home

When Did Bob Barr Start Making Sense?

Via AmericaBlog, Barr is positively insightful:

[In 1994,] Many in the new [GOP] House majority incorrectly concluded that their 1994 victory was a mandate for all they had campaigned on . . . What many congressional Republicans failed to realize until much later was that their November victory was less of a vote of confidence in them and more a vote against Clinton. . . . The Democrats will do everything in their power to avoid a return to second-class citizenship. They will be more likely than were the Republicans a dozen years ago to take modest steps, and to be careful lest rhetoric overtake feasible action. The goal for Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her battle-hardened team will be to spend two years laying the groundwork for further gains in 2008, and to push an agenda that will provide a solid and likely centrist platform for their party's standard-bearer.

Seriously, is this really Bob "Impeach Clinton" Barr? Remarkable.

< Abu Omar Describes His Abduction by CIA | Dems Likely to Move to Restore Habeas Rights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    small steps (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    Even though Pelosi has "taken impeachment off the table", that doesn't mean it can't come back on.

    We'll see what the hearings bring, and whether and to what extent Bushie, f/k/a The Unit, tries to be intransigent, obstructionist, unilateral, or pouting.  The more he does, the worse it gets for him.

    Oddly enough, rather than ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Bill Arnett on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 12:13:22 PM EST
    ... "coming to his senses", for Barr it was actually an adherence to his principles that caused him to break with the bush/cheney cabal.

    Barr truly means it when he speaks of small government and keeping that small government from interfering with the lives of citizens.

    That's why, when he heard of bush's illegal surveillance program, it drove him to speak out against the perversion of an unfettered gov't doing anything it wanted, including spying on its own citizens.

    Don't get me wrong, back in the "bad old days" of impeachment I absolutely despised the man, but when he took a principled stand against his own party, labeled the TSP totally illegal, and wrote many editorials about this abuse of power, he EARNED my respect.

    I know we would still disagree on many matters, but his vigorous defense of American values and the rule of law were both timely and well-warranted, and makes this man worthy of the respect he deserves for not "changing" his moral obligations and dedication to country based on the criminal desires of a president.

    Country and Constitution before Party. Ya gotta admire that.

    as well.................. (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    he's not running for office, so he has no stake in supporting the administration blindly.

    that's not to say i disagree with him, just pointing out that he has nothing to lose by taking his stands.

    Exactly.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kitt on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 02:30:32 PM EST
    ....probably about the same time Pat Buchanan made sense. But as with Barr, I, at least listen because as someone pointed out here or elsewhere - he has nothing to lose by being honest.