Video: The dirty Citizens United wiretap ad
posted at 3:14 pm on November 3, 2006 by Allahpundit
I saw this a few days ago and passed because it was so misleading, but people keep sending it to me so I give up.
Here’s a phrase they might want to include in the next iteration: without a warrant.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
How is this dirty?
It’s not a personal attack on anyone – it’s directed towards a policy position held by many democrats. In other words, it focuses on an issue?
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 3:21 PM
The Democrats are against warrantless wiretaps, not all wiretaps. It’s deliberately misleading.
Allahpundit on November 3, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Looks good to me.
bloggless on November 3, 2006 at 3:24 PM
How do we know they didn’t have a warrant for this wiretap? If they didn’t, they should have. So what is the point?
bloggless on November 3, 2006 at 3:25 PM
Looks accurate to me…
x95b10 on November 3, 2006 at 3:25 PM
You mean warrantless taps on foreign based calls into the US by terrorists right?
TheBigOldDog on November 3, 2006 at 3:27 PM
Whenever you read your fortune from a fortune cookie, always add ‘without a warrant’ to the end of it.
Kevin M on November 3, 2006 at 3:27 PM
I think the ad is fine. The warrant vs. warrantless issue was hashed out so thoroughly in the press I think it can be safely assumed.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Actually they are just against any wiretaps authorized by the Bush administration. It does not matter to them if it has a warrant or not.
MarkB on November 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Sighhhhh…
Shakes head.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Fair enough.
But given the expressed attitude of the dems regarding terrorist surveillance programs such as this, as well as the fact that time is of the essence in a lot of these situations, is it really that misleading?
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM
It’s so over the top it will turn people off.
People don’t like to feel like they’re being manipulated. I know; I’ve met some people.
frankj on November 3, 2006 at 3:29 PM
Please don’t make me whip out my Goldstein.
Seriously though, it’s a political ad. It’s by definition misleading. People don’t trust them on instinct, so why hold yourself to a standard no one will believe you’ve met in the first place? Spend the money, score some points, move on.
thelinyguy on November 3, 2006 at 3:30 PM
What has KP done to our Allah?
mattshu on November 3, 2006 at 3:30 PM
Heh. TRAITOR!
Allahpundit on November 3, 2006 at 3:31 PM
It’s not over the top. It’s true.
bloggless on November 3, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Umm…not quite. As Allah said, Democrats aren’t against wiretaps, just warrentless wiretaps, which is a pretty big distinction. The ad also makes it seem like if Democrats win control of Congress wiretaps will just magically disapear. Nevermind the whole propose a bill, debate the bill, amend the bill, vote on the bill process. Liberals and their nuances…
JaHerer22 on November 3, 2006 at 3:35 PM
It can be both. I’m just saying it made me groan when I saw it on TV. It’s almost a left-wing parody of a right-wing scaremongering ad.
frankj on November 3, 2006 at 3:35 PM
Allah, the ad DOES say “listen as terrorists plot attacks“. These calls are intercepted in an ad hoc basis, as far as we can tell at least, so there is no circumstance in which we could both listen as they attack and get a warrant.
Your point is valid as well, but what they said is technically true. They only have 15 seconds to make their point, man.
DaveS on November 3, 2006 at 3:35 PM
How about if we include the “warrantless” when they remove the “domestic spying”?
Fair Enough?
fogw on November 3, 2006 at 3:36 PM
What is the definition of a slippery slope?
Can do it.
Can do it but must have warrant.
Can do it but must have warrant and congress approval.
Can do it but must have warrant and congress approval and presidential okay for each case.
Can do but must have congressonal oversite committee review all requests, than issue warrant.
Can do but must have oversite committee approval, senate approval, 3 judge panel approval, president signature, back to judge for warrant, warrant issued only for a specific time. Must know both parties names and if either is a citizen. If citizen, than informed of rights and granted a lawyer. All tapes must be turned over to oversite committee and any personal information expunged. If personal information is extensive or no evidence of crime than congressional panel is empowered to supeona all records regarding wire tap.
I could go on, but my head would explode.
right2bright on November 3, 2006 at 3:37 PM
So after the NYT told the world what we were doing within the legal system and then said “oops” we are supposed to say ” OK,”?
Like MarkB said, if Bush is doing anything that works they will be against it because they cannot allow him to succeed at anything.
bbz123 on November 3, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Do y’all really think REALLY we have time to waste for some secret FISA court to issue a warrant while terrorist A is talking to terrorist B here in the U.S.?
