ACLU candidate scorecard: Gary Johnson 1st, Obama 3rd, and conservatives hostile to liberty

[banned from Kos]

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2012, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/blog_romero_20111230.html

"Our experts found that Republicans Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman earned solid scores, with four, three and two torches across most major categories, although both received one torch on marriage equality and none on reproductive rights.

President Obama also achieved solid scores or better across most categories, including four torches for ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. However, he received just one torch and none for keeping Guantanamo Bay open and continuing unconstitutional surveillance under the PATRIOT act, respectively."

They like Ron Paul - no surprise. Mainly over surveillance.

[izquierdista]

1. Keep counting those torches

Ron Paul - four torches to Social Security, three torches to the Civil Rights act, four torches to the meat inspection program, yadayadayada. When he's through, there will be damn little government he hasn't torched.

[Selatius]

2. Civil libertarianism is a pretty big tendency within the ACLU.

They've been pretty consistent in fighting for the Bill of Rights, regardless of the defendants or whoever was in power at the time, despite the fact that Congress keeps passing laws attacking the Bill of Rights and presidents that want or enable such activity.

[banned from Kos]

6. You are exactly right. The ACLU has a narrow focus. Ron Paul is batshit nuts on everything else.

thanks for pointing it out.

[ProSense]

11. Forget

"The ACLU has a narrow focus. "

...the "narrow focus." There is enough to show that Paul's positions are contradictory. This is the problem with continuing to hype propaganda.

[FarLeftFist]

32. So they're comparing Obama to the lies the others peddle?

Paul gets 4 torches for shutting Guantanamo?!!! He was never in a position to do so.

[TheWraith]

47. Not to mention if he tried, Congress would stop him.

Just as they stopped Obama even though signing the executive order to close Gitmo was literally his first act in office.

I'm getting more and more fed up with the ACLU. First their lauding of Citizens United, now this.

[FarLeftFist]

3. 3 torches for hating all of humanity except rich white males. 5 torches for bat-shittery...

[Politicalboi]

4. Pals around with

Assholes who want to kill gays. Whatever ACLU.

[johnaries]

5. OMG! I usually love the ACLU, but they BLAME O because

of GITMO? He's done everything he could to close it down, and was mostly successful until he was blocked at most every turn. And they still blame him for the actions of others?

They need to focus on the real culprits.

[IamK]

15. Obama is keeping Gitmo in business via Executive Order, Its all on him...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/guantanamo-bay-executive-order-sends-mixed-signals/story?id=13086929

President Obama's decision Monday to resume military commissions at Guantanamo Bay was no surprise but it sends mixed signals about the future of the controversial detention center and the president's own standing on the issue, experts say.

[midnight]

46. Some attorney's like Yoo have twisted words to death....

"Yoo was a law clerk for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

[Luminous Animal]

16. No. He didn't do every thing he could...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/guantanamo-bay-how-the-white-house-lost-the-fight-to-close-it/2011/04/14/AFtxR5XE_story.html

[IamK]

7. the ACLU is an embarrassment... how they survive nobody knows....

[Logical]

14. Based on what??

[ProSense]

8. Fascinating

Humane Immigration Policy
Obama 2
Paul 2

Closing Guantanamo & Indefinite Detention
Obama 1
Paul 4

Gays and Lesbians Serving Openly in the Military
Obama 4
Paul 4

Ending torture
Obama 3
Paul 3

Ending a Surveillance State
Obama 0
Paul 4

Freedom to Marry for Gay Couples
Obama 3
Paul 1

Reproductive Choice
Obama 3
Paul 0



Obama

HUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY = Two Torches
Expanded “Secure Communities,” an enforcement program designed to arrest and deport
undocumented criminals but that has resulted in racial profiling and the arrest of thousands of
innocent immigrants and U.S. citizens.
Continued building a border fence and increased the border security budget and added more
border patrol agents.
Opposes Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB 1070, which criminalizes the lack of immigration papers,
gives police broad authority to arrest people and promotes racial profiling, as a law that
undermines “fairness” and “trust.”
Supports the DREAM Act, which provides access to higher education and military service to
many, regardless of immigrant status.
Deported 1.1 million people in three years, the most of any administration.

CLOSING GUANTANAMO BAY & INDEFINITE DETENTION = One Torch
Took Ali al-Marri out of indefinite detention and criminally charged him, found new homes for
some detainees transferred from Guantanamo and has not sent new detainees to Guantanamo
or created new military detention facilities.
Backtracked on promises to close Guantanamo Bay and use civil courts by maintaining a system
of indefinite detention and permitting military commission trials to continue.

ENDING A SURVEILLANCE STATE = No Torches
Voted for all reauthorizations and extensions, saying in May 2011 that “It's an important tool for
us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat.”

Paul

HUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY = Two Torches
Opposes the completion of a US-Mexico border fence.
Opposes privacy intrusions created by Arizona’s SB 1070 anti-immigration law, which
criminalizes the lack of immigration papers, gives police broad authority to arrest people and
promotes racial profiling.
Wants to end birthright citizenship and effectively repeal the 14th Amendment for one class of
people.

