home

Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing to Amend FISA

Update: The New York Times on Bush's planned weeklong spin mission for the NSA program.

****
Original Post

It's happening again. Everytime the Democrats come close to scoring, they drop the ball. They fall for the Republican rhetoric, try to play the middle and end up sounding like Republican-lites.

Here's what you will see in the next few days. All of the points made over Bush's warrantless NSA electronic monitoring program being illegal are about to go down the drain. Scared off by Karl Rove, and Bush's agenda of talking heads this week, the Democrats are now saying they are in favor of increased surveillance just as much as the Republicans. Their opposition is about to be reduced to accusing Bush of a technical violation they would only have been to happy to fix had he asked.

It seems the Democrats are still unwilling to take a stand that is outside the center and run with it. Case in point: the Democrats comments on the Sunday news shows. Here's John Kerry.

KERRY: And what he's [Rove's] trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie.

We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer. But we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans. And what I believe, George, and I believe it deeply, is you can protect the United States of America without devoiding, without ignoring the Constitution of the country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But intelligence officials, and I've spoken to some of them, say it's just not practical. You can't run this kind of a detection program through the current FISA court.

KERRY: Then come to us and tell us how you can do it so that you need some more blanket form of doing it

No, Mr. Kerry. We do not all support surveillance "whenever and wherever necessary," particularly of Americans inside America.

The Democrats' fear of being soft on terrorism has replaced the fear of being soft on crime. Karl Rove says on Friday:

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," Mr. Rove said. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

The Democrats rushed in to refute Rove. But instead of complaining about Bush's NSA program resulting in the generic, non-particularized and overbroad surveillance of ordinary Americans without probable cause, forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, they are saying Bush was right about wanting to do the surveillance, he just was wrong about the way he went about it. If he had only asked Congress to amend FISA to allow it, they would have backed him 100%.

That's how the Patriot Act got passed in 2001. It was not just a Republican bill. Congress did not even have time to read the whole bill. It was passed with virtually no oversight, no hearings and no debate. All but Senator Russ Feingold were more concerned with appearing soft on terrorism than they were with our civil liberties. They never bothered to ask themselves, will this bill make us safer, or only less free?

Now the Democrats are virtually promising a re-write of FISA. The risk is that this will only be the beginning. Rove next will bring the debate from conversations between one person outside the country and one person inside the country to conversations between two people inside the country. And then there will be a move to reduce the protections in Title III, which regulates eavesdropping on Americans in criminal investigations.

They will talk about the wall. You remember, the wall between intelligence agencies and crime agencies. They will agree it needs to come down. Prior to the 2001 Patriot Act, to get a FISA warrant, intelligence had to be the principal purpose of the surveillance request. Bush, DOJ and Ashcroft wanted to tear down the wall, and asked for a change whereby foreign intelligence gathering only had to be "a purpose" rather than the principal purpose of the surveillance. Ultimately, DOJ and Congress settled on a compromise, which was emodied in the Patriot Act: the gathering of the foreign intelligence only had to be a "significant purpose" not the principal purpose of the surveillance. Which means, the principal purpose of the surveillance can be the gathering of information for a criminal prosecution rather than for foreign intelligence.

Rove's plan was to go on the offensive and put Democrats back on the defensive. Instead of sticking to the game plan that Bush's warrantless program violated the rights of Americans, they appear ready to fold by agreeing to change FISA.

This won't end with FISA. It will move to a reassessment of Title III, the federal wiretapping statute that governs electronic surveillance in criminal cases.

Note how in his speech today, former NSA Director Michael Hayden, who was in charge of the NSA when Bush's warrantless program went into effect, said:

General Hayden defended the program's constitutionality. He said the lower, "reasonable belief" standard conformed to the wording of the Fourth Amendment, pointing out that it does not mention probable cause, but instead forbids "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

The last time I read the Fourth Amendment it said:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Bush is arguing now for a "reasonable suspicion standard" for FISA surveillance. FISA orders now require the judge to find probable cause. If the Democrats give in on that, it later will filter down to Title III. There's a difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is filled with it. What is a "reasonable suspicion?" It's like a possibility. "Reasonable suspicion" is too close to an "inarticulate hunch" in my opinion, and when it comes to electronic surveillance and wiretapping, the most intrusive and privacy-invasive law enforcement techniques available, we shouldn't give in. There has been no showing that we will be safer with more electronic surveillance. But we will be less free.

[graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL]

< Bloggies Finals | Interrogator Convicted, Gets No Jail, Just a Reprimand >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    Time to make a fourth ammendment door mat as a companion to the tote. Digby is depressed, and he did not even touch on any of this. Looks like it may be time to go somewhere else or start another party who can represent all of us reflected in the polls. Bush has a 36% rating, most of America is not in favor of what he has been doing, but the Dems and the MSM seem like they are on another planet. What to do? Question of the year.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#2)
    by The Heretik on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    Sometimes I think Bush would have to have numbers in the negative integers for Democrats to take a stand against Bush for fear of being viewed as "soft" on anything. Oy.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    The sad truth is, the dems are no friends to freedom either. As Peter Tosh once said..."You never miss your water, till the well runs dry."

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#4)
    by Al on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    It seems to me there is no incentive for the Democratic Party to act as an opposition, since their voters will continue to vote for them no matter what, and indeed fiercely reject any other party for fear of "splitting the vote". As if it mattered all that much.

    Democrats Should Think Twice Before : (Insert your favorite thing here) I personally would say: "they do or say just about anything"

    I viewed the Kerry interview, what to say? other than he is the ultimate Barclays Banker. For evey gaffe, stumble,inane utterence and plain old bushspeak that dubya has inflicted on anyone whose IQ exceeds their waistline, never in the annals of politics has anyone come remotely near to commiting politicl suicide as John Kerry, when he uttered those immortal words "reporting for duty" As ineffectual politicians go Kerry is in the vanguard.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    My most fervant prayer is for the day when one of these guys finally snaps and has a Bullworth or "Im mad as hell and Im not gonna take it anymore." moment. Theyre all so cowed that temporary insanity/honesty may be our only hope.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:21:25 AM EST
    oscar wilde wrote:
    never in the annals of politics has anyone come remotely near to commiting politicl suicide as John Kerry, when he uttered those immortal words "reporting for duty"
    Indeed. That let the Vietnam issue in and the Swift Boats took it at flood tide. But you see, he thought that TANG would carry that issue. It didn't, and Rathergate finished him off. And yes, the Left should start a new party. That would define if they have enough support to continue.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lora on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 07:29:39 AM EST
    The RNC/mainstream media spin machine is armed and ready to smear utterly anyone who crosses them and their agenda. The dems in office are there because they are allowed to be there. If they seriously get in the way of the repressive right, they will be personally attacked on the slightest transgressions the RNC can dig up, and their families will be too. They're all scared, and with good reason. It's a one-party rule.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#10)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:51:14 AM EST
    The democrats have discovered that FISA is a loser so they're backtracking. You can call it weak, smart whatever but it doesn't change the fact that public opinion on the whole supports the president. Also as much as the "conservative media" likes to assume that a crime has been comitted that hasn't played out yet and dems are now fearful that Bush will hammer them in November when he wins both the political and leagal sides of this issue. They have settled on coruption and Katrina for 2006 and we'll see if it works but everytime they try and favor terrorists over Bush they get hammered. See 2002 and 2004.

    This is a beautiful, glorious day....and do you know what day it is? Today is the day that the democratic/liberal/media spin machine has been declared inneffective. In days past, the libs teamed with mass media in order to mislead the American masses. In years past, the left would have pounded this "domestic spying agenda" down everyones throats, and the President would have had no other choice but to relent and acquiesce. Today, however, with talk radio and the blogosphere, its nearly impossible to confuse the American masses with the typical left leaning dog and pony show. Today, when the American President says "we need to spy on enemies that would do this nation harm", the American public says "your damn right we do".

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    Yes it is indeed a glorious day for neo-fascists everywhere as the corporate owned media continues to spew the administrations nonsense. The opposition party is but a bunch of quivering cowards too afraid to lose their own position in the gravy train to speak out. The SC is now almost packed with believers in unchecked presidential power, there is increased surveilance by the FBI, NSA and the Pentagon on anyone who speaks out against the administartion and also corporate interests are entrenched in the government in a way never before seen. The use of signing statements makes Congress irrelevant and influence at Diabold, and the SC now make it relatively easy, especially with no opposition party, to control the elections. So the destruction of the federal government as we know it will be evidenced by a slow but steady elimination of all major programs and oversight, especially in the areas of health, education and retirement. This will be replaced by an organized looting of the treasury for the corporations, which is already underway for those not paying attention. And as a caharacteristic possessed by all fascist regimes, the war on terror will continue to be used to spread fear as a way of silencing the sheep. An endless war on terror will be necessary as a cover for the ever continuing series of resource wars necessary to procure the oil. The increased surveillance and policing activities of federal agencies will be necessary to put those unhappy with the lack of jobs and low salaries when there is a job into "protective custody". THe corporations completely unfettered by laws or regulations are now free to drive down wages in the US to those of the third world while raping the countryside and devestating the environment. Yes a glorious day for the neo-fascists everywhere. We've seen al this before in history. The path to where we are today has been played out before, Only a few minor tweaks in the script were necessary, e.g. labeling Muslims as the enenmy of "our values and what we stand for". Otherwise it has been a classic unfolding of a fascist government. Some one go tell the Democrats its ok to come out from under their desks. Its too late.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    Dr. Brit's 14 characteristics of fascist governments based on evaluation of governments in the 20th century. 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause 4. Supremacy of the Military 5. Rampant Sexism 6. Controlled Mass Media 7. Obsession with National Security 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined 9. Corporate Power is Protected 10. Labor Power is Suppressed 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption 14. Fraudulent Elections link Not bad, Bush has 13/14

