William Safire speaks out against Homeland Security Act

[sawdust restaurants]

I guess this isn't quite as big as Hitchens coming out in favor of the war in Iraq, but it's a pretty big coup nonetheless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/op...partner=GOOGLE

[tweedyburd]

Safire is conservative only in the context of the NY Times editorial page. In the more broad range of popular conservative commentators, he's really quite moderate.

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Safire is conservative only in the context of the NY Times editorial page. In the more broad range of popular conservative commentators, he's really quite moderate.

yeah, yeah, but is what he's saying accurate?

[Irrelevant]

Originally posted by killtheyouth
I can't possibly fathom how "get the government out of our lives" conservatives could possibly support any law of this sort. It's utter hypocrisy.

i really don't understand it either. at all. but the conservatives seem to tell you what to do about lots of things, like abortions and drug policy. but how they can advocate smaller government at the same time as pushing a bill like this is pretty damn confusing.

[tweedyburd]

Of course it is, but that wasn't my point. The idea that Safire denouncing the particular mandate in question in the Act is not exactly unusual among conservative voices. Drudge and others have already stated the same.

Furthermore, it's not so much a qualm with the administration as it is Poindexter:

When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president.

I think conservative principles do not fall in line with what this particular section of the Act would require. I would argue that there are far more cases of Orwellian residue still working among the Left, at least culturally and socially. That's why I said it's not like a big revelation that a moderate like Safire wrote this piece.

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
I think conservative principles do not fall in line with what this particular section of the Act would require. I would argue that there are far more cases of Orwellian residue still working among the Left, at least culturally and socially. That's why I said it's not like a big revelation that a moderate like Safire wrote this piece.

I don't think anybody's principles really fall in line with what this particular section of the Act would require. And while I'm fully aware of Safire's moderate conservatism, the fact that many commentators--even leftists--have pretty much twiddled their thumbs while the administration hammered the PATRIOT Act through Congress, and now this thing has passed the House and supposedly has enough support in the Senate, still makes it rather noteworthy, and that's what I meant originally. It's not so much a break from rank as it is a necessary piece from an unexpected, if not entirely unusual, source. And as a final point, considering the administration's firmness on the legislation, I don't think it's really accurate to say he's only criticising Poindexter--perhaps in a linguistic manner, but not practically, because the GWB admin and Poindexter aren't entirely mutually exclusive.

And by Orwellian leftist programs, I assume you mean social(ist, perhaps? heh there I go again picking on myself, I need to stop that) politics/policies?

[beef curtains]

william assfire???

i'd love to marry into a name like that

[tweedyburd]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


I don't think anybody's principles really fall in line with what this particular section of the Act would require.

I would say that those principles do fall in line with a certain sect of the neocons. But as Buchannan would argue, "Who do these people think they are, and why do they represent conservative America?"

You also might be interested to know that this particular section of the Act was introduced by the Senate Democrats, NOT the administration.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021115-70231.htm

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
I would say that those principles do fall in line with a certain sect of the neocons. But as Buchannan would argue, "Who do these people think they are, and why do they represent conservative America?"

You also might be interested to know that this particular section of the Act was introduced by the Senate Democrats, NOT the administration.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021115-70231.htm

Dems =/= the left to me, so I'm not really surprised or disappointed.

Even if the administration didn't introduce that section of the Act, however, they have still give it their weight--they are obviously pleased enough with it to want to keep it in there.

[Homerpalooza]

Originally posted by tweedyburd


I would say that those principles do fall in line with a certain sect of the neocons. But as Buchannan would argue, "Who do these people think they are, and why do they represent conservative America?"

You also might be interested to know that this particular section of the Act was introduced by the Senate Democrats, NOT the administration.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021115-70231.htm

I think if this thing gets through and passes, we can all hold both Democrats and Republicans responsible for the downfall of civilization.

What an exciting time it is.

[tweedyburd]

Yeah, I agree. It's ridiculous.

I just don't like all the constant air of 'blame the Republicans' or 'blame the far Right' for this part of the legislation. It's always easy to blame the incumbent administration. It's a political ploy and everyone, at least in the elite media, seems to be pushing that sentiment. Regardless of whether the adminstration is backing it or not, it wasn't their idea in the beginning.

[O'Doyle Rules]

http://www.guerrillanews.com/
http://www.2600.com/