CLOSING GUANTANAMO BAY & INDEFINITE DETENTION = Four Torches
Opposes a two-tiered system where suspected terrorists – not convicted terrorists – are held
indefinitely without charges or trial.
Says new detention powers under the pending

ENDING A SURVEILLANCE STATE = Four Torches
Opposes the PATRIOT Act because it is “unpatriotic” and wants the broad powers it grants
revoked.
During a November 2011 GOP presidential debate in Washington, DC, he said, “If you advocate
the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the
crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.”


And on "Humane Immigration Policy" they both score 2?


Whack!

[cthulu2016]

23. In fairness, Obama has been tough on Immigration

The good goes with the bad. He has seen more people deported in three years than Bush did in eight, or something like that.

That aggressive policy is to some degree politics so I'm not sure Obama has wanted immigration torches from the ACLU.

All in all, Obama came out pretty well here, I think.

The biggest distinction in their ranking is surveillance and that's a fair cop.

[ProSense]

25. Well,

"In fairness, Obama has been tough on Immigration"

...this "Wants to end birthright citizenship and effectively repeal the 14th Amendment for one class of
people," is an automatic zero.

The rankings are interesting, but given that Ron Paul's atrocious views have come to light, the whole thing is a bit goofy.

I mean ranking his position on marriage equality measured against his views on AIDS and pandering to people who want to kill gays.

[bhikkhu]

9. The old conundrum, where both law and lawlessness threaten liberty

There's no end to argument over where the balance should fall, and probably there is no permanent ideal balance - circumstances change over time, culture decides as much as philosophy does, and law is likely to always lag behind both.

What isn't quite right is to accept the stability that the "rule of law" encourages as a baseline which would exist with or without law, and proceed from that perspective to criticize the laws that protect liberty equally with those that impinge upon it. In other words, when one is not in a position of responsibility its very easy to form careless opinions.

[Renew Deal]

10. The way I read it, Gary Johnson is #1, Paul #2, Obama #3

What am I missing?

[banned from Kos]

12. you are correct. I goofed by reading the body of text I quoted. n/t

[ProSense]

20. You can edit. n/t

[banned from Kos]

22. thanks, somehow I thought titles were not edited.

Don't want to be accused of being a Paulbot either!

[cthulu2016]

21. You can edit the headline.

If you do, thanks in advance.

[beyurslf]

13. How is Ron Paul first, if Gary Johnson scored higher?

And each of those issues should not have equal weight, IMO. I find choice and equality more important than some of those others. I also wish the scorecard allowed me to hover over and see why they received 2 torches instead of 3 or 1. What does 2 torches on choice mean, for instance? Or 2 torches on marriage equality? Huh? You either support it or you don't.

[JackRiddler]

17. It's not about who they like.

It's about whom they judge to best meet their criteria, which you may disagree with but can be certain they don't tailor to fit anyone beforehand.

This language is important if we are to rise above personalities and team spirit and actually confront issues.

[ProSense]

18. It's

It's about whom they judge to best meet their criteria, which you can be certain they don't tailor to fit anyone beforehand.

This language is important if we are to rise above personalities and team spirit and actually confront issues.

...a good thing I value civil rights and reproductive rights more than propaganda about Guantanamo and surveillance.

[JackRiddler]

24. An honest statement of divide and conquer, at least.

It's a degenerately instrumental view of politics to set up an unnecessary and bogus competition between inalienable human rights and declare that some (such as those protected by the habeas corpus clause and the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments) are dispensable, as long as others you "value" more highly are protected. In this you're acknowledging to be no different than what you accuse Ron Paul of doing (valuing only those rights that are important to him and his group or class).

I value reproductive rights as derived from the 9th amendment, and all civil rights -- those protected by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments as well as those protected by the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as those derived since then through case law and after the many struggles and sacrifices of the people for equality and justice in social and economic spheres.

Whereas, just as you accuse of Ron Paul (more or less correctly), you seem to value those rights that seem vital to your political goals, and have now suggested you don't care who is trampled if you don't think their rights are important to those goals.

[ProSense]

28. Hmmmm?

I value reproductive rights as derived from the 9th amendment, and all civil rights -- those protected by the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments as well as those protected by the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as well as those derived since then through case law and after the many struggles and sacrifices of the people for equality and justice in social and economic spheres.

Whereas, just as you accuse of Ron Paul (more or less correctly), you seem to value those rights that seem vital to your political goals, and have now suggested you don't care who is trampled if you don't think their rights are important to those goals.

I suppose you missed this: "Wants to end birthright citizenship and effectively repeal the 14th Amendment for one class of people."

Like I said above, the rankings are interesting, but given that Ron Paul's atrocious views have come to light, the whole thing is a bit goofy.

I mean ranking his position on marriage equality measured against his views on AIDS and pandering to people who want to kill gays.

