71% of Americans want to see Bush administration investigated

[bascule]

While some members of this forum insist an investigation of the Bush administration is little more than petty, partistan revenge, 71% of Americans wish to see Bush investigated. 41% want a criminal investigation, while 30% want investigation by an independent panel.

 

Just to toss some more statistics at you, 63% want an investigation into Bush's illegal wiretapping, and 62% want an investigation into the use of torture.

 

As you may have guessed, or read from my previous posts, I count myself among those who wish to see Bush investigated for wiretapping, torture, and I would like to see him criminally investigated.

 

My belief is that Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment, wiretapping US citizens without a warrant. This view has been upheld by a federal judge who has ruled Bush committed a felony.

 

Then there's the small matter of Scott McClellan's claims that Bush admitted to outing an undercover CIA operative, an act of treason.

 

What do you think? Should the Bush Administration be investigated for the multitude of crimes they've been accused of? Is it important that presidents be held to the rule of law? Or should we just put the whole mess behind us and pretend it never happened? Are attempts at investigating Bush merely a petty act of partisan revenge, or are they an essential function of a democratic society, ensuring its leaders are held accountable for their crimes?

[Pangloss]

Actually what I said was that for members of Congress it is a matter of petty, partisan revenge. Which is exactly what it is. Congress is all about petty partisanship these days -- it is their guiding principle, and their recently-single-digit approval rating is at least in part a reflection of that fact.

 

I've never had a problem with you having that opinion -- more power to you. I've simply explained to you why you won't be getting what you want, and why, in my opinion, that's a good thing. You wanna light the torches and pass out the pitchforks, go right ahead. Have fun storming the castle.

 

At any rate, asking The Man On The Street if they want Bush "investigated" is a bit like asking them if they think Jessica Simpson is pretty or if they'd like a million dollars. But it's noteworthy that the same poll you reported on was headlined by its own polling organization as "No Mandate for Criminal Probes for Bush Administration". Clearly once the respondant gave it a little more thought they reacted a bit differently. "Want a beer?" "Sure!" "Want 50 beers that you have you drink in the next 30 seconds?" "Uh..." Public opinion is funny that way.

[YT2095]

"Want 50 beers that you have you drink in the next 30 seconds?"

 

Bring it on!

[iNow]

It's a dicey situation to be sure. If the man committed crimes, he should be held accountable. It really is that simple. No president is above the law, or at least, they shouldn't be.

 

We are a nation of laws, and those laws mean nothing if they are selectively enforced or if people in power just "get a pass."

 

 

While I take the point being made by Pangloss that some of this is motivated purely out of partisan desire for retribution, I think summarily dismissing it entirely as just that misses the underlying point here pretty profoundly. Yes, there is some desire for revenge going on, and much of it is partisan. No question or conflict there. That's true.

 

However, there is more to this onion than JUST revenge. There are some pretty serious questions about legality here (or, more appropriately, illegality), and they should be followed through, no matter who the man is/was.

 

While the sheriff dropped the case due to lack of quality evidence, if they can attempt to investigate Michael Phelps for smoking pot, then SURELY they can investigate Bush for something much more egrarious... like torture and illegal wire tapping of american citizens. I have a hard time seeing how somebody could have ANY other perspective about this unless they themselves are the ones acting in a partisan manner.

 

Tell me if you think I'm out of line, but IMO it doesn't matter what title you've obtained, you're still a citizen of this country and subject to its laws. If there is question that you've broken them, then answers and justice should be pursued. No question. Categorically dimissing the attempt to find those answers is picking and choosing when laws apply, rendering them meaningless and unjust. It's not like we're talking about blow jobs in the oval office here, and EVEN that was investigated.

[npts2020]

2 cents time. Bush was only the figurehead and IMO arresting and putting on trial everyone who had anything to do with his, shall we say less than kosher, behavior would be like trying to do the same for every person involved in the marijuana industry in America. There are millions of people profiting from the war on terror and related ventures. If people want to have GWB's head on a spike, I would have little sympathy but I think a complete exposure of his activities and castigation for them would probably be enough for most.

[ecoli]

I was going to respond saying Bush should be left alone (echoing Pangloss's reasons) but I think I may be changing my mind on this.

