Rock and a Hard Place
For those really looking forward to a new President in January, 2009, just a bit over three years from now, consider the so-called front-runners for the Dems and Reps.
Exhibit A -- Hillary Clinton, who has recently endorsed a watered down anti-flag burning law and today, came forward in support of a nanny edict Federal law that would codify the voluntary rating scheme used by video game manufacturers. This smells distinctly of Bill Clinton's support for and signing of the Communications Decency Act of 1995, which was held unconstitutional by a nearly unanimous Supreme Court.
Exhibit B -- John McCain, who today supported President Bush's decision to spy on monitor communictions between individuals in the US and Al Quaeda:
Sen. John McCain disappointed Democrats on Capitol Hill on Sunday by defending the Bush administration's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor a limited number of domestic phone calls in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Well, it's way, way too early to be thinking about 2008 candidates, but keep in mind please that "facism" comes in all forms. And then again -- it's not as if there isn't a grand history of fascism in the USA -- after all, Harry Truman nationalized steel mills during the Korean War under, in his view, the War Powers inherent in the President as Commander in Chief. And of course, FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans during WWII . . . . Or perhaps you prefer Abraham Lincoln's "unilateral"(!) suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War?
Sheez -- W seems a piker compared to these all-time greats!
[Linked to the Beltway Traffic Jam.]
Comments
You forgot Lincoln suspending habeus corpus, and John Adams and his bit with the Alien and Sedition Acts. But its good to see you are finally recognizing fascism when you see it.
Posted by: Glenn | December 21, 2005 10:08 PM
Sorry, I missed your last sentence. You got Lincoln.
Posted by: Glenn | December 21, 2005 10:09 PM
One more point: I consider the wars and conditions that Lincoln, Adams, Roosevelt, and Truman found themselves in to be more weighty than the "war" on terror. Not to say what they did was right, but it is to say that Bush's actions re domestic spying are largely unjustified.
Posted by: Glenn | December 21, 2005 10:12 PM
The War on Terror is not like prior wars for many reasons. It does not include many of the challenges of those wars, but it also contains many challenges those wars did not encounter. The fact that you put the word war in quotes though, is very telling. If you want to know how the Dems can win at the polls, all they need to do it take the quote marks away when they talk about the War.
I am encouraged, though, that you qualify Bush's position as "largely unjustified", suggesting that it IS indeed justified to some degree.
Posted by: Peter | December 22, 2005 6:38 PM