Hurm:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So, there was a Congressman who decided to impeach the President over the warrantless wiretapping issue. Because, after all, a President abusing the powers of the Federal Government to spy on people unchecked is a bad thing. All objections to this are entirely based on principle, all support of it is likewise based on the idea that the Presidents who approve this kind of thing are purely un-American despots in the making.

The situation in question was 2006, the President George W. Bush, and  the people who rallied around the flag the party that now zealously sees these actions as monstrous usurpations of American liberties. The proposal here was a direct benefit to Bush's supporters, as it meant that they found a situation to rally around that President in the year he lost his most major Congressional elections during his term. The people who proposed this are the people who now defend this kind of behavior when Mr. Obama does it. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/politics/16impeach.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

Now this may be an elementary restatement of the basic principles of Realpolitik, but it is nonetheless a harsh truth. For all those who consider the current opposition to the surveillance state to be a principled objection to the 'Nanny State,' my question to you is very simple: why did these people defend this exact behavior from an impeachment case eight years ago? What changed in that time to make yesterday's benefit today's menace? Surely the behavior itself has not changed in kind, even if we grant the dubious assertion that a wildfire becomes unacceptable depending on which set of  forested terrain is being burnt down?

Comments

[oportet.livejournal.com]

There's no difference - but it's quality entertainment watching people try to point out differences between W and Obama's wiretapping, W and Obama's wars, W and Obama's bailouts, etc...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Absolutely it is. :P

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

My thought was because it worked, but really I haven't seen any concrete evidence of that beyond no more planes have hit U.S. buildings in the last eight years. If that same result could have been accomplished without the heavy-handed measures Congress did put into place is a different question.

However, I like your answer better.

[leo-sosnine.livejournal.com]

I just wonder, what about Obama speeches during his campaigns against mass surveillance and budgets spent on it during his tenure.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That of course is a flip-side of the argument I already mentioned when I said that today's supporters of this idea were against it before they were for it. So, in short, I've already addressed this. :)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Wrong then, wrong now.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not to the GOP of 2006 any more than it is to the Obama supporters of 2014.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I have a question for you as well.

*I* do believe that a president abusing the powers of the federal government to spy on people unchecked is a bad and punishable thing, too.

I ain't one of Bush's supporters.

Does that make the former point moot, too?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nope. It illustrates the difference between someone with principle (who is also not in a position to directly change the outcome of Federal Government actions) and the people in the US Congress who have no spine or principle worthy of the name. Unfortunately, the people in the US population who do believe this is wrong have a problem electing Congressmen and Senators who actually agree with them and would act accordingly.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

If the 2006 elections were an indication, people didn't do much rallying around GWB. It was dismal, the GOP lost on all fronts.

Also, according to the polls, a majority of Republicans approved of the Patriot Act in 2006 when Bush was president and still did in 2011. A majority of Democrats opposed the Patriot Act in 2006 and still did in 2011. The margins shrunk a bit but on an individual level, there wasn't the wholesale hypocrisy change in point of view that we saw with our elected officials.

[thatcherreagan.livejournal.com]

Always remember that congressional elections in the U.S. are severely impacted by the electoral corruption of the gerrymander. If it wasn't for gerrymandering, the Republicans wouldn't currently hold the House of Reps.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I didn't say people rallied behind the flag, only that his base did. That election confirmed that under ordinary circumstances, his base can't win an election with high turnout. Which was, IIRC, one difference with 2006 relative to other Congressional Election years.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I'm an Obama supporter, and I hate the spying going on. I hated it under Bush. I hate it now. I think it's unnecessary, sets bad precedent and could be a troubling expansion of governmental power.

What I'm not sure about is whether it's actually illegal in any way, either under Bush or Obama.

And I sure as hell don't think it is, or has ever been, an impeachable offense.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It actually is illegal under the Fourth Amendment. This is the one area that both Bush and Obama could have been impeached on with a bipartisan base if it was actually about the spying. Thing is that as I'm pointing out, to the Congress it's *not* the spying, only who's in power when it's going on. If the parties switch the Executive Branch, they'd undergo another moral turnaround on this issue overnight.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

You know the drill. Some people just put partisanship before principle. Partisanship trumps reason, logic, and consistency more often than not. This isn't really a partisan issue, though, as there are Democrats and Republicans that both support and do not support this kind of behavior, so it's purely based on who is in the Oval Office at any given time.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

And until elections are won or lost based on positions like this, the elected people can continue doing as they are because there are no consequences.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

The answer is simple: George, Jr. was anointed by the material Creator of the flat and immobile Earth, whereas Obama is a Muslim without a birth certificate.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I know that its a wast of time, but a good number of conservatives did oppose the bailouts, wiretapping, etc when Bush did it and were characterized by both the Left and Moderate Right as Right-wing extremists seeking to tear the country apart.

The current high level of dissension in the GOP's ranks is over this very issue.

Once again, all you done is show your own inability or unwillingness to understand the "other guy's" motivations.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

One can oppose the bailouts, wiretapping, etc and still be an extremist trying to tear the country apart. Even if we grant that the Tea Party started as some grass-roots principled movement, (which I don't) it was very quickly transformed into something else entirely. The fact that they were "right" about those couple of issues doesn't magically negate the aforementioned "extremism" and willingness to "tear the country apart" because they didn't like the color of the President.


"The current high level of dissension in the GOP's ranks is over this very issue."

The only dissent I seem to be seeing in the GOP is over who is failing to be ideologically "pure" enough. "Candidate X once SHOOK A DEMOCRATS HAND! I spit on all Democrats! Vote for ME in the primaries!" "Oh yea? Well candidate Y continues to breathe the same air as Democrats! I carry my own PURE AIR SUPPLY and SPIT on all democrats I see! Vote for ME in the primaries!" That's the GOP platform these days.


And re: your second post:

Your noting of political hypocrisy has been echoed all over this post, and I don't think anyone disagrees with it. People forgive things from their own group that they disdain in others, and overreact when doing so. But please, tell us more about how some liberals' being asses towards certain groups is in any way analogous to the Federal government's actions towards the Constitution or the Executive branch's lying us into a war.

And "oppression?" Really? You're being serious here?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nazi scum like the Pauls are beneath the contempt of anyone with a brain cell to rub together. That the stopped watch was right on one thing doesn't outweigh the filth of the rest of their ideas. As to the GOP's dissension, they certainly weren't split over this during the last Administration. Though they certainly did oppose Clinton's attempt to pass a Patriot Act in the 90s!

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

By the same token we have now established that all your bitching about Bush was merely posturing and that Liberals are in fact very much pro-war, and pro-oppression so long as the "right sort of people" are being targeted, namely Jews (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/04/rex-murphy-the-failed-boycott-campaign-against-israel/), Rednecks (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366896/age-intolerance-mark-steyn), Children (http://www.rd.com/advice/parenting/american-school-system-damaging-kids/), and straight males (http://www.amazon.com/End-Men-Rise-Women/dp/B00D9TA4VY). The left's so called principled opposition was clearly nothing of the sort.

50 gW laser-sword cuts both ways my friend. ;)

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, when I think of underlankers, I see a pro-war, pro-spying advocate.

Been drinking the haterade tonight?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Oh look, Sandwichwarrior posturing about the beliefs of the Other group again. Mote in your neighbor's eye, friend.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If you think I'm a Leftist, you have no idea what the Left is and need to read a few remedial books on the definitions of Left and Right and get back to me. I'm a Social Democrat, not a Bolshevik. :)

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Hypocrisy in politics?!? Of a selectively observed right-leaning bent?

This looks like a job for: