Adam Weinberg
Goldwater Republican
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/decl...-liberties-board-goes-vacant-under-obama.aspx
Whoever challenges President Obama in 2012 should feel perfectly comfortable questioning his commitment to civil liberties. Protecting the privacy and liberty of our citizens, in addition to the transparency of his administration, were all substantial campaign promises that he has completely failed to live up to.
We know that pandora's box was opened by the Bush Administration on so many of these questions, but so far at every opportunity the Obama Administration has found some Orwellian way to explain and advance the same police state agenda beyond even where the Bush team intended to go.
So far, few Republicans have sought to criticize his policies, perhaps because some approve as they do of his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, and maybe because others recognize that these are policies that were started by their own party's former leader and that they would have a hard time offering criticism.
Sounds to me like some folks need to take a stand and say they were wrong to support those policies to begin with and start picking up the pieces. Growing government on your own watch, whether it's infringing on economic or civil liberty will just give the next guy the tools he needs to abuse his power. It is a no-win situation for incumbents, the challengers who replace them, or the country that has to be left with the constitutional crisis.
If they don't take this issue to task now or in a future Presidential campaign, then that either means they want to reserve the same kind of powers for themselves once they reach office or that they think the American people are too stupid to see the greater danger of too little liberty, as opposed to the artificial security of having less.
Either reason is the wrong reason for the person wanting to be the chief protector of the Bill of Rights, or for any American who says they believe in the value of the Constitution.
Whoever challenges President Obama in 2012 should feel perfectly comfortable questioning his commitment to civil liberties. Protecting the privacy and liberty of our citizens, in addition to the transparency of his administration, were all substantial campaign promises that he has completely failed to live up to.
We know that pandora's box was opened by the Bush Administration on so many of these questions, but so far at every opportunity the Obama Administration has found some Orwellian way to explain and advance the same police state agenda beyond even where the Bush team intended to go.
So far, few Republicans have sought to criticize his policies, perhaps because some approve as they do of his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, and maybe because others recognize that these are policies that were started by their own party's former leader and that they would have a hard time offering criticism.
Sounds to me like some folks need to take a stand and say they were wrong to support those policies to begin with and start picking up the pieces. Growing government on your own watch, whether it's infringing on economic or civil liberty will just give the next guy the tools he needs to abuse his power. It is a no-win situation for incumbents, the challengers who replace them, or the country that has to be left with the constitutional crisis.
If they don't take this issue to task now or in a future Presidential campaign, then that either means they want to reserve the same kind of powers for themselves once they reach office or that they think the American people are too stupid to see the greater danger of too little liberty, as opposed to the artificial security of having less.
Either reason is the wrong reason for the person wanting to be the chief protector of the Bill of Rights, or for any American who says they believe in the value of the Constitution.