SouthernGent on November 3, 2006 at 3:38 PM
I also agree with frankj, by the way.
DaveS on November 3, 2006 at 3:38 PM
It’s not over the top – this is a perfect expression of why I decided NOT to sit at home and do my part to teach the Republicans a lesson this year. The overarching point of this ad is that democrats cannot be trusted with national security issues, which is absolutely true as the sum of their words and actions has proven time and time again.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 3:40 PM
The ad is meant to put the Democrats on the defensive.
I agree, but Democrats will have to spend time/money defending, or else it will appear true.
jeffNWV on November 3, 2006 at 3:41 PM
I don’t see a problem with this ad. Phone calls like this to an unknown terrorist already in the U.S. would be missed, because a warrant would not have been issued before the phone call. The call would have ended long before they could get a warrant. I think this ad accurately demonstrates that under the dimms, the risk is much higher that critical communications between foreign terrorists and their contacts here in the U.S. would go undetected.
MarkM on November 3, 2006 at 3:42 PM
THANK YOU.
Fly_in_Ointment on November 3, 2006 at 3:47 PM
Some of the partisan logic being displayed here is just absurd. I’m sure it’s the same on the other side as well, I just choose to play here because it’s more fun to argue than hear your point reguritated over and over, but my God.
The issue isn’t whether or not warrentless wiretaps should be allowed, the issue is if it is okay to use fearmongering to completely misrepresnt your opponent’s postion in order to literally scare people into voting for you. Regardless of your position on wiretaps, this seems amoral.
JaHerer22 on November 3, 2006 at 3:48 PM
QFT
- The Cat
MirCat on November 3, 2006 at 3:49 PM
Nah, fogw – only Republicans are supposed to play by the rules, which will be given their strictest interpretation possible, and any infraction, real or percieved, will be called out here on HotAir so that it can be seen that that we are above the fray and have the moral high ground, which of course is much, much more important pesky little concerns like winning elections.
Democrats can do anything they want and it’s fair. In fact, they’ll be given the benefit of the doubt always, and any potential bad news will be moved off the front page as quickly as possible.
Just ask Allah.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 3:50 PM
I am monitoring KP’s blog for the Mission Accomplished photo. Should be up any minute now.
Valiant on November 3, 2006 at 3:51 PM
Wow Allah, you going soft on us?
There’s nothing wrong with that advertisement. Heck, it’s a lot less brutal than a lot of the ads I’ve seen this political season.
webproze on November 3, 2006 at 3:52 PM
More sentiments like this and we’d be a much more civilized and enlightened society.
frankj on November 3, 2006 at 3:53 PM
I reiterate my point: it’s a political ad! Does anyone actually watch a political ad and assume by default that they’re witnessing the unvarnished truth? They’re meant to convey a general point with a limited amount of time. I find that ad misleading, but that’s like pointing out a grain of sand in a desert and mentioning that it appears to be quite dry.
thelinyguy on November 3, 2006 at 3:53 PM
Fearmongering (liberal definition): highlighting liberals complete ineptitude on national security issues, which has been the case since Eugene McCarthy upset LBJ in the ’68 NH primary.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 3:53 PM
JaHerer22…
The problem with your statement, of course, is that this ad doesn’t misrepresent their position. It says that Democrats don’t want to listen as the terrorist plan. This is indisputably true… the Dems want to require a warrant, which means that there is no physical way the calls could be heard in real time.
This isn’t an argument you have no chance of winning. There wasn’t a single false word in that ad.
I agree, though, that it was a bit cheesy.
DaveS on November 3, 2006 at 3:56 PM
Exactly. All this argument about how accurate the ad is misses the point. I think we’re all in agreement that, given the chance, Democrats will gay marry terrorists. So, how do we make that point in a way that won’t cause people to roll their eyes and exclaim, “There goes those wacky Republicans trying to fearmonger again.”?
I don’t think this ad helps.
frankj on November 3, 2006 at 3:56 PM
What’s AMORAL is libs trying to scare the people of this country with their domestic spying crap, while people like this are allowed to continue unhindered.
bloggless on November 3, 2006 at 3:56 PM
Rather, this is an argument that you have no chance of winning. I mistyped, and, perhaps, gave you false hope. :-)
DaveS on November 3, 2006 at 3:57 PM
Hey, people should be afraid. They should be very afraid. Didn’t September 11th that?
bloggless on November 3, 2006 at 3:58 PM
Sorry, I loved it. I laughed out loud, and I only say that when I really did. I think that the Lefties split enough hairs on their own without us doing it for them. Like Rush has pointed out, they can’t be reasoned with, so they have to be defeated.
dostrick on November 3, 2006 at 4:00 PM
I no longer worry about warrantless wiretaps since I am sure any converstion recorded will be published in the NY Times. By the way have they updated their listing of where our nuclear subs are currently? Don’t they publish that right next to the weather map?
LakeRuins on November 3, 2006 at 4:05 PM
I’m with you DaveS. The add is not misleading because it omits “warrantless.” The Dems insistence on obtaining warrants would have made it impossible to intercept real-time conversations.
Maybe Allah is playing devil’s advocate…again. I hope.
IrishEi on November 3, 2006 at 4:06 PM
Guys, we need to drop the partisan blinders here.
It seems like all we are doing is anytime AP posts something, all we do is start barking out “Damn rotten democrats!” Or “that’s telling ‘em!” Blah blah blah. I swear its starting to sound more and more like DU or the KOS site. And I mean that.
Anything that gets posted immediately gets the same “Damn Rethuglicans!! This’ll show ‘em!”
They call themselves the reality based community, but I laugh at them because they are anything but. But we are starting to sound just like them.
One of our commenters doens’t know it, but he is argueing a DEMOCRATIC POINT as he tries to slam them!
The point, my friend, is that the democrats are saying we need to get warrants. The republicans are saying we don’t. So what position are you argueing? The democrats? Or the republicans? You say you support this ad. But the theme of this ad is contradictatory to your position. This whole dust up about the NSA comes down to warrants. Dems want them. Repugs don’t.
True about what? Look, I don’t like the dems any more than you do. But we’ve got to be based in some sort of reality here. I don’t think I’ve heard ANY democrat say they don’t want ANY evesdropping. They want warrants. I don’t.
I’m not trying to be an a**hole here. And I don’t wanna call anyone out by name. Hell. I’m no smarter than any other dude. (well, I didn’t ride the short bus to school, so I got that going for me) But we gotta put at least a few seconds of thought into our comments before we just say “right on man!” or “you bastards!”
Yeah, somethings need an immediate shout out. But some of us (not all of us) need to maybe… reflect a little.
Peace out.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 4:08 PM
pimf, wish we had it. add = ad
IrishEi on November 3, 2006 at 4:08 PM
The argument over the warrants always intrigued me for one reason. Federal agencies had 72 hours after the intercept to go get the warrant, a retroactive warrant if you will, which renders the argument of missing a real time conversation mute. However if while listening in there was no usable information there was no need to get a warrant therefore no need to go to the FISA court. Catch – 22
But it was fun watching all the legal beagles hash it out while all of Joe Six Packs just sat back saying “Bubba watch this”
LakeRuins on November 3, 2006 at 4:10 PM
mattshu,
You have to wonder just who’s pulling who where. Women can be awfully wily. I’m not sure that omniscience is going to be enough.
Pablo on November 3, 2006 at 4:11 PM
Fearmongering (conservative definition): encouraging citizens to be afraid because their fear is advantageous to political gain; cultivating fear and anxiety by demonizing your opponet with worst-case scenarios and keeping the populace in a state of perpetual fear with constant reminders of past events.
Contrast this encouragement of fear and angst with FDR’s encouragement of bravery and optimism “nothing to fear but fear itself” and you will understand why almost 70% of Americans are disatisfied with the Bush adminstration’s leadership.
JaHerer22 on November 3, 2006 at 4:12 PM
I don’t care how much Mark Cuban is paying you! They’re FORGERIES, Dan! Just give it up already!
Pablo on November 3, 2006 at 4:13 PM
frankj
Well frank, I’m pretty sure that if we associated democrats with monkeys, that would do it. After all, everybody knows monkeys are up to no good. Plus they’re poo flingers. Remember, it will only take a couple generations of evolution to give these monkey bastards thumbs, and then where will we be?
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 4:17 PM
Get over it. It’s an ad.
