RNC condemns NSA spying in huge turnaround

[Indi Guy]

Source: MSNBC

In a jarring break from the George W. Bush era, the Republican National Committee voted Friday to adopt a resolution demanding an investigation into the National Security Agency’s spy programs.

According to the resolution, the NSA metadata program revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden is deemed “an invasion into the personal lives of American citizens that violates the right of free speech and association afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” In addition, “the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Titled a “Resolution To Renounce The National Security Agency’s Surveillance Program,” it was passed by a voice vote as part of a package of RNC proposals. Not a single member rose to object or call for further debate, as occurred for other resolutions.

Nevada Committeewoman Diana Orrock told msnbc over the phone that she introduced the resolution at the RNC’s summer meeting, but she wasn’t able to attract the necessary co-sponsors to advance it until now. The only major change she says she made to secure support was to drop the word “unconstitutional” from the title.

“I have to thank Edward Snowden for bringing forth the blatant trampling of our First and Fourth Amendment rights in the guise of security,” she said. “Something had to be said. Something had to be done.”...

Read more: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rnc-condemns-nsa-spying-shock-turnaround-0

---

[reddread]

1. and awaaaaaaay we go!

nice toehold.
congratulations.

[grasswire]

4. strategic move by GOP to box Democrats in on the issue!!

Many Democratic candidates will be loathe to criticize the Obama administration on surveillance. And so the GOP can steal this issue and run with it, riding the tide of popular anti-surveillance opinion in 2016.

Hoo boy. A pickle.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Most ordinary people are not terribly ginned up about it the way bloggers are.

Obama should let them do whatever they want, let Congress duke it out and take it out of his hands. I don't think he's that wedded to the metadata phone stuff. Anything they undo now, they'll just re-do (and worse) if a Repub gets in.

[Jesus Malverde]

67. The revelations are not over yet. We've heard that from multiple sources.

This could be a huge set up.

[kelliekat44]

25. They don't mean it, really but they think it will get them some votes from the youngters. nt

[alarimer]

2. It's bad as long as a Democrat is doing it.

Wait til they are in the Presidency again.

[reddread]

5. shouldnt be long given all the low hanging fruit

No matter how insincere their intent, a few choice issues like Feds intervening in medical Marijuana in California are gonna be real hard to defend and recruit undecideds with.
There is BIG trouble ahead on these fronts, and Jeb will pop up at the last minute to take advantage.
The worst part is nobody expects an honest statement or follow through, because we are conditioned to
lying politicians trying to get elected.
Not even worth bellyaching about. We will be sleeping in the bed they made for us.

[on point]

27. It's bad regardless of who is doing it. Not a party issue but a freedom issue

[Demenace]

52. But when they get the chance to do it again, it will be okay...

Just like cats, Progressives are easy to distract with shiny objects! These are the people who brought you the program in the first place so go ahead and side with them now that they think is not cool!

[Maedhros]

62. It's not about "siding" with anyone. That is a really stupid way of looking at this issue.

The NSA blanket surveillance programs are antithetical to democracy. Progressives work to advance democratic principles, therefore we oppose such programs as a priori authoritarian power grabs. Our position has nothing to do with what the RNC thinks.

If the RNC happens to decide to try and use the NSA's public relations difficulties as a bludgeon against the Administration so be it - the Administration certainly had the option to jump out in front of this issue in solidarity with the Progressives. They chose instead to circle the wagons around the NSA.

[stevenleser]

74. No, it's not. Political alignments have real world consequences. The RNC is trying to play you here

Their proclamation does not deserve to be part of the discussion at all given their very recent history of publicly supporting warrantless wiretapping as recently as 2006.

If you are using this statement by them at all as a reason for an attempt at real discussion, you are playing into their hands.

[Maedhros]

76. You missed the point of my post.

I am most emphatically not using the RNC's statement in my argument. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that by opposing the NSA's activities I am somehow "siding" with them. They are taking a position that I had previously held.

Should I criticize the RNC for agreeing with me? That's politically stupid. I will, however, question their sincerity and their motives.

