NYT: Senator Clinton and Liberals Split Over Flag Desecration

Senator Clinton and Liberals Split Over Flag Desecration
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
Published: June 28, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 27 — Perhaps even more than her stance on the war in Iraq, it is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's position on flag desecration that has drawn the scorn of the liberal Democratic base.

When Mrs. Clinton took a stand on the matter last year — co-sponsoring legislation that would have criminalized the desecration of the American flag even as she opposed a constitutional amendment that sought to achieve the same end — she was pilloried from the left. Editorial boards criticized her for political maneuvering, the political commentator Arianna Huffington attacked her for "stars, stripes and triangulation" and even some of her supporters quietly wondered why she had gone out on a limb on such a controversial issue.

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton played a leading role in the flag-burning debate once again, co-sponsoring a measure similar to her previous one as an alternative to the constitutional amendment that was about to come up for a vote in the Senate....

***

With more than half of Democrats supporting the measure, the outcome suggested that Mrs. Clinton's approach had plenty of adherents within her party, and that while she might have tried the patience of her core liberal supporters, she remained within the Democratic fold as she prepared for a possible presidential race.

The divergent views of her position reflect a broader rift in the Democratic Party over whether the key to electoral success rests in winning over centrists or by drawing clear distinctions with Republicans by staking out unapologetically liberal positions....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html

Then you think the close right is the sensible center...

If you live in the real world....

Then Hillary is perched on the edge of the far right....

We shall not overcome as long as the party is DC Centric....

Like all Republicans, Hillary is more concerned about symbols of faux patriotism than she is about protecting the Constitution from our budding dictator.

They needed one more vote TO LOSE.....Jesus Christ on a bike, no one GETS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY DID NOT WANT THIS TO PASS. They wanted it to fail by ONE VOTE, so they could play the VICTIM, and paint Democrats as unpatriotic bastards.

Hillary's legislation gave Democrats an opportunity to say they voted for the "sanctity of the flag" and denied the GOP an opportunity to smear the D's with that UNPATRIOTIC brush....

My 5 year old nephew has more devious and strategic tactics then my own political party right now.

He genuinely believes burning the flag is a form of speech. It's probably the only political thing I'd ever agree with him on, but you need to give the devil his due on this one. He gets it on this issue and then votes his conscience.

That's all. He claims he opposes it on "free speech" grounds

came up with an alternative resolution to the flag burning amendment because she knew it would lose? The resolution was limited to actions on Federal property. What's wrong with that? Everybody knows it's pandering because every single politician running for office will be pandering to the voters.

So don't single Hillary for special "attention" because she IS a politician and like it or not she has to play the game if she wants to win.

Like it or not, that's the way it is. Symbols mean something---even something as nutty as a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, or something passed as an alternative.

And who supported and signed DOMA into law? The same Clinton who thought that satisfying his sexual drive was more important than protecting LGBT rights.

I heard this bullshit before!

Enough of the Bushes and Clintons.

As those who were around during prohibition can recall. Sometimes, you have to take a step back in order to take two steps forward when you have the chance and the mood of the country is right.

I didn't agree with Clinton's DOMA cave-in, FWIW, but perhaps he feared a Constitutional amendment and was trying to forstall it. And, more to the point, Hillary isn't the one who signed that bill into law, and it's unfair of you to turn both of them into a two-headed hydra. They are separate entities, even if they happen to be married to one another.

Clinton's bill doesn't ban flag desecration, it bans using the flag to incite riots or threaten someone. The primary intent of the culprit has to be to start a riot or threaten someone's civil rights, just as cross burning and other hate crimes do. A person burning a flag as a political statement would have no issue with her bill.

And her whole point is to stop the Amendment, to save the Constitution. This is being spun as Clinton being a right-winger by Rove and the PR Department of the Republican Party (the media) because Clinton has the best name recognition and the strongest fundraising ability, and they don't want to face her. Best way to not face her is to convince the Dems not to vote for her, and the best way to do that is to make her look liberal.

So sad that so many liberals are falling for it. Kerry, Gore, now H Clinton. WHoever emerges next will suffer the same fate. Guess we'll let the Repubs pick our candidate, then cry when we lose again. It's easier than thinking. I'm becoming ashamed of the voters in my party now, instead of the leaders.

Anyway, someone who reacted to a person burning a flag could easily say they were "incied" to riot because of the sacred flag being burned....

She brought this forward to AVOID that show of the GOP "losing" by one vote on this "important" issue.

They WANTED the issue, but they also wanted to LOSE on it. That way they can sob like children and play the victim. We LOOOOOVE the flag, and those awful Democrats HAAAATE the flag.

Fuck them, the hypocrites.

I, like you, am ASTOUNDED that some can't see the damn game they are playing. Instead, the blame the Democrat....

They want her to run because anyone they put up will beat her.It makes no difference how much money she can raise. That is all associated with her husband. She would be running on his record as well as her own thin record.All the moral issues and the shady deals will be drudged up. Come on, our country is backwards when it comes to allowing women in top spots. We can not even elect a Jewish President,nor a Black President, and we have only had one Catholic President.I don't think America is ready to thrust Senator Clinton into office.

I am sorry, flag incidences are very rare- something like 50 in the last five years. Senator Clinton's and the Repubs over zealous concern for desecration of our flag is simply political posturing.

No one in their right mind thinks that Senator Clinton can win a presidential election, not even as a running mate. Sheesh. Why do they keep bringing it up?

I beg to differ with your premise. HC is leading the polls, she is amassing huge campaign funds for a race in which she has no opposition, she has built multiple campaign/support organizations, she continues to add staff to these organizations, and I get emails everyday from Newsmax warning the freaks that Hillary cannot be stopped. I have to think that pretty much everyone involved in all those processes- surveyees, staffers, donors, and freaks, seem to think that HC could possibly win.

She even recently hired some blogger-type-guy to flavor the kool-aid just for us "netroots" punks.

they are the ones we "let the Repubs pick"? I don't follow that. I thought you were saying that the Repubs DIDN'T want Hillary to be the Dem cnadidate, but then you said that the Repubs "picked" Kerry and Gore for us? I don't get it...

n/t

She isn't advocating wiping the collective asses of the legislative and executive branches on the Constitution, she put forward a simple bill, NOT a Constitutional amendment. It's limited to acts that occur on FEDERAL PROPERTY.

The purpose of the bill was to AVOID the farce we just saw in the Senate.

Here's what a well-credentialed LIBERAL had to say about what she tried to accomplish:

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, gave Mrs. Clinton credit for trying to give Democrats a viable alternative to amending the Constitution to ban flag desecration.

"This is an effort to try to take into account the people on the left by narrowing" the proposal, Mr. Frank said. "I still disagree with it. But it's clearly a move away from the constitutional amendment, rather than toward it."

Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts and a former presidential nominee, voted for the measure, which closely resembled past efforts to pre-empt an amendment to the Constitution. Democrats who voted for the measure in effect bought themselves the right to claim that they had voted against flag desecration, potentially inoculating themselves against possible charges of lacking patriotism in a general election campaign. The broader measure to amend the Constitution failed by a single vote, 66 to 34.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html

Sheesh. You can't see that it's a GOP game to try to make Democrats look unpatriotic??? And she saw them, and RAISED them....

the GOP is out to label us for the Nov. elections and this was an attempt to rally their base as well as corner Dem's. Clinton's was a wise maneuver to give other Dem's a reasonable choice and it also gave her cover. No one can claim she is for desecration of the American flag.
It is unfortunate that our Senators, mostly from the South, are afraid to vote against anything the Republican's offer for fear of reprisals from the voters. To bad they are so afraid to even stick up for a better alternative than what the Republican's offered.

Do you really believe that? If it was that easy to deflect their criticism, we'd be in the 14th straight year of Dem presidency. They will attack her on it anyway, and she can now have a Kerry moment where she was for it before she was against it.

They say " She voted against protecting the flag"

and she responds

"yes, but I supported an alternative bill that would have protected the flag on federal property in cases where it was a breach of the peace, and that's what this country really needs."

Besides, how can a mere legislative bill change the constitutionality of something anyway?

and I will point out the point in the dialog when people stop paying attention:
---------------------
"They say " She voted against protecting the flag"

and she responds

"yes, but I supported an alternative bill that would have protected the flag on federal.... (ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ)


---------------------


better to say:

They say "she voted against protecting the flag"

and she responds

"you voted against freedom".

n/t

She might as well plant a Confederate flag outside her NY home to appeal to the NASCAR crowd, and some of her defenders will say that the use of the Confederate flag by Hillary was to "inoculate" Democrats "against possible charges of lacking patriotism in a general election campaign."

She MAY have presidential ambitions, but she was running a screening exercise for the rest of the delegation. Her bill gave them room to dismiss the flag bullshit if any challenger wants to call them on it. The inoculation strategy is FACT, not supposition. The delegation acknowledges that.

"I've always been a southerner"

How is it any different if some asshole burns the flag on a public street corner instead of in front of a federal office building? What am I missing here? I really hate calling that shit "speech", but why is it better that Mrs Clinton only outlawed a form of free speech on federal property? What knuckle head in her office told her this was a smart way of pandering?

Read the whole thread, the answers you seek are contained in these many posts. I'm not about to repeat myself.

The bill does criminalize STEALING someone elses flag while on federal land and damaging that flag while on federal land.

But that is only one paragraph. The rest of the bill, the part about "disturbing the peace" and "intimidation" make no restrictions as to geography. See for yourself, it's short:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109PpGetb::

We are being told that we should not worry because the bill is essentially meaningless anyway. But this bill would have criminalized burning a flag, even as a political statement, anywhere, anytime, as long as someone claimed they were "intimidated" or "threatened", or even if a cop felt that it was "disturbing the peace". Anywhere.

Many politicians this holiday will make speeches about the 4th of July and what it means. Many will even say that they have fought against attempts to weaken the freedoms that we have and that our kids are fighting to protect. But only some will not have to answer questions next week and next month about why, if they believed in the freedoms as they claim, they would restrict those same freedoms in another way. We are then told that our agile politicians will be able to argue that because this is a bill (with a much easier path to becoming law) instead of a Constitutional amendment (despite probably being unconstitutional) that it protects our freedoms AND the symbol. That's enough to qualify for "So You Think You Can Dance?"

This was a great opportunity missed. At least by some.

sums up why I am opposing Sen. Clinton in the Senate primary in NY, and why I could not support her as our presidential nominee . . .

are HUGE issues now that require attention. Even if she failed each time she proposed them, she would fail on the side of justice. THis shit just makes me crazy.