When’s the last time you got upset because an ad for a car or some burger joint was misleading?
db on November 3, 2006 at 4:18 PM
My point is pal, that I don’t care if they have a warrant. I think the ad looks good because it is true. If it were up to liberals no one would be tapped, not even Osamie, unless there was a warrant, which just lacks a whole lotta common sense in my book. Libs would probably even figure out a way to claim any warrant against Osamie was not a legal warrant. If libs really cared about the safety and welfare of Americans and our soldiers, they would support the wiretaps with or without warrants. IF they were serious about winning this war, they would support getting the job done. But that is not what this is about, once again, this is about their hatred of George Bush, nothing more and nothing less. I guess you might say my position is the common sense position.
bloggless on November 3, 2006 at 4:19 PM
I had a screaming hissy fit in Burger King the other day when they wouldn’t let me have it my way on my burger.
I wanted it rare. They told me no. I freaked out like a little girl.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 4:20 PM
I’d say that describes democrats perfectly, who have charcterized warrantless wiretaps as domestic spying time and time again, as if we are descending into some police state. Such a charge is far more ridiculous than the mere omission of the term ‘warrantless’ in this ad.
The bottom line is this: National security is an issue. A big one. And the approach that the democrats would take and that which the republicans would take differ at the most fundamental level. This ad highlights that, and you and other libs know it. Hence, not having any more to defend yourself with other than calling out the omission of the term ‘warrantless’, you try to shame us away from it with the term ‘fearmongering’.
You speak of that 70% as if it’s of a monolithic mindset regarding Bush’s leadership. I’m quite dissatisfied with his leadership on a significant number of important issues, but I can assure you that the reasons for my dissatisfaction are poles apart from yours.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 4:21 PM
To Allahpundit:
There is a difference between listening to American citizens and American enemies. The courts should not be involved in intelligence gathering decisions. The point of this ad is right on. Dems would like to extend Constitutional rights and priveleges to non-Americans who are engaged in terrorism.
This just in: “We the people of the United States of America . . .” is the foundation of the rights of Americans and gives Commander in Chief powers to POTUS and the power to declare wars and fund the military to Congress. Are you suggesting that the judiciary has super-constitutional powers? I know they and many libs wish it were this way.
cmay on November 3, 2006 at 4:23 PM
How do we know they didn’t have a warrant for this wiretap? If they didn’t, they should have. So what is the point?
OK, I consider your postion clarified. But you see where I’m coming from? Sometimes we just need to slowdown a little.
I know the libs are totally bug eyed crazy with Bush hatred. I just want us to avoid looking similarly goofy.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 4:25 PM
Exactly. When Clinton spied nobody cried.
After Clinton started doing what the liberals are crying about back in the ’90s I remember my brother would start all his phone conversations by quickly saying all the “trigger” words, you know; bombs, terrorist, drugs, guns, nuclear, etc. I thought it was funnny and asked why-he said if we all do it all the time we’ll throw the CIA or whoever off because they’ll have to sift through a bunch of BS conversations. Then they’ll abandon the program.
The NSA program is actually less spy-ish since it looks at calls to and from known terrorist strongholds.
ALL the political adds are very misleading in one way or another. This one is pretty effective though.
NTWR on November 3, 2006 at 4:26 PM
The War on
TerrorIslamofascism will be won with soldiers not lawyers. I do not expect Zwahiri, Bin Laden or Adam Ghadan to appear in court. People want to say we are creating terrorists by our presence in Irak fine. As long as those mindless robots want to hurl themselves onto the bayonets of our troops over there instead of blowing up on buses over here it sounds like a good deal to me. When CAIR has to start running a Muslim population counter in reverse that is fine with me also.So until I see the Al Queda legal team, and the ACLU doesn’t count, file a legal brief in front of the Supreme Court I could care less how many laws we break, or how many of the terrorists “rights” we violate.
LakeRuins on November 3, 2006 at 4:27 PM
Democrats are the fearmongering experts starting with their Goldwater ad in the 60′s. Thats real fearmongering something with no basis in truth. We know what eight years of Democrats in charge of national security accomplished. 9-11.
Saying the ad “completely misrepresents” when it does not only suggests political spin.
MarkB on November 3, 2006 at 4:27 PM
You simply do not understand how the program works, and would be better off to just keep quiet. It would not be possible to operate the program with warrants.
tarpon on November 3, 2006 at 4:28 PM
To whom? Libs?
They already think you’re batsh-t crazy. So why are you concerned with it?