We must stop allowing partisan loyalty to determine the truth. Warrantless surveillance is bad when Republicans are in power, but good when Democrats are in power. Democrats criticizing bad policy is OK, Republicans criticizing bad policy is unacceptable. That's classic Double Think.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. And they'd be blaming Obama

if an act of terrorism snuck through

This is how parties switch positions on fundamental things

[jeff47]

6. And they'll demand the investigation go back to Jan 20, 2009. (nt)

[blkmusclmachine]

15. +1. IOKIYAR

[TwilightGardener]

7. LOL. The people who built the building now condemn it, because

they're not in power. Kind of what they do with wars, too. Spying under Republican rule--necessary for TERRA!! Spying under Democratic rule--HORRIBLE INTRUSION OF PRIVACY!! War under Dumbya--WARGASM!! War under Obama--His heart's not in it, we're tired of this, bad rules of engagement, cut-n-run, we should go, we should stay, whatever, it just doesn't FEEL as good!

[Indi Guy]

14. Excellent observations of hypocrisy taken to a fine art.

I can see all the Tea-party Repubs now -- climbing all over each other trying to get out of the clown car to be the first to blow their clown horns against the evil (and illegitimate) Obama admin's anti-American spy policies.

[FiveGoodMen]

35. They wouldn't be able to do so if the folks WE voted for hadn't fucked up so badly

[TwilightGardener]

38. I don't think Obama "fucked up badly". The NSA was operating like

a mindless info-collecting monster with no "off" button, guidance, or real oversight. That certainly didn't begin in 2009, and most people (at least those who are interested in this topic) realize that. He's at fault for not getting a better handle on it before it was revealed, but no one is going to be fooled that the GOP suddenly gives a shit about privacy. The RNC is going to try to grab some Rand Paul-ish cachet with the libertarian young'uns, but it's not going to sway Democrats, or have much of an impact on anyone else who cares way more about kitchen table issues (most people). Metadata collection is an abstract concern--needs to be addressed and restricted, but no one is fearing the dreaded knock on the door in the middle of the night. Jobs, health care, taxes, economic growth--the usual stuff will win or lose votes. Those also happen to be the hardest to solve, which is why the GOP is trying to score points on a national security frankenstein THEY and CONGRESS built before Obama took office.

[FiveGoodMen]

41. He did nothing to reign them in

No one who listened to his speech expects him to do anything now.

[TwilightGardener]

42. "Rein". He's tinkering with it. He's probably afraid to overhaul it significantly, and then

there's an attack, whether or not it could be caught with those controversial NSA programs. He's really afraid of an incident on his watch, it's clear to me, and he doesn't want to deprive agencies of what they say they need to track suspicious activity. Playing it safe, when he SHOULD sacrifice a little bit of this stuff (at least the big sweeps of domestic data in which it's doubtful they get anything of value) for the sake of being more Constitutional. But I can see where he's coming from--he's got a lot on his shoulders, and he would rather ride out the next three years with as many tools against terror attacks in his toolbox as possible. The RNC is running counter to Congressional Repubs on this, for the most part. It's a naked ploy, easy, and of little consequence. It's like being against cancer, and being for kittens.

[RC]

53. He is probably also afraid of being JFKed, if he tries too hard to do much of anything to fix it.

[Titonwan]

78. My, my

Some humans get it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. Obama should evolve, agree, and make them vote on dismantling the surveillance state

Done and done.

[TwilightGardener]

11. And if there's a terra attack, I guess the Repubs own it.

[struggle4progress]

22. Careful: if he took such a stand, they'd come down on him like a loada bricks

[Indi Guy]

43. That idea has allot of merit.

Regardless of how this all plays out -- it's promises to be very interesting.

[SoapBox]

10. Benghazi!

Wait...uh, what?

[L0oniX]

12. They must have found out that Dems have the NSA snooping on them.

No I am NOT going use a sarc tag ...if you don't get it you are pathetic.

[BelgianMadCow]

17. No, the NSA has been snooping on dems and repubs

as you probably know (see: the coup already happened) but the repubs have far more to hide

[blkmusclmachine]

13. Election year issue. The GOP loves the NSA. Don't let their phony new-found bluster fool you. They'r

in 100% on the NSA.

[Turbineguy]

16. Apparently RW terrorists are being spied on too.

[onehandle]

18. More proof that the GOP will deny national security just to attack President Obama. nt

[Titonwan]

33. More proof you have no idea what tactics are being used.

The GOP is renowned for great security (imperialism) but they're getting in front of a national disgust on how government wants to be pimp daddy on all 411. Sure, it's a tactic, but the bigger question is why you'd defend this massive invasion of your privacy by a guy you happen to like?
This isn't going away (h/t Glenn Greenwald) and the more that comes out the more it's gonna dawn on the sleeping that things are fucked up in Denmark.
Now, are we going to get ahead of their machinations or defend the indefensible?
Your choice, Paco.