If we allow the GOP to smear us with the "unpatriotic" tar, we won't be able to direct our attention to the things that need fixing, because we won't be in power. This was a craven attempt to halt the Democratic momentum of late.

She had a staffer write the thing, because the GOP train was heading down this track ANYWAY. They control the agenda, NOT US. They tried to pull this shit, and she countered with hers.

The GOP wanted to paint the Democrats as VOTING AGAINST THE FLAG, and she CLEVERLY DENIED THEM the ability to say that.

As you well know, truth and facts don't even matter, they will do and say whatever they want anyway. There is no reason to pretend to something we are not, and there is no reason to try to decieve constituents on this issue. It is not a trap, it is an opportunity!

There isn't shit we can do about that. All we CAN do, though, is focus like a laser on issues that matter, not take shit, tell them to STOP interrupting when we speak, in forceful fashion, and become more interesting on TV by pulling the debate back to WAR AND ECONOMY issues.

The more we fight back and demand accountability about REAL STUFF, not stupid flag nonsense, the better it will play on the tube and in Peoria. Most Americans DON'T PAY ATTENTION. They aren't IDEOLOGUES. If they hear an argument about the flag, they'll change the channel after a few rounds.

If they hear an argument about THEIR paycheck, THEIR outsourced job, THEIR healthcare costs, THEIR kid in Iraq, THEIR gas prices, they will sit up and take notice. And we are on the smart side of those issues, and that is how we win.

They picked this issue exactly BECAUSE people get emotional about it, and I suspect they count on Dems to cede the point to them, as many are doing, since they now have us trained to just react oppositely to whaever they do. If they pick an emotional issue, we have to avoid emotion. Hell, if they pick an issue we have to avoid it. We are expected to avoid confrontation with them and we obediently oblige them, because there is some mystery group of "centrist" voters who might start paying attention to what we say and presumably will automatically reject our position. What a sad state of affairs.

How much more important does it get than to oppose the erosion of the Constitution and expose the right wing for the radical freaks they are? This issue was an opportunity, now lost.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Democrats need to be calling Republicans on it.

Our nation has real problems to tackle and members of Congress are being paid quite handsomely to deal with these problems. Some of the politicians are too goddamn lazy to do their jobs, so they try to earn cheap political brownie points by wrapping themselves in the flag (which the last time I checked, nobody seems to be burning these days.) Thousands of good people died defending what that flag stands for and these assholes want to exploit it for petty political gain. How can you get any less patriotic than that?

That's what the Democrats should be saying.

We need to put nonsense behind us, and force them to debate us on the issues.

I look forward to the day she is replaced by a Democrat.

grasp of the issues surrounding this flag horseshit. It was a craven GOP attempt to make the Democrats look like unpatriotic shitheels, and HC's counter-proposal screwed them out of that chance.

regarding flag burning? You think they're not going to attack her anyway?

She can articulate the concept that she offered an alternative bill but she can't argue why she opposed the amendment and why her constituents should too? Which of those is simpler to get across to people?

Are you saying that she actually prefers to not criminalize flag burning but she must find some way to deceive a certain percentage of the electorate through this trick? After all, incite to riot is already against the law.

out there FIRST, because she did. This bill that got to the floor is the SECOND one she has written, she wrote another last YEAR.

She doesn't have to get down in the weeds, all she has to say is that she was ahead of them, and the rude GOP wouldn't put her bill out there.

You need to read her legislation before you suggest that she's criminalizing all acts of flag burning. It focused on FEDERAL PROPERTY, it was narrowly defined, and it was designed to head off the GOP. Good grief, she did all Democrats in tight races a FAVOR with this.

And your last sentence makes her point--there's NOTHING NEW in the legislation. It was a sleight of hand to get the GOP off the backs of the Democrats who need to get out there and WIN their contests.

Which conversation is more convincing?

R: Flag burning should be unconstitutional.

D: Well, I wouldn't say unconstitutional, but in some cases like bla bla bla.


OR


R: Flag burning should be unconstitutional.

D: Our freedoms are a greater symbol of our country than the flag. We will not sacrifice them for a lesser symbol.

Thanks for the explanation. It is frustrating that people don't seem to read and just whip off some meaningless quip instead.

and then I hope she decides not to run at the very last minute, because even though she is one of the SAVVIEST politicians on the Hill, and effective, she can't get any respect. I hope she tosses her warchest and her incredible fundraising skills at the 08 victor.

I then hope the next Democratic president puts her name for confirmation before the Senate as a Supreme Court Justice, because I like hearing rightwingers HOWL. And I hope she eventually becomes Chief Justice, and lives to be a hundred and fifty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm glad some get it...it is frustrating, sometimes!

Flag burning is pure political speech - - the EXACT type of speech intended for full protection by the First Amendment.

Democrats will never win the 37% who drink the RW kool-aid. HC should concentrate her efforts on fully protecting the Bill of Rights rather than compromise.

If you really think HC's efforts did anything good for Democrats, we agree to disagree. Even the Democrat you cite to support HC's position said he DISAGREED with it.

The American People as a whole need Democrats to stick up for the Constitution, not think up new and clever ways to pander to the 37% who do not understand the importance of the Bill of Rights.

by limiting the prohibitions to FEDERAL property, where the cops will clear you out and put you in a cage across the street if you want to do any protesting, in any event. And there is nothing new in the legislation (the riot business already exists) which didn't pass, anyway. You could still burn your flag on the street and not fall under this proposed rule--you just can't do it on the steps of the Supreme Court, for example--which you wouldn't be allowed to do ANYWAY.

They threw bullshit, and she threw smoke and mirrors back at them. And she OPPOSED the amendment--she STOOD UP for the Constitution. So what's the problem??? That is why she offered the bill, as an ALTERNATIVE to that step, that had nice words in it, but signified nothing, really.

HC would likely have preferred not to have to bring this up at all. But someone has to be lead dog. Her legislation saved the bacon of a shitload of Democrats who are standing for reelection. It also defused a potential wedge issue that could have tainted Democratic challengers to GOP incumbents. The GOP wants to wave flags, whine about gay marriage, and incite their base. She pissed on their campfire. If you can't see that, well, you can't see it.

You call it clever politics.

I call it pandering and lack of moral courage.

Democrats need to stand up for what we believe in and not allow our liberties to die a death of 1000 cuts.

Until we fight for what we really believe, we will swirl down the toilet with Hillary and the rest of the republicans.

"I oppose the proposal to amend the Constitution. In the 214-year history of the Bill of Rights we have never amended the First Amendment and we should not start now. I condemn flag burning and any other displays of disrespect to our national symbols. But I stand with Colin Powell, John Glenn and other patriotic Americans who have said the way to pay tribute to the flag is to defend the freedoms for which it stands."

That's a quote from somebody.

If a Dem can't defend the first amendment, if their position is so precarious that they have to dance around the first amendment to the US Constitution to save their jobs, I think their time would be better spent educating their constituents rather than trying to trick them. I believe that they are actually making things harder for other Dems and other progressives by muddying the water on this.

Hillary OPPOSED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. One more time, SHE OPPOSED IT. Her view is EXACTLY that of Dr. Dean.

That is why she ginned up a piece of bullshit legislation (which is just a BILL) that does not change any existing law at all, yet is wrapped in the flag. To give Democrats an alternative and to provide them cover when some wingnut accuses them of "voting against the flag."

The better to move on to things that ARE important....

for defending the Constitution or opposing an amendment or whatever it is that we need cover from, because I don't get it.

When will we no longer need this "cover"?
How to we get to the point of no longer needing "cover" to obscure our position?

and WE control the agenda.

Right now, they have the floor, they get the talking head segments, they get the column inches in the newspaper. They own the battlefield. When we take it back, it'll be OUR way or the highway.

Look, would you rather have a Democratic candidate spending TWENTY minutes defending himself over his or her vote in a debate, to have media ads directed at mouth-breathers proclaiming "SoandSo wants to BURN YER FLAG!!!" or would you rather he or she be able to dismiss it with one sentence and say "OK, asshole, NOW let's talk about IRAQ!"

Like I say, I give up. If you can't see the political reality, the realpolitik, in this strategy, I just cannot help you.

We must be following a different model than the current majority, right? Because my perception is that they started defining their talking points and gettting everybody on the same page and sticking to their guns LONG before they became the majority. In fact, one might even say that is HOW they became the majority. Everybody knows what an (R) beside a name means: Smaller government, less taxes, family values (allegedly). After years and years of repeating this message, and framing every issue in terms of that message, they finally persuaded enough people to go their way. People didn't even have to know anything about individual candidates. When in doubt, do the R, who knows what those other guys will do.

But WE have a better plan, right? We are going to avoid talking about things in which we disagree with the majority party until WE become the majority, then WE get to talk about what WE want to talk about. Since we can't get any press now (unless we disagree with the majority?) we have to "go along" to some extent, not make too many waves, lest we be bashed over the head with out own P.R., and wait until the electorate decides to try us- not because they like what we offer, but because they are so fed up with the other guys. The passive path to victory!

OK, that was the next to the last thing, here's the real last thing: Haven't we already tried this? Weren't Gore AND Kerry following this strategy? Do we just keep trying this until the statistical probablity is so overwhelming that we practically have to win? How could HC be any better than Kerry or Gore? More money? Better job of walking that non-committal tightrope? What are you scared of? Honest, forthright candidates are winning elections all over the country. And Dean didn't lose to Republicans, he lost to the centrists, who lost to non-centrists.

You don't believe in what HC did, you called it bullshit yourself. How long are we to hold on to the "say anything to get elected" mantra? It's not working, and we are digging the hole deeper and deeper because people have no idea what Democrats stand for. They have no reason to vote for us, unless they finally, on their own initiative, determine that the alternative is just not acceptable anymore. Personally, I have no interest in being in the party of "we're not them". I want to care about more than just some voodoo notion of what will win the next election. Centrists talk down to everybody else as if we are novices and don't know the ropes, but the centrist viewpoint has no more validity than any other, and at this point in time, in my opinion, is actually prolonging our agony. We cannot win until we choose to stand for something and we are not afraid to articulate that belief. Yes, it might cost a few seats in the short term, but the investment is worth it, IF you believe that we are right in demanding equal justice for everyone, healthier communities, and a culture of oppurtunity for all.

Did we lose the majority because we challenged them at every turn and flat out lost the battle of ideas? Or was it because we too often didn't fight back?

then THEY WIN. That's as clear as I can make it. It wasn't just "the message" that got the GOP in power, it was ROSS PEROT. The shock and horror of the Clinton victory stuck with them, and does to this very day. The ones that split their vote and went with Ross came home, and came out to the polls. Then, there was Monica, and that angered them further, and kept them coming out to vote.

