![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogWe’ve got six weeks to go in POTUS 2012®, and as you may have guessed, the campaign hinges on two crucial issues – Mitt Romney’s tax returns and Barack Obama’s secret plan to redistribute America’s economic power to the rest of the world so that we’re all on the same level (which would be somewhere around where Greece is now).
Ha ha. Not really.
It’s mostly about the economy and jobs, although thanks to some hack filmmaker in California, it’s now also about foreign policy to an extent, and whether or not the solution to Muslim unrest is to declare war on Iran. (Because let's face it, if Obama had done that, you wouldn’t see all those riots. I guess. At least I think that’s what Mitt Romney has been trying to say without actually saying it.)
Anyway, now that foreign policy is on the table – which in this case basically meansDealing With Overseas America-Hating Muslims That Hate America That Al Qaeda Can Recruit From the War On Terror™ – it will be interesting to see if that brings another issue on the table: civil liberties.
To recap: the US Govt currently prefers to deal with Al Qaeda by give intelligence and law enforcement agencies all kinds of powers – mass surveillance, indefinite detention, assassination, etc – all of which can be applied even if yr an American citizen entitled to due process under the Constitution (as opposed to Foreign People You Don’t Know). Most of that started under Bush Jr. And it has continued under Presidente Obama. Some of it has even been legalized under Obama, and you can find a whole nice long list of things Obama has endorsed and utilized here.
Bipartisan!
Which is why civil liberties has been a non-issue in this campaign. No one on either side wants to bring it up. Why would they? Obama’s not going to bring it up because it makes him sound like Bush 2. And Republicans aren’t going to bring it up because they support every one of those policies, and they’re not about to give Obama credit for anything, least of all their own ideas. Indeed, the only thing they’d sincerely criticize Obama for in the civil liberties field is that he’s not violating them nearly enough.
“Pussy!”
Mind you, if any of this does come up in the debates, it’s going to make for some uncomfortable moments for Obama supporters.
I should know. I’ve pointed out Obama’s civil liberties record to a few of his admirers who have gone to great lengths to convince wavering liberals that Obama’s record in Term 1 proves he’s accomplished more than they might think. When I suggested they look at the full record – in the interest of having a more fully informed opinion – the response usually went something like this:
“What? Where did you get that from? I don’t think that’s true. It doesn't sound like something Obama would support.”
Well, they would say that. Never mind that it’s a matter of record. Obama’s only got a single-digit advantage, and no one wants to ruin that with inconvenient truths.
That said, I don’t think they have much to fear on that score – it’s not like civil liberties would improve under a Romney/Ryan admin. Indeed, they're likely to get worse.
And as mentioned earlier, there are other issues on the table where Obama is the more appealing choice for them. And I do think even disenchanted Obama supporters from 2008 are much more likely to stick with him for another term than vote for Romney.
Still, I suppose it’s symptomatic of the Big Fear gripping the Left over the prospect of a Double R victory that they can’t even face some basic, documentable truths about their own candidate.
So is the fact that a lot of people – and by no means just Republicans – either see nothing wrong with the current status quo on civil liberties, or do but figure that’s just the way it has to be now because of all the terrorists out there plotting to kill them.
Roy Batty was right.
Off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush,
This is dF
Ha ha. Not really.
It’s mostly about the economy and jobs, although thanks to some hack filmmaker in California, it’s now also about foreign policy to an extent, and whether or not the solution to Muslim unrest is to declare war on Iran. (Because let's face it, if Obama had done that, you wouldn’t see all those riots. I guess. At least I think that’s what Mitt Romney has been trying to say without actually saying it.)
Anyway, now that foreign policy is on the table – which in this case basically means
To recap: the US Govt currently prefers to deal with Al Qaeda by give intelligence and law enforcement agencies all kinds of powers – mass surveillance, indefinite detention, assassination, etc – all of which can be applied even if yr an American citizen entitled to due process under the Constitution (as opposed to Foreign People You Don’t Know). Most of that started under Bush Jr. And it has continued under Presidente Obama. Some of it has even been legalized under Obama, and you can find a whole nice long list of things Obama has endorsed and utilized here.
Bipartisan!
Which is why civil liberties has been a non-issue in this campaign. No one on either side wants to bring it up. Why would they? Obama’s not going to bring it up because it makes him sound like Bush 2. And Republicans aren’t going to bring it up because they support every one of those policies, and they’re not about to give Obama credit for anything, least of all their own ideas. Indeed, the only thing they’d sincerely criticize Obama for in the civil liberties field is that he’s not violating them nearly enough.
“Pussy!”
Mind you, if any of this does come up in the debates, it’s going to make for some uncomfortable moments for Obama supporters.
I should know. I’ve pointed out Obama’s civil liberties record to a few of his admirers who have gone to great lengths to convince wavering liberals that Obama’s record in Term 1 proves he’s accomplished more than they might think. When I suggested they look at the full record – in the interest of having a more fully informed opinion – the response usually went something like this:
“What? Where did you get that from? I don’t think that’s true. It doesn't sound like something Obama would support.”
Well, they would say that. Never mind that it’s a matter of record. Obama’s only got a single-digit advantage, and no one wants to ruin that with inconvenient truths.
That said, I don’t think they have much to fear on that score – it’s not like civil liberties would improve under a Romney/Ryan admin. Indeed, they're likely to get worse.
And as mentioned earlier, there are other issues on the table where Obama is the more appealing choice for them. And I do think even disenchanted Obama supporters from 2008 are much more likely to stick with him for another term than vote for Romney.
Still, I suppose it’s symptomatic of the Big Fear gripping the Left over the prospect of a Double R victory that they can’t even face some basic, documentable truths about their own candidate.
So is the fact that a lot of people – and by no means just Republicans – either see nothing wrong with the current status quo on civil liberties, or do but figure that’s just the way it has to be now because of all the terrorists out there plotting to kill them.
Roy Batty was right.
Off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush,
This is dF
