Constitution Voters?
Why am I not thrilled at this latest effort by the ACLU?I would think I would be the first to sign up for one of these free Constitution Voter bumper stickers. For some reason I don't think I will.
I guess it's probably because the vast majority of people who will sign on to this are people who regularly vote for candidates who don't support the constitution or, if they do, it's only in regard certain issues when it fits their agenda.
Oh well, if anyone wants to sign up, you can do so here. There's a list on the left that defines the Constitution Voter. Do you think it applies to you? How about your chosen candidates this fall?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 2:28 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Because whatever they are SAYING - the opposite it true of what they are DOING.
It's like their candidates who take up 'religion' to get elected - with a wink and a nod to their backers who know that they're only doing it to get elected - or they pretend to be hunters, or pretend to be pro law enforcement - then claim that their election is a mandate for their (previously disguised) "progressiveness."
It's another scam. You can bet on that. Coming to a theatre near you. Just watch.
I'm curious: Which of the bullet points on the left do you disagree with? Or is it just because you believe the assertion that the ACLU is a leftist pinko organization? Maybe that's true. I don't know enough about them. But on the face of this proposal, those bullet points seem pretty reasonable to me and agnostic as far as party affiliation.
That is because you are on the left, Bob, and to you it all seems reasonable.
Looks like the same old tired talking points to me - repackaged, for some as yet unknown reason, some soon to be launched campaign with unforetold repercussions. These guys are the masters of disguise.
And they aren't about your free speech,. Bob, hate to tell ya.
The ACLU site omits mentioning that they wish to pick and choose which articles of the constitution they wish to defend. One example is their position on the second amendment: "The lie which the ACLU continues to spread is that the Second Amendment is a 'collective' right belonging to the State, not an individual right;"
This example alone reveals their hypocrisy.
Bob asks, "I'm curious: Which of the bullet points on the left do you disagree with?".
I don't necessarily disagree with any of them. I'm just saying that most of the people that would likely put one of these bumper stickers on their cars don't really consider the constitution when voting so it's meaningless.
This effort is most likely a well- deserved, but veiled, dig at the Bush administration. But let's look at the type of people that so- called Constitution Voters vote for:
Dianne Feinsten is held in high regard in this state yet she's supported much, if not most, of Bush's agenda. I doubt that the constitution has ever entered her mind when considering legislation. Statistically, it would be safe to assume many so- called Constitution Voters would vote for her.
John McCain supports much of the Bush agenda, yet you can bet there'd be a fair number of McCain supporters who might stick one of those bumper stickers on their car.
One could also argue that McCain's so- called campaign finance "reforms" violate free speech. Not sure how far I'd want to go with that but his supporters just put that issue aside.
Speaking of free speech, there's Measure T, which Paul Gallegos proudly supported. This measure, that allows an entity from one side to contribute, but doesn't allow the other side's, should clearly be unconstitutional. I would suspect many Gallegos supporters would not only vote for him again but would consider themselves worthy of the title Constitution Voter.
Then there's the right to own firearms, which Leonidas refers to. While Barrack Obama has said he believes in the right of individuals to own firearms, his voting record indicates otherwise. Yet he's been raised to a god- like status by his supporters. I'm sure a good many of his followers would consider putting one of those stickers on their car.
Most people pick and chose what parts of the constitution they want to support and only use those parts of it to further their agenda.
In fairness to this effort, perhaps it does bring a bit more attention to the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Maybe people will start considering it more when they vote, but, I doubt it.
Obama only voiced his tepid support for the individual right to own firearms after the Heller decision. Prior to that he supported the bans on such a right in both DC and Chicago.
"Candidates who don't support the Constitution" = any candidate that Fred disagrees with?
Don't fall for this crap. There's an ulterior motive wherever the ACLU is concerned and it is often in direct contradiction to what they say. Hidden beneath all the flowery rhetoric you'll find the real agenda. And it likely has nothing to do with supporting the constitution, and more about garnering power, and tearing down our own government.
Pogo is right about Obama's stance on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Obama thinks that right is applicable if and when Congress says it is OK.
And they called Clinton "Slick."
I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and Defender of Liberty of the ACLU, but I would not put the bumper sticker on my car. I don't like clutter.
Did you know that the ACLU is against Measure T, Rose? Does that fit in to your one-size-fits-all condemnation of them as somehow too "left" for you?
I Am a Constitution Voter
* I believe that no one -- including the President -- is above the law.
* I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending indefinite detention.
* I oppose warrantless spying.
* I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
* I believe that the Constitution protects every person's rights equally -- no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
* I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
* I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our country's leaders to share and act on that commitment -- every day, without fail.
So Rose, can you explain to me how your free speech rights are excluded by the Constitution Voter statement above?
That part about protecting every person's rights equally, and expressing personal commitment to the Constitution: Doesn't that defend your right to speak here just as much as mine?
Funny thing is Rose, you might make more allies by not pissing on their heads. I'm critical of Gallegos, I'm not going to vote for him in 2010, and I don't believe all the bullshit from Local Solutions/Central Committee should be followed lock-step either (their refusal to back a Democrat against radical greenie Kaitlin being the latest example of stupidity on their part).
But even with all our mutual points of agreement, I'm happy to sign this pledge from the ACLU. And I support the 2nd Amendment. So how would you like to box me in now with the legions of braindead lefties?
Good point, 9:10!
Look Rose, it was the pro-Measure T fanatics like David Cobb and Kaitlin Suchalong-Name who engaged in vicious personal attacks. We don't need to sink to their level; instead we need to build bridges between the many diverse interests who didn't support T then and the ones who might be waking up to its ill-effects now.
Crawford, Allen, the Times-Standard, they all speak in favor of the $500 uniform cap on contributions, why not just move forward with a positive agenda like that and leave these Democracy Unlimited losers like Kaitlin in the dust?
Post a Comment
<< Home