The irony is, they probably would have stolen THAT election for Old Bush had Ross not been in the mix. Too many GOP left Wimpy for H. Ross....

Newt Gingrich's CONTRACT (on) America had all the "right" words, but look at the legacy? BIGGER GOVERNMENT, War without End, Amen, and a strange concept of Family Values where the top three GOP hopefuls are serial divorcers and adulterers. You wanna frame issues, FRAME THOSE. Not nonsensical, tempest in a teapot flag issues. The sidebar crap that the GOP keeps bringing up is because they, not us, have NO NEW IDEAS.

If you insist on challenging and harping on them about nitpicky nonsense that THEY bring up, and they win, because THEY are controlling what is talked about. When you wrestle with a pig, the pig likes it, and you get covered in pigshit.

We need to blow off their bullshit, call it quickly what it is, and cut to the chase--the war, the economy, how's your gas prices, how's your paycheck, that kind of stuff, the stuff that MATTERS. Every time they whine FLAG, we slap them with WAR AND ECONOMY. That's how we win.

everything and didn't do anything other than cut defense and raise taxes (after Bill campaigned on a middle-class tax cut). We had it ALL and couldn't even pass a GD healthcare bill.

it hurts us more when we show we can't stand up for ourselves, than when we get painted as unpatriotic.

and we can take the debate back NOW, we don't need to be in the majority. We just need to have confidence and make our arguments with force.

Do you think that most Americans want a fascist dictatorship where a piece of cloth is worshipped (in fact the Bible says we are not to worship graven images (i'd assume that extends to other images as well))?

It's a choice between getting mired down in BULLSHIT, or talking about substantive issues. There's only so many minutes in the media day, and harping on this nonsense cuts into time to talk about things that matter, like say, IRAQ, or the ECONOMY.

Everyone who is whining about this NON-issue and Hillary's role in trying to defuse it is giving aid and comfort to Karl Rove, IMO. They're doing EXACTLY what he wants of them. Heckuva job!

but what you don't understand is that Hillary, by having the other bill, is playing the game by THEIR rules instead of ours.

She should say, "no one fought in any war so that anyone could be arrested for dissenting against the government."

Her bill legitimizes their position

Her bill said nothing new. You ALREADY cannot burn a flag on Federal property. Inciting a riot is ALREADY illegal. It was a smoke and mirrors game to give cover to candidates in tough races. It gave them, should anyone try to question their patriotism, a quick "Fuck you, I voted for the anti-desecration BILL, but YOU didn't vote for it" comeback. And if the opponent wanted to take it further, the Democratic candidate can point out that the BILL, had it passed, would have been IMMEDIATELY implemented, but amending the Constitution takes YEARS....so now, who hates America????

It was a brilliant move. It defused a bullshit issue. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

she legitimizes their issue. The better thing to do is to vote aginst the thing and say 'im voting for freedom'.


Remember we ran a Vietnam war hero against a draft-dodging chicken hawk, and still lost veterans. Playing their game doesn't work. If an issue is bullshit, then vote how you feel and move on. Don't pander by sponsoring a useless bill that just legitimizes their view.

Do you think the republicans are going to mention her bill when they call her unpatriotic? No, of course not and anyone who really cares about this will not be impressed by her bill. (why should they be when the republican probably voted for the amendment and is thus better on the issue for them).

People want real leaders, not calculating hacks.

If you cannot understand the value of her bill in an ELECTION YEAR, I simply cannot make you see the BIG picture. You are focusing on HER, when you need to focus on the Democratic incumbents in reddish states who couldn't bring themselves to roll over on this issue, yet needed cover. Your hatred of her is coloring your approach to this issue.

I would really like to know why you aren't beating the shit out of the FOURTEEN Democrats who actually VOTED for the fucking Constitutional Amendment??? Hillary, remember, voted AGAINST it. One more time, she voted AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Come on, where's your ire at Bayh, at Stabenow, at the two Senators Nelson??? How about getting pissed off at Feinstein, at Dayton, at Reid, all of whom VOTED WITH THE GOP??? Why are you not excoriating Baucus, Menendez, and Johnson while you're at it?? Come on, tell us how angry you are at Rockefeller, at Salazar, at Lincoln?

Where's your rage regarding this Democrat??? http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/606290332/1002/NEWS

You're doing a heckuva job directing your fire at a Senator who (one last time) OPPOSED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN FLAG BURNING. Laws are easily changed, it is a fucking drill to change the Constitution. You're also doing a heckuva job fanning flames after the vote FAILED. Great job, there!!!!

At best, you are short sighted. At worst, your hatred of all things "Hillary" obscures your sense of strategy. All I can say is I am glad you don't sit in the Senate. You just don't seem to get how it functions.

Of course I'm upset at those dems who voted for it, especially Menendez. But this is the latest in a long line of Hillary "I've ALWAYS been a Yankees fan" Clinton's efforts to pander and triangulate.

It's certainly an unusual response to the amendment, entering your own watered down version of it that does nothing.

I most certainly know how it works, she votes against it, the republicans call her unpatriotic, bill or not. They don't care, they'll do it anyway.

I think the true point of these amendments on flag burning and gay marriage is to capitalize on Dems spinelessness. They vote for it and alienate their base. The repbulicans know you are successful when your base is happy with you. The dems don't get that yet. So, take advantage of dem's irrational desire to be conservative in order to appeal to independents.

around here who just don't think a female can be President. Or they are AFRAID a female might be President, even though she has not announced she's running. It stinks up the room, that attitude--unspoken, but hanging there like a ripe fart.

I've seen many women take shit like this in the military, but I never thought I'd see it dished out by so called progressives. It's reprehensible.

I also think people WHO ARE NOT FROM NEW YORK expect Hillary to somehow represent "them." That is not her goddamn job--her job is to represent HER CONSTITUENCY. She looks likely to keep her seat, and if she does, that is a message from HER VOTERS, and the rest of us, who are not represented by her, can just STFU and worry about our OWN Senators. I think people are angry because she isn't Bill. And I think people treat her like absolute dogshit, and I think that is wrong. They should worry about their own Senators, and get over her.

Why should she do anything for YOU? Do you live in NY? Do you contribute to her war chest? She doesn't represent YOU. And why do YOU give a fuck if she says she likes the YANKEES? Listen to yourself--that's is CHILDISH. Who cares? You think Ted Kennedy never told a political lie? Or John Kerry? GROW UP.

And I also think some people just do not understand politics. They're naive. They think that it's all sweetness and light, we are the world, this is what we believe. They do not understand that politics is a combination of compromise and brutal warfare. Deals are made, accomodations acceded to. It ain't MISTER SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, and it never has been. It's a tactical, practical exercise in getting as much as you can, and horsetrading if you have to. AND triangulating. EVERYBODY DOES IT. But noooooo....we have these babes in the woods who don't understand that, unless you have the constituency solidly behind you when you track way left, like Kennedy and Kerry, you're gonna be outta there, and some asshole like Santorum will take the seat.

The silence on the fourteen Democrats who, unlike Hillary, voted WITH the Republicans for a friggen CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is DEAFENING. And TELLING. No one will explain why they get a pass, that INCONVENIENT FACT is glossed over, but Hillary gets a whole thread of a Roverian-style shitstorm from people who don't understand how the game is played.

This complete ignoring of the Gang of 14 is probably one of the most shameful "exceptions to progressive policy" I've seen to date. And no one addresses it, because they can't justify themselves. But hey, it's fun to bash a Senator who doesn't even represent you, and who voted the PROGRESSIVE way on the issue of the Amendment.

Disgraceful. Flat out disgraceful. And I'm really shocked at some of the comments I've seen on this thread. You can like Hillary or hate her, but she doesn't deserve the vitriol she's getting, because she and Durbin did brilliant work on this issue.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why can't Hillary be more like Boxer, and less than Lieberman?

She has two constituencies, the liberal southern part of NY and the conservative north. She serves THEM, not you.

I don't agree with her war stance. But I am not so blinded or ready to cut off my nose to spite my face that I can't see that she did a good thing yesterday, that strengthened our delegation AND our candidates in tough races.

tell me where my logic is wrong.

This is why I think Hillary's strategy is ineffective:

R supports the flag burning amendment.
D opposes the amendment but supports the bill that is essentially a watered down version of the amendment.

How does the D have "cover?"
---
If I am a voter and I agree with the flag burning amendment, and I find that issue important, and I have a choice between someone who supports the amendment and someone who supports a weaker, but similar bill.

Why would I NOT vote for the R? The R is better on the issue that I care about. The gesture by the D is admirable but not the best out there.

How does supporting the bill help?

but it takes forever to get a Constitutional amendment passed. Voting for the bill gives INSTANT results. The amendment must go to the states, and could get shot down in the process, and take YEARS AND YEARS before it becomes part and parcel of the document; see here:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

Don't you remember the (failed) ERA?????? Or are you too young?

There's your winning argument. A Democratic candidate can use it, and waste his or her opponent, while at the same time opposing amending the Constitution when "it isn't necessary to do so, it's an important step, should only be used if there is NO other way, one not taken lightly, remember Prohibition, blah, blah blah..." The old "I wanted to protect the flag IMMEDIATELY, but my opponent was willing to wait for seven years and hope for approval of a sufficient number of states..." Message: I care about the flag more than my opponent. The Founding Fathers want us to change the Constitution ONLY when we can't fix something using the legislature.

The unspoken bit is that bills that become law (though this one did not) can go away a lot easier than chunks of the Constitution that are amended into the document. Once you stick it there, it's like gum, and ya gotta peel it away painfully.

it would be unconstitutional. The republicans would rather pass a bill too, but they know it's unconstitutional.

the easy response to your "winning argument" is just that. The bill does nothing becuase it's unconstitutional.

Otherwise you would not say that. It's entirely constitutional; the legislature CAN limit what happens on Federal property and free speech can be limited in those venues. It contained a prohibition about burning flags on FEDERAL property (like you could do that NOW and not be arrested for disturbing the peace, anyway) and it contained a proviso WRT incitement to riot, which is already illegal. This is instructive, from the original NYT cite above:

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton played a leading role in the flag-burning debate once again, co-sponsoring a measure similar to her previous one as an alternative to the constitutional amendment that was about to come up for a vote in the Senate....
The measure, brought to the floor by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, failed, 64 to 36, minutes before the proposed amendment fell short of the 67 votes it needed.

