2 Comments Add your own

• 1. Lincoln Madison  |  April 20th, 2006 at 5:22 am

  

  Did you actually watch the advertisement before you wrote about it? The ad does not imply that Bush is eavesdropping on anyone who “disagrees with” (not “criticizes”) him. It shows a figure who is clearly intended to represent Karl Rove suggesting to the President ‚Äî who turns out to be George Washington instead of George W. Bush ‚Äî that he carry out such a policy. The point is that there is inadequate separation between surveillance of U.S. citizens without judicial oversight for legitimate purposes of investigating objectively suspicious contacts with known or suspected terrorists, and surveillance of U.S. citizens for partisan political purposes. It is the element of judicial oversight ‚Äî unambiguously demanded by the Fourth Amendment ‚Äî that protects the people from the abuse of such a program, even if its origin was in the highest motives of patriotism.

  Richard Nixon actually did use the resources of the federal government to spy on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil because they were political opponents of his policies, especially the Viet Nam War. Do you really expect me to believe that, without anyone checking on the program from the outside, that no one in the Bush administration would ever abuse that kind of authority? If so, then you do not deserve the freedoms you have. If Bush cannot protect us from the terrorists without violating the cornerstone principles of the Bill of Rights, then he is unfit to be President, just as Nixon was unfit.

• 2. Administrator  |  April 20th, 2006 at 11:47 am

  

  I did watch it. And I would have sworn the man said anyone who “crticizes” you.

  I went back and watched it again this morning and he does say “disagree.”

  I’d say I think someone changed the spot, if that didn’t make me sound so much like the nutcases that claim we blew up the twin towers ourselves.

  So I apologize for writing “criticizes.”

  But, one of the other freedoms we have that you think I might not deserve is to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

  As far as I know, no one else has ever accused the administration of spying on domestic enemies.

  And the use of it here is meant to allude to Nixon and convict Bush by association.

  I’m not saying that’s impossible.

  I am saying it’s never been documented and there has been no suggestion of it until this spot.

  I have my own qualms about the Administration’s claims concerning the warrantless wiretaps.

  But two wrongs don’t make a right and this commercial is as slimy and misleading as the Democrats usually accuse the Republicans of being.

  Shouldn’t Saint Feingold be above that?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.