[stevenleser]

75. Tactics? You talk of tactics while you play into the RNC's hands here?

[iamthebandfanman]

19. "In a jarring break"

should have been ' in a jarring act of hypocrisy'

[Ash_F]

20. NOOOO! how could they betray the Clapper?

[struggle4progress]

21. Golly. I had thunked them wuz the dudes and dames what first started humongous metadata collectin

way back in 2001 and then got the FISC to approve that sweepin interpretation of section 215 way back in 2006

[Fumesucker]

23. I'm so old

I can remember when liberals were against NSA spying and conservatives were for it.

[Titonwan]

29. It seems like a lot of folks

are rootin' for their particular charlatans, any more. "Mine is a better liar!" "He just put down your momma!" "Ford's suck!"
The old liberal adage of 'question authority' has now become 'I ain't caring as long as my corporate puppet is in office!'. Yeay for our side (which is the exact same side as the opposing side with minor differences)!

[blackspade]

49. No doubt!

[Titonwan]

24. If you don't see the danger in this...

... well, yer not lookin' enough. Yeah, I get it- some of you blue cheerleaders will never see a mishap from someone you voted for. I'm very sorry for your losses.
Now, I'm not one to stay in one area very much being a ranger type and all but I see an alliance with left libertarians (yes, gwenyth, there be such) and liberals on these matters. Let's not get into the darwinism economics for now- we'll just get em drunk and call the cops.
If our 'leaders' don't get in front of this- vastly reducing NSA* power- then popular consensus says they're not gonna win.
Ironic, isn't it? A policy put in place by a repug- enforced by a democrat- will now be chastised for secrecy. Oh what comedy ensues.

61% of this country wants to fry Edward Snowden for opening their eyes. And baby Jeebus rode on a Dinosauras Rex post facto like yesterday. Maybe two weeks, total.

[randome]

26. Sure, let's all spend our energy on phantom fears instead of real dangers.

You know how the world would be different if the metadata storage was stopped today?

It wouldn't. You would have exactly zero to show for your efforts and the real problems we failed to address would still be here.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Fumesucker]

30. If the world wouldn't be any different if it was stopped then why not stop it?

You make an excellent case for stopping metadata collection, it makes zero difference in the world and costs money and good will.

[randome]

46. It would make no difference to me.

The NSA wants it for an insurance policy. In the case of another disaster, it makes sense to want to look up the phone numbers of possible collaborators.

Only 22 NSA employees have access to the metadata. It's pretty well guarded.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Maedhros]

63. I don't trust those 22 NSA employees, since they will be the James Clappers of the organization.

Any any one of those 22 employees can abuse their access to provide political favors for powerful patrons.

Looking up phone numbers of terrorist collaborators will get you the number of a disposable burner phone. Even stupid petty criminals know not to use a device that can trace back to them. All the billions and billions of dollars being funneled toward these programs is actively taking money away from programs that could do some real good - infrastructure repair, energy assistance, food stamps, and health care, to name a few.

Support of the NSA is unconscionable from a Progressive point-of-view. It is illegal (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/politics/nsa-telephone-records-privacy/) and does nothing to protect us from terrorist attack (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/20/21975158-nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-says-white-house-panel-member?lite). Allowing the government to continue pouring billions and billions of dollars into an ineffective, illegal program is antithetical to Progressive values.

So I guess it would make no difference to me, either, if I did not hold Progressive values.

[JDPriestly]

34. You know how the world would be different if we stopped the metadata collection and storage today?

We would save fundamental guarantees in our Constitution and maybe save our country from a speedy and easy takeover by a dictator. The government established in our Constitution was not the accident that many Americans think it was. Many brilliant men and societies contributed ideas that are written into our Constitution. The French philosopher Montesquieu was one. It took a long time and many mistakes over the centuries before our Founding Fathers (who were in many cases very well-read, well educated men) wrote the Constitution.

Let's don't continue to tear it up. Let's don't let our government ignore it.

Here is a link to our Constitution.

Read it not just once but every once in a while.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution

[grasswire]

36. ....not to mention saving trillions of dollars!

If the programs were stopped tomorrow, we would save untold amounts of money.

Well, a lot of people might be out of work, so we would need some jobs program for them. Nevertheless, it would be significant savings.

[randome]

45. As far as the metadata goes, it likely takes next to nothing to transmit and store the data.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[RC]

55. And how many billions of dollars did it take to build those storage facilities for that meta data?

To say nothing about the electrical power and water to keep the whole thing cool enough to keep working?