When you start doing things and taking positions with your foremost concern of your appearance to others, you are well on your way to doing it wrong.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 4:30 PM
I didn’t like the ad either. Made me cringe when I saw it on TV the first time. There’s some “larger truth” to the point they’re making, but this is not the way to make it. It turns a serious issue into an unfortunate parody of the “fearmongering” of which we’re so often accused, which in turn makes it easier to call serious issues “fearmongering” in the future. Bottom line, I think it’s over-the-top and not helpful. I’m with Allah and Frank J on this one, and you know KP’s not influencing me. :)
marykatharine on November 3, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Your point is well taken LakeRuins (as to the “retroactive” warrant.) However, I will stand with Bloggless in believing that many liberals would jump through hoops to prevent GWB from carrying out the war on terror just because they hate him so much. What is even more frightening is that some on the left do not even believe there is or should be a war on terror. Correct me again if I am wrong, but wasn’t this wiretapping found to be legal nonetheless?
IrishEi on November 3, 2006 at 4:32 PM
So we are stuck between the fictional Jack Bauer and CTU and the real world reality that those who wish to kill us have defenders inside the walls of our castle.
Listening to phone calls – Nope
Tracking financial transactions – Nope
Interogration of prisoners – Nope
Confinement of terror suspects – Nope
Then there is one thing we better get damn good at – - – Building memorials to our fallen and I don’t mean that crap in AZ!
LakeRuins on November 3, 2006 at 4:36 PM
Can anyone please point out to me which American has had their rights infringed upon by Bush’s wiretapping programs?
And Tarpon, who posted above, is quite right; tying one hand behind our backs is no way to gather intel. People who have a problem with warrentless wiretapping of the enemy are operating through theory. The one’s who want to kill us care little about such intellectual exercises.
This is no game and should not be treated as such; which I am sad to say, happens more times than not with pundits.
Cary on November 3, 2006 at 4:37 PM
EFG,
What with Jamie Gore-lick and the installment of George Tenet, etc. I think it’s pretty clear that the leftists despise intelligence as much as–possibly even more than–they despise the military. I think it is at least an arguable point that they would love to simply dismantle it entirely.
But be that as it may, the ad is making a blunt point. The argument has already been out there so people know what the issue is. This is just a reminder. And it is no place to be trying to rehash all the subtleties and nuances involved.
urbancenturion on November 3, 2006 at 4:37 PM
Actually we dont know if KP is influencing you are not….now where is that contextual mindreading to consider.
Cringe away….better to have the bright disinfectant of daylight than whispers of evil in the shadows
Discussing something that people have fears of is not necessarily fearmongering.
MarkB on November 3, 2006 at 4:40 PM
Perhaps the ad is a bit “nuanced,” like Kerry! I still think it’s good…and effective. Reminds me of the Daisy ad which was also very effective even though it had a very short run (once?).
IrishEi on November 3, 2006 at 4:41 PM
I don’t neccessarily disagree with either of those statements but they work to back up my earlier point about the partisian kool-aid drinking going on here. I stated that the ‘terrorists will kill you’ fearmongering was unproductive and the wrong message to send the citizens of the U.S. Instead of refuting my point, you simply scream “well democrats are doing it too!” I agree and it’s wrong on all levels.
I am much, much more likely to die from cancer, heart disease, or a car accident than I am from a terrorist attack. There are many things I can do, as well as many things the government can do, to reduce the risk that I die of cancer, just as there are many both individuals and the government can do to reduce the risk that they die in a terrorist attack.
Am I scared of cancer? Sure, a little. Am I scared of a terrorist attack? A little less, but sure. I don’t want the America Cancer Society running crazy ads telling me I will die of cancer if I don’t vote a certain way, just as I don’t want Citizens United implying I will die in a terrorist attack if I don’t vote a certain way.
Fear is one of the most primal and uncontrollable of emotions; it will always be there, people will always be afraid. I do not appreciate it when any political candidate or organization seeks to enhance or stoke that fear for their own political gain. It is manipulative, deceitful, and wrong.
JaHerer22 on November 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM
I believe I saw Dick Morris on O’Reilly or H&C when they previewed this, and he said he wrote the ad. He’s explained why “warrantless” wiretaps are necessary, making the claim that this is misleading moot, because the fact is Democrats want to play politics by misleading with the “privacy” issue, more than they want to protect us. There’s more to it, but basically Morris explain that you can’t ask for a warrant when you don’t know what you’re looking for. All that retroactive 72 hours crap doesn’t work when you need a running program. You need to cast a wide net and look for patterns… But if anyone is stupid enough to believe we have enough “spies” to sit around and listen to call your Grandma then they’re idiots. That’s not at all what this is about.
