Last week, the Washington Post revealed that Lyndon Johnson instructed the FBI to investigate aide Jack Valenti's sex life. It's just that they didn't spin it that way. Read my American Spectator piece to understand why, from Woodrow Wilson to Harry Truman to John Kennedy, you can't blame liberal presidents for civil liberties abuses. The devil made them do it.
"J. Edgar Hoover is necessary to square the soaring liberal rhetoric on civil liberties with the atrocious civil liberties records of liberal presidents."
I loved this line. This might be similar to how GW needed to invent Osama Bin Laden and the attacks on the WTC Towers to square allegedly illegal spying on Americans.
No media bias here. It's all puppy dogs and unicorns now.
Under that mean old nasty Bush, being laid off was a disgrace and tragedy. But under the Messiah, whamo! It’s all good.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/02/23/for_now_laid_off_and_loving_it/
Under that mean old nasty Bush, Abu Ghraib Prison was a den of torture and murder. But under the One, presto chango! It’s re-opening and will a kinder gentler place.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29323805/
Under that mean old nasty Bush, Guantanamo Bay was an unconstitutional holding tank where torture and murder were a regular occurrence. But under Obamanation, shazaam! It now conforms to the Geneva Convention and rights abound for everybody.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008771414_gitmo22.html
I'm upset that Obama has reneged on his promise to restore civil rights too. Not surprised, mind you, nor am I surprised that in other areas - like exploding the size and scope of government -he may even surpass Bush. History wil hopefully record that there was Carter, then Reagan, then Bush I-Clinton, then Dubya-Obama ... and then Paul-Sanford and the beginning of the restoration of the Republic.
Eric,
that would be great news for the country. I suppose that good things do grow out of bad smelling fertilizer.
Webster,
That is exactly why I have suggested that -- considering the long-term -- President Obama (or actually, the backlash to Obama) is "better" for our country than President McCain would have been. They are basically the same, but the electoral backlash to McCain's failures would have been a massive lurch to the far Left of even Obama. It would not have been to the Right. (After all, it took Carter to enable Reagan; Clinton's overreach on HillaryCare and gays in the military that enabled the 1994 "revolution".)But when Obama's Keynesian and socialist schemes fail, there is at least hope that not only will the electorate shift back to the Right, but to actually and finally embracing freedom.
Matter of fact, this is a component of David Beito's argument in his recent blog, "The Waterloo of Keynesianism (Military and Domestic)."
Eric,
I believe that those Republicans in office were sold on the idea of buying votes with public credit. Republicans ran up the deficit like good Democrats. Had they remained in office I believe they'd have largely continued. McCain supported TARP. So it's good for the right to get a rap on the nose from the public. It didn't appear they would learn on their own. Let's hope they all read their Haslitt and Hayek.