[JackRiddler]

29. Carry on.

As you say, Paul is very bad, so the ongoing long-term dismantling of the Bill of Rights that Obama has reinforced (like a series of presidents before him) is double-plus good. You can't just consider the issues, it must be always in relation to politicians. It's not advisable to have one's own ideas, all ideas either support or hurt Obama's election and shall be judged accordingly.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[ProSense]

30. I

As you say, Paul is very bad, so the ongoing long-term dismantling of the Bill of Rights that Obama has reinforced (like a series of presidents before him) is double-plus good. You can't just consider the issues, it must be always in relation to politicians. It's not advisable to have one's own ideas, all ideas either support or hurt Obama's election and shall be judged accordingly.

...can see that it must be disappointing that others don't see a lunatic who advocates repealing the Civil Rights Act, ending Social Security and Medicare, dimisses sexual harrassment and solicits the support of people who advocate killing gays as an alternative to Obama, but you should try to understand without introducing strawmen arguments.

[JackRiddler]

31. "Strawmen arguments," that's hilarious. It's pretty much all you do.

Your answers almost always throw in the false and baseless accusation that I support Ron Paul. Now that's straw. It's hard to distinguish from the way Bush supporters threw standard false accusations at those who disagreed with them. Except that they seemed more passionate, it is true. Your responses sound more like a talking-point dispensary, a political agorithm at work.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

[ProSense]

35. Maybe

"'Strawmen arguments,' that's hilarious. It's pretty much all you do."

...but "Ron Paul is a lunatic and not a progressive (or rational) alternative to President Obama" is a fact.

Frankly, it's been a spectacle to watch so-called progressives tripping over their tongues to defend a racist, anti-gay, anti-woman propagandist.

Hmmm?

[JackRiddler]

36. This is exactly how Iraq war supporters argued.

Anyone who opposed the prospective invasion was accused of defending Saddam.

[ProSense]

38. Ah

"This is exactly how Iraq war supporters argued.
Anyone who opposed the prospective invasion was accused of defending Saddam."

...bullshit. You must have me mistaken for Greenwald.

[cthulu2016]

19. This is about right. (It's a ranking, not an endorsement.)

The ACLU has a mandate to view the world through the lens of civil liberties and by that standard a libertarian like Johnson will come out well.

I thought Obama came out well.

[JackRiddler]

26. Yes. If they were completely idealistic and not a bit pragmatic, no one would score...

higher than say, 20 percent out of the maximum total. We have lived in increasingly alarming times for many years now, thanks to the trends in state, economy and corporate power regardless of who gets the elected offices.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. If this surprised you, then you do not know WHY the ACLU was founded

or what it pushes.

Here is a hint... they are civil libertarians.

[banned from Kos]

33. Didn't surprise me. I am an ACLU donor and former drug using LP voter.

Went full bore Democrat during the 2001-03 time period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Scratches head and walks away...

obviously too partisan to get it. (Yes RON PAUL IS A LIBERTARIAN, so is GARY JOHNSON)

[frazzled]

34. Which is why one-issue organizations are about one issue

And aren't a good barometer to use for choosing anything--unless you combine them with other scorecards: on reproductive rights, on environmental issues, on foreign policy issues, on immigration, on race, on economic issues, and on and on and on. Gary Johnson and Ron Paul get very, very bad grades on a bunch of those things.

But even at that, one wonders how they could give low scores to one candidate (Obama) on things that none of the other candidates even has had to do (e.g., closing Gitmo). Obama is the only one of them who actually signed an Executive Order to close it. The fact that he was blocked from doing so by Republicans (and some Democrats) makes him worse than a bunch of never-been-testeds? Stupid. It's like passing out wildly different tests to students in a class and then ranking them on one scale.

[cthulu2016]

37. Yes. With an incumbant and challengers you're always comparing performance with promises

I suspect that candidate Obama go a higher ACLU rating in 2008 than president Obama today.

[frazzled]

39. But that is a really stupid metric

It's like, if I claimed I could lift 500 pounds (although I am a 5 foot 2 woman and have never lifted anything heavier than a small box of books) I would get a score of 4, even though I was never put to the test, while the Olympic strongman who actually attempted to lift 500 pounds but only was able to lift 375 gets a 1.

Talking and doing are two very different things. It makes this entire scorecard completely irrelevant. (Not to mention that both Paul and Johnson have completely reprehensible stances on almost everything else that would be on my list for a good candidate.)

[worker33]

43. What stances?

Which stances by Gary Johnson are the "reprehensible" ones?

[frazzled]

45. Slashing government spending, reducing taxes, anti-Fed ...

He's proposed cutting Medicare and Medicaid by 43%, is a "balanced budget" adherent, is an isolationist--essentially he's a fiscally ultra-conservative Libertarian. He's Ron Paul (whom he's endorsed in Iowa) with less gray hair. He's been called "the original Tea Party candidate" for his stance on slashing taxes.

What's to like? That as a libertarian he wants to decriminalize pot?

[kestrel91316]

40. Has the ACLU noticed Ron Paul's draconian, christofascist stance on women??

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Yes, why the score card on those issues was so low

[quinnox]

44. You do know that its usually the right wingers who hate the ACLU?

and that the ACLU is considered a Dem ally in general. Jeez, I feel like I'm on free republic when I see the ACLU attacked.