LAT, Brownstein: Democrats May Argue Liberties to Their Peril

[DeepModem Mom]

ON EDIT: What a frightening headline, when defending liberty has to be considered in political terms -- we have come to this!


Democrats May Argue Liberties to Their Peril
The GOP appears eager to portray the challenge to presidential authority as weakness on security.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Leading Democrats are challenging President Bush's record on civil liberties across a wide front, inspiring a Republican counterattack that even some Democratic strategists worry could threaten the party in this year's elections.

From Bush's authorization of warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency to renewal of the Patriot Act, the president and his critics are battling more intently than at any time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks over the proper balance between national security and personal liberty.

In each of these disputes, prominent Democrats — joined by a few Republicans — accuse Bush of improperly expanding presidential power and dangerously constricting the rights of Americans. Bush and his allies have fired back by escalating charges that Democrats would weaken America's security by imposing unreasonable restraints on the president.

These exchanges establish contrasts familiar from debates over law enforcement and national security throughout the 1970s and '80s, with most Republicans arguing for tough measures and many Democrats focusing on the defense of constitutional protections.

That emerging alignment worries some Democratic strategists, who believe it may allow Bush to portray Republicans as stronger than Democrats in fighting terrorism, as he did in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns....


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-civil25jan25,0,5899435.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

[seabeyond]

1. 2004 talk iraq to our peril, 2002 challenge iraq to our peril

2000 use clintin to our peril

i see a pattern. i think i will use my own judgment as opposed to repugs and media tell me what our peril is. maybe, whatever they suggest is EXACTLY what we should talk about

[KittyWampus]

2. If We Allow The Executive To Take Away Liberties At Every Threat &

misfortune, what incentive does that Executive have to keep us safe?

Why wouldn't the Executive WELCOME threats as a means to amass more power?

[bluestateguy]

3. In one ear and out the other

Anyway? So, what's for lunch today?

[Cha]

13. Pizza!

:beer:

[Hubert Flottz]

4. "could threaten the party in this year's elections."

I'd worry more about voting machines that count backward, or that give no accounting at all!

[blm]

5. MEDIA ALLOWS BUSH TO LIE and covers up his INCOMPETENCE in terror war

When the media starts telling Americans how BADLY the Bushboy focked everything up in Afghanistan and Iraq, THEN it wouldn't matter what Rove says. In fact, media should be ssying that NO TRAITOR who outs CIA agents should be allowed airtime to spew his antiAmerican drivel.

[wisteria]

6. We need to have this fight. Bush hasn't been effectively fighting

terrorism.he has just been effective at deminishing our rights. We just need to counter that bullsh*t line, "we are fighting them over their so we don't have to fight them over here".
Rove is using his 9/11 trump card again- it is the only thing they have.

Bush's policies have not made us safer or more secure.

[rodeodance]

11. negative fight lines will not do the trick either--it is defense.

.Bush's policies have not made us safer or more secure.

[depakid]

7. " What a frightening headline"...

That's because it's Brownstein.

The man's one of the worst "pundits" out there. He's like Adam Nagourney- CONsTANTLY undermining reasonable Democratic positions and providing wothless analysis while trying to sound reasonable. Makes it tougher to see through his game.

Personally, I don't believe a word the man says. He's Krauthammer in disguise.

[wryter2000]

8. Oh, well, if you put it that way...

I guess spying on Quakers is something we have to put up with. Nothing can be done. Bush wins.

Say, have any blondes gone missing lately? :sarcasm:

[rodeodance]

9. and it seems it has to be in binaries for soundbites

.....These exchanges establish contrasts familiar from debates over law enforcement and national security throughout the 1970s and '80s, with most Republicans arguing for tough measures and many Democrats focusing on the defense of constitutional protections.

That emerging alignment worries some Democratic strategists, who believe it may allow Bush to portray Republicans as stronger than Democrats in fighting terrorism, as he did in the 2002 and 2004 campaigns....

[magellan]

10. If Bush** is so effective at protecting America

...why hasn't he managed to capture bin Laden? Clinton missed once -- Bush** has missed several times.

...why did he shut down the anthrax investigation?

...why is Brownie still on the payroll after FEMA's screw up? Why doesn't Bush** fire Brownie so his salary can be used to help Katrina victims?

Why why why....

[Cha]

12. Fuck you brownstein..you bush

water-boy..and the snooping voyueristic bushits.

the bushits let 9/11 happen and osama is still making videos and no one has been caught for the Anthrax terrorist attacks on the Postal Workers and the Dems..so as I said..go fuck yourself.

[liveoaktx]

14. VIDEO- David Cole's comments on just that argument from Torture P's

speech. It's also included in the Protest at Georgetown video I did, but I thought it deserved it's own spot