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    Soccerdad your overeaction is epic. While I understand your frustration it seems resorting to facist analogies is a little over the top. Today on NPR-Fresh Air the NYT reporter who broke the FISA story estimated that the program has spied on maybe a few thousand people, lets for the sake of argument call it five thousand people. Do the math. 5K/295,000K = .002% of US Population was rounded up in this fascist drag net. It seems our current facist regime has a lot of catching up to do to equal the facist regimes of the past or the current ones. So I'm supposed to get all hot and bothered that 1 out of every 50,000 americans was easdropped on while they received a call from a terrorist. Just want to get the facist analogy straigt. Convienently enough you don't name any of these regimes leving us to name them for ourselves. Please provide the facist regime's that we are emulating so the current one can improve it's capabilities.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#16)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    I don't see Slado disputing the facts.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    How can I dispute facts when you don't give them. What regimes are you comparing the Bush administration too?

    Soccerdad, I take back my comments from yesterday. I am now having fun watching your hysterical break-down. Hell, if I didn't have you to keep me entertained through out the day, I would probably have to start working harder.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#19)
    by roger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17:36 PM EST
    SD, Slado does point out that W is incompetant at this too!

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:27:22 PM EST
    .002% of US Population was rounded up in this fascist drag net
    0.0000000000000000000000000001% is too many.
    It seems our current facist regime has a lot of catching up to do to equal the facist regimes of the past or the current ones.
    Give them time, they are thinking long-term. The bastards know if they move to quickly, there are enough of us who know what freedom is to resist. After a generation, we won't recognize the place.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    Variable, I am not having a break down. You too do not dispute the facts just try to slander the messenger. Everyone is concentrating on a single issue at a time. Step back look at the pattern and just ask why. I'm resigned that it will all proceed without opposition. In 2 years assuming the rethugs continue power, then we can talk and call me hysterical. These things dont happen all at once, just step by step by step. Little freedom lost here little more surveillance by 3 or 4 agencies, there. The direction is crystal clear to those who want to see. Its ok the pres is counting on people like you to be swept up in the fear mongering so that he can consolidate more and more power, a little at a time.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    ppj, "Let the Vietnam issue in". Complete, utter b.s. Name me one presidential canpaign in which a candidates military experience was not made an issue. If Kerry hadnt brought up, Hannity and the bulimic velociraptor would have been going on and on about "Whats he so ashamed of?" etc. Get real.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 01:47:27 PM EST
    The democrats have discovered that FISA is a loser so they're backtracking. You can call it weak, smart whatever but it doesn't change the fact that public opinion on the whole supports the president.
    Does anyone else wonder exactly what planet this commenter lives on?
    The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