Just think of the unemployment insurance, single Payer, Universal Health Care, COLA's for Social Security, nation wide, Public Education system, High Speed Rail, plus much more that could be had for the cost it tales to build and operat these data storage facilities all over, so the paranoid crazies in this country can feel good about themselves.

[randome]

60. The storage facility is not for telephone metadata.

The metadata records can be maintained on a few USB drives. Nothing so elaborate as Utah to store them. And they are destroyed every few years. Unless someone can show they aren't, I don't see the point of making the assumption that the NSA is keeping them for all eternity.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[RC]

61. Brayhahahahaahah....

Boy are you wrong. Don't you read the links on DU? They are keeping most everything. And as for being able to keep the telephone meta data on a few flash drives, a few hundred million maybe.

[grasswire]

56. what is the cost (including debt service and staffing)...

....of the facility in Utah?

[randome]

59. Hell if I know. But the metadata is routinely destroyed every few years.

Even if it wasn't, it wouldn't take some massive facility to store what are essentially text records.

As I pointed out in another thread, we should know what that data facility is for.

That and the sharing of data with GCHQ and vice-versa are, to me, the more worrisome aspects to the NSA.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[sendero]

48. It's astounding to me..

... how many people here do not understand the reason the founding fathers put so many restrictions on the government's ability to monitor the activities of its citizens.

These restrictions were no accident and they were and are the only "trade off" that could be made that would work.

But so many here want to not only allow the gathering of this data by an organization so UTTERLY INEPT that a large portion of their private documentation was stolen right under their stupid ass noses, but then have the idiotic gall to claim that this data is safe.

I could go on for quite a while WHY the founders did this but any REAL American should already understand why. The rest are just American idiots.

[Titonwan]

28. And this is the reason to get out in front.

I know people are getting aware of this spying and having none of it, regardless of those bogus 61% numbers. If our Democratic leaders started to address this in a sane matter the Republicans wouldn't be able to snatch this out of our reach. Nobody wants their privacy invaded, for no reason. How damned hard is this, anyway? Jeebus.
Abolish the NDAA and hamstring the shittin' NSA. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now back to those cute game shows where the rethugs accidentally win!
Thanks once more, Edward Snowden. Good night & good luck.

[Titonwan]

31. Digby's view

http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-big-chill.html
We let the slimey bastards that started this to get credit for ending it then we're bigger fools than I ever could imagine. The RNC is gaining ground and you recalcitrant loyalists better get on board because right now you're just shooting yourselves in the foot. The NSA is wildly out of control and defending this outrage will doom the next democratic hopeful. On you, now.

[grasswire]

37. excellent

thanks

[JDPriestly]

32. I want to see the Democratic Party step up to the plate.

Stop the excessive surveillance. NSA needs to get a warrant and subpoena the records of Americans. I can't judge its overseas programs as well as I can the American ones. It's overkill. If you suspect someone of terrorist activities, get a warrant.

[Todays_Illusion]

39. This is a major signal that the libertarian Republicans have taken the party

over from the Heritage(Bircher)/Buckley Republicans. Snowden, Assagne, Manning, Guardian, Greenwald, all libertarians as have been the conservative sites that are strongly against NSA. As is wiki and many of our tech billionaires. Bezos, Ellison, the Google boys, Apple, etc.

This is pure electioneering propaganda. The House has a Republican majority, there will be no legislation passed there to repeal this.

[Maedhros]

64. What definition of "Libertarian" are you using?

Because while Snowden might be a self-described Libertarian, the other examples you cited are not.

Can you provide evidence that they identify as Libertarians? I, myself, don't care, but since there has been such a concerted effort to make "Libertarian" a pejorative you should back up your claims with some actual evidence.

[Todays_Illusion]

65. In am referring to the libertarians with all the money and power.

You can look at CATO and AEI and listen to NPR for them. This older group of billionaire libertarians are being joined by the new tech billionaires, for the past year they have been busy taking over the conservative dialog, Bezos buying the Washington Post. and remember the uproar when the Kochs wanted to buy Chicago Sun and LA Times. John Henry who bought the Boston Globe also libertarian.

Yes I understand what you mean, because there are many young people running around carrying on about being anti-war, pro drugs and a few other nonsensical issues, ignoring the nefarious libertarian views on education in particular, they ignore the EPA, and labor ideas.

