Duthie On...: All Comments

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

andrew — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:54:00 GMT

David are you listening to yourself?

1. You don't have to agree with Mac Donald on her *opinions*, but she's right on the *facts*. Section 215 is not a free pass to snoop anywhere, anytime. If you're not satisfied with the FISA review, you're welcome to agitate to change the law...that's what we do in a free country. But you're wrong in several ways to portray the enactment of section 215 as an attack on free speech.

2. The only way that Obama's ties to Ayers can be called "arguably shaky" is if you honestly believe that someone like Ayers would tap someone like Obama to chair his organization (the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) without knowing them reasonably well. Even Chicago Mayor Richard Daley described Ayers and Obama this way: "They're friends. So what?" Daley's a lot closer to Obama and Ayers than either you or I...is he wrong? "friends" doesn't sound "arguably shaky" to me.

3. Folks on the left need to decide...is the defense that Ayers is an OK guy, or is the defense that Obama didn't really know him well, and that he was only 8 when Ayers committed his crimes? Mayor Daley seems to be in the first camp, while you seem to be in the latter camp. Neither seems particularly convincing to me, particularly when you all can't decide which story to run with.

4. Exactly which "past similar activities of the GOP" are you referring to? I'm not aware of any GOP candidates with even "shaky" ties to unrepentant domestic terrorists. If you're talking about the issue of free speech, please refer back to my indictment above of both Bush and McCain WRT McCain-Feingold.

5. I have made no claim, and make no claim, to objectivity. I'm stating the facts to the best of my knowledge, and my opinion on those facts. The facts (Obama's service with Ayers, the launching of his campaign at Ayers' home, the requirement of judicial review for section 215, etc.) are easy enough to verify. My opinions are just that...opinions, subjective and personal.

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

David L. Penton — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:41:00 GMT

No attack - just that I don't agree with her at a fundamental level, so I find myself not willing to concede to any opinions she may have. You can paint that any way you like - your perogative. As for Section 215, does that FISA judge need probable cause? Any evidence? The proceedings are ex parte. Does it allow for obtaining records without probable cause of past or planned criminal conduct? So perhaps the FISA judge is more of a nicety than a true requirement.

So, an arguably shaky tie to Ayers, possibly much stretching of whatever truth there may or may not be, you not denouncing any past similar activities of the GOP. Good job with an objective opinion on the matter.

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

andrew — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:16:00 GMT

Your attack on Mac Donald notwithstanding, it's a simple fact that Section 215 requires judicial oversight. The notion that the government can simple parade into a library and demand records is false, plain and simple. And again, that's a question of privacy, not freedom of speech.

You don't appear to be interested in addressing the actual point, so I will leave it here. Feel free to have the last word if you like. I need to get some sleep.

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

andrew — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:10:00 GMT

Regarding the Post's "Fact Checker" you're right that I'm not impressed. Oddly, they omit several well-established facts:

- The Post says: "The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board." Wrong. Obama also served from 1995-2000 as the chairman of the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, founded by none other than William Ayers. Hardly a "tenuous" link, I'd say.

- The Post notes Hillary's Weatherman connection as though that has some relevance. If Hillary hangs out with domestic terrorists, does that make it OK for Obama to do so?

- The Post ignores completely that Obama's campaign for the Illinois state senate was launched at the home of...wait for it...William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

- The Post twice notes that Ayers wasn't convicted of any crimes. Of course, the fact that he admits to having bombed federal buildings makes this point look kind of silly. The man is an admitted domestic terrorist, and is unrepentant about what he did. That should exclude him from the company of respectable people, but clearly Obama valued the political gains he could get from associating with Ayers, and wasn't worried about the association.

- The Post ignores Obama's less-than-forthcoming description of Ayers as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," etc. Obama's statement, which came during the Philadelphia dem primary debate, may have been factually true, but it hid relevant information, such as the board Obama served on with Ayers, as well as their work together on the CAC. Obama's answer certainly appears to be deliberately misleading. If Ayers radicalism isn't relevant to Obama's judgement, why hide the association, or try to minimize it?