    The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

    "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

    43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.
    And then there's this:
    A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll finds continued stability in public opinion about President George W. Bush, as his 43% job approval rating has not wavered in over a month's worth of polling.
    So 'public opinion' on the whole does NOT support the pResident, and specifically the majority of Americans want him impeached.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    SD writes:
    So the destruction of the federal government as we know it will be evidenced by a slow but steady elimination of all major programs and oversight, especially in the areas of health, education and retirement.
    Uh, about three weeks ago I filled three Rx's under the Medicare Rx Insurance program pushed through Congress by the evil Bush. Prior to this terrible plan that the MSM is complaining about, and you are trying to ignore, I would have paid about $150 in co-pays and $320 in monthly premiums. Using the plan pushed into law by the evil Bush, the premium is under $100., and the co pays were $20.00. Think I'll use the savings and buy mysef a belated Xmas present... Sailor - The problem with the poll is that it does not take into the national defense issue. When it does, the poll flips. Typical biased stuff from Zogby. And your last sentence is a masterpiece of misdirection.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#25)
    by Lora on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:56:35 PM EST
    Soccerdad, 14/14, heh. You don't think they'd leave one out, do you? And isn't it interesting that despite the fact that all these polls are so highly regarded, the only ones in recent history that were assumed to be incorrect happened to be....oh yeah, the 2004 national election exit poll, and the 2005 Ohio pre-election poll. But...of course our election process is untouched by the GOP. They couldn't possibly get away with fraud, with all the safeguards and security we have in place. And even if they could, they wouldn't, because this is America.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:06:34 PM EST
    PPJ enjoy it now it isn't going to last, see my links on the other thread. The Medicare drug plan will bankrupt the US and therefore will be cut, in the next year or so. His new proposals will undercut the whole concept of medical insurance in favor of HSAs . But I know that your entire knowledge of the world extends to your front door. As long as your ok, everyone else is on their own.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#27)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:17:48 PM EST
    he problem with the poll is that it does not take into the national defense issue. When it does, the poll flips. How about an example there sparky? Like maybe a link, refuting poll results, some research, psychic evidence, channeling results, fossils, anything...you know. Somebodies brothers ex-wife's daughters boyfriends uncles parakeet told you that hindraker would have said it if you'd reminded him to? ;-)

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 07:43:57 PM EST
    Soc I'm still waiting for the regimes that Bush and Co. are like. Are you going to give examples or just speak in the hypothetical? See the democratic/lefty attacks break down when their dire predictions are given context. I'll name some facsist/dictorial regimes. Nazi's, Communists, Saddam, Taliban, China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia. Which one of those is Bush most like? Go ahead. Back up your statement... And as a caharacteristic possessed by all fascist regimes Can you realy compare the USA to any of the above? I mean Bush won the last election by 5% of the vote. If this was a facist regime...ala Saddam Hussien...it'd be 95%...oh wait I mean 100%. I thought dems were going to take back the Senate and House and impeach Bush? How could they do that if this was a facist regime? What about 8 Senators opposing the fascist leaders nominee? I suppose Feinstein will get a visit from the Gestapo tonight and be heading to the Gulag. Over the top rhetoric doesn't do anyone any good. Stick to a debate. Not a name calling hysteria contest.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#29)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 07:57:34 PM EST
    Edgar This is from CNN On the topic of civil liberties, 38 percent of those polled said the Bush administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while 40 percent said the government's approach has been "about right," and 19 percent said the government had not gone far enough. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,003 adults found that 50 percent of those polled believe it's OK to forgo warrants when ordering electronic surveillance of people suspected of having ties to terrorists abroad. Another 46 percent said the policy is wrong, and 4 percent said they had no opinion. Like I've said before this is not a clear issue either way but does anyone seriously think once all the facts are known that Bush will lose this issue politically?

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#30)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 08:34:23 PM EST
    Like I've said before this is not a clear issue either way
    Sadly, no! This is what you said before:
    You can call it weak, smart whatever but it doesn't change the fact that public opinion on the whole supports the president.
    BTW:
    Over the top rhetoric doesn't do anyone any good.
    That was irony ... right?

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:30:31 PM EST
    Slado: I mean Bush won the last election by 5% of the vote. That is wrong. You are either intentionally misinforming, i.e. lying, and are hoping no one will call you on it, or you are just too lazy to do your homework. From my own post of December 31/05:
    In the 2004 election George Bush was credited with 50.7% of the popular vote, and 286 electoral college votes. John Kerry finished with 48.3% of the popular vote and 251 votes from the electoral college. That is a difference of 2.4% of the popular vote between the two. I think you'll find that difference is smaller than the average margin of error in most public opinion polls, scientific or not. --- In the 2000 election George Bush was credited with 47.9% of the popular vote, and 271 electoral college votes. Al Gore finished with 48.4% of popular vote and 266 votes from the electoral college. That is a difference of 0.5 % of the popular vote between the two.
    And since you haven't provided anything to back up your claims I won't bother to either, except to say that the figures I just gave you are verifiable from the official election results. Go look 'em up yourself. The poll done by Rasmussen Reports on December 15, 2005 found that 32% of Americans believe that Bush should be impeached and removed from office. 32 percent? Just a hair larger that the margins of error in both the 2000 and the 2004 elections. With nothing to support it, I think it a reasonable assumption that a week after the 2004 election the percentage of people favoring impeachment of Bus would have been nowhere near 32%... I'll also, and I think everyone else should as well, discount any other claims you've made above re poll results unless you back them up. Do your homework, guys. Or go home.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:41:04 PM EST
    Of the 32% figure in Rasmussen's Dec 15 poll that favor impeaching Bush, let's give the right the benefit of the doubt and assume that at least 25% of that 32% are people who voted against Bush and for Kerry. That would leave 7% that are people who voted for Bush. Fair? Again higher than the difference in both elections 2000, and 2004. You know... I'll be surprised if bush is still in office by the end of this year, 2006.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:10:38 PM EST
    Impeachment hearings: The White House prepares for the worst:
    The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress. "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," an administration source said. Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February.
    January 23, 2006 - Insight

