A Card Carrying Civil Libertarian (Obama) from NYT

[Voice for Peace]

Read whole editorial at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01rosen.html

A Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian

By JEFFREY ROSEN

Washington

IF Barack Obama wins in November, we could have not only our first
president who is an African-American, but also our first president who
is a civil libertarian. Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has been more
consistent than Hillary Clinton on issues from the Patriot Act to bans
on flag burning. At the same time, he has reached out to Republicans and
independents to build support for his views. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast,
has embraced some of the instrumental tacking of Bill Clinton, whose
presidency disappointed liberal and conservative civil libertarians on
issue after issue.

Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing
historic civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all
interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors,
the police, the Democratic governor and even some death penalty
advocates were initially opposed to the bill, Mr. Obama won them over.
The reform passed unanimously, and it has been adopted by four other
states and the District of Columbia.

In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties
one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform
bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by
meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once
again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and
libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined
13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate
on amendments to the Patriot Act.

-snip-

As a former grass-roots activist, Mr. Obama understands the need to make
the case for civil liberties in the political arena. At a time when
America’s civil-libertarian tradition has been embattled at home and
abroad, his candidacy offers a unique opportunity.

[provis99]

1. remember when being a civil libertarian used to be an insult?

Bush insulted Dukakis as a "card carrying member of the ACLU", as if defending American civil liberties was un-American. Wish the Democratic candidates would now start yelling that they were proud liberals, too.

[Voice for Peace]

2. I'm a proud card-carrying member of the ACLU.

But there are people who still believe that the ACLU is the enemy.

[dkf]

3. That was before they started spying on us.

It takes a Bush overreach to cause outrage.

[anonymeme]

4. Partial Rebuttal to JEFFREY ROSEN's Article...

Re: "IF Barack Obama wins in November, we could have not only our first president who is an African-American, but also our first president who is a civil libertarian."

That's funny he's been presenting himself as a Democrat.

If a person can turn in a washing machine due to false advertising, I wonder if we can turn in a president who pretended to be one thing but was really another on account of false advertising?

Oh, yeah, but there's that "blank screen" thing.

Obama can be a chameleon, a shape-shifter, with impunity because he let us know before he ran that he was this "blank screen" people could all project onto whatever they wanted, and as a consequence, some or all who did this would be disappointed. In his book The Audacity of Hope, he seems rather proud of his ability to fool the fools.

Actually, I think under that fuzzy Democratic sheep's cloak Obama wears, may actually be a very hungry Republican wolf.

Look who he picked as his mentor when he joined the Congress -- Joe Lieberman who had just canned the Democratic party so he could call himself an Independent andget voted back in, while he cozied up to G.W. Bush, acting in accord with Bush about the war in Iraq.

Like Obama couldn't find a decent Democrat to mentor him?

I wouldn't be surprised if he was a hybrid Republican-Libertarian, self-interested, self-serving and without an altruistic hair on his body.

Re: "Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has been more consistent than Hillary Clinton on issues from the Patriot Act to bans on flag burning."

If that's so, then tell me why he changed his position -- "flip-flopped" -- on the bombing of Iran from being gung-ho for it in 2004 and against it in 2007, and tell me if he'll change it again to suit whatever way the wind blows to his advantage?

And it really could change back again in light of two of his other "flip-flops" -- his radical 180s which I have resisted calling his "flip-flips" because I am a Democrat and naturally grew to hate that terminology when it was used to hound good people into the ground for adjusting their positions in accordance with new information -- BUT that's NOT the reason for what Obama has done.

Obama has "flip-flopped" on protection for the Palestinians and their property in Gaza and is now willing to give Israel a big chunk of Palestinian land there -- even if it displaces all or kills many of the 1.5 million people living there.

Obama has "flip-flopped" about pulling the troops out of Iraq, and has now said he reserves the right to send more troops into Iraq if he sees that Al Qaeda is forming a base of support there.

Okay, Al Qaeda may only be there because of GW Bush making war on Iraq, but they are there. There's a huge and growing mass of Al Qaeda in the Middle East in an organization called "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia."

So whoop, there it is, Obama has his excuse to send more troops in instead of pulling them out.

The thing is that war has not worked so far and I cannot see it ever working in that area of the world, what people who are constantly at war with one another need from the outside world is negotiators who will help defuse potentially explosive situations and not go in and further crank up the conflict or bring more conflict, with more death and destruction into their countries -- and we all know it's not to give them democracy, nor to protect the safety of us citizens here at home in the US, it's for the sake of providing resources and funds to and for the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

And Obama is part of the machine. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Now, Hillary may have expressed some different opinions about flag-burning -- though that was probably someone's idiotic misinterpretation of something she said -- but in the Big Picture Scheme of things, it's a minuscule problem at the moment.

As to the Patriot Act, every Democrat in Congress was handed a very fine line to tread with egg-shells on either side, by 9/11 and the Bush-Cheney manipulation of those events

Obama has wavered -- or "flip-flopped" -- on at least 4 big issues -- none because of new information on an important legislation he was working on, or anything like that, but to cover his political posterior -- 3 of which I already named: Palestine, Iran and Iraq and the 4th is Social Security:

In May of last year he said that cutting SS benefits and raising the age of retirement "should be on the table" -- which is his way of saying that those things should be considered as a way of handling SS, as a fix, but without giving a straight answer.

Then by November -- when some Baby Boomers started getting steamed over messing with Social Security -- he started saying that cutting benefits should be off the table - gliding right over upping the age of retirement and still not giving a straight answer in his little "flip-flop" there.

RE: "At the same time, he has reached out to Republicans and independents to build support for his views."

Well of course he has, he's really a Republican or a Conservative Libertarian in disguise and it's politically expedient for him to do so.

[TheDoorbellRang]

5. you're confusing being a civil libertarian with the political Libertarian Party

Better look them both up -- they're not the same thing.

[alarimer]

6. He might be but he will do nothing to change anything Bush has done.

Because his first term will be all about running for re-election. That is true of any candidate, because they (Democrats) do not want to be labeled as opposed to national security. So all the violations that have occurred will continue to occur. If anyone believes otherwise, I want what they are smoking.

[Voice for Peace]

7. I believe otherwise but only time will tell, there are never any guarantees.

I'm not smoking anything, I've just got a hopeful heart and good instincts.