From Scott Brown's victory speech:"And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation - they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.
Raising taxes, taking over our health care, and giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country. What I've heard again and again on the campaign trail, is that our political leaders have grown aloof from the people, impatient with dissent, and comfortable in the back room making deals. And we can do better."
Simple, and true.
REGURGITAPH for a question in the comments. [rot]
Posts
13 comments:
The speech started slow and goofy -- a bit too local for my taste. But hey, that's how Brown won the campaign, so who am I to complain? But then he started to grow up and get more senatorial in tone and scope. Ending up with that "epitaph" that AA excerpts, which I found excellent, short, fresh, and to the point.
Man, I wish I had a beer, but I ran out of it a week ago, and been too lazy to go buy more..
I've one beer that my nephew made. I'm wondering if the Massachusetts version of moonshine is as kickin' as that of my West Virginee brethren.
Yeah, time to celebrate.
Hmmm well my nephews version of a pale ale tastes like swill...but does have a preternatural kick for a beer. Appalachia, I'm home!.
Musings from Madison: Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?
Back to the best part of the speech. This is the kind of thing Jean-Francois Mac in a million years could not have said:
The Bush administration was right, but it was intimidated by the stature of Senator McCain and the prospect of the legacy media calling the president a torturer. The administration gave too much credit to the Arizona maverick — we can admire his heroism and still point out that he gets lots of things wrong. And in the event, as anyone could have predicted, the media called the president a torturer anyway.
Scott Brown went out and made the case for enhanced interrogation, for denying terrorists the rights of criminal defendants, for detaining them without trial, and for trying them by military commission. It worked.
And this is the part that Herr Rot will never get, in a million years: The laws of war are the rule of law. They are not a suspension of the Constitution. They are the Constitution operating in wartime. The Framers understood that there would be wars against enemies of the United States — it is stated explicitly in the Constitution’s treason clause (Art. III, Sec. 3).
Article 3, Section 3, Mr Rot. Have we ever broached this point of constitutional law? Maybe we should.
Reading the Constitution is a blast, Tecs.
Hey, did he campaign on those positions? I am talking about the military tribunals...
I am afraid he'll get too far out to the right of pinkochusetts and lose his ass in 2012.
Hey, man, just goes to show you weren't here, and didn't pay (real) attention to the campaign. Yes, Scotty talked about the WOT, and Afghanistan, etc, and hammered Coakley on those issues, where she was totally clueless. In fact, his surge started just after Christmas Day, and I think was aided in part by the inept response to the pantybomber.
Now, of course, the big issue all along was Obamacare, and this was a referendum on it, no doubt about it. But the next national issue was national security, and Brown won hands down on that -- I mean, really, no contest on that, even Pepe may have agreed on that.
So, Herr Rot, I think you added another VCP to the infinite tab by asking this silly question, which you even highlighted by regurging the post. I could really use a VCPO now that I'm out of any booze in the house. Ship it FedEx, willya?
Rassmussen provides the numbers for the Rotter.
What's "VCPO"? Seems it's a VCP for me.
Mr Straman keys in on the essential point. Not.
Post a Comment