AP, I’m just curoius (honest question)… Do you have a problem with the terrorist surveillance program? And do you even call it that, or do you call it domestic spying?
RightWinged on November 3, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Why don’t we re-open this thread on Monday after everyone has had a chance to watch “Obsession.”
IrishEi on November 3, 2006 at 4:46 PM
Lets not forget that the Democrat opposition routinely refers to a “domestic” spying program. This is very misleading as it completely ignores the primarily “foreign” component in order to skew public opinion against what has already been deemed legal by a past Supreme Court review.
Neo on November 3, 2006 at 4:49 PM
KP has him right where she wants him.
CharlestonCritic on November 3, 2006 at 4:52 PM
(a) It’s not wiretapping.
(b) I am not sure why you need a warrant to surf foreign phone calls
(c) In the circumstances, warrants are impractical because the collating of evidence does not occur in a neat 3 day template.
Blaise on November 3, 2006 at 4:55 PM
I thought the whole point was that it’s very difficult for the NSA to obtain warrants for phone calls like the one above?
Rick on November 3, 2006 at 4:56 PM
I heard no complaints from the righteous left when the Dems told the electorate black churches will burn to the ground if you elect George W. Bush back in ’04. Or when they called Bush responsible for the dragging of a black man behind a pickup truck in Texas, which led to the man’s death.
Wake up and smell the war of roses.
It’s election time, both sides do it and both sides know it works. That doesn’t make it right, but it sure has hell makes it necessary to combat the opposition. You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.
fogw on November 3, 2006 at 5:01 PM
Yeah, I know they do. Screw them. The ones I worry about are the ones in the middle. The more we move away from the bat sh*t crazy ones on the far left, the more rational and willing to vote republican people are. And those are the ones we can appeal to.
I mean people like Reagan Democrats. Steele Democrats. Democrats like KP who don’t sound like raving lunatics. Yeah, we disagree, but she’s at least not freakin’ insane like Kos.
And I think this ad will make people like that roll their eyes.
Like I’ve said. I’m not a polling or politcal expert. But when I saw that ad, I thought to myself “Crap. This is gonna make us look bad.” And I want people elected who are going keep listening to those Islamo-Fascist-Imperialists, keep dropping MOABs on their heads, and keep putting them in the grave.
And I think this ad jeapordizes that.
Just my opinion.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 5:10 PM
The point is that liberals/democrats have absolutely no ground whatsoever to be lecturing conservatives/republicans about fearmongering. The party of your preference has been doing it for decades, stooping so low as to run ads in 1996 suggesting that “everytime you vote republican, another church goes up in flames” and suggesting to seniors that if republicans stayed in power or took the WH that they would all be eating dogfood thanks to benefit cuts.
Your party of preference has so much more to atone for on that front before you should even presume to have any moral authority to lecture republicans on fearmongering for the mere fact that the term ‘warrantless’ was left out of an ad.
Yes, but as this ad highlights, one party is much more committed to seeing that you don’t die of terrorism than the other party. And if the democrats get in power and implement the policies they prefer (which are basically just a 180 of everything Bush has done), the relationship between the likelihood of dying of cancer and dying of terrorism will undoubtely shift, and not in a way you, I, or anyone would like.
The fact that you are so flippant about the possibility of dying of terrorism illustrates my point perfectly.
And it’s a fact of life, not only in politics but in virtually every other sphere of life as well. Deal with it.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 5:10 PM
Some of them do, yeah. The far left freaks do. Yeah, your not allowed to question their patriotism, but yeah, the far left does and would.
I do think that moderate democrats don’t. And yeah, I can’t define it. But not every person on the left is a POS like Michael Moore. The normal ones like KP are worth courting. (No pun intended)
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 5:15 PM
Your points are noted and well expressed. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the main issue here.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 5:18 PM
I agree. Unfortunately, the “normal ones” are becoming rarer and rarer. I’d like to see more KPs in the world. I have no problem with people I disagree with. Only people who have lost contact with reality entirely.
Farmer_Joe on November 3, 2006 at 5:19 PM
It seems to me that acquiring a warrant every time you listen in on conversation (even a retroactive warrant) would be a logistical nightmare. The US government has thousands of people on its watch list. They probably listen to every conversation that they can from these people when they call the USA. So, we’re not talking about ‘a warrant here and a warrant there’. We’re talking about thousands of warrants per day. That, to me, seems excessive. There has to be some middle ground.