 

It is becoming increasingly obvious that Obama is going to following at least some of Bush's policies (rendition, etc). Maybe we should stop the precedence before Obama gets caught up in seeing how far down the rabbit hole goes.

 

In other words, if we don't prosecute Bush, future presidents could use it a a justification for their own illegal acts.

 

Thoguhts?

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, the rendition retention by Obama is a slap in the face to anyone that knows what it is. Not to mention it comically counters the whole anti-outsourcing ideology of the democrat platform - one of the few things I actually liked about democrats.

 

I'm against any politically motivated investigations - it's just hard to distinguish legitimate ones in this kind of political climate. That said, I'm not against investigating Bush. There are plenty of political reasons, but there are also some decent legitimate ones. And I like ecoli's last statement, that would seem the responsible assumption.

[waitforufo]

While some members of this forum insist an investigation of the Bush administration is little more than petty, partistan revenge, 71% of Americans wish to see Bush investigated. 41% want a criminal investigation, while 30% want investigation by an independent panel.

 

Just to toss some more statistics at you, 63% want an investigation into Bush's illegal wiretapping, and 62% want an investigation into the use of torture.

 

As you may have guessed, or read from my previous posts, I count myself among those who wish to see Bush investigated for wiretapping, torture, and I would like to see him criminally investigated.

 

My belief is that Bush has violated the Fourth Amendment, wiretapping US citizens without a warrant. This view has been upheld by a federal judge who has ruled Bush committed a felony.

 

Then there's the small matter of Scott McClellan's claims that Bush admitted to outing an undercover CIA operative, an act of treason.

 

What do you think? Should the Bush Administration be investigated for the multitude of crimes they've been accused of? Is it important that presidents be held to the rule of law? Or should we just put the whole mess behind us and pretend it never happened? Are attempts at investigating Bush merely a petty act of partisan revenge, or are they an essential function of a democratic society, ensuring its leaders are held accountable for their crimes?

 

My prediction is that there will be no meaningful investigations and certainly no prosecutions.

 

This will leave two camps. Those in the "great miscarriage of justice" camp most likely lead by Keith Olbermann who will talk about this ad infinitum until the topic eventually joins other great conspiracy advocacy followings similar to the JFK assassination conspiracy. (Come on get over it Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.) The other group will think no prosecutions happened because no crimes were committed. Count me in the latter group.

[bascule]

The other group will think no prosecutions happened because no crimes were committed. Count me in the latter group.

 

You are aware a federal judge has already ruled Bush committed a felony, right? I think you missed that in my first post. To reiterate: Bush committed a felony

 

Perhaps your group may be more aptly described as being in a cave on Mars with your eyes shut, your fingers in your ears, and your head buried in the sand?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Actually what I said was that for members of Congress it is a matter of petty, partisan revenge. Which is exactly what it is.

 

Frankly I don't care what their motivations are if the ends are justice being served. Bush decided the Constitution (specifically the Fourth Amendment) was inconvenient in waging his war on terror so he personally and repeatedly signed off on ignoring it.

 

If the President isn't bound by the Constitution, why exactly is it we have a Constitution anyway? If it takes some "petty, partisan revenge" to ensure that the President can't violate the Constitution and get away with it, then I am all for petty, partisan revenge.

 

And even so, zuh? What's your evidence it's just "petty, partisan revenge" anyway? You don't think any member of Congress interested in prosecuting Bush wants to do so because, say, they think the Constitution is a good thing and stuff?

Edited February 19, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[waitforufo]

You are aware a federal judge has already ruled Bush committed a felony, right? I think you missed that in my first post. To reiterate: Bush committed a felony

 

Perhaps your group may be more aptly described as being in a cave on Mars with your eyes shut, your fingers in your ears, and your head buried in the sand?

 

"…Judge Walker ruled, effectively, that President George W. Bush is a felon."

From your link.

 

Perhaps I see a difference between the words "effectively" and "legally."

 

With regard to your treason claim in the OP, well Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage publicly admitted outing Valerie Plame. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html) I don't see him behind bars. I don't see him getting prosecuted. Why? Well I guess it is either some big conspiracy or no prosecutor with legal jurisdiction thinks they can get a conviction. Last I checked the difference between "no prosecutor with legal jurisdiction thinks they can get a conviction" and "no crime committed" is "effectively" nothing.