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:19:03 AM EST
    wooaoh Ok 5% was pushing it. I was in mid rant and used rounded numbers. Sorry. My point was if we were living in a fascist state Bush wouldn't be winning elections by such close margins. Thanks for the corrections. As for Sailor I don't think Bush will lose this issue but trying to be objective and not partisan to spur debate I will admit the jury is still out. I will try and clarigy statements and observations in the future. Again I'll observe: Legal and political questions about NSA haven't been answered but I think: Bush will eventually prevail on this issue.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#35)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:31:14 AM EST
    It looks like is was 3% based on CNN CNN But according to my HP12C calculator... 62,040,606 / (62,040,606 + 59,028,109) Result = 51.24% Bush 48.76% Kerry 51.24 - 48.76 = 2.48% Let this forever be known as the margin of victory.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:45:23 AM EST
    My point was if we were living in a fascist state Bush wouldn't be winning elections by such close margins. Thanks for the corrections
    Wrong. Fascist states have been established by parties whose vote total was much less than 50%. And you choose to ignore all the irregularites in both elections. But thats to be expected. Dr. Brits Study was based on analysis of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Suharto, and 2 more I cant remember off the top of my head. The question which you ignore is not which regime is Bush like, but whether the Bush regime has followed those 14 characteristics. Not all fascist regimes are the same. But there are characteristics/strategies which are contained in all. The Bush regime is not yet a full fledged fascist state, but that is clearly the trajectory. So don't try to deflect with irrelevant questions.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#37)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:07:14 AM EST
    Fair enough soc I understand your argument better. However correct me if I'm wrong but with term limits and the checks and balances of the congress, SC (even while under republican control) Bush's time and ability are limited. Hitler and others did not face term limits. They simply took over and stayed. Are you prediciting that Bush will continue as president after '08. Or that a new Bush will emerge to take his place and continue the regime? As for the 14 steps you have to in each case assume some will presumptions for them to apply. Example: #6 Controlled mass media Controlled by whoom? Large corporations? Right wing? Is your argument that liberal thinking is repressed by the government. If so please explain this site, the major networks, the NYT's etc... Are all steps happening now? Or are you predicting that eventually (Bush better hurry) they will. Again. In my opinion your fascist analogy is over the top.

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    Are you prediciting that Bush will continue as president after '08. Or that a new Bush will emerge to take his place and continue the regime?
    I think the 2nd is more likely than the first. The machinery is in place all they need is to put someone in the WH. Most mass media is controlled by the Coerporations that own them. The corporations and the Bush administration are intertwined like never before. As a result, many (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc) push the Bush propaganda while others have been intimidated to a point where they just simply do no analysis. The Times and WaPO used to be liberal papers but are no longer, eg see Howell and Miller. and especially the editorial section. The WSJ, with the exception of a few reporters, is over the top in supporting Bush and repeating the propaganda. if I listen to my local sports talk radio, every permanent host is rabidly pro-Bush and anyone who isn't is routinely humiliated. Liberal outlets such as this will cease to exist in a couple of years if we continue down the road we've started, since they "give comfort to the enemy" as some posters here have claimed. The Dems being the complete idiots that they are have gone for the misdirection of Alito and latched on to Roe v Wade. But what is much scarier is his belief along with the AG and their sidekick Yoo who all believe in the "unitary" presidency, essentially the president has the inherent power based on the Constitution to ignore all other branches of governement is case of national peril. Note: Alito has been behind the idea of expanding the use of signing statements. Thus the never ending WOT. All danger from this admin comes from this and the resultant unprecedented power grab by this president. All steps are happening to various degrees right now. If Congress reasserts its role and deprives the president absolute power then it may stop where it is. If they don't .....

    Re: Democrats Should Think Twice Before Agreeing t (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    Where we do agree is Roe. I'm tired of lefties and righties demonizing this issue. It's ridiculous to claim that a women has no right to one just like it's ridiculous for pro choice advocates to claim that there should be no restrictions. But that's for another thread. As for the path of our government I'm thrilled that it's tilting conservative but I understand that the lefties of this world would be unhappy. I just think you analogy was over the top. Agree to disagree.