A Heartland Democrat Talks Sense – But Is Anyone Listening?
Who, if you’re a Democrat longing to regain the Oval Office, are you going to listen to? Howard “Mr. Wonderful” Dean and the Kos Krowd? Much better to listen to Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack:
Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that Democrats risk political backlash if they object to the Bush administration’s wiretapping but cannot show that Americans’ civil liberties are at risk.
The Democratic governor, who is weighing a 2008 presidential bid, said the party will suffer if it continues to be perceived as weaker than Republicans on national security.
Under a directive signed by President Bush, the National Security Agency can monitor the international communications of people inside the country, when one party to the call or e-mail is believed to be involved with the terrorist network al-Qaida. The practice is done without a court order, normally required to monitor such communications.
“If the president broke the law, that’s unacceptable. But I think it’s debateable whether he did,” Vilsack told Des Moines Register editors and reporters.
“And I think Democrats are falling into a very, very large political trap,” he said. “Democrats are not going to win elections until they can reassure people they are going to keep them safe.”
(hat tip to WorldwideStandard.com)…
Vilsack warning for Dems
H/T to Mark Coffey (and, by extension, WorldwideStandard.com).
Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that Democrats risk political backlash if they object to the Bush administration’s wiretapping but cannot show that Americans’ civil liberties are at risk…
I grew up in Iowa, and although I’ve moved away, my parents are still there, and they always seem happy about Vilsack. He’s especially a breath of fresh air after a decade and a half of Terry Bransted.
I appreciate Vilsack’s position, and I’m worried about the Democrats as well (being one and all). I agree that it isn’t decided until the courts decide whether or not its legal, and that the impeachment mania coming from some leftist pundits (especially online) is harmful to the whole process. I think the most important “trap” that Vilsack identifies is not the trap of appearing weak on national security (frankly,the change wouldn’t be falling into that one, it would be Democrats scrabbling back out of that trap), it’s the risk of betting everything on this illegality bid and then having it go nowhere.
It’s frustrating because if I have to choose either party, I choose Democrat, but I’d like to kick Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy out on their asses; they don’t do any good and the undermine the work of people who are trying to do good things. (That’s why I was glad to see Obama saying that the goal should be convincing people about the ideas, not staging stunts like melodramatic, lost-cause filibusters)
Hear, hear…I can lend most, if not all, of that my bipartisan support…
The need to feel safe at the expense of civil liberties is not acceptable. If people walk around during the day worrying about dying in a terrorist attack they are paranoid and need to go see a psychologist.
If the American public feels threatened then obviously the terrorists have accomplished their goal of creating terror.
Hokie, I don’t think ‘you’re paranoid and need to see a psychologist’ is going to make a very effective campaign slogan…which is Vilsack’s point entirely…
Exactly. What’s more disturbing is the tendency to either view Bush as the chief and indicator of all Republicans (silly as doing so of Dean with Democrats) or to only use Republicans who question the legality of the wiretapping as tools to strengthen the argument.
To me the response should be to consider the possibility of its illegality, push for inquiry and resolution, and wait to see what that resolution is. I think that if it’s found illegal, the best situation would be to see some more sensible Democrats (a la Vilsack, Obama) balanced by some intelligent conservatives. Furthermore, I don’t need an impeachment from Congress to make me happy as far as the Bush way of thinking; even though I don’t like the ultra-powerful executive, Congress stepping up and limiting the power of the executive would do just as well for me, and it would probably prevent some of the ridiculous backlash that might come from something more drastic Not to say that if something worse comes out in the whole process I wouldn’t back impeachment. I just don’t see it as the best bet right now, even for Democrats. Everyone talks about Hamas being surprised by their own victory; I feel pretty strongly that Howard Dean would feel the same way were he suddenly the chairman of a majority party. That’s why Obama is right: it’s about convincing people that you’re right through serious reasoning and argument, not grandstanding.
“If people walk around during the day worrying about dying in a terrorist attack they are paranoid…”
I visited the crater that used to be the Trade Centers about a month after the attacks – you would never make such a glib statement if you had actually seen the devastation, up close.
The threat of terrorism is all too real – would you like me to provide you with a list of cites detailing all of the domestic terrorist attacks that have been derailed in the past 6 years? We can start with the attacks that were planned on the 2000 New Year’s eve in LA, and then continue onward…
Hokie,
Warrantless eavesdropping affects the civil liberties of no one, except maybe terrorists. Mark is right, the Democrats have been over-playing a winning hand to the point of snatching defeat from victory.
“Warrantless eavesdropping affects the civil liberties of no one, except maybe terrorists.”
Uh, depends on whose calls are listened to. How do you know that only terrorists’ phones are tapped? The fact is that you don’t — and that is why the law requires judicial approval.
FISA was enacted after a previous President eavesdropped on political opponents. If it happened before, it can certainly happen again.
Well, if Osama Bin Laden called Howard Dean to shoot the breeze from Tora Bora, we should be listening in, Dean or not. But I don’t think any terrorists have been calling Bush’s “political opponents,” so I’m not worried.
Whether they were eavesdropping on terrorists or non-terrorists or not, that isn’t the point. The point is it sets a precedent that could be used in the future to eavesdrop on things like political enemies and to suppress opposition to the government.