"Guilt by association" suggests an evil smear attempt. The truth is that Obama chose, over and over again, to associate himself with Ayers. I'm perfectly content to let all the facts come out and have the American people decide for themselves whether or not it suggests poor judgement on Obama's part, or whether we should just let bygones be bygones with Ayers. The fact that the Obama campaign isn't willing to allow that without a fight suggests that they're worried about what Americans would decide.

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

David L. Penton — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:54:00 GMT

Please, sapre me about what a campaign would *allow* or *not* - with the numerous occasions that GOP gatherings for the 2004 Presidential election and for the Congressional elections in 2006 restricting people with dissenting opinion I hardly think there is a case for a tenuous connection as this. As for "interpretations" of Section 215 - I'll take my analysis over someone who thinks that it is likely that my family abused welfare when we were on it (when I was a child) and just as to "accustom people to look to the government for their support rather than to themselves". No thanks. www.rightwingnews.com/.../mac_donald.php

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

andrew — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:42:00 GMT

Well...at least I still have *a* reader, anyway.

Moral equivalence is never a winning argument, Dave. Try addressing the substance of my post...is it, or is it not wrong for someone who wishes to be President to use the government to silence his critics?

FWIW, McCain is on my shit list here, too. I'm no fan of McCain-Feingold, and I'm much more agitated that Bush signed it into law, despite declaring that he thought it was unconstitutional, than I am about the Patriot Act.

Speaking of which, you might try a little perspective on Section 215, which has zero to do with freedom of speech, even if you buy into the paranoia about it. But as for the paranoia, try the following:

"Critics of section 215 deliberately ignore the fact that any request for items under the section requires judicial approval. An FBI agent cannot simply walk into a flight school or library and demand records. The bureau must first convince the court that oversees anti-terror investigations (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, court) that the documents are relevant to protecting “against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” The chance that the FISA court will approve a 215 order because the FBI “doesn’t like the books [a person] reads . . . or because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy” is zero."

www.city-journal.org/.../13_3_straight_t

At least the Patriot Act has a compelling reason to exist, namely keeping the citizens of this country safe from terrorists who wish us harm, something that seems to be working, I might add.

McCain-Feingold, and Obama's attempts to use the resources of the federal government to silence his critics, have no better reason to exist than the fact that politicians tell us that money corrupts, and therefore must be controlled. What they really mean is that they want to decide who gets to speak during a campaign...which is exactly what Obama's attempting to do here.

Aren't you glad you asked? ;-)

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

David L. Penton — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:32:00 GMT

And....as if you care about WaPost :) but: blog.washingtonpost.com/.../obamas_weatherm

RE: Free Speech? Not if you're an Obama critic

David L. Penton — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:59:00 GMT

And this administration pushed for the Patriot Act (i.e. Section 215) be enacted - and extended. That is quite wonderful for Freedom of Speech, isn't it?

RE: Jindal Should Wait

andrew — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:45:00 GMT

I think we're in rabid agreement on most of your points, David. Quite frankly, part of the reason I self-identify as a conservative, rather than as a Republican is the fact that the GOP leadership so brazenly repudiated any pretense at being a conservative party.

That said, there are a few in Congress who are attempting to swim against the tide. Coburn (http://coburn.senate.gov/public/) comes to mind in the Senate, as does Jeb Hensarling in the House (http://www.house.gov/hensarling/). The problem is that the leadership of both parties have united in favor of earmarks and other abuses, so even though some of the newcomers are trying to sort things out, they're mostly fighting a losing battle.

One of the reasons I'd love to see Jindal continue where he is is that if he can be effective in Louisiana, it might make an impression on those who think that the key to success is buying votes through earmarks. I'm not necessarily holding my breath, mind you, but it's possible.

RE: Jindal Should Wait

David L. Penton — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:08:00 GMT

Who else [other than Bobby Jindal] in the GOP would you consider to be a rising star? Or more to the point, some one that firmly believes in "preserving and promoting conservatism"? Someone who believes in "small government" in the ways I seem to remember the original intent:

small gov't

=== fewer people employed by the gov't

=== fewer laws for people/business

=== less taxes

Far too many times is there a cut in taxes but no cut in spending. I can't do that with my personal finances [in a most simplified view of this] and I don't expect our government to do the same. I have seen nothing from the ranking Republicans that indicates to me there is any hope of achieving this particular goal.