Pres. Bush Considered Suspending 1st Amendment Freedom-Of-The-Press Rights

Extraordinary Measures
By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek
Mar 2, 2009

A new memo shows just how far the Bush administration considered going in fighting the war on terror.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department [in a memo co-written by John Yoo, Office of Legal Counsel deputy attorney general] secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights. . .

--- Click here for REST OF STORY AT THE NEWSWEEK!... ---

When What's Good For America Is Bad For The GOP

This posting at AmericaBlog.com is a good companion article for the "Principled" GOP Opposition article posted in this blog yesterday. When a government program that's good for America is bad for the GOP, the GOP will expend every effort to oppose and kill the program.

Bill Kristol’s 1993 Memo Calling For GOP To Block Health Care Reform
By John Aravosis (DC) · 3/02/2009 08:00:00 PM ET · AmericaBlog Link

Greg Sargeant over at The Plum Line has gotten his hands on a memo Bill Kristol wrote to his party in 1993, urging them to oppose Bill Clinton's health care plan because - well - it might work. And then all the newly healthy people might like government and see that it could actually do something good for them. Ben Smith summarizes the long memo:

The memo warns that a successful Clinton plan could badly damage the GOP by improving Americans' relationship with government, and makes the case for total, uncompromising opposition based on what would become the "Harry and Louise" campaign, focused on the damage the changes could do to citizens' relationships with their doctors.

The only way that the plan would improve America's relationship with government would be if it worked. Think about that.

The GOP ultimately opposed major legislation that would have benefited every American because the legislation might have actually worked. You don't just see parallels to today's Republican party, [you see GOP conservatives] doing exactly the same thing [in opposing Obama's programs.]

The GOP is terrified that Obama's agenda, from the stimulus plan to health care reform, might actually work [for the American people.] Then Americans would see that - surprise - government can work for the people. . .

Government programs seen to work for people would render the very "small government" foundation of the conservative movement as quicksand sinking many Republican candidates standing for election.

Al Franken A Step Closer To MN Senator Al Franken

Norm Coleman's lawyers today rested their case in the Minnesota U.S. Senate recount trial between Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Coleman. Franken holds a 225-vote lead certified during the recount, and has gained some votes during the trial that the three-judge panel ruled should be counted.

Franken's attorneys' have been reluctant to speculate on how long they will need to present their case, but it's not expected to be as long as the five-week Coleman case. At a party fundraiser Saturday, Franken said that he expected the trial to last for another two to three weeks.

Franken gave his first national media interview since November to Air America's Mark Green.

Listen to a segment of Franken's Air America interview.

The "Principled" GOP Opposition To Obama's Efforts To Save The Economy

Cable news pundits and big-name newspaper columnists are pushing a general consensus that Republicans are simply returning to their "core conservative principles" in their near-unanimous opposition to President Barack Obama.

Main stream pundits and columnists accept Republicans' claim that they are motivated by "principled ideological consistency" in opposing Obama’s “big government” solutions to America’s economic troubles, not by a political strategy to derail Obama’s presidency and legislative agenda into failure.

Republicans argue that they have worked hard for 30 years to "free capitalism and individual liberty" by deregulating the financial system, deregulating and dismantling government safety oversight of the nation's food production and distribution system, and cutting taxes for big corporate business and they don't want to see all that hard work undone by President Obama's "big government" programs.

Conservative Republicans claim they are ideologically opposed to Obama's programs because they will "return" America to “big government” socialism eliminated by the Reagan and the reinforcing Gingrich, Delay and Bush conservative government revolutions. In making this claim they seek to ignore that the conservative path to liberate "capitalism and individual liberty" has brought the nation in near economic collapse.

This is what Rush Limbaugh was saying in his CPAC speech as he defended his remarks about wanting Obama to fail. Limbaugh said, "Conservatism is what it is forever ... This notion that I want the president to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. What is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?"

Rush Limbaugh is saying the same thing as every other conservative Republican, only with a little less "principled" ideological window dressing. If Obama and Congressional Democrats successfully promote economic recovery by reversing Republican "small government" momentum, it will prove wrong, for a second time in 80 years, the conservative "small government" argument that government can not and must not play any roll to protect the interests of the American people or ensure a honest fair and level playing field for American business and finance. Why would Republicans want that to succeed? It would render the very foundation of the conservative movement as quicksand sinking many Republican candidates standing for election.

Limbaugh is accurately stating the strongly held conservative Republican belief that their definition of "capitalism and individual liberty" would be destroyed if President Obama succeeds in restoring government oversight to the financial and banking system to guard against future home mortgage and other banking system malfeasance, made possible by Republican deregulation and lack of regulatory oversight by the Bush Administration.

That "capitalism and individual liberty would be destroyed" if Obama restores some government oversight to the nation's food production and distribution system to guard against companies knowingly distributing salmonella contaminated food products, such as the Peanut Corporation of America did in distributing its salmonella contaminated peanut butter for years, causing critical illness in thousands and the deaths of hundreds of adults and children.

That "capitalism and individual liberty would be destroyed" if Obama restores some taxes on those earning more than $250,000/yr to begin to pay off the massive debt run up by the combination of fiscally unbalanced Republican tax cuts and irresponsible deficit spending by President Bush and Republican controlled congresses.

In accepting the argument that Republicans are simply returning to conservative principles to oppose President Obama, pundits and columnists benignly accept the underlying GOP message. The message that the GOP, like the U.S. economy, is in crisis not because conservative ideological applied to operational governance leads to massive government failures, rather the GOP and U.S. economy are in crisis because Republicans were not conservative enough in their governance; that "capitalism and individual liberties" were not freed enough because George Bush and his Republican dominated congresses didn't cut taxes enough and didn't deregulate and turn away from regulatory oversight enough.

Pundits and columnists have so far failed to observe that if tax cuts, deregulation and small government are the best stimulus for the economy, as conservatives claim, then the economy should already be racing, given the massive deregulation and trillions of dollars in tax cuts President Bush and Republicans have given the nation over the past eight years. Pundits are not asking conservatives to explain this disconnect. . .

Pundits and columnists, so far, have failed to press conservatives, who continue to advocate deregulation and tax cuts as they oppose Obama's economic agenda, to explain why the economy is in crisis after years of massive Republican deregulation, tax cutting and deficit spending. No, instead, media pundits, like Judy Woodruff, are using anti-Obama Republican "socialist tax and spend" talking points to press Democrats to defend Obama's efforts to save the American economy.

Despite the “conventional wisdom” offer by main stream pundits and columnists that Republicans are "simply" returning to their "core conservative principles," there is a growing sense across the United States that the real reason Republicans are trying to obstruct Obama is not a "principled conservative ideological consistency," but political opportunism; that Republicans want the President to fail so GOP candidates can succeed at the polls in 2010 and 2012.

One of the most telling indications that Republicans are persuading only their base, and main stream pundits and columnists, of their "principled" stand is a recent NYT/CBS News poll asking, “Do you think [Republicans] oppose [Obama's economic recovery plan] mostly because they thought it would be bad for the economy or mostly for political reasons?”

Sixty-three percent of respondents cited “political reasons” and only 29 percent believed the principled conservative stance that Obama's economic recovery plan is “not good for the economy.” This two-to-one margin suggests that the Republicans are suffering from a serious credibility gap. Too bad for America that they are not suffering from a serious credibility gap with Cable news pundits and big-name newspaper columnists, including the Dallas Morning News Newspaper.