September 18, 2006

A New Frame for the Torture Debate: Bush is no Reagan

Since I know a lot of people on the Right seem to have no love for Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and since I'm guessing some of them are thinking John Warner is showing senility instead of backbone (and class and basic human decency) by trying to block President Bush's latest power grab/love of torture/trashing of the Geneva Convention - here's a suggestion for a new way to try to win over independents and conservatives and independents on this issue (if we want to - as Publius notes getting the worst bill imagineable might not be a bad thing). Who else is against this move by President Bush? Let's see. There's Jack Vessey (JCS chief under Reagan). There's Colin Powell (National Secuirty Advisor under Reagan). There's George Shultz (Secretary of State under Reagan, and the man who can in most instances rightly be said to have directed Reagan foreign policy). See a theme here? Yet again, George Bush is no Ronald Reagan. I think it's something that someone in some political PR office can run with - Bush is willing to toss aside the kind of values and protection of US troops that Reagan stood for, in pursuit of the kind of all-powerful and secretive, liberty-imperiling state that Reagan fought against (at least in the mind of the voters such a strategy would be aimed at).

Posted by armand at September 18, 2006 05:03 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics | The Ever Shrinking Constitution


Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?