Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
14. Obama could appoint a Commission on Civil Liberties Restoration with Glenn Greenwald as chair
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 05:38 AM
Jun 2013

In his speech announcing this welcome development, Obama would explain that there'd been a gradual erosion of civil liberties, with each step representing no huge change from the one before it, but that he'd come to realize he'd erred in not recognizing the importance of the cumulative effect.

He would recall the views of Professor Obama when teaching constitutional law, and of Senator Obama when criticizing the national-security state being assembled under Bush. He would candidly admit his mistake in straying from that point of view. He would ask the public's forgiveness, and promise to make major changes going forward.

There should be some limited representation of right-wingers on the commission. Maybe give Boehner and McConnell one appointment each. Rand Paul? Why not? Heck, I think it'd be a hoot to invite Sean Hannity to serve. The man who defended NSA surveillance under Bush and then attacked it under Obama could, all by himself, present most of the pro and con arguments the commission would need to consider.

Then Obama would actually do a lot of what the commission recommended. He wouldn't just rubber-stamp it, but he'd do enough to show the concerned civil libertarians that he really was taking the issue seriously. Not everything could be done by executive order, but when the Republicans filibuster the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2014, be it on their heads.

The result? Not only would the right fail to pick off any of our voters, but we'd turn it around and pick off some of the Paulites when he's not the nominee (and he won't be the nominee). Furthermore, a lot of other voters, not paying too much attention to the minutiae of the Bill of Rights, would nevertheless admire Obama's willingness to admit a mistake, and his taking forthright action to correct it.

In addition to these political gains, of course, another result is that civil liberties in America would actually get restored, to a great extent.

If Obama doesn't do something like this -- and my guess is that he won't -- then he's giving the right wing a fertile field to pursue the strategy you outline.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't know. There are people on the left who despise incremental progress. Recursion Jun 2013 #1
You just blew my mind. LisaLynne Jun 2013 #25
Obama and Democrats are handling this scandal horrifically davidn3600 Jun 2013 #2
So you aren't a democrat? Explains your previous comments. Perhaps there is a website okaawhatever Jun 2013 #5
I don't have to prove my party membership you davidn3600 Jun 2013 #18
A petty and very weak argument. Got anything worth wasting our time on? n/t Egalitarian Thug Jun 2013 #58
The true intent of the whole thing treestar Jun 2013 #30
I'm one of those far left and I would NEVER vote for Ron Paul. Never ever ever. Gravitycollapse Jun 2013 #3
But Rand is being handled and has applegrove Jun 2013 #4
Well, if it's only just a few low-information voters Art_from_Ark Jun 2013 #6
A few voters in the wrong state can turn an election. Witness Florida's 500 voters in 2000. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #8
There were only five voters who mattered in 2000 n/t Fumesucker Jun 2013 #10
It would never have landed on their Court if Nader hadn't drawn 9500 votes in Florida. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #11
It also wouldn't have happened if Democratic voters didn't vote for Pat Buchanan Fumesucker Jun 2013 #13
I have a couple questions for you about the 2000 election. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #15
Anyone can and many do cherry pick reasons for what happened in 2000 Fumesucker Jun 2013 #16
It's cherry picking to single out any one cause where "ultimately the responsibility" lies. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #24
The SCOTUS overruled all else Fumesucker Jun 2013 #32
You write, "Arguably Harris and others acted improperly...." Jim Lane Jun 2013 #41
Do you think that Nader's alleged "wrongdoing" rose to the level of that of Harris and the SCOTUS? Fumesucker Jun 2013 #54
The issue isn't that Nader "exaggerated" or even, more accurately, that he lied. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #56
I thought I indicated that Nader's campaign was not in complete congruence with objective reality ? Fumesucker Jun 2013 #59
You're very charitable toward Nader's folly. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #63
Eh, Gore couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee Fumesucker Jun 2013 #65
I don't see where I brought your personality into this. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #66
The Buchanan voters made a mistake. What Nader did was purposeful. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #20
The DU "Shoot the Messenger" squad, in action. MNBrewer Jun 2013 #21
And Kathryn Harris, was what she did a mistake also? n/t Fumesucker Jun 2013 #55
The vote counting in Florida was halted before all the votes were counted Art_from_Ark Jun 2013 #34
K & R SunSeeker Jun 2013 #7
Obama seems to oddly be going out of his way to assist in splitting Dems. 99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #9
It is far easier to blame voters Harmony Blue Jun 2013 #44
Gasps from the Good old boy Goons. nt bluedeathray Jun 2013 #12
Obama could appoint a Commission on Civil Liberties Restoration with Glenn Greenwald as chair Jim Lane Jun 2013 #14
And he could travel around DC in a carriage pulled by a team of unicorns, too. baldguy Jun