Matticus Finch on November 3, 2006 at 5:20 PM
Here’s what really kills me about the highlighted statement:
Most of us on the right know that we are at a disadvantage in Iraq and elsewhere because our side has to play be a strict set of rules while the other side has no rules and no boundaries whatsoever.
Yet when it comes to politics, they suddenly forget this and want Republicans to play by a very strict set of rules (more fit for a high school debate) while the democrats will say anything or do anything with no consequences at all. And those same people on our side almost invariably want us to let up whenever we have them on the ropes, no matter how justified we are in putting them there.
I know it’s not a perfect parallel, as one is war and the other is politics … but geez Louise, this is ridiculous. The parallel is there, and in fact the main difference is that politics is a war fought without guns and artillery. And if you always behave like a boy scout while the other side has the morals of jihadists, you are going to lose far more than you win.
thirteen28 on November 3, 2006 at 5:26 PM
Contrary to complaints of the MSN and the Democrats, the NSA program in question(which by-the-way was started during the Clinton Administration) is not a domestic, wire-tapping program. This NSA program monitors calls going out of the US, coming into the US, or calls outside the continental US. Because these calls are not domestic, they are not covered under FISA. The Democrat’s statements to date indicate an intent to close-down this program. The ad is accurate. Therefore, I don’t see how it could be construde as being ‘dirty’.
gmaninatl on November 3, 2006 at 5:30 PM
You don’t even know how right you are. I wish folks would just shut up about it and let these guys do their work. Thankfully, they do a LOT without some damned rubber stamp, anyway.
Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission.
seejanemom on November 3, 2006 at 5:33 PM
I’m afraid that when KP stole AP’s heart… she took his keyboard too.
RightWinged on November 3, 2006 at 5:35 PM
EFG, I actually agree with you. The comments here have started sounding like what you’d expect to hear on DU or Kos. I’ve been saying that for 2 or 3 weeks, at least.
In this case, though, I have to disagree with Allah. The ad isn’t incorrect in anything it says. The Democrats position is, very clearly, that we should NOT be intercepting these calls in real-time (except in the rare instances where we have a terror suspect who doesn’t switch phones regularly and for whom we have a standing warrant)… they believe that we should be letting a data-mining program flag the word bomb (at least, I assume they believe this), at which point we should go to a FISA court and get a warrant, THEN listen to the call after the fact. I think they have made this fairly clear. We can argue about whether or not their approach is smart, or if it would really make a practical difference. What is beyond debate, though, is the fact that the ad didn’t misrepresent anything.
Could it have been clearer? Sure. They maybe could have found a way to cram a nuanced argument explaining the intricacies of Constitutional law with respect to wartime executive authority into a 15 second ad. That is a fairly unreasonable expectation though, and I thought that they did a good job of accurately summing up the differences by saying that the Dems would prevent listening to terrorists as they plan. It’s accurate, if not slightly cheap.
But, that said, I agree with MKH and frankj that it is almost a parody of a Republican ad and doesn’t do us any good.
DaveS on November 3, 2006 at 5:38 PM
That’s it, and you only get 30 seconds to say it. KISS, as they say.
Just take a look at their voting records to see where they stand on the Patriot Act and everything we do to fight terrorism.
Personally, I see absolutely nothing “dirty” about the ad at all. I guess I give people credit for understanding what the ad means.
bamapachyderm on November 3, 2006 at 5:39 PM
KP = Yoko Ono.
bamapachyderm on November 3, 2006 at 5:40 PM
Sour grapes. We’re going to win and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Nya, Nyah, Nyah.
Vanya on November 3, 2006 at 5:52 PM
If the Dems get their way you can bet the program will be shut down and unfunded. Warrent or no warrent. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts and their records.
Griz on November 3, 2006 at 5:56 PM
Warrant.
Kevin M on November 3, 2006 at 6:16 PM
The ad is NOT misleading.
You are not able to get a warrant while a call is in progress. You do not know in advance when this call will take place. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand here.
Someone please tell me how this call would have been recorded if we had waited for a judge to issue a warrant.
Gregor on November 3, 2006 at 6:20 PM
Submit that question to Senator Russ Feingold
Rick on November 3, 2006 at 6:41 PM
No problem DaveS. I hear ya.
EFG on November 3, 2006 at 6:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »