police powers for search and seizure, allowing evidence obtained illegally to be used in court, elimination of appeals and broad application of the death penalty.
Couple of points. Even most law and order conservatives do not support federal police power - they see that as properly reserved to the states. Ironically, the NRA with Project Exile tracked just the opposite, but that really is an exception.
Of course, there is that old saw that is a liberal is a conservative that got arrested, and a conservative is a liberal that got mugged.
There ARE principled arguments for the death penalty. That is why the DP has always been a struggle for me - well, that and I realize that there are some people that really, really want (and deserve) to be killed. Ultimately I do NOT trust the state with this power, because the corruptibility of the people that use that power is simply too great a risk.
I personally have never heard any conservative complain about the treatment of Nichols or Rudolph. What conservatives have you been talking to? White supremacist whack-jobs are NOT conservatives - they are revolutionaries (and in love with power and violence).
That's the problem, juris. It's getting harder and harder for me to tell the difference between a "White supremacist whack-job" and the current form of the GOP. While I'm certain the left biased media such as MSNBC and Air America play this up, conservative media seem to do nothing to prevent the connection from occurring.
Listen to Glenn Beck for about 20 minutes and then compare what he says to what a white supremacist says. There are some very frightening similarities.
Shows what I know, I never listen to Beck (which is about as much as I listen to Olbermann). Certainly in the conservative circles I do frequent, I have never heard anything remotely like what blk contends is common.
If, like the SPLC (or John Birch Society) you expect a racist(/communist) under every rock - that is surely what you will see. I don't have much love for large swaths of the GOP, but I can say with a fair amount of confidence that they bear no resemblance to the nutbag Aryan assholes. The only way you can equate them is if you presume much of the GOP to actually be latent racists - which is a sadly too frequent refrain in the left's echo chambers.
Oh, how I pine for the old GOP of which juris speaks. Sadly, they exist only in the remote corners of our country--not covered by the liberal media or listened to by the people currently running the party.
So, IK is Charles Grassley not one of the people running the country? Tom Latham, Steve King? Or is Iowa one of those "remote corners"?
I figured to keep it close to home to make it easier.
I have no problem whatsoever with the government running wars and national security because that who should run those things. If the government should not be running those things then one of you should tell us who should be running them.
Last in line still has no problem with it. Perhaps you could answer a question instead of always asking them. What do you think of this...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
"the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls."
If you want to bring up last in line and just dave's reaction, I'll also bring up that you sure had a major problem with the very thing you see in the above paragraph. Since I still have no problem with it, perhaps you could tell us if you still have a problem with it - do you support the Obama Administration in their efforts on this one and, if so, why?
Check out your entry on October 13, 2007 titled Well Well Well where you asked at the bottom "And why exactly did they want American's phone records again?"
Are you still curious?
Good thing this new entry is a long post...the budget thread that you all chickened out on is almost off the page.
Chickened out? Not so much...
No linksy, no discussy!
There is no knowledge except for that which is on the internet. Can't talk about policy yourself - just invalidate the source. All sources of knowledge and information come from the internet.
10:17 post at tsm and 10:25 post on here. yupyup.
Actually, dick and last, "The Budget" post is still available in the "Previous Posts" column on the left hand side of the screen and will be for another two posts.
You can also access it in the FEB 2009 archives any time you wish.
Now, onto the matter at hand. First, I'd like to point out that I do have a problem with any president that does not adhere to the Constitution. So if Obama is doing it as well, it's wrong.
Second, if you use the Constitution as a basis for your beliefs, you must accept the sixth amendment as it is and therefore, retract your statement that you have no problem with the government listening to your conversations.
Third, you decry the power grab of this president and yet support the Obama administration's intrusion into people's private lives in the case of national security. This makes absolutely no sense to me at all.
Thus, the original point from this post
"When it comes to war and national security, however, her audience apparently thinks there is no such thing as too much government."
stands and is completely hypocritical.
You don't have to quote internet sources, last. I'll take a book that is readily available at the library to peruse. It seems to me that your sources are, in fact, biased and you are having difficulty backing up your assertions.
Crap. I wanted the last post to be one minute after Mark's so last can continue with his delusion that we are one and the same. Apparently, he doesn't understand that one can set their email (mine is open all the time at work) to get instant notification when follow up comments are made.
Wait, last now thinks that dick nixon and mark are the same? I thought it was truth girl and mark were the same. There's a plot around every corner!!! Egads, mark, they really are getting desperate. I feel sorry for you....honestly.
Oh, and I received updates on this post via email which I am now checking over my lunch hour. Tuna sandwich.
Oops...mistake above...should read the fourth amendment, not sixth. I was looking at an old version of the Constitution with ALL amendments including the ones not ratified...although the sixth does apply actually...
Eliz-no need to feel sorry. It doesn't really bother me:)
You read into my statements a little too much Mark. I simply wanted your reaction to the fact that the administration you told us was going to change the world is now engaging in something you had a MAJOR problem with just a couple years ago. The people you voted for apparantly see no problem at all with warrantless tracking of cell phone records and this administration apparnetly sees no problem whatsoever with phone companies turning over their records to the government. I'm actually just curious to see if your outrage has an expiration date.
I even provided a link and STILL didn't get a response on the subject from dick and only got a few words from Mark on it. Am I having trouble backing up my assertions or are you having trouble responding to the assertions? Is this about votes or facts? You don't like the facts, therefore you are trying to say that I don't have enough "backup" (ie articles on the internet - where all knowledge exists). You can't grasp the concept that someone may work in a field related to medicaid funding and may know a little something about it and doesn't have to use google to know what is going on.
I've told this to you a half dozen times...looks like I have to say it again...national security is a legitimate function of the government and I have already explained that it is my opinion that the ability of our government and law enforcement officials to protect us has not risen proportionally with the ability of others to cause us harm. I do not think that the govt should be in the business of health care, retirement planning, etc. Government has legitimate functions that it is responsible for and national security is one of them, therefore it is not hypocritical at all.
Oh my, another democrat has decided to spend more time with his family...exactly as I predicted. Say goodbye to Evan Byah. Time for you all to talk about the republicans some more! BWahahahahahahaaa.
Elizabeth, I'm going to need to see a link in order to believe that you are eating a tuna sandwich for lunch. I just don't see enough backup for this assertion. Truth and knowledge only exist on the internet.
Man, I love this blog. Last in line is hilarious! Props to truth girl for pointing it my way!
Truthgirl, will you add me on facebook?
Thus, the original point from this post
"When it comes to war and national security, however, her audience apparently thinks there is no such thing as too much government."
From someone who apparently wasn't there and didn't actually talk to the people he is talking about. So, the author is mindreading? Or, perhaps he is projecting? Or, just talking out his ass?
Herr F, ah, but you weren't around when dick nixon refused to discuss a point because the other person was 'anonymous'. That was a true classic.
I still have a major problem with it. And no, my outrage doesn't have an expiration date. My position has been the same all along.
I understand the gist of what you are saying regarding national security but it appears to be incongruous with your view on intrusive government. For example, what were your thoughts on the DHS looking into right wing radicals in this country? Many felt that is was an unwarranted intrusion yet these same people were OK with it if the individuals being tracked were Muslim. Or leftist.
It works both ways. One day it's just fine if President Obama says Americans can expect to have the FBI listen to their cel phones but when it is yours and because of your political views--a right wing view--what then?
I say it's wrong unless there is probable cause. If you are running a blog which states that it's "past time for reasoned discourse and time for torches and pitchforks" then, yes, the DHS should be up your ass with a pair of tweezers. Because you know damn well those same people frequenting that site would be up in arms if there was an Islamic radical site which called for the same thing and WASN'T being tracked.
But if you are last in line who is driving along talking about the coming vagina storm and listening to Savage, a DHS agent should NOT be listening to you, taking notes, and identifying you as a possible right wing radical.
Markadelphia and juris posted at the same time which means...they are one and the same!
Not a chance. I would never live in Minnesota. I'm too much of a coastal person. So I'm obviously not M. And since my arguments are so much better than his, he obviously isn't me.
Now, where were we?
Funny thing - I actually never commented, here or tsm, on that DHS report on the right wing when it came out early last year.
If you read it, it had no specific threat information and the report can’t even say definitively whether the groups they were looking at were/are gaining new recruits. In order to find that, they’d probably have to identify and name the actual groups, inform the reader of the recruiting patterns, and determine whether new recruits are being gained or lost. No info about that was in the report at all and they seemed to pull threats out of thin air without any supporting research whatsoever.
I mean, when they talked about returning veterans, they talked about the "possible" passage of new restrictions on firearms and that challenges reintegrating into their communities "could" lead to the...Possible? Could? That doesn't sound like hard evidence to me.
I understand and accept that the DHS has to track all threats but no specific threats were mentioned in the report. No increases in group memberships were mentioned, no specific groups were named...it just talked about things that "might" happen.
LiL: 40 Mark: Love
Post a Comment