I agree Snowden is a tool, one of the young blindingly falling for the libertarian fake liberal message.

[Maedhros]

69. Snowden being a "tool" or not is irrelevant.

"anti-war, pro-drugs and a few other nonsensical issues"...

Really? I think you're on the wrong site.

[stevenleser]

73. The unintended irony of your "I think you're on the wrong site." with respect to the OP is delicious

The RNC is claiming they are the ones supporting Snowden and are against NSA Surveillance, so, no, apparently those who support Snowden should be on a Republican site and those of us who oppose him are right where we belong.

You fell into a trap the moment you decided that this statement by the RNC was at all deserving of being part of the discussion on NSA Surveillance.

[Maedhros]

77. You consistently (deliberately?) misrepresent the statements of those to whom you respond.

Someone who posts that an "anti-war" position is "nonsensical" is definitely on the wrong site.

As for the RNC, it's pretty clear that they are jumping out in front of this issue because they think they can use it to their advantage in the upcoming midterms. I don't think for a second that the RNC opposes the NSA's activities, they are just making a statement that they think will win them votes given the popular sentiment regarding the NSA's illegal surveillance. Just like when Pelosi seized upon the anti-Bush zeitgeist with her "give us subpoena power to investigate the Administration" plea - she knew at the time that the Democrats would do no such investigating, but it was red meat for the base. "Impeachment is off the table" came right after the rubes had been fleeced for their votes.

If the Republicans somehow win majorities in both the House and the Senate, I guarantee that they will take no real action to limit the power of the NSA. Hell, they could introduce legislation right now in the House if they were serious. They are not.

The RNC is claiming they are the ones supporting Snowden and are against NSA Surveillance, so, no, apparently those who support Snowden should be on a Republican site and those of us who oppose him are right where we belong.

Your assertion that, because the RNC condemns the NSA's illegal surveillance programs Democrats must then support those programs, is foolish. By your same logic, DU should oppose programs to combat AIDS in Africa because George W. Bush initiated them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-george-w-bushs-greatest-legacy--his-battle-against-aids/2012/07/26/gJQAumGKCX_story.html

[stevenleser]

81. If you don't want to defend words, particularly attacks, don't utter them. Simple, right? nt

[Maedhros]

83. My "attack" amounted to this:

If one thinks that an anti-war position is, as the poster put it, "nonsensical", then one is at odds with the majority of posters here on DU.

What about that needs defending?

[Todays_Illusion]

87. The anti-war is myth, unless you think our libertarian oil-igarch's are just

going to bs for control of the oil around the planet? Legal drugs, LGBT, equality and civil liberties and rights are, all the libertarian liberal issues are subjected to decisions by state level government. Shallow indeed.

[Maedhros]

91. None of what you describe applies at all to Glenn Greenwald or Laura Poitras,

and The Guardian is traditionally attacked for it's European Left-leaning editorial views.

This statement:

Snowden, Assagne, Manning, Guardian, Greenwald, all libertarians as have been the conservative sites that are strongly against NSA.

is flat-out incorrect. You are using "libertarian" as a pejorative, much like conservatives used "liberal" as a pejorative.

If you are going to libel someone online, you should post evidence. Snowden self-identifies as a libertarian - that is true. But Assange? Manning? Greenwald? They do not self-identify as "libertarians" in anything that I've read.

And to try and claim that The Guardian is a libertarian publication is really kind of silly.

[Todays_Illusion]

88. Here is more of the transistion of Rebublican from Heritage style conservatism to

libertarian, conservatism. The Atlantic is libertarian idea publication.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/the-fall-of-the-heritage-foundation-and-the-death-of-republican-ideas/279955/

[DCBob]

44. They could care less about privacy rights.

Just more crap they can throw at Obama and see if it sticks.

[treestar]

51. This ^^^^^^^^^^^

Their insincerity could not be more apparent. Chutzpah is the Republican way.

They were fine with Bush doing the same things without FISA warrants ! They are just so obvious.

[Titonwan]

47. Washington's Blog's take on this...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/democrats-just-handed-republicans-huge-win-stopping-nsa-spying-now-republican-platform.html

"The Democrats’ hypocrisy has just caught up with them …"

[Titonwan]

50. We better get ahead of this before the Repugs gain from it.

A good read about whistle blowing--

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/feb/06/three-leakers-and-what-do-about-them/?insrc=toc

Now's the time for Congressional Democrats to be screaming for NSA reform because it's gonna smack of pure hypocrisy if they don't. The established won't, of course (DiFi, Rockefeller et alia), but there's plenty that 'claim' to be progressive. Make them prove it. Stop this meta data storage. It's nothing but dossiers to be used at leisure to destroy people or their shit. For no good reason.