Edited February 19, 2009 by waitforufo

[ParanoiA]

Frankly I don't care what their motivations are if the ends are justice being served. Bush decided the Constitution (specifically the Fourth Amendment) was inconvenient in waging his war on terror so he personally and repeatedly signed off on ignoring it.

 

If the President isn't bound by the Constitution' date=' why exactly is it we have a Constitution anyway? If it takes some "petty, partisan revenge" to ensure that the President can't violate the Constitution and get away with it, then I am all for petty, partisan revenge.[/quote']

 

Well if you're standing on this principle, then surely you're speaking out against Obama's insistence on outsourcing torture? Surely torture is more egregious than spying on steamy phone conversations. Right?

 

I think for most it's a political drama operation. I think he should be investigated. You've already decided he's guilty and want him hung from a rope.

[bascule]

Perhaps I see a difference between the words "effectively" and "legally."

 

Bush repeatedly signed orders to circumvent the checks and balances provided by FISA and by extension the Fourth Amendment, and he has been found guilty of doing so.

 

Don't you think this warrants criminal charges against him, now that he's not a sitting president?

 

With regard to your treason claim in the OP, well Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage publicly admitted outing Valerie Plame [...] Well I guess it is either some big conspiracy or no prosecutor with legal jurisdiction thinks they can get a conviction.

 

We have Scott McClellan claiming that Bush personally confided in him that he was the one who authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's name, in which case, yes, it is a big conspiracy which goes all the way to the top... if you believe Scott McClellan.

 

Is he right? Well that's what we need a trial to determine. Shouldn't we have a trial? Shouldn't Scott McClellan testify under oath?

 

Do you seriously think we should just ignore all of this and pretend it never happened? Do you really think none of this warrants further investigation or criminal proceedings?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well if you're standing on this principle, then surely you're speaking out against Obama's insistence on outsourcing torture? Surely torture is more egregious than spying on steamy phone conversations.

 

Are you trying to excuse Bush from violating the Constitution? You really seem to like the Constitution ParanoiA, so I think you'd be pretty concerned about a president repeatedly writing orders to violate checks and balances as fundamental as those in the Fourth Amendment.

 

Personally I like having a judge write a warrant before the government spies on me or takes my things, and I'm really glad the founding fathers stuck that into the Constitution.

 

Yes, torture is very bad, but if a President explicitly orders the violation of the Constitution we have a very serious problem on our hands, and one I don't think should simply be ignored. That sets a very, very bad precedent.

[ParanoiA]

Are you trying to excuse Bush from violating the Constitution? You really seem to like the Constitution ParanoiA, so I think you'd be pretty concerned about a president repeatedly writing orders to violate checks and balances as fundamental as those in the Fourth Amendment.

 

And you'd be right since I said this in that same post:

 

I think he should be investigated.

 

And now I see that you're only concerned with written documents and not right and wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Torture is totally cool with bascule, so long as we're not violating the constitution. I suppose slavery wouldn't have been much of an issue for you when it was in the constitution right? In fact, you'd have brought folks up on charges for helping to free slaves right?

[bascule]

And now I see that you're only concerned with written documents and not right and wrong. Thanks for clearing that up. Torture is totally cool with bascule, so long as we're not violating the constitution.

 

For the record, I abhor torture.

 

However, I also abhor red herrings. Please don't interpret my attempts to steer you back on topic as a tacit condoning of torture.

[ParanoiA]

So that will be your next thread?

 

Hint: I'm demonstrating how this is about partisan politics. You don't care about torture in the same way you care about listening in on personal phone calls, claiming the constitution as your dividing line. That appears to be weak reasoning. I could be wrong, but that smells purely political.

[bascule]

So that will be your next thread?

 

Or yours! I have no idea what you're talking about but it isn't relevant to this thread.

 

You don't care about torture in the same way you care about listening in on personal phone calls, claiming the constitution as your dividing line.

 

No, to reiterate: I care passionately by torture as evidenced by the numerous threads I've started on the matter.

 

You got the response you got because your argument was a red herring. If you want a real response out of me, start a new thread and give it context.

 

Perhaps in the future I should just point out your argument is a red herring and refuse to dignify it with a response.

 

Now, can we get back to the subject at hand?

