Tea Party Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right - NYT

[alexey]

I guess because I don't see this as the most important issues of the day for most Americans.

I see the following as major issues.

Health Care Reform

39% Favor 58% Oppose

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Global Warming/Cape and Trade

An older study says that most Americans who favor Cap and Trade don't know much about it and 55% don't know anything about it. Of those who claim to know about it, 64% oppose it and 32% favor it.

http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

Iran

42 Favor 50% disapprove

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125678/Obama-Approval-Economy-Down-Foreign-Affairs-Up.aspx

Economy and Jobs

36% favor 61% disapprove of the way the Job the President is doing.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125678/Obama-Approval-Economy-Down-Foreign-Affairs-Up.aspx

National Debt

32% favor 64% disapprove

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125678/Obama-Approval-Economy-Down-Foreign-Affairs-Up.aspx

To me, these are the issues that are of most importance.

There seems to be a tendency for disapproval numbers to jump when general questions are asked, and approval numbers to jump when specific question are asked or explanations/details are provided.

Health care is a great example of this. Obama says that people hate the bill but like what's in it. This appears to be the case:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/health-care-polls-opinion-gap-or.html

How would public opinion change if people were fully informed about the content of the bills? It's hard to say for sure, but on average, the individual components of the bill are favored by a net of +22 points. An NBC poll in August also found that support went from a -6 net to a +10 when people were actually provided with a description of the bill.

[TheGreatBuzz]

What is a good way to find out what my beliefs are called more then just republican or democrat? I believe I am more the former but disagree with a lot of their stuff also. I know what I think is right on most any issue but have trouble lumping my self into a group and there for have trouble picking a side.

Of course maybe deciding on issues instead of just picking a side for that sides sake is something most politicians could learn from...but don't let that distract from the above question.

[Veretax]

Are you really trying to link 9/11 and Iraq? Are you also going to tell us that we had to get rid of the WMDs?

A lot of people seem to think I'm saying that so let me be clear I hold the two distinct, and only linked by the nature of the enemy we are facing. Al Qaeda didn't really become a huge problem in Iraq before we went in there though some of the bathists were just as bad to their own people.

I don't know, why is it that every one assumes when I talk about the War that I am necessarily linking Iraq and Afghanistan? I believe my comments covered both wars. Iraq was going to be held to account even if 9/11 had not happened. Saddam was a brutal despot, unstable, and untrustworthy, and he should have been removed by Bush's father.

I remember vividly after the USS Cole attack Bush talking about holding people who sponsor terror like Saddam to be held account, and that Saddam would be made to answer for thumbing his nose at the UN etc. Most people have forgotten that he said that, but I heard bush speak in person twice, one of those times he actually said he would deal with saddam.

The main problem I have with the War On Terror is lack of focus. I would have liked to have finished in afghanistan before putting so much pressure on Iraq. I wasn't happy with how that went, or how its going now even.

The connection is Bush pledged to deal with saddam, now we can argue whether sanctions or more time would have resulted in a different out come. I don't know, but I do know that the liberal media was just as much behind the build up to the war and making a tidy profit off it, before they began to turn against it.

I'll end my involvement in my thread here. I don't condone violence to solve our problems, but knowing what I've learned about human nature, I don't have as optimistic view that all Americans will execute better discretion to make such thoughts totally impossible either.

[Larry]

What freedoms have been stomped upon?

The right to remain silent.

The right to a fair, public, trial, before a jury of your peers.

The right to habaeus corpus.

The right to be free from searches or seizures without due process, probable cause, and a warrant, particularly describing the person or place to be searched or seized.

Freedom from cruel or unusual punishment.

You know, the little things.

[ABQCOWBOY]

There seems to be a tendency for disapproval numbers to jump when general questions are asked, and approval numbers to jump when specific question are asked or explanations/details are provided.

Health care is a great example of this. Obama says that people hate the bill but like what's in it. This appears to be the case:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/health-care-polls-opinion-gap-or.html

What you say may be true, or not. It's hard to say since there have been a number of different plans floating around between the House and the Senate and even the Presidents own ideas. It's hard to know what the actual details of the plan really are. However, if we look at Cap and Trade, the reverse seems to be the case. The people who have no idea what the plan acutally is favor the idea. Those who have polled and ackowledged understanding of the plan overwhelmingly seem to be apposed to the plan. I don't know that we can draw any definitive conclusions one way or the other.

