She Hasn't Failed Yet, But She's Heading Toward Failure
As I've mentioned before, I consider myself a one-issue voter in this election: civil liberties. On that basis, I've so far supported Obama both because he says the right things on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, and has the ConLaw background to properly understand the issues. I'm deeply suspicious of McCain on First Amendment issues because of McCain-Feingold. But what about the VP choices? Biden and Palin so far are about a wash, though she remains very much an unknown on most issues. I appreciate Palin's strong support for the Second Amendment; Biden is very anti-gun ownership and pro-regulation. Score one for her. On the Fourth Amendment, Biden's been a strong advocate and I'm not encouraged by Palin's line last night "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... [Obama]'s worried that someone won't read them their rights?" That sort of foolish macho talk is typical convention speechifying, but not encouraging. Finally, and most importantly, I want to hear more about the purported attempt she made to ban books from the Wasila public library based on immorality or foul language. That would be an automatic DQ from my vote for any public office whatsoever.
On a related note, although I know you're preaching to the choir at a convention, Mitt Romney is shockingly tone deaf. "It's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!" Is he completely and totally unaware that Big Brother is a metaphor for government spying on its citizens? If any party has been guilty of Big Brother type activities, it's the Republicans.
posted by QueensGuy @ 9:07 AM
4 Comments:
McCain obviously supports McCain-Feingold, but do you have the slightest evidence Obama is anything less than thrilled about it? Meanwhile, he and his buddies apparently can't wait to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. Also, do you think Obama will be more or less opposed than McCain to laws about hate speech and sexual harassment that will infringe on freedom of speech?
As for the second amendment, I really can't see McCain or Palin being less concerned than Obama or Biden.
On fourth amnenmdment issues, it's amazing how President's suddenly support every sort of executive power once they're in office. Ask yourself, why did Obama decide to vote for the FISA amendment? Was it a cynical political move? Or was it a man realizing "wait, I might want to use greater surveillance powers when I am President." Either one doesn't speak well.
Palin's line about reading Al Qaeda rights might sound like macho posturing, but let's be fair--POWs have never, in the past, been treated to full due process owed American citizens. This is about Obama treating the war on terror like it's a criminal investigation, rather than a war.
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Re hate speech, I don't know that there's much difference between their public pronouncements. McCain has publicly supported anti-hate-speech legislation. I have hope, however naive, that Obama would understand the constitutional ramifications better. I haven't seen any public statements by him on the subject, so it's just that -- airy-fairy hope. (CG, you awake?)
Agreed re the Fourth Amendment. The executive branch has been allowed post 9/11 to grasp far more power than is healthy, given that there's no war in the formal sense. Which means there'll be no carrier-deck signing at the conclusion, when they'll be expected to relinquish said powers. It's really, truly dangerous. If Bob Barr wasn't such an opportunistic johnny-come-lately of a libertarian, this alone would have me ready to vote third party.
Re the last point, I think the war on terror would greatly benefit from treating substantial parts of it more like a criminal investigation. Let me go try and dig up a good article with that premise that I read a couple of years back.
Still here, QG.
I'm much less jazzed about the Fourth than you are; I acknowledge your points, agree you might be exactly right, know that you will certainly be right some day. (Rebuttal saved as not pertinent)
What I'm outraged by and surprised you are not equally jazzed by is the First and McCain Feingold (and Fairness D).
Can you get a more direct 1A attack than that? What the hell was wrong with Bush for signing it? Can the Supremes revisit this any faster?
GoCG
Sorry, I was being a bit flippant about the First Amendment because I was in a hurry. Oh, trust me, I'm well and truly jazzed about McCain-Feingold. It's a direct assault on the purest of pure speech, and must be attacked at every opportunity. Thus, my kneejerk reaction was to completely dismiss McCain as an acceptable choice for President on that sole basis, and I've yet to hear anything from him (support for flag burning amendments, hate speech legislation) to improve his First Amendment standing in my eyes.
Obama, on the other hand, is on record opposing the Fairness Doctrine. Given that he's maybe the only high profile democrat to say so, that's a major point in his favor, and maybe isn't just posturing. And he also supports network neutrality, which for me is just as big an issue.
I sincerely hope the Supremes revisit this sooner rather than later -- this seems right up Roberts' alley.
Post a Comment
<< Home