Spying on Americans
 

I continue to find it exceptionally ironic that the Bush administration is so adamant about syping on Americans while also being adamant about secrecy within the administration. Bush's administration doesn't trust us, but it expects us to trust him. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

For Republicans, a transparent government and protected personal liberties have always been important. I guess this shows just how partisan much of America has become. Instead of questioning our leaders, we accept what they have to say as long as they hail from the same party we belong to. If they are from the other party, we are programmed to disagree without a thoughtful analysis of the issues.

Very ironic, very sad.

Bad assumptions: many Reps are upset about something which they can't undo.

What could we do? Set it up for the opposition, who would be worse overall, to win in the next elections?

If you aren't able to question your own leaders because you are afraid they will be voted out of office, we are truly in a sorry state of affairs. For someone who despises politics, you seem to drift towards a political answer with frequency.

Republicans should stand up for what they believe in; if they don't, they deserve to be voted out of office.

Re: Spying on Americans
 

Is this true? In my lifetime, Republicans have only been interested in protecting certain liberties (e.g., 2nd Amendment), while Dems have been interested in certain others (e.g., 1st Amendment). Neither has seemed particularly interested in personal liberties across the board.

I'm also not sure I've noticed either party talk much about "transparent government" -- has that happened?

At least in the 90's, the GOP used to be about "small government" an idea that seems to have been abandoned in the flag-waving fear-mongering of recent years (DMCA, Patriot Act, Real ID, et al). Oh well. Liberty? Security? Nah, we deserve neither. Or at least, we deserve it less now than we did prior to the GWB presidency.

o

Who says Reps don't question their leaders? That line of argument is a load of crap, counselor. What proof or evidence do you submit, merely that we don't eviscerate our own so something worse arises? It's called pragmatics.

You sometimes have to eat crap to avoid being blown up by an economic terroist such as Hillary.

Um, you did. You said Republicans are upset, but realize they can't do anything about it. Then you said again that Republicans don't eviscerate their own because something worse could arise.

Your pragmatics=lack of questioning. If you think Republicans are questioning Bush over the NSA spying, give me the names of the conservatives who are doing so. Best of luck in your search.

Bob Barr and buddies

231 Republicans in the House. 55 Republicans in the Senate. Care to compute the percentages?

there is a difference between public comments, i.e., evisceration, and behind the scenes negotiations.

You are basically distorting comments for your own nefarious purposes.

Republicans do question their leaders, just not as Dems question Republican leaders. If you're unwilling to acknowledge the pragmatic difference, then you're intellectually dishonest.

Where were the vociferous comments by Dems when Bill did wrong? They were few and far between, but behind the scenes I heard them. You're either blind on this issue or two-faced. You choose.

Nefarious purposes? Apparently you have me confused with Binky and the Brain. Tell me what impact these behind the scenes voices are having. Bush continues to adamantly defend the NSA spying. Republicans right and left are stepping up to defend the practice as well. In fact, so many Republicans are stepping up to defend the practice that many Americans are now convinced that there is really nothing wrong with spying on Americans in the first place, despite the total lack of legal justification for what Bush is doing.

Is that Republicans' great plan? Voice displeasure behind the scenes, publicly support Bush, and get the public to accept something that is bad for the country but makes the party look more competent? I can see why you are so concerned that they would lose control of the government.

By the way, why is it whenever Democrats catch Republicans doing something wrong, the immediate reaction is to say, "yeah, but look at what Clinton did!" WHO CARES??? Your position equated what Bush and Clinton did, then implies that Clinton did something wrong but Bush did not. If you are going to equate the actions, at least have a consistent analysis of the actions: they can both be wrong.

Republicans throw around Clinton's actions as if it is some kind of trump card. Whatever Clinton did has no bearing at all on what Bush is now doing. Instead of focusing your arguments on a guy who has been out of office for some time now, try to keep your eye on the ball here.