[JoePhilly]

54. They have no interest in stopping the NSA

from doing anything.

And if you think they do, one must also believe their Benghazi investigations are about their concern for national security.

[TheKentuckian]

58. They don't have to they just have to pretend to and be opposed in those pretensions by who they run

against to gain an advantage in the minds of some folks that will vote for them now and regret it later.

It is inevitable, no matter how incredibly piss poor the credibility of the one shooting the arrows at an enemy, it will always be a little better than the guys circling their wagons actively defending it.

This is a lousy position that has only two cynical ways to not be a net negative, for no one to care or an ugly, pitiful, and wrongheaded reaction to an attack. We got boxed into it out of fear and a patent unwillingness to stand up for our values not only when it is easy and scores political points but when it is hard and unpopular as well in an off chance political calculation.

This school of politics just is a poor marriage for our values, too readily leading us to opposing our goals and principles for temporary tactical advantage and/or fear of landing in an unpopular spot die to circumstances.

[JoeyT]

57. Once again this is why you don't defend the shitty policy of your opponents.

Because they can reverse direction and make it your shitty policy. For a fiftieth dimensional chess player, Obama sure seems to get caught with this one a lot.

You know, besides the obvious fact that it's shitty policy you're defending.

[Titonwan]

79. I know.

And now, Democrats will own this super secrecy when it was started by Bush Jr. Now, the people that started it will blame the present owner... good. He should have been decent about this, that Barack H. Obama. He betrayed us, ya'll.
Welcome to the machine.

[Wolf Frankula]

66. Does Anybody Doubt that if Turtlehead

and Snow Snooki had won in 2008, or Willard Rmoney had won in 2012, the Goopers would be defending the NSA snooping as 'ABSOLUTELY INDISPENSABLE TO THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES and all critics of it as traitors and enemies who want the terrorists to win?

Wolf

[stevenleser]

68. LMAO, the party that brought us warrantless wiretapping now claiming righteous indignation!!!!!!

Not to mention torture and all of the rest.

Oh this is rich!

[Indi Guy]

70. The transparent hypocrisy is actually quite remarkable.

All but the most willfully blind must see that the GOP "leadership" is actually a "follower-ship" of public opinion -- long on political expediency ...devoid of a moral center and the integrity conscience.

[stevenleser]

72. Well, there appears to be a lot of what you described as "willfully blind" participating in this OP

Ted Bundy (Yes I know he is dead) speaking out against violence doesn't deserve supporting comments. Yet, you have the civil liberties version of Ted Bundy, the RNC making these statements and people under this OP are actually taking them seriously and issuing supporting comments.

There is only one response to this and that is these people in the RNC are guilty of the most rank hypocrisy and partisanship. Full stop.

Their comments are not deserving of being part of the debate on surveillance.

[reddread]

82. lol. the real response is the DNC has a SERIOUS PROBLEM on their hands

because this WILL play with those who dont care which side tells them what they want to hear.
You seem to want people to shut up and play along with the DNC's sincere surveillance of Americans while
calling the RNC rank hypocrites for pretending to be an opposition party.
Well done.
cash that check and wait for your bonus.

[Maedhros]

84. Can you cite some specific examples of posters in this thread

"issuing supporting comments" about the RNC?

All I see are observations that the RNC beat the DNC to the punch in claiming this issue for rhetorical advantage. I don't see anyone claiming the RNC occupies any moral high ground. I certainly haven't said that.

[reddread]

86. i saw something even better

I saw someone telling people to shut up and stick to the company line.
One of the clearest articulations of a pretty transparent policy I have ever read.
But not from a surprising source.

[underpants]

71. Translation- Obamacare is doing well and they know it n/t

[Indi Guy]

80. Interesting observation.

...And it looks as though the Benghazi dog isn't hunting these days either.

[olddad56]

85. they are grasping at straws. A little late to this party.

[Blue_Tires]

89. Convenient time for the RNC to jump on the bandwagon, innit?

[bemildred]

90. The republicans of the fifties would have no trouble with this.

Eisenhower, the warner of the dangers of militarism, was a Republican, and many of the worst war hawks in the old days (and today too) were Democrats. This is an issue that cuts right across party lines, and the Democratic Party is risking its power if it allows the republicans to own it.