With more than half of Democrats supporting the measure, the outcome suggested that Mrs. Clinton's approach had plenty of adherents within her party, and that while she might have tried the patience of her core liberal supporters, she remained within the Democratic fold as she prepared for a possible presidential race...."What's politically pragmatic isn't always what's pleasing to the left," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant. "But pragmatism is what wins elections for Democrats."



So, will you excoriate those Democrats who voted with Senator Clinton, including her cosponsor Senator Durbin, and all those who also voted AGAINST the Amendment?

That seems fair, doesn't it?

You pick on her, you ignore the rest. Why, I wonder?

I said "if the bill did what the Dems claim it did,"

which is "protect the flag."

"protecting the flag" means a total ban on desecration.

If the dem says "I voted to protect the flag right away" the repug says:

" 'protecting' the flag on federal property only is meaningless, who burns the flag on federal property?"

The voters with a brain will understand it's a narrow gesture and will view it as weak and cynical, cause it is far from a total ban on desecration.

...but other laws already do that anyway. What's your point? Pull the string and get back to the original one--the IDEA is to avoid monkeying with the Constitution.

You still can't explain to me why Hillary is the Devil for trying to find a way out of screwing with the Constitution, and fourteen other Democratic Senators who laid down and rolled over with the GOP aren't. And that's a bit hypocritical.

The flag does not need "protecting." That's something the Republicans drag out to distract everyone. It hurts us when we go along with it, by making them look like geniuses.

You may not like the pragmatic approach, but it works. It gives us all the more time to talk about wages, job outsourcing, the failed war, energy policy, and a zillion things that are important.

we have to say (not in these words) "this is bullshit, let's talk about health care, wages etc. While the Repubs are voting for useless amendments i am talking about real issues."

First, I don't buy what a Democratic "consultant" says, becuase they've proven to be useless.

Also, the Democrats haven't won very many elections at all lately, and certainly not by "pragmatism" meaning playing the republican game which is rigged so we can't win.

So, you say the game is rigged, that we can't win, we haven't won many elections lately, and you don't want to listen to the consultant of a successful Democratic candidate.

That is probably the most naysaying packed into three lines that I've seen in a while. Why are you here? Clearly, it's HOPELESS.

But I can't help but see you're off track, again. What about those fourteen Democrats who voted with the GOP? How come they don't get treated to any of your sunshine the way you spread it on Clinton? Selective enforcement of your rules??

the concept of triangulation and pandering is a separate issue than the concept of voting with the other side outright. I am expressing my view about the triangulation on this thread, where it is most appropriate.


"The game" I refer to is the "we need to protect the flag" game. We know the issue is complete bullshit, but some people are driven by fear and thus are compelled to treat it as a legitimate issue.

But the game is rigged because the republicans will ALWAYS be "better" on that issue, you can't out-Republican them. What you can do is call it out for its bullshit nature.

We CAN win elections, but we haven't been lately. See 2002. We win some special elections in 01, but couldn't do so on a large scale in 2002 because Dem senators were running ads showing how much they love Bush and worked with Bush. And Bush was telling people to vote against them. People thought "wow, even Dems love bush, I should listen to him and vote republican."

They controlled the issues. Instead of saying "the iraq war is a bad idea" the Dems said "we support it too, but not as hard core." The republicans, predictably were "better" on the issue they set up.

We need to define the issues and the debate. We CAN do that, so its not hopeless. I don't see where you get that from. We just haven't been. Hillary is doing the wrong thing by legitimizing the idea that the "flag needs to be protected."

opportunity to triangulate!!!

There ARE people out there who DO NOT like flag burning. They are prochoice, antiwar, Ted Kennedy Democrats. They were adults when Vietnam happened, many with kids over there, and they're gray haired and bald now. And ya know what? They VOTE. In massive numbers.

It isn't fear, it's pragmatism. These reliable, motivated voters, who are ready to support the Democratic position, and, because they fought in WW2 and Korea, and have a very different attitude towards that piece of cloth, would be DISMAYED if there was no alternative proposal that simply SYMBOLIZED respect for that red, white and blue thing made in China. They NEED that justification as much as the Democratic candidates need cover. If some GOP turd tries to tell them that Democrats didn't support amending the Constitution, they can PROUDLY point to Hillary and Durbin's bill and say "Well, the lousy GOP didn't support THIS bill. Why not????"

I drive these geezers to the polls. You don't want to ignore them. You don't want to disrespect them. They are more reliable in terms of getting their asses up and dressed than the college kids with a more laizzez-faire view of this issue.

they'd vote republican in all likelihood. If they dont' think it's all that important, even if they don't like flag-burning (like most people), then they might be unhappy but they won't care in Nov. or they'd still vote for us, or at worst would stay home.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You are my new favorite poster on DU.

:yourock:

I ain't feeling a ton of love lately, and that's appreciated!!

vote as a bloc against it and make the repubs look like fascists?

just as some French were afraid to offend the Germans, so they rounded up their Jews and shipped them to Germany.

Moral failure? You bet!

a shot at winning. All politics is local; there are some constituencies that like this stupid idea. You allow the running Dems to do what they must, empty-gesture wise, to ensure their reelection. We get nowhere if we impose a lockstep voting pattern on a measure that we lack the clout to sway.

What is amusing is that they had to make a few extra GOP turds vote against it, when perhaps they might have preferred to vote for it.

Had the GOP actually wanted this to pass, do you actually think FRIST would not have enforced party discipline on Mitch McConnell???

Here's how it's done, in one simple sentence: "You don't vote the way I tell you, and you get NO FUCKING RNC money, AND we put up a primary candidate against you. GOT THAT???? You're TOAST!!! You're DEAD TO ME!!!!"

has voted the past few times this has come up. It comes up every two years at least.

http://bennett.senate.gov/bennettinthesenate/biography.html

Odds are good Linc Chaffee, the 3rd GOPer who nixed it, would have told them to go screw themselves--he's got his own deep pockets, and has to stay close to his constituency this year, given the mood about the GOP.

At the end of the day, you can be sure that if any one of those three voted in favor, without any other changes, a Democrat would have switched their vote, or Frist would have found someone else to go the other way. But neither side wanted it to pass in actual fact--the Democrats for Constitutional reasons, the GOP so they could play the victims.

If it hadn't been McConnell or Bennett, Frist would have leaned on someone else to keep it one shy.

heads us toward a constitutional convention.

This is because, regardless of the reason a convention is convened, the agenda is unlimited. Think of the things that would very likely be proposed in one:

1. Every nominee gets an up or down vote
2. Abortion law exclusive domain of states or a fetus is defined as a person
3. Congressional term limits
4. Flag descretion
5. School prayer allowed
6. Replace income tax with national sales tax
7. and on, and on, and on....

Nothing more than to divert attention from the real issues.

SHOULD THIS INDIVIDUAL RECIEVE THE SUPPORT OF THE DEMORACTIC BASE or the DNC.

LET HER BE THE FINAL DEATH NAIL IN THE DLC's COFFIN.

EDWARDS / CLARK in '08

n/t

set my heart "a swoonin'" (with apologies to Stephanie Miller)

If we are judging people on this one issue alone, keep in mind that Clinton voted AGAINST a Constitutional amendment.

replying to.

Fourteen Democrats voted with the GOP. I have yet to hear one goddamn PEEP about them from a single soul on this thread. Much more fun to go after the Senator from NY....

The discussion is about whether we compromise our progressive principles in order to "win" and whether that strategy will really even win.

Some voted for the accursed amendment, and some voted against, and some voted for a bullshit distraction so that they can obscure their position. I think some of us out here in the uneducated grassroots think that there is no reason to avoid opposing this particular issue, and doing so reinforces the perception that Dems don't stand for anything, and therefore are unlikely to get any new votes. (Don't say again that HC voted against the amendment. I know. But she tried to obscure that by offering a "smoke and mirrors" bill that did nothing but give her a place to avoid taking responsibility for that vote.) We become totally dependent on enough voters getting pissed off at the incumbents, which is pretty much out of our control.

My view is that we (the left vs. the centrists) don't disagree so much on policy as we do about marketing. Centrists see the votes shifting and tailor their langauge to that perceived shift. The leftists, or idealogues if you will, would like the Dems to establish some principles and sell them. After all, if we believe them, why wouldn't most other people? We just have to get the marketing right. But at every turn we are told that we can't talk about this, that, or the other issue, because it might alienate a voter somewhere.

To me, we aren't EVER going to get the votes of those people who oppose equal rights for all, government involvement in economic opportunity, and healthier communities, but that doesn't mean that those people won't benefit from those principles- they will. And their kids might vote for us.

naive. It's fine to stand for something, but stand for something that matters. This flag thing is BULLSHIT, and it riles up the mouth breathers in the reddish states. It's a vote shaver in tight races, and it needed to be swept OFF the table. Durbin and Clinton DID THAT FOR US.

It's a GOP distraction. Hillary DEFUSED that distraction, and unlike fourteen in her caucus, stood up and voted against amending the Constitution.

FOURTEEN DEMOCRATS did not do that...FOURTEEN OF THEM. And yet, you're talking about HILLARY "compromising our progressive principles?" Why do the fourteen get a pass from you, when they voted with the Republicans? Give me a break.

So much for the big tent--if you're not "progressive enough" the thing to do is take the old ball and go home??? Get PRACTICAL. We have to win the House and Senate before we can push the agenda. And we have to appeal to a mass of people that may not be "progressive" enough to suit you, but are willing to vote for someone who speaks to them in recognizable language about bread and butter issues. But if we are talking about the FLAG, we aren't talking about the war or the economy.

The "Hillary hatred" is getting old. She did a good thing, and there are some not sharp enough to see it.

How would someone not take offense to being called naive, ditto head, and all the other names that have been used on this thread. I've been following this thread and am shocked by the hatred and arrogance conveyed by some of the commenters.

This marketing vs principles discussion is not a new one and one that we should all be able to engage in a cooperative manner.

I'm saddened by comments from both sides impugning the intelligence, commitment, and sophistication of others.

There is no question that instead of just voting against the flag burning resolution, she brought up her own bill to "provide cover". I believe she should have just voted against it and left the shenanigans to the right. Others believe that providing "cover" is a good thing for us right now.

That is the point - Do we stand up for what we believe in or do what it takes to win? Personally, I think if we stand up for what we believe in, we will win. But, many disagree.

Her bill provides cover for those running in TOUGH RACES. She will win her race, this is not for her, herself, it's for others. HALF the Democrats voted FOR her bill. Are they all craven, too??? Why aren't you mad at them???

Why aren't you angry with the fourteen Democrats who voted WITH the Republicans in favor of the Constitutional Amendment? Why don't you have a problem with them???

Why is it just Hillary? She had what it takes to win a brutal Senate race in 00, she'll win her seat again this year. She believes in the great art of compromise (triangulation). You seem to like winners, and she will keep her seat this year.

Here's the problem you can't overcome--the Democratic party is a BIG TENT, and when you insist that we stand for "what WE believe" you really mean "what YOU believe."

If YOU believe in CHOICE, Jack Murtha, who is under our big tent, doesn't AGREE with you--he has a ZERO from NARAL. If you believe in getting out of Iraq NOW, Hillary Clinton doesn't agree with you. If you want to ignore the Evangelical Xtian vote, you won't care for Obama.

The point is, there is no way you are going to agree with everyone in our delegation on every issue. But to single out JUST one for scorn when there are plenty of others who do the same sorts of thing just smacks of some sort of discrimination to me....darned if I can figure out exactly what kind, though.

I thought I would comment on her. Who said any of us weren't upset with the Democrats who voted for the amendment? I am outraged by that choice. But, that does not mean I can't be angry with Senator Clinton for choosing not to fight back against the resolution. Most of the other "issues" or "values" pale in comparison to amending the Constitution, so it's no surprise to me that many are outraged by the inability of Hillary (and others) to defend the Constitution.

We disagree, no harm in that - it's the arrogance and condescension from the Hillary supporters that I find unpleasant and unnecessary. This type of attitude does nothing to further the discussion. But, perhaps thats not really what the Hillary supporters are looking for. If the next two years is going to be like this, with Hillary supporters trying to bully her detractors by calling them naive, ditto heads, then I guess 2016 is a more realistic date to have in mind for the next Democratic President.

As for Murtha and choice. No, I'm not happy about that. Should he make a move to run for a national office I would be very outspoken in my objections. As things stand right now, most decisions related to reproductive freedoms are made at the State level so his strident beliefs don't have much impact on me. And besides, I'm in Georgia, can't get much worse than here if you're pro-choice.

You said: But, that does not mean I can't be angry with Senator Clinton for choosing not to fight back against the resolution.
She voted AGAINST the Constitutional Amendment. Unlike the 14 Democrats who rolled over and voted WITH the GOP to change our Constitution. She and Durbin put up an alternative, which Durbin presented, that would provide not just cover for other candidates in tough races, but would have sufficiently nice wording to AVOID a Constitutional amendment. That bill, if you read it, changes NOTHING. But it sounds good, and defuses a nonsensical issue. That IS how you fight back when you don't have the majority. Half the Dem caucus sided with her bill, so there must have been some merit in her and Durbin's methodology.

I find the hatred for her stunning--when there isn't a Senator on either side of the aisle who will not acknowledge that she is one of the hardest workers on the Hill, and her pragmatism is sensible in these times where rabid GOP dogs rule. Robert Byrd, defender of the Constitution, is especially fond of her, she is, in fact, his protegee, because he knows that her work product is thorough and well-researched, and she knows how to play by the curious rules of the Senate. She knows enough not to burn bridges, and she knows how the game is played, and she knows how to persuade the majority party to give her proposals a hearing--and that's no mean trick, since they completely control the agenda.

If my junior Senator runs for president again, he's the one I will work for. If Gore ran, I'd work for him. Hillary is NOT my "first choice." But then, she has not even declared. If, after the primaries finish, and IF she even has entered the race, and IF she wins the most primaries and gets the nomination, I'd work for her. I'd precinct walk, do the home fundraisers, drag/drive people to the polls.

I want someone in OUR tent to go to the White House. And I'm pragmatic. I just do not understand why she gets nailed, especially on this issue, when everyone from Bayh to the Nelsons to Landrieu to Feinstein, plus nine more, don't get one one thousandth of the grief she gets when they voted WITH the GOP.

is not fighting back against the resolution, in my opinion. She is a noted attorney, a Senator, and former First Lady. For crying out loud she should be able to defend the Constitution. That's part of her job. Why is it so hard for you to get that coming up with a lame-ass bait and switch bill is not hard work - it's political fence sitting.

Yes, I'm glad she didn't vote for the resolution. But I expect more from her, and her colleagues in the Senate. Just because her fellow Senators thinks she's the cats meow, doesn't mean I have to. They all work us. Methinks they need to be reminded of that more often.

If that isn't defending it, I give up. You won't get it into your head.

And as I discussed upthread, there are a cadre of people who are VERY liberal Democrats who actually CARE about this issue. You apparently don't give one shit about all of those World War II and Korea vets to whom flag-burning is offensive in the EXTREME. You can't see that Hillary and Durbin's bill gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling, and not only does it provide cover for candidates running as Democrats, it also provides REASSURANCE to an important and reliable bloc of voters that we don't want to wipe our asses on the thing that Uncle Fred took a bullet for, and that made Aunt Ida a young widow.

But hey, it's all about you, not them, I guess. Who cares what they think? They're only the ones who show up at every primary and general election, in massive numbers, and pull the lever for candidates who think peace and justice are important matters.

I give up. You won't get it in your head that coming up with a BS bill that means nothing so that other Senators can vote for something that LOOKS like they're voting against flag burning is not the same as defending the right to burn the flag.

But hey, it's all about you and how your favorite Senator can "help" all these wimps to find "cover" instead of doing the work of advanced citizenship. Who cares what we think, we're just the ones who get thrown under the bus every time because everyone knows we'll vote for the Democrats since it's really our only choice. And forget all the ones who gave up on democracy long ago after being thrown under the bus so many times that they can't tell the difference between a D & R.

But most of all, forget what Uncle Fred and the many uncles before him fought for. It's was not the flag. It was all the things represented by the flag, one of which is right to burn said flag. That's what our Senators should be talking about.

there are a good percentage of voters who WANT politicians who say that the flag deserves respect. Reliable voters, not people who shoot their mouth off and can't see the forest for the trees.

Here we have Hillary, doing her best to avoid shitting on the Constitution, yet at the same time trying to find a way to respond to people who ARE offended by the act of flag burning, but you won't be happy until she stands up, preferably braless in a tye-died tee shirt, and burns a flag on the floor of the Senate.

It's called COMPROMISE. Nothing goes forward without it. My way or the highway doesn't work, especially when you are the MINORITY PARTY. Get with reality.

That's the problem with you guys that are always so willing to give validity to conservative doctrine!

Thank you for destroying the Republic!

:puke:

If you can take a symbol, that is important to some people, especially those who slogged through the muck and mud in Korea and every theater in WW2, and tell them that you honor the symbol they defended, and do it WITHOUT changing any existing laws OR shitting on the Constitution, all you are doing is RECOGNIZING the sacrifice of those people and that generation. It costs NOTHING.

You, on the other hand, would prefer to cut off your nose, and potential Democratic votes, to spite not just your face but the potential for a Democratic majority.

It is, apparently, all about YOUR views. The tent isn't big when you're in it, because only YOUR view counts. You need to get over yourself.

I haul at least thirty Democrats to the polls every election day who don't care for flag burning. It offends them, GREATLY. I certainly don't want to demotivate these people. They're more reliable than the young when it comes to voting, and we NEED them to take back the Hill.

Look at the big picture, for once in your life, and realize that your views are not shared by everyone. Because they aren't. Durbin and Clinton handled this matter exactly right, and it cost us, once again, NOTHING.

Durbin and that chicken hawk Clinton suck big time!

When I took my military oath, it was to defend the Constitution, not the flag or the Commander-in-Chief!

Published on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 by The Nation

Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights
by John Nichols

But what do prominent people who fought in past wars actually have to say about the amendment?

The most decorated war veteran in the Senate, Hawaii Democrat Dan Inouye opposed the amendment. "This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic," Inouye said of flag burning. "But, the winner of the Medal of Honor for his service in World War II, told the Senate, "I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to make certain all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts."

Inouye was hardly alone in that sentiment.

"The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous," explained former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, in his classic statement of opposition to attempts to craft a "flag-burning" amendment. "I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

Former U.S. Senator John Glenn, a World War II Marine Corps veteran and space-program hero, shares the view that it is not necessary to alter the Constitution. "Those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, who died following that banner, did not give up their lives for a red, white and blue piece of cloth," said Glenn. "They died because they went into harm's way, representing this country and because of their allegiance to the values, the rights and principles represented by that flag and to the Republic for which it stands.

Lawrence J. Korb, a Vietnam veteran and top aide in Ronald Reagan's Department of Defense, said, "(During) my years of military and civilian service during the cold war, I believed I was working to uphold democracy against the totalitarianism of Soviet Communism expansionism. I did not believe then, nor do I believe now, that I was defending just a piece of geography, but a way of life. If this amendment becomes a part of our Constitution, this way of life will be diminished. America will be less free and more like the former Soviet Union and present-day China.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0628-24.htm

Former U.S. Senator John Glenn, a World War II Marine Corps veteran and space-program hero, shares the view that it is not necessary to alter the Constitution.

The most decorated war veteran in the Senate, Hawaii Democrat Dan Inouye opposed the amendment. "This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic," Inouye said of flag burning.

If this amendment becomes a part of our Constitution, this way of life will be diminished.


If you really wanted to make your point stick, you'd do a little research before you shoot off your keyboard.

DANIEL INOUYE, whom you quoted so authoritatively, voted YEA on the Durbin-Clinton bill. He backed it. He voted WITH CLINTON. http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188

I've had enough of you. You want everything YOUR way. Get over yourself.

getting my vote this Nov. I plan to vote Democratic Socialist or Green in the Senate race (also in the 36th Congressional District race, where war pig Jane Harman won the primary).

We need every Democratic senator we can get. I don't like the way she voted on this issue, but I'm not about to urge anyone to toss her because she didn't vote the way I wanted her to. She is a senior Democrat, has some excellent committee assignments, has done some fine work overall, and could be a force for good if we are the majority party. But if you throw your vote away--and that is what you will do if you vote for a fringe candidate without a prayer--then that's one more for the GOP. You may as well stay home.

The idea here, in this forum, I thought, was to support Democratic candidates for election. They don't have to be the incumbent, but they should be in the party (the Leiberman/Lamont race comes to mind). Majority leaders and whips will keep the Senators and Reps in line when we need lockstep votes to advance our platform.

And some of them are thinking about running, too.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/17/national/w110258D12.DTL

Look, I agree that we shouldn't stay the course, we should correct it. I opposed this war from the git-go, because I believed Rick Shinseki when he said it couldn't be done with the assets planned, and because I did not think that ole Saddam had anything to do with Nahn Wun Wun.

As for DF, she's coming around to realize that she, like so many, were duped:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14911041.htm

...Lawrence Wilkerson, a former U.S. Army colonel who retired last year, said he learned after the secretary of state's February 2003 speech that key elements were wrong, based on faulty or manipulated intelligence.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has served six years on the Intelligence Committee, said Powell's speech was ``a singular event, because no one was more respected.''

``Putting that man before the world with information that was not correct was a dastardly thing to do,'' she added.

...Feinstein has pushed for an investigation of the role played by Iraqi exiles, especially the Iraqi National Congress, and a special Pentagon intelligence office in pushing the country into war.

``There is still much that we don't know about how this happened,'' she said.

The hearing also touched on how top officials were blindsided by the Iraqi insurgency in 2003. Wayne White, the State Department's principal Iraq analyst, said the military did not listen to his warning that there was ``a vast and renewable pool'' of militant Iraqis willing to attack U.S. forces.....

at least you understand the IWR was a war resolution and not a "war prevention bill" like some delusional people.

If we head for Persia in numbers, I, to my great dismay, will be outta here, and very much against my will, too.

All politics is local, and Rick Shinseki was right.

so think about that when you go humping out there with the other grunts.

And she's not 'My Hillary' but you would know that if you read the full thread.

but is only succeeding in appearing silly.

critical of Hillary Clinton.She played this right. Came out as a co sponsor of the Durbin amendment, and even Durbin knew this would go down in defeat, and then voted NO on the Hatch amendment....I think that most of those here at DU forget she is married to one of the best political minds in America, and that being the Top Dawg, William Jefferson Clinton.

She is very shrewd, I'll give her that.

under Clinton's (and the DLC's) watch? And why is every single large media buisness in America slanted against Dems, now, if they are so good at politics?

quickly on a left leaning agenda - gays in the military and nationalized healthcare - and the country rejected it.

And I don't understand your point about the media - it seems completely unrelated to this discussion.

:)

greatly disturb us, for free speech's sake. Making it illegal to burn the flag would defame the flag just as much as those who burn it.

Her position is to not change the constitution, but to do it with legislation.
( I offer no comment on the good/bad of that! )

It is getting to the point where I may not vote for her again for Senator, let alone President, if it comes down to that.

Then I don't have to look at stupid, fat, ignorant, assholes who think the American flag is a fashion statement. :puke:

Compare the chicken hawk Hillary to the following war heroes on the flag "protection" issue and then tell me why would any us support this ambitious woman's drive for the White House:

Christ, read the damn Congressional Record, and see how she voted on it before ya shoot off your mouth! She voted AGAINST IT...why is that so hard for people to understand?????

which means she doesn't give a shit about the First Amendment, she rather stroke the conservative rabble that defend the Bill of Rights.

One more time--she voted AGAINST the amendment to ban flag burning.

Go read her bill, and tell me precisely what laws change that presently exist as a result of it.

Let me save you some time--NONE CHANGE.

She is pandering to the wingnuts because in her delusions, or her blind ambition, she thinks she can get votes from disaffected Republicans.

Because if you had, you would see above, the reasons she put that bill forward.

See ya.

This is the same Hillary that voted to extend PATRIOT and sided with Durbin against the Kerry-Feingold Iraq troop withdrawal proposal. Yeah, we know Hillary alright!

The topic is the flag burning amendment, and how so many people seem to think she voted FOR it.

Stupid moronic woman! A constitutional amendment is a constitutional way. What's wrong with her pandering the RW crowd is that she hasn't done jackshit to protect the Republic and the Constitution from Bush's power grab. It is the Constitution that kept us free, not the fucking flag or the military! When you have a President that puts himself as the final arbiter of what laws are going to be enforced, and claims to have dictatorial powers derived from the obscure Commander-in-Chief clause, then you have the Republic in great peril of becoming a dictatorship. Hillary hasn't done jackshit about Bush's powergrab. In fact, Hillary attacked Gore when Gore sounded the alarm about Bush's slide into dictatorship.

Arianna Huffington described Hillary best:

Talk about pot call kettle! Married to a closeted gay GOP guy. Got religion when she found out how bad she'd been gamed. Certainly, she has done good work, but she is hardly the arbiter of progressive thought...she's still NEW at it, you see.

Ok, so go ahead, join the crowd that cannot see the forest for the trees. I have no problem with that, and I'm done with arguing with someone who cannot see past the point of their nose.

as a credible source. She is an opportunist and since you don't like opportunists I'm surprised you would quote her.

Huffington was a Republican married to a (R)Calif. gubernatorial candidate who lost the election. Later they divorced because he was gay and she became a political independent.

Her schick is to stir things up and make outrageous comments. She says some things I agree with but when she starts in on Democrats I lose all interest in anything she has to say.

Arianna Huffington is controversial and she likes it that way. I've never heard her say much good about anybody so I'm not surprised she'd tear Hillary down.

You are just full of hate and I'm getting sick of your shit.

but to me she is the same woman that undercut John Murtha right after he called for a US withdrawal from Iraq, and she is also the one that joined Lieberman in opposition to the Kerry-Feingold resolution to begin exiting from Iraq.

She is nothing but a chicken hawk war monger that has joined Bush's war drums on Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and has fully embraced Bush's rape of the Constitution and his assumption of dictatorial powers. There is no difference between Hillary and those Germans that by their silence and inaction made it possible for the Nazis to consolidate power in Germany.

Where's your ire against him for voting WITH the GOP? Why are you so concerned about the Senator from NY, who voted AGAINST the Constitutional amendment, when YOUR SENATOR, Evan Bayh, voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS to change the Constitution? All politics is local. You didn't put Hillary in the Senate, the voters of NY did.

The issue here is NOT the war. The issue is flag-burning. When one changes the topic mid-thread, that's telling.

and she has the most bucks of any other contender, plus she has already been anointed by the MSM as the presumptive nominee.

This small scrimmage about Hillary triangulating about the flag is nothing compared to what is going to happen if she were to take the nomination from a more worthy opponent. Hillary defenders will have to constantly explain the whys and hows of any given position taken by Hillary, all while shells are being lobbed at her from both the Left and the Right.

Hillary would be the most polarizing candidate for President since... George W. Bush, except that Bush had the support of his base, while Hillary will have a fractured base and not enough moderate independents to compensate.

It certainly calls into question your sincerity vis a vis Hillary and the whole flag-burning matter. You're on an "if" fest, IF she takes the nomination....how about IF she runs? Your Senator has expressed an interest in the job, while Hillary remains coy.

Your drawers are in a wad over the POTENTIAL of her running for President in 08, not the fact that she introduced a bill to give cover to others in the Dem caucus running in 06.

Where's your outrage over the fourteen Democrats who voted WITH THE GOP in favor of a Constitutional amendment? Why aren't you all over YOUR 'Democratic' Senator for voting with them as well???? All politics is local, you haven't said crap about YOUR guy dropping the ball.

http://www.wndu.com/news/072005/news_43376.php?PRINT_VERSION=1
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is keeping his options open when it comes to the 2008 presidential election.

That's what he told people in New Hampshire Monday where he was, in part, raising money for democrats.

"People can spot a phony a mile away. That's the number one. Number two, you really got to fight for those things you believe in," said Sen. Bayh.

Bayh is in his second term as senator of Indiana and he served two terms as governor. He was also on the short list of running mates for Al Gore in 2000. Now this darling of the democrats is looking at an '08 run for president.

"Not the speeches, not the votes, the results, so I've always tried to keep that perspective. I'm really more of a former governor than anything else," said Bayh.

The senator says he brings a practical approach to politics, dump the partisanship and get the job done. And on paper, Bayh is what many democrats want: experience, looks, and youth....


http://home.comcast.net/~crt695/
http://irregulartimes.com/2008bayh.html

Speech by President Bill Clinton in 2000:.

I won't be embarrassing him when I tell you that I hope and expect some day I'll be voting for Evan Bayh for President of the United States. (Applause.)

http://primary2008.typepad.com/presidentail_primaries_20/2004/12/president_bill_.html

You aren't credible on this matter if you beat the crap out of Hillary, who you did not vote for and who does not represent you, and IGNORE the kiss-up antics of the Democratic Senator from your own state.

But again, thanks for letting me know your real agenda. How lousy will you feel if Hillary throws her war chest and clout behind your Senator, and is instrumental in getting HIM elected as President???

has Dick "rubber stamp" Lugar beat by a mile.

What's Hillary excuse? On paper she had so much going for her, yet she is more like the gifted child that pisses his life away in frivolous pursuits or in foolish endeavors. Who would you be more forgiving to, the intellectually challenged Bayh that does the best he can with what little he has, or the gifted but underachieving Hillary?

I am just against the war, and I oppose anyone that has supported this war and remains unrepentant about it. In that regard, Kerry and Edwards are head and shoulders over Hillary.

Do you send her money?? Work for her in some fashion? NO????

Hillary Clinton does not need to give YOU an excuse for ANYTHING. Her "excuses" if any are to be made, should be to HER CONSTITUENCY. Once she was first lady, now she's the Senator from NEW YORK, not INDIANA.

Your fuzzy logic is astounding. She votes against amending the Constitution, but you disagree with her on a COMPLETELY separate matter, the war, so therefore, you "hate" her. All the while ignoring fourteen Democratic Senators who lay down with the GOP, many of whom also supported the war. If it's just females you want to bash, there's a few troublemakers in that bunch. Where's your Feinstein rage? Your Landrieu rage? If you aren't inclined to dump soley on women, take your pick from the rest of the bunch. What's Nelson's excuse? Huh? What's Bayh's? Where are the screaming threads of outrage about them?

I'm sorry; I don't buy your reasoning at all. She did a GOOD thing with Dick Durbin, she should be commended, yet you blast her and ignore fourteen others who caved.

Say, are you pro-choice? Well, then you might HATE Jack Murtha, because he isn't. But, ooops, he's against the war, so therefore he's GOOD. But oh, shit, Hillary is pro-choice...what to do, what to do?????

You can't always get what you want. And unless you are a New Yorker, Hillary doesn't have to listen to you. She only has to answer to those who pull the lever for her.

I still have family there...

So, one more time, are you pro choice? You didn't answer my question. If you are, how are you handling Murtha? He's with you on his war attitude, but he opposes a Woman's Right to Choose-he's got a ZERO score from NARAL...come on, gotta pick. Love him? Hate him? Gonna reject him on that ONE issue?

Judging and REJECTING a politician on their stance on one single issue, when you can find dozens of issues where you agree with them (health care, women's rights, the environment, and so on), is forming the circular firing squad. It's playing into GOP hands.

Judging and REJECTING a politician on their stance on one single issue

Hillary is wrong on Iraq, as she is wrong on her support of the Syria Accountability and the Iran Acts.

Hillary is wrong in her support of DOMA and opposition to marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

Hillary is wrong in her vote to extend the PATRIOT Act.

Hillary is wrong when she voted to end the filibuster on Alito, which was the real vote, not the meaningless vote that followed it.

How many issues I have listed so far?

Hillary is welcomed to remain in New York as US Senator for the next 12 years!

Can you point me to a video link of her announcement?

She isn't running. She hasn't declared yet. Until she does, she isn't running. The GOP use her as their boogeyman, and until she announces, it is counterproductive to carry their water.

On Murtha, who I happen to like:

He voted for the war. He did change his mind later, but he gave Bush the blank check along with everyone else.

He sits in the House, so he didn't have a vote on Alito.

Now, just as HILLARY, who did NOT vote for DOMA (she was First Lady at the time, remember?) is not her husband's keeper, Murtha is not his BROTHER's keeper--but his brother is a Defense lobbyist. And he benefitted enormously from the Rep's budget votes: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05165/521223.stm

He is against a woman's right to choose--adamantly. He voted against partial birth abortion, against stem cell research, he voted to BAN funding for family planning abroad, and voted to prohibit transportation of minors to get abortions.

He voted to make it tougher to declare bankruptcy.

In 2001, he supported a flag anti-desecration amendment.

He supports drilling in ANWR. He voted for the Cheney energy plan.

He voted no on net neutrality.

He voted to limit medical lawsuit awards...

Check out his record--take a good look, you might not be as enamoured as you think: http://www.ontheissues.org/PA/John_Murtha.htm

There's a lot I disagree with him on, but I do agree with his war stance; I don't like some of his civil rights/women's rights votes.

Now, take a look at Senator Clinton on the issues: http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Must safeguard constitutional rights, including choice. (Oct 2000)
Late term abortion only if life or health are at risk. (Oct 2000)
Remain vigilant on a woman’s right to chose. (Jan 2000)
Keep abortion safe, legal and rare. (Jan 1999)
Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. (Jan 1999)
Reach out to teens to reduce teen sex problems. (Jan 1999)
Supports parental notice & family planning. (Feb 1997)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)...

Pushing for privacy bill of rights. (Jun 2006)
Voted to ban flag-burning to build centrist credentials. (May 2006)
Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
Apologize for slavery, but concentrate on civil rights now. (Oct 2000)
Rebuild trust between police and communities. (Oct 2000)
End hate crimes and other intolerance. (Sep 2000)
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
Crack down on sex trafficking of women and girls. (Jan 2000)
Human rights are women’s rights. (Jan 2000)
Women’s rights are human rights. (Dec 1999)
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)
New Yorkers should all just get along. (Dec 1999)
Don’t punish Brooklyn Museum for Sensation. (Oct 1999)
Support National Endowment for the Arts. (Feb 1997)
Sex selection, prostitution & war rape: human rights issues. (Sep 1995)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002

Voted NO on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2005) ...

in her reelection bid?

Hmmmm... I guess not!

She is running for President!

As of May of this year, her disbursements are as follows: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00363994&Cycle=2006

HILLPAC
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
2006 Cycle

House Candidate Total Contribs
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $2,500

Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) $2,500

Burner, Darcy (D-WA) $2,500

Cranley, John (D-OH) $2,500

Duckworth, Tammy (D-IL) $2,500

Gillibrand, Kirsten E (D-NY) $2,500

Hill, Baron (D-IN) $2,500

Kilroy, Mary Jo (D-OH) $2,500

Madrid, Patricia A (D-NM) $2,500

Matsui, Doris (D-CA) $5,000

Salazar, John (D-CO) $2,500

Sestak, Joe (D-PA) $2,500

Total to Democratic House Candidates: $32,500
...............

