i wake up early almost every day to watch washington journal on the 'span. this morning the issue was the warrantless spying on americans being conducted by the nsa, authorized by the president. more generally the debate was freedom versus security, and this quote from ben franklin: "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.".
republicans call in saying, among other things, "if new york was blowed up they wouldn't have any freedom", "if you have nothing to hide then what are you worried about", "clinton did it*, lincoln did it, xxxx democratic president did it" and also "derrrrp!".
all of these are completely false narratives. the REAL issue at stake is not liberty or security at all; we should have both and CAN have both. the problem here is that the president is doing something illegal. and why? there are legal ways in which to eavesdrop on americans, so why not do it legally? what's the difference? it's expediant and almost NEVER denied, so what possible reason could he have in circumventing the legislature?
(i know the answer to that, you probably know the answer to that)
what angers me every time political debate takes place is that republicans don't debate the actual topic when they know they're on the wrong side -- they find something parallel or close to said topic, something they can put on a bumpber sticker, or something that may in fact be worthy of debate.
in this instance they're making the argument that sacrificing a little liberty for security is acceptable (forget the fact that it's being done illegally. they conveniently ignore that tidbit). they're rallying for something that isn't in question.
they do the same thing when opposition to the iraq war arises. they say "you're demoralizing the troops! you're not supporting the troops! derrrrp!" when, in fact, the issue has nothing to do with the actions of our military. we question the civilian leadership, they counter by calling us un-american.
what else will the president be allowed to do in the name of national security if the illegal wire-tapping isn't ceased? we are on our way to a monarchy friends, or at least an oligarchy. how likely is it that samuel alito (he'll probably get confirmed) and a federalist-dominated supreme court will rule against this unitarian executive?
i called landrieu twice already.
*the default response to any bush wrong-doing shown to a republican is "but... bu bu bu bu... CLINTON!" also "derrrrp".