[mjah]

I don't know, why is it that every one assumes when I talk about the War that I am necessarily linking Iraq and Afghanistan?

When you read that that Iraq was a totally elective war, the first words you used in response were "Elective war? We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and lest we forget Bush was elected because he promised to deal with Saddam." As if the al Qaeda attacks and Saddam were linked in any meaningful way.

Since you've clarified that you consider the two wars to be utterly separate, I'd respectfully request that you enforce that separation in your comments to avoid justifiable confusion for the reader.

I remember vividly after the USS Cole attack Bush talking about holding people who sponsor terror like Saddam to be held account

...Just another example of how people conclude that you really don't see the separation between the two issues. Saddam had nothing to do with the Cole attack. I don't remember Bush trying to wrap Saddam in with the Cole bombing as you suggest here. If he did, that's a shame.

Still waiting for the examples of the INSANE CHANGE you claimed under the current administration. At this point I'm pretty sure you won't be presenting any.

To quote a phrase that has been seeing renewed life lately: We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are not entitled to our own facts.

[ABQCOWBOY]

The right to remain silent.

The right to a fair, public, trial, before a jury of your peers.

The right to habaeus corpus.

The right to be free from searches or seizures without due process, probable cause, and a warrant, particularly describing the person or place to be searched or seized.

Freedom from cruel or unusual punishment.

You know, the little things.

Are these freedoms being stomped on? If in fact, they are, then I agree with those who say something must be done. I guess I'd have to know more about where and to whom, this is taking place.

[Dan T.]

Are these freedoms being stomped on? If in fact, they are, then I agree with those who say something must be done. I guess I'd have to know more about where and to whom, this is taking place.

It's been happening among those held as enemy combatants. Which I'm fairly certain the Tea Party extremists aren't too upset about.

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's been happening among those held as enemy combatants. Which I'm fairly certain the Tea Party extremists aren't too upset about.

Enemy Combatants are not Citizens and as a result, are not subject to rights and privileges a citizen would have. Our people are certainly not afforded those same rights and privileges when captured. However, there is a military code of justice that is afforded such individuals. I see no reason for the Tea Party to be concerned with individuals who are not citizens of this country. There are plenty of concerns right here in the U.S. that need addressing.

[Dan T.]

Enemy Combatants are not Citizens and as a result, are not subject to rights and privileges a citizen would have. Our people are certainly not afforded those same rights and privileges when captured. However, there is a military code of justice that is afforded such individuals. I see no reason for the Tea Party to be concerned with individuals who are not citizens of this country. There are plenty of concerns right here in the U.S. that need addressing.

Constitutional rights are not limited to U.S. citizens.

[mjah]

Our people are certainly not afforded those same rights and privileges when captured.

True and sad, but irrelevant to the discussion.

If we're supposed to be "better" than them, then we need to be better than them. We don't get to have it both ways, using their standards as an excuse to compromise ours.

And if (as I expect someone will say) we aren't "compromising" our standards at all, then I'm glad we can agree that other people's standards for prisoner treatment are irrelevant to our definition of what's acceptable.

Ta-da.

To echo Dan T., the Constitution's sway over American principles does not come to an immediate halt once a person's citizenship lies one mile outside our borders.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Constitutional rights are not limited to U.S. citizens.

That's true. However, I do not believe that Constitutional rights extend towards American Combatants. They are covered under the Military Code of Justice and/or MCA. I am not a Lawyer but I believe that this is how it works.

[ABQCOWBOY]

True and sad, but irrelevant to the discussion.

If we're supposed to be "better" than them, then we need to be better than them. We don't get to have it both ways, using their standards as an excuse to compromise ours.

And if (as I expect someone will say) we aren't "compromising" our standards at all, then I'm glad we can agree that other people's standards for prisoner treatment are irrelevant to our definition of what's acceptable.

Ta-da.

To echo Dan T., the Constitution's sway over American principles does not come to an immediate halt once a person's citizenship lies one mile outside our borders.

Military Combatants folks. They are not Citizens, nor are they even claimed as citizens by other countries. They are Military Combatants which has a different meaning. This is why they should not be tried as criminals but hey, I'm certain your right.

We should be better then them? I can tell you that I would never try to lecture one of our soldiers on this. I would never have allowed it when I was in the Military.

Say what you will.......

[Veretax]

When you read that that Iraq was a totally elective war, the first words you used in response were "Elective war? We were attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and lest we forget Bush was elected because he promised to deal with Saddam." As if the al Qaeda attacks and Saddam were linked in any meaningful way.

Since you've clarified that you consider the two wars to be utterly separate, I'd respectfully request that you enforce that separation in your comments to avoid justifiable confusion for the reader.

I see your point. I'll try to break up and transition my posts better in the future to avoid confusion, of course going back to the post I was responding too, the only clue that you may have been referring to iraq was how much it cost, but frankly, I didn't catch that cue when I read it either.

[Vicious]

If there is a civil war the Constitution will be suspended and the cleansing of the misguided southern leeches that suck up all the tax dollars and complain about "big government" will begin.

[Veretax]

If there is a civil war the Constitution will be suspended and the cleansing of the misguided southern leeches that suck up all the tax dollars and complain about "big government" will begin.

And just what in the constitution permits the constitution to be suspended?

[Vicious]

And just what in the constitution permits the constitution to be suspended?

Precedent.

[Veretax]

Precedent.

Precedent? I'm going to guess you are referring to what Lincoln did in suspending Haebeus Corpus, by declaring martial law in I believe it was KY and MD??

[Larry]

Precedent? I'm going to guess you are referring to what Lincoln did in suspending Haebeus Corpus, by declaring martial law in I believe it was KY and MD??

In fact, although I don't like it, I'll point out that in the case of Habeas, the relevant portion of the Constitution is:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Although I'll also point out that that sentence comes from Article 1, Section 9, which lists the limitations on the powers of Congress.

So I'd say that the Constitution actually permits Habeas to be suspended. But by Congress. (And Congress has not done so.)

There's something there for everybody to argue about, without even having to invent hallucinatory claims about how made up terms somehow are more important than the Constitution.

[mjah]

Military Combatants folks. They are not Citizens, nor are they even claimed as citizens by other countries. They are Military Combatants which has a different meaning. This is why they should not be tried as criminals but hey, I'm certain your right.

Well, the thing about the Constitution is that it pertains to human rights. Not citizen rights.

The question is, at what point is it okay to revoke those rights without due process? Whether it's a gunman pointing a weapon at a police officer in Houston or a Taliban sniper who has been spotted in action by a US sniper in Marja, there are obvious points at which an SOB is gonna get wasted without a second thought, much less a trial. And somewhere between there and here, there's a line. On one side of the line, no trial. And on the other side of the line, trial.

You and I clearly will disagree on the details of where that line is drawn. But from any reasonable human rights POV, it's a gross oversimplification to pretend that it all hinges on the issue of citizenship. It's not as easy as "papers, please."

We should be better then them? I can tell you that I would never try to lecture one of our soldiers on this.

Not sure what to say to that. War is a total mess of moral conflicts even in the best of circumstances, but we're talking about what happens after the battle here. If our system doesn't hold itself to a higher human rights standard at every opportunity, then I see no reason why we should expect God, fate, karma, probability, or whatever else you may believe in to see us as the deserving victors. There's zero claim to "we're the better side." I can tell you that the moral superiority/human rights profile we displayed during most of WWII and the Cold War are still paying dividends today -- although we've greatly diminished that by walking away from it on issues like torture. Walking the walk is the most powerful diplomatic/military tool there is.

[on Habeas Corpus]

So I'd say that the Constitution actually permits Habeas to be suspended. But by Congress. (And Congress has not done so.)

That was the issue as I understand it: Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus by executive directive, not Congress.

But Congress was out of session at the time, as I recall, leaving Lincoln with an impossible choice between breaching the word of the Constitution or risking the abandonment of the nation's capital to a surrounding Confederacy, a potential disaster. I'm not so sure I would have done anything different, even as a big fan of the word and spirit of that very important document.

[Vicious]

Precedent? I'm going to guess you are referring to what Lincoln did in suspending Haebeus Corpus, by declaring martial law in I believe it was KY and MD??

That's right.

Also the enemy will not be arrested, they will be exterminated. There are civil wars, but they are not civil.