[waitforufo]

Bush repeatedly signed orders to circumvent the checks and balances provided by FISA and by extension the Fourth Amendment, and he has been found guilty of doing so.

 

Don't you think this warrants criminal charges against him, now that he's not a sitting president?

 

 

 

We have Scott McClellan claiming that Bush personally confided in him that he was the one who authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's name, in which case, yes, it is a big conspiracy which goes all the way to the top... if you believe Scott McClellan.

 

Is he right? Well that's what we need a trial to determine. Shouldn't we have a trial? Shouldn't Scott McClellan testify under oath?

 

Do you seriously think we should just ignore all of this and pretend it never happened? Do you really think none of this warrants further investigation or criminal proceedings?

 

Perhaps I see our legal system, the creation of law, and the enforcement of law differently than you do.

 

We have our constitution. Congress is supposed to write laws which respect the constitution. Often the laws they write are found to be unconstitutional. We then have our executive branches of government. They are to enforce or put in place the mechanisms by which the law is enforced. For the president this includes executive orders. Often times, upon review by courts or congress these executive orders are found to go beyond the scope of written law even when you assume the law by itself is constitutional. (Similarly laws are also often not enforced adequately by executive orders, but perhaps that’s a different matter.)

 

The checks and balances of our system make sure this over stepping is caught and corrected. If a person is a victim of this overstepping they may have recourse against the government. No one in government ever goes to jail.

 

Executives at city, county, state, and federal level overstep their authority through such orders all the time. Our system corrects this overstepping, the executive says "woops I'm sorry" and life goes on.

 

With regard to Scott McClellan, I seem to recall that we had a special prosecutor (Fitzgerald) that looked into the Plame mater. He did convict Scooter Libby for lying about a crime that he did not choose to prosecute the admitted offender. Other than that the case is closed.

 

Do I seriously think we should just ignore all of this and pretend it never happened? No, these things were not ignored and something did happen.

 

Do I really think none of this warrants further investigation or criminal proceedings? Yes, I really do think that.

[ParanoiA]

You got the response you got because your argument was a red herring. If you want a real response out of me, start a new thread and give it context.

 

I already stated the reason I threw that "red herring" out there. I'm pointing out how you care about Bush's injustice more than Obama's, which lends support to the idea this is about political revenge, not actual issues with right and wrong. Remember that? That was the line in the other thread that got you started on this one. Seems relevant to me.

 

Otherwise, you wouldn't be giving Obama a free pass to torture people in other countries.

 

You can disagree, this is all purely opinion. But I think if you really cared about right and wrong, and the constitution, you would be just as sick about Obama and asking about any possible criminal charges that could be brought against him. But I don't think you will, because you have no political revenge to settle with Obama.

[The Bear's Key]

You can disagree, this is all purely opinion. But I think if you really cared about right and wrong, and the constitution, you would be just as sick about Obama and asking about any possible criminal charges that could be brought against him. But I don't think you will, because you have no political revenge to settle with Obama.

How could bascule or anyone's concerns be political revenge when you examine the mountains of abuses from the very start of 2000 by the top levels of the incredibly secretive Bush Administration gang. Treason is not politics. And we see them getting away with murder.

 

You didn't hear us jump angrily about the witchunt over Clinton's relatively victimless blowjob (mostly bad for Hillary), instead many of us thought it silly and cracked jokes, and even the supposedly liberal media splashed it over the news for months on end, but -- every revealed misdeed by the Bush gang (countless), resulted in angry backlash and denial by his supporters.

 

It was disheartening to witness Bush supporters going "Nyah, nyah" and treating the second election like a competition, where the losers are just sour grapes, when in reality most people voting against Bush were trying to salvage the constitution, not playing a stupid game.

 

Never do we call anyone who doesn't support Obama "unpatriotic".

 

I'm willing to bet those comments about "revenge" originate from Limbaugh, O'Reilley, or some other commentator's mouth. How on earth would not getting your choice of President even be a cause for vengeance? Well, for neocons it is, as evidenced by their actions. But not for us.

Edited February 20, 2009 by The Bear's Key
clarified

[ParanoiA]

I'm willing to bet those comments about "revenge" originate from Limbaugh, O'Reilley, or some other commentator's mouth. How on earth does not getting your choice of President a cause for vengeance? Well, for neocons it is, as evidenced by their actions. But not for us.

 

Actually, it came from Pangloss. But if you think democrats = good, and republicans = bad, then I'll be honest, I don't have the energy to go there. Both political parties maneuver and screw each other residually; they put the fun in dysfunctional.

 

I'm just challenging what I see as a partisan point of view. I'll say it again, I too believe Bush should be investigated. If I disagreed with torture the way bascule has in previous threads, I would also be quite vocal about my displeasure in Obama's retention of outsourcing torture so we can enjoy the symbolic status of being torture free - that's sneaky, secretive and abusive. And that's exactly what Bush is accused of being.

[bascule]

The checks and balances of our system make sure this over stepping is caught and corrected.

 

If you believe that, then shouldn't you be concerned when a president signs an order explicitly circumventing a check by the judicial branch, namely the issuing of warrants as per the Fourth Amendment?

 

Executives at city, county, state, and federal level overstep their authority through such orders all the time. Our system corrects this overstepping, the executive says "woops I'm sorry" and life goes on.

 

That's great, except in the case of the warrentless spying program it never happened, and no one was ever held accountable.

 

Do I really think none of this warrants further investigation or criminal proceedings? Yes, I really do think that.

 

That contradicts your earlier statements.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I already stated the reason I threw that "red herring" out there. I'm pointing out how you care about Bush's injustice more than Obama's

 

No doubt, with Bush I have eight years of pent up frustration. With Obama I have... less than a month?

 

And it's not like I haven't been critical of Obama:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37889

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38651

[iNow]

Well if you're standing on this principle, then surely you're speaking out against Obama's insistence on outsourcing torture?

 

Insistence on outsourcing torture?

 

If I disagreed with torture the way bascule has in previous threads, I would also be quite vocal about my displeasure in Obama's retention of outsourcing torture so we can enjoy the symbolic status of being torture free - that's sneaky, secretive and abusive. And that's exactly what Bush is accused of being.

 

Bush's transgressions have been fully noted, recurring, and consistent. Obama is hardly at this level yet, nor has he insisteded that we continue the outsourcing of torture, hence the lack of outrage. Basically, I question your premise that Obama is more of the same.

 

 

 

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/28578/did-obama-really-create-a-loophole-for-rendition

Swirling ’round the blogosphere, it’s got all sorts of people in a tizzy that President Obama isn’t really ending torture and the Bush administration policy of “extraordinary rendition” of suspected terrorists to torturing countries.

 

But civil rights lawyers who’ve read Obama’s orders think the concerns are overblown, and the plain language of the executive orders Obama issued in the first 48 hours of his presidency suggest just the opposite.

 

“

The reality is we don’t know what he’s doing or what he plans to do in this area other than he set up a study team to make recommendations on whether and how a rendition program would continue

,” Chris Anders, legislative counsel for the ACLU in Washington, told me earlier today.

 

 

With that said, however, I will be watching closely to see how they improve this message they sent on Monday. If nothing changes, you can rest assured that I will not be all to defensive of them.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-goitein/accountabilityand-its-opp_b_166714.html

Why did the Obama administration choose to defend this extreme position? A pessimistic explanation is that the administration intends to continue the practice of extraordinary rendition, and would like to do so free of judicial oversight. After all, the executive order putting a stop to "enhanced interrogation techniques" by U.S. personnel conspicuously failed to put a stop to the practice of rendering detainees to other countries for interrogation.

 

But one need not conclude anything about the administration's substantive policy plans to be very worried about the position it articulated on Monday. At a time when many believed that the opportunity was finally at hand to obtain a public reckoning for extraordinary rendition and other abhorrent practices, the administration was presented with an important test case, and it cast its lot emphatically against transparency and accountability.

 

Rejecting these dangerous ideas and restoring the principles of transparency and accountability is more important than any single policy the administration may choose to endorse or foreswear. The Obama administration should rethink its decision to continue the Bush tradition of "disappearing" certain subjects from the realm of public knowledge and judicial oversight.

Edited February 20, 2009 by iNow

[The Bear's Key]

Actually, it came from Pangloss. But if you think democrats = good, and republicans = bad.....

Hell no, I'm not a Democrat. But they're not controlled by extreme groups that scorn the constitution (religious elements) or profits highly from ongoing war (entrepreneurial contractors).

