Suddenly, dissent is no longer quite so patriotic

[SBinRockrimmon]

http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/l ... 20954.html

Taylor Armerding

What a difference an inauguration makes.

It was only a few months ago that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" was still the rage among the elite, liberal, "tolerant" class.

But then Barack Obama became president. And now, suddenly, dissenters are paranoid, violent extremists worthy of surveillance by the federal Department of Homeland Security. Returning war veterans, who tend to be conservative and believe that terrorists ought to be called terrorists, need to be watched.

Average working Americans who held polite "Tea Party" protests on April 15 against confiscatory taxes and rampant government spending — protests marked by a lack of broken windows, overturned cars, torched buildings and injuries — are mocked with a not-so-veiled reference to a gay sex act. Conservative television and radio commentators are not only crazed nutcases, they are dangerous purveyors of hate and violence, unlike the civil, issue-oriented discourse of Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher.

Suddenly, there is no tolerance for dissent. It is tantamount to treason.

It was only a few months ago that blocking every element of President Bush's agenda was tops on the elites' list of good things to do. Wanting him to fail was a very good thing, whether it was his effort to stabilize Social Security by giving individuals more responsibility and control of it or winning a war. It didn't matter if the Democrats didn't have a constructive alternative. Blocking Bush was enough — the highest form of political responsibility.

Then Obama became president. And suddenly any opposition to the president's agenda is not worthy of substantive debate or discussion. It is simply a very bad thing, to be dismissed with a label: The Party of No. Wanting his vast expansion of government authority and spending to fail is hateful and divisive.

It was only a few months ago that the only way to have any street cred as an elite was to throw something like "BushHitler" into your conversation. Even better was to call the president an idiot, insane, incompetent and/or a swaggering cowboy.

Then Obama became president. Suddenly, "swagga" is a very cool thing. What is not cool is to suggest that the president's agenda is leading us on a path to socialism. Or to suggest that he may not be as brilliant as the adoring press makes him out to be, since he can't seem to go anywhere or say much of anything without a teleprompter. Those are ugly political smears. Not cool at all.

It was a few years ago, when President Bush was nominating a justice for the Supreme Court, that I heard frenzied liberal elites on National Public Radio warning of the horror of one party holding the presidency and a majority in Congress, and therefore being able to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. It was all so unfair, they wailed.

Then the Democrats took Congress. Then Obama got elected. And now there are no wails of anguish, only celebration among the elites, at the prospect of one party controlling all three branches of government.

Only a few months ago, if a presidential 747 airliner had buzzed Manhattan for a photo shoot, coming within 1,500 feet of some of the buildings, there would have been a media feeding frenzy for the blood of President Bush. The words "arrogant" and "jerk" would have been the gentler labels. The story would have played for weeks, minimum. There is no way the press would have stood by meekly while the White House issued a perfunctory apology, prodded a single aide to fall on his sword, refused to say who was on the plane or released only one of the photos — shot for publicity purposes.

But Obama is the president. So while there was a flurry of criticism from those quickly labeled the "right-wing hate machine," it was a one- or two-day story at most for the mainstream media. Move along. Nothing to see here. Have you heard how fantastically the administration has been handling the swine — uh, I mean the H1N1 — flu crisis?

Until a few months ago, any elite conversation about President Bush had to include a standard line about him "shredding the Constitution."

But now Obama is president. And when asked what standard he will apply when nominating a successor to retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the president said he wanted someone who "understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily reality of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

Not a word about how judges are supposed to be blind to personal circumstance. Not a word about the Constitution. I guess we won't have to worry about the administration or the court shredding the Constitution, because there is no Constitution to shred.

It is fine, when a new president takes office, for the agenda to change, and reflect the philosophy of his party. Not so fine for the standards and rules for judging an administration to take a 180-degree turn.

Not the kind of change I'm believing in.

[C L]

Thanks for the link to this EDITORIAL piece.

Keep up the good work.

[curt]

Suddenly, there is no tolerance for dissent. It is tantamount to treason.

Nothing in the article supports this statement.

It was only a few months ago that the only way to have any street cred as an elite was to throw something like "BushHitler" into your conversation. Even better was to call the president an idiot, insane, incompetent and/or a swaggering cowboy.

Nobody who compared Bush to Hitler was taken seriously. And plenty of lifelong Republicans called Bush an idiot or similar things. Including my dad, who voted for McCain.

[SBinRockrimmon]

Nothing in the article supports this statement.

Perhaps it was in reference to this.....

viewtopic.php?f=67&t=2034

Thanks for the link to this EDITORIAL piece.

Keep up the good work.

Did I claim that it was anything other than an editorial? Don't like it when someone puts down your boy? Or do you still have your panties in a bunch over the gay marriage debate?

Why am I not surprised to see the responses here so far, yet not a peep in the thread about the DHS report I linked above.

[Rob C]

Statement by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the Threat of Right-Wing Extremism

Release Date: April 15, 2009
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

The primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation. The document on right-wing extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States. I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution.
Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.

We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.

I am aware of the letter from American Legion National Commander Rehbein, and my staff has already contacted him to set up a meeting next week once I return from travel. I will tell him face-to-face that we honor veterans at DHS and employ thousands across the department, up to and including the Deputy Secretary.

As the department responsible for protecting the homeland, DHS will continue to work with its state and local partners to prevent and protect against the potential threat to the United States associated with any rise in violent extremist activity.

[curt]

Perhaps, but it didn't actually reference it.

And I have to wonder, based on the date of 4/7, under whose administration this study originated.