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 misrepresentative 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.
“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.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, , third world county, The World According to Carl, The Populist, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, and Wake Up America, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.