Senate Candidate Total Contribs
Akaka, Daniel K (D-HI) $10,000

Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $10,000

Byrd, Robert C (D-WV) $10,000

Carper, Tom (D-DE) $10,000

Casey, Bob (D-PA) $10,000

Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) $10,000

Ford, Harold E Jr (D-TN) $10,000

Kennedy, Edward M (D-MA) $10,000

Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $10,000

Lieberman, Joe (D-CT) $10,000

Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $10,000

Nelson, Bill (D-FL) $10,000

Pederson, Jim (D-AZ) $10,000

Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $10,000

Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) $10,000

Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $140,000

````````````````````

She's one of the best fundraisers the Democratic party has. She even gave ten grand of the dough her PAC generated to Bernie Sanders, who is an (I) out of VT. I would bet that if she chooses not to run, she'll free up more of the cash she has to support tough, competitive races.

who are you trying to kid?

Most others don't even HAVE a PAC. Given what they tried to do to her in 00, I don't blame her for saving her money...TV time in NYC is expensive. And you're forgetting the House money.

I guess nothing she does will be good enough for you.

But you still never answered my questions about politicians and single issues; all you said is that Murtha isn't running. Well, he IS running for Steny Hoyer's job, and that means he'll have a great deal of cat herding clout in the Democratic caucus. How would you feel if he chose to herd cats over a move to further roll back Roe?

Can you live with his vote to drill in ANWR? How about these environmental issues?

Voted NO on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
Voted YES on deauthorizing "critical habitat" for endangered species. (Sep 2005)
Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
Rated 45% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)

And in 2001:
Murtha sponsored a Constitutional Amendment:
Supports granting Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HJR36 on Mar 13, 2001

Ooops....why is it OK for him to approve of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, yet when Hillary runs up a bill, the world is ending???

Your double standards are showing.

Freedom of speech and expression is wonderful. It truly is a great thing, but why do our leaders fall into these traps, fall, they run for them. In a time of war, whether you like the war, the cause of the war whatever. Why support burning the national flag, unless you hate the country?
Because no matter how you describe or defend it it is perceived by MOST people as being unpatriotic and disrespectful to our 230 year old nation and everybody who fought from then till now to make it what it is. How dim witted must one be if he can find no other way to get his point across than by burning the flag?

Democrats who voted for the measure in effect bought themselves the right to claim that they had voted against flag desecration, potentially inoculating themselves against possible charges of lacking patriotism in a general election campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/washington/28hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Inoculate = Keep the powder dry

>

....they spend all their time 'inoculating', 'triangulating', immunizing themselves from rovian attack when they should be on the offensive....demonstrating with the mountain of available evidence, that the repugs are un-American, unpatriotic, war-mongering Nazi-liars, corrupt to the core....

....then maybe we might find repugs busy worrying about 'inoculating' themselves from us....we'll see come November; until then, they can 'triangulate' this....

Read the First Amendment and a little bit of American history.

The founders of this Nation were prohibited by harsh British law from criticizing the government of King George.

The First Amendment is meant to protect political speech and allow citizens to criticize the government. It is one of our most important liberties. Burning the flag is political speech. Pure political speech that the founders intended to protect. Banning this type of statement is a frontal assault on free speech.

I don't like seeing the flag burned myself. The only time I have ever seen it done is in magazine pictures. But I understand the importance of FREE POLITICAL SPEECH.

Hillary wants to pander to those that do not. Are you one of them?

her on one side and a deep seated hatred of her on the other. News media just trying to stir up a non story. I wish the news media would talk about a Democratic candidate that I would actually go out and get in the car to go vote for. Hillary is just a sleep late in bed on election day.

Is Clinton even more conservative than Feinstein?
Disappointed in California.

FEINSTEIN voted WITH THE REPUBLICANS to AMEND the Constitution and BAN flag burning.

CLINTON voted AGAINST THE REPUBICANS and did NOT SUPPORT amending the Constitution. She presented a bill that changed NO existing law, had nice words in it, so Democrats in tough races who wanted to vote AGAINST amending the Constitution could have cover during debates. There was NO CHANCE her bill would pass, none whatsoever. And she and Durbin knew it ahead of time.

Where you get the idea that Clinton is more conservative than Feinstein, at least on this issue, I've no idea.

ONLY ONE SENATOR, Russ Feingold, voted neither for the Constitutional amendment, nor the criminalization of flag burning on federal grounds.

How did it become only Hillary vs. the rest of the Dems?

This is a phony issue - a desperate ploy to distance Hillary Clinton from the party.

The whole party triangulates - and the NYT calls out Clinton. Shameful.

Either the idiots here are just plain stupid, or they get a check from Rove. Thank you for your SANE analysis.

And for the record, HC is NOT my first choice for our candidate, at least not yet. But she does not deserve this bullshit, unless it's coming from sixteen hundred Penn....

I've literally had it with the idiots you mentioned. It's like watching a moron convention lately instead of being on an intelligent discussion board. The comments are so flipping uninformed and childish I feel like all the adults have left the room and it's just a bunch of kids playing around throwing poo at the walls and each other. I need to update my ignore list so that I can even stomach to stay here.

I bother to read the papers, keep up on the politics, and check facts before I shoot off my mouth.

A lot of folks would just rather be, dare I say, ditto-heads for innacurate repeating of nonsense, as well as a really warped view of our party. It's a big tent, but some of them don't like people on the other end of it. They don't get it that we need the WHOLE CREW to win; not just the far left wing of the party.

I am glad you are so well informed. Your opinion is most certainly the correct one. We should all follow your lead.

Everyone please stop arguing with the obviously most knowledgeable person here.

Because we disagree, even though we are in a big tent, we are the enemy, paid by our opponents.

While you are at it, since you are CLEARLY so well informed, tell me how you feel about these fourteen senators:

Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Dayton (D-MN), Feinstein (D-CA), Johnson (D-SD), Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln (D-AR), Menendez (D-NJ), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO) and Stabenow (D-MI)....

Because ya see, EVERY ONE OF THEM VOTED FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban flag burning. Let's toss every one of them out on their ass, shall we??? Way to NEVER get a Senate majority!!!!

You need to take a few lessons in realpolitik, and get off my ass.

are we to never critisize Dems that do or say stupid shit? Is it really supposed to be "My Party, Right or Wrong"? Or should we, just to be different, make them accountable when they say or do stupid shit?

But when just one is singled out, while others, who did far worse (like vote to amend the Constitution) skate completely without a peep, one simply wonders WHY?? No one wants to hold the 14 Democrats who rolled over and voted with the GOP accountable; no one even wants to talk about it. They'd rather beat up on a Senator who voted AGAINST the GOP Constitutional amendment measure.

And the Senators who came up with an alternative to avoid that mess don't get credit for forestalling the GOP effort, and only one of the two gets major heat. I have to ask myself if there's some bias in that mindset. It's very troubling.

I think we are all adults in here, and we can have this discussion in the context of "Hillary" and understand that it also has wider significance. What would you have us do, have 14 separate arguments at the same time? Not gonna happen here.

You are just inaccurate in saying that everybody else skates on this. They haven't even skated in this thread, and a quick cruise around the forum shows many other threads that include criticism of others. There are entire threads devoted to condemning those who voted for the resolution. There may not be too much attention to the Durbin amendment, which may be an indication of how strong the amount of "cover" it will provide will be.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2699125

And besides, Hillary does not seem to be shying away from the attention, or even denying that she may run in '08. I'll see your "all politics is local", and raise you an "any publicity is good publicity". It has about as much vaidity.

What is this pragmatism you speak of based on? Is it your gut? The opinion of party elders? Polls? What is more pragmatic about your position than that of, say, Feinstein, or Bayh, or Landrieu?

You say this isn't about fear, but it is about fear. Fear that we cannot convince the VFW and the American Legion that it is more important to protect the actual freedom that the flag represents than it is to protect the (made in China) symbol of that freedom. But maybe we can! Not only that, we must!

From a pragmatic standpoint: If this issue is very important to a constituency, then voting against the amendment will sink most Senators anyway. If it's not that important to them, the nuance of the Durbin amendment is a waste of time. Are you saying that a VFW guy in Michigan who is on the fence and for protecting the flag will be swayed by Levins' vote against the amendment and for the bill? Unlikely.

Since the bill isn't for Hillary, is it your position that the following Senators, who voted against the constitutional amendment and for Durbins' bill, are seeking cover:
Biden, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin, Lieberman, Obama, and Reed (among others)?

You are being disingenuus about the content of the Durbin amendment. Anybody burning a flag could be assumed to be trying to "intimidate" somebody, whetehr on federal property or not. The federal component of it seems to only deal with someone stealing a flag and then desecrating it on federal property.

Why is obscuring our position on defending the Constitution more pragmatic than just outright defending it? Oh wait, I know... we don't have the time or resources to win on the issues, we have to mask our true principles until we win and then we can devote our energy to educating people to our point of view?

To me, this is classic DLC shifting. The DLC gets out their PPS (Political Positioning System) and determines where they think the mythical "center" is, and heads for it, attempting to annoy as few people as possible. But there really is no "center". It is a statistical construction, made up of real voters who have thouyghts and read. And moving to the center isn't the job af a politcial party anyway. We stand for what we stand for and we sell it the best we can. Doesn't matter what the weather is. The center is supposed to come to us.

I have no problem with the DLC doing their analyses and offering them to us, but when much of the leadership of the party are members- by definition abandoning principles in the name of the Almighty Center (which changes), yes, I have a problem. Centrists often invoke the big tent image and the untiy mantra, but if they believe it, why don't they unite behind those in the party who want to define us and establish our principles? Because it is against the very nature of a "centrist" to actually take a position. The goal is to find the two extremes and measure where the middle is and go there. And the thing is, it's possible that no one was there until the centrists "discovered" it.

Constitution. Yet she gets way more crap than those who voted FOR amending the Constitution. And Durbin isn't getting any flak, just Hillary.

I think there's more going on here than the objection to her votes on this issue. In fact, her votes on this issue have nothing to do with the hatred for her, but few will stand up and say that. They'd prefer to paint her, inaccurately, as messing with the Constitution, when she was trying to find a way to AVOID precisely that.

I have to wonder how people who are pro choice will feel about Jack Murtha once we're out of Iraq. Will they remember his good work on that issue, or will they want his head on a pike for not agreeing with them?

To the ones that voted for the Amendment, idiots and assholes, but hey, I digress, about Hilary's bill, no matter HOW limited that thing was, it still wouldn't have held up in court. Besides, flag burning, regardless of WHERE it takes place, is so damned rare that it doesn't even warrent the attention of the United States Senate. It was a stupid thing to bring up.

You can't take a First Amendment crap on the steps of the Supreme Court as a form of protest, you can't burn a flag in the Rotunda, and you can't go wave a protest sign inside the gates of FT BELVOIR. The bill was limited to acts that occur on FEDERAL property, not out in the street. The legislature CAN limit what happens on Federal lands. They can even not allow you on them, if they so choose--if you don't have an ID card, you aren't getting into the Pentagon without an escort, and if they don't like the way you look, they can tell you to hit the bricks. And you have zero recourse.

That was the genius of the bill--it "protected" the flag around and about the corridors of government, but it didn't take away the rights of people to go downtown and burn one (and then get arrested for bonfires without a permit).

If a protestor lit up a flag on the steps of Congress, the sidewalk surrounding the White House, or near the Steps of the Supreme Court, would that be considered Federal Property? I think so, in other words, the law in this instance most likely wouldn't hold up in court, because they are in PUBLIC. Of course, I'm talking about a charge of "Flag Desecration" or however its defined, not laws for public safety, etc.

You would be booted off the steps in a heartbeat. And the bottom line, as I said, is that if you were protesting in a group, you'd need a permit and be herded into a cattle cage across the street. If you were protesting alone, they'd charge you with disturbing the peace/public nuisance and lighting a fire without a permit, along with the law under discussion that didn't pass.

You don't have unfettered right to access these facilities, and you haven't since the Oklahoma bombing.

http://www.wbdg.org/design/secure_safe.php
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_hr/h980604-peck.htm
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/bom/article.asp?id=3616

From the last cite: The practical effect of all these standards is that the risk assessment of many DOD and federal buildings requires protecting buildings with a standoff distance of 45 meters (148 ft.) for billeting buildings and a standoff distance of 25 meters (82 ft.) for primary gathering buildings to protect against specific explosive threats. ...High-value buildings or buildings with critical missions — such as command and control centers, special laboratories, R&D facilities, and State Department buildings — need to meet additional standards and criteria developed by the facility stakeholders when the protection of the facility is as important as the safety of the occupants regardless of the costs. The reality of building security standards, however, is that budget usually sets the ultimate standard.

But hey, don't take my word for it--perhaps the ACLU can explain it better than I can:
http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=76
Not every property owned by the government is a traditional public forum. For example, a government office building may keep out persons not conducting business there, so that employees are able to do their work. The degree of public access depends on the type of building and the history of past use at the particular building. In some circumstances, government property that is not a traditional public forum might have been designated as a type of limited public forum. Some of the more common locations for demonstrations inside government buildings are discussed below.

Post Offices and Other Federal Buildings
Free speech activities may ordinarily take place on the sidewalks, grounds, and other public areas of government buildings.7 Officials may restrict the times, locations, and manner of free speech activities as long as the restrictions are reasonable and do not unduly hamper the speech activities. In some instances, a use permit may be required. For example, permits are required for gatherings on federal property managed by the General Services Administration, such as the Federal Building in downtown Seattle8.

Demonstrators must not block entrances or interfere with the normal business of the government building. Check with the building manager or do some advance scouting of the site, so you know where your group should or should not stand.

The Supreme Court has ruled that no one has a right to protest on military bases even if the person is a member of the military. Most federal property, however, is less restricted. There are no regulations prohibiting free speech activities at post offices, except for partisan political activity. In addition, flyers or handbills cannot be posted on postal property. When a public building is used as a polling place, partisan activity and campaign signs may be required to be a certain distance away.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that speech activities cannot be banned from the public sidewalks around the Supreme Court grounds.....The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not protect all types of speech. For example, you may not directly incite a riot or encourage an angry mob to injure someone. You may not directly provoke someone into a fight, and you may face penalties for spreading falsehoods about someone or for distributing literature that the courts have declared to be "obscene."

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal speech. It is legal to demonstrate against draft registration, but it is illegal to knowingly counsel an individual to evade registration. It is legal to picket a store, but it is illegal to block entry to the store. It is legal to preach that our form of government is wrong, but it may be illegal to directly encourage a crowd to storm the White House. Broadly speaking, we are free to communicate our ideas but not to encourage immediate crimes.

Demonstrators are encouraged to abide by reasonable rules. They should not harass passers-by or cause unreasonable disruptions. The use of legal observers, discussed below, is advised if demonstration organizers believe a confrontation is likely.

If you are instructed not to speak, demonstrate, or engage in some other free speech activity — whether by a law, a police officer, or other government official — you should know that continuing to engage in the activity may result in criminal charges. The police order may later be tossed out of court, but you would still have gone through the hassle of being charged. Please alert the ACLU if you believe an official order has unreasonably restricted your right to protest.

Failure to obey a police officer may result in arrest under one of the following criminal offenses:

Disorderly Conduct (RCW 9A.84.030)
Failure to Disperse (RCW 9A.8A4.020)
Resisting Arrest (RCW 9A.76.040)
Interference, obstruction of any court, building, or residence (RCW 9.27.015)
Trespass (RCW 9A.52.070; RCW 9A.52.080)
Disturbing school, school activities, or meetings (RCW 28A.87.060)

And, if there are a bunch of you, you have to fill out one of these: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/frames.asp?doc=/mpdc/lib/mpdc/serv/events/pdf/picket.pdf&group=1523

On the mall, you have to get a permit from the Park Service.

Many federal laws apply anywhere and everywhere, not just federal property. I don't know what makes you think this bill says that. The ony part of this bill that limits itself to federal property is the part that says you can't steal somebody's flag from federal property and then destroy it. There are no property restrictions on the rest of it. Unless the part of the US code that this would amend is restricted to federal property, this bill certainly doesn't make the distinction.

So the point would be that this bill would not be as limited and irrelevant as you claim. But the bigger issue is, how do you justify a prohibition on burning the flag, but provide no protection for copies of the US Constitution? Or for military insignia? Or Uniforms? Or pictures of Jesus? Or pictures of Ronald Raegan?

I will also challenge your assertion that the law would withstand scrutiny. I know little about this, but a quick search reveals this:


http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/06/28/WashingtonDCBureau/336731.html

she is just trying to make herself more appealing to the right wing...and they won't be happy unless she lights the fire that burns her husband at the stake...and that is the unfortunate truth...

I wonder...will she go that far to win the presidency?

Methinks think she is hearkening to her Goldwater girl days too much...

...and Hil is the fringe element of the democratic party.

She could go to Jerry Falwell's church, help the Klan with a lynching, and shoot Mexicans crossing the border, and the right is not going to vote for her after over a decade of hearing that she is a lesbian, communist, witch, murderer from Limbaugh, Coulter, and the rest of the right wing media.

Also, it's going to be hard to get your base out to pound the pavement for you when you have kicked them in the face for a couple of years straight.