Why do republicans hate the 1st amendment?

I offer this sentence from Fred Barnes' recent column without comment:

At his news conference last week, Bush reacted calmly to their vitriolic attacks, suggesting only a few Democrats are involved.  Stronger countermeasures will be needed, including an unequivocal White House response to obstructionism, curbs on filibusters, and a clear delineation of what's permissible and what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq.

Fred Barnes is a mainstream republican.  He is the editor of the Weekly Standard.  A Fox News commentator.  This is the world we're living in.

Sometimes I see bumper stickers that say "freedom isn't free."  I don't think this is exactly what they meant.

via Kevin Drum.

-- Michael

Comments

[buckshot]

Michael,

That was an excellent article. He made many good points. I'm not sure the handpicked quote you made a fuss over is the most important one.

Here was my favorite (from the last paragraph on the first page) ...{{David Brooks explained recently in the New York Times. "The Democrats today . . . have all the liberals. What they lack is support from middle-class white families in fast-growing suburbs.}}

That is exactly the point I attempted to make in my first few posts on your blog. Of course, I was assailed with about 200 questions, (which I attempted to answer honestly).

Anyway, the Dem party has been totally hi-jacked by ultra leftist liberals, including many unpalatable Hollywood types. Until they figure that out, I see defeat after defeat after defeat.

By the way, I very much admire Newt Gingrich and dearly hope he gets back in the game. He'll be feeding a steady stream of "family values, god and country" to the masses, and the dems will be parading every transexual Hollywood misfit they can find, topping it off with screams for gay marriage laws and blastphemous curses against the religious fucksticks. (never mind that the religious fuckstics compose the majority of the voters - ha)

go dems.

[Cheryl]

Dear Buckshot,

By the way, I very much admire Newt Gingrich and dearly hope he gets back in the game. He'll be feeding a steady stream of "family values, god and country" to the masses

How does a three time divorcee get to talk about family values???

and the dems will be parading every transexual Hollywood misfit they can find

By dems I presume you mean Fox News and Jerry Springer. Last I heard, Democrats were giving lip service only in the hopes of not offending anyone. By the way, why is it "every transsexual Hollywood misfit"? Are you deliberately trying to provoke people, or is it just that transsexuals are not people to you? Please answer this line of questioningspecifically. I want to be sure I understand what you are saying. If your intention is to belittle democrats, can you do so without dehumanizing transsexuals?

topping it off with screams for gay marriage laws and blastphemous curses against the religious fucksticks. (never mind that the religious fuckstics compose the majority of the voters - ha)

True. Hallelujah and go dems! More lip service!

[Incertus]

Anyway, the Dem party has been totally hi-jacked by ultra leftist liberals,

Of course it has. That's why the leading candidate for the DNC chair is a moderate, fiscally responsible governor, a civil libertarian with an A rating from the NRA from a small, rural state. That's why the party leader in the Senate is openly pro-life. The closest thing you've got to an uber-liberal in the leadership of the party is Nancy Pelosi, and let me tell you--as a San Francisco resident, she's not nearly liberal enough for a lot of people around here. And yet we're the ones who've been hijacked by our extremists. Right.

The day the Democratic party leadership gets as extreme as, say, "Man-on-dog" Santorum or "Strom Thurmond shouldabeen President" Lott, I'll start to worry.

[Musing Michael]

Somebody seems to have forgotten to close an italics tag.

And I'm with Incertus: You can call the Democratic Party leadership extreme only when our leaders are half as bad as the Repugliconartists' are. Nobody at the head of the Democratic Party is under indictment for war crimes, for starters. Or even liable, unlike about half of the Bushoviki. And we didn't conspire to overthrow the legitimately elected government of the United States (which, incidentally, qualifies as high treason under the Constitution), like your crowd did in 2000.

[hi]

there it is closed

[hi]

try again is it closed now

[buckshot]

Incertus,

I was referring, of course, to John Kerry (with the most liberal voting record in the Senate).

Funny you've already forgotten who your candidate was.

[here's what's left]

italics tag closed.

[buckshot]

Michael and David,

I've answered many questions from both of you, and Incertus I'm going to give the two of you a chance to answer just ONE question. It is on the John Kerry MTP thread. Thanks. Incertus please join us.

[Incertus]

Still rehashing that long discredited tale about Kerry being the most liberal Senator, huh Buckshot? Hell, I could make Lieberman the most liberal Senator if I picked and chose individual votes the way the National Review (or was it the Weekly Standard? I forget) did. Give me a break.

[Basharov]

I thought Teddy Kennedy was the most liberal senator. Or is it Hillary? It's getting so hard for me to tell one ultra leftist from another.

Give it up, Buckshot. You need to ask your handlers to send you an updated copy of Karl's talking points.

[Incertus]

Don't know why I'm bothering, but for my own curiosity, I looked up the stuff that came out about the retarded "most liberal senator" attack. Here's the gist.

The National Journal rated the votes only for 2003, a period during which both Kerry and Edwards (he was tagged as fourth most liberal) spent an awful lot of time on the campaign trail. If you go back--as the National Journal did itself in an earlier issue--and look at a longer time reference, you get Kerry coming in 12th and Edwards as 24th most liberal. Here's the top ten:
1. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
2. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.
3. Jack Reed, D-R.I.
4. Jon Corzine, D-N.J.
5. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
6. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
7. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
8. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
9. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
10. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt

That's more like it. Notice, Hillary is nowhere to be seen either, but I'll bet that if she gets the nomination in 2008 (unlikely, but what the hey, I'm hypothesizing here), the National Journal or some other rightwing mag will find a way to place her somewhere to the left of Fidel Castro.

[buckshot]

Insertus,

Thank you for your efforts. Yes, I suppose Teddy and Joe L would be on the list. Obviously the "most liberal Senator) is a subjective opinion, and it is going to come from righty rags. You certainly don't think lefty rags are going to discuss liberalism, do you? (rhetorical question)

I'm not going down your diversionary path. The topic was the Dem party being hi-jacked by the libs. If you don't see it, hey, that's fine by me.

I merely watch the show each cycle, as one might watch a boxing match, and observe the various strategies as they play out. I enjoy good tactics regardless of the player.

Gingrich was genius. Whether he was divorced three times is only an issue to lefties who would never vote GOP anyway. You sure get sidetracked easily.

I swear, I could log onto this blog as Mary, and report that new evidence proves that a dozen more righty journalists are on the take, and you would all swallow it hook line and sinker. If I reported anything bad about the lefties, you would all fight it tooth and nail.

Where is the objective thinking from you people? rhetorical question again.

I did ask you a real question on the Kerry MTP thread, though.

[here's what's left]

on 01/30/05 buckshot said:

"I believe in using rational thought and logic in all areas of life."

yet, on 02/01/05 he says:

"The topic was the Dem party being hi-jacked by the libs. If you don't see it, hey, that's fine by me."