 

I only see one party moving towards opening of government. The other party is constantly moving against it. An openly viewable government means a chance for us to pinpoint what's bad, and even real progress towards small government -- by focusing a light on the special interests.

 

I agree both parties are bad -- that system is flawed. If it weren't Republicans, it'd be Democrats. And will be...because those who are corrupt flock towards power.

 

If I disagreed with torture the way bascule has in previous threads, I would also be quite vocal about my displeasure in Obama's retention of outsourcing torture so we can enjoy the symbolic status of being torture free - that's sneaky, secretive and abusive. And that's exactly what Bush is accused of being.

First, I'm just as upset if Obama would continue this. But a good question is, would Obama have ever started this if Bush hadn't? Remember, we didn't find out about secret torture because Bush "told us" about it.

 

The abuse I referred to was on the level of outfitting a TV network for lies and propoganda, flooding various levels of government with a dangerous amount of unqualified but loyal people to facilitate their schemes, paying journalists with taxpayer funds to secretly promote laws, exposing a CIA agent in revenge, distributing memos of talking points and firing or pressuring those who didn't comply, etc.

 

They rely primarily on cognitive dissonance. For example, Republicans accuse Democrats of overdoing Fillibusters (45 of them). But then Republicans overdid the filibuster (120 of them). It's in the first one and a half minutes of the video.

 

Don't make me start a thread where I ask the community to supply evidence of which party most accused the other of doing something, where in reality the accuser is the one doing it most.

 

Again, cognitive dissonance. Or doublethink.

[Pangloss]

While the sheriff dropped the case due to lack of quality evidence, if they can attempt to investigate Michael Phelps for smoking pot, then SURELY they can investigate Bush for something much more egrarious... like torture and illegal wire tapping of american citizens. I have a hard time seeing how somebody could have ANY other perspective about this unless they themselves are the ones acting in a partisan manner.

 

That's maybe not such a great example for you, since Michael Phelps wasn't indicted. Why not? He clearly broke the law -- you can see him breaking the law in that photograph. And yet the prosecutor declined to prosecute the case. He made a decision based on various reasons that probably had nothing to do with whether or not Michael Phelps actually broke the law.

 

Just like Barack Obama has done in this case.

[ParanoiA]

No doubt' date=' with Bush I have eight years of pent up frustration. With Obama I have... less than a month?

 

And it's not like I haven't been critical of Obama:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=37889

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=38651[/quote']

 

You're right, I take back my political revenge charge. You've been more consistent than I gave you credit for. I apologize.

 

Bush's transgressions have been fully noted, recurring, and consistent. Obama is hardly at this level yet, nor has he insisteded that we continue the outsourcing of torture, hence the lack of outrage. Basically, I question your premise that Obama is more of the same.

 

I don't think Obama = more of the same. However, I think this particular subject of rendition is more of the same. I'm not passionate about it since I'm not an advocate for zero torture, but I do feel the need to point it out to folks that were highly critical of American policy that supported it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First, I'm just as upset if Obama would continue this. But a good question is, would Obama have ever started this if Bush hadn't? Remember, we didn't find out about secret torture because Bush "told us" about it.

 

That reeks of infinite Obama affinity. You're really going to toss out Bush-started-it? Give me a break. It's either right or it's wrong and no intellectual acrobats are going to change that.

 

Hell no, I'm not a Democrat. But they're not controlled by extreme groups that scorn the constitution (religious elements) or profits highly from ongoing war (entrepreneurial contractors).

 

They are controlled by extreme groups that scorn the constitution. Are you kidding? Smoking bans. Homosexual unions. Environmentalism. Anti-war advocates. These aren't things I'm against (other than smoking bans), but they do qualify as special interest groups that influence the democrat party ideology and energy, and do have scorn for the constitution. I do too, actually, in some respects, but the point sticks.

 

You're making the same mistake repeated by many liberals. That there isn't a constituency out there in total support of the war and advocating traditionalism in all of our institutions. If you continue to believe that republicans are brainwashed by a minority opinion then you're underestimating the will of the country. Both parties are influenced by special interests, which can undermine their constituency, but they can never outright ignore their constituency - they have to pander to them, at least verbally. Party ideology can be traced to those who voted them into power.

Edited February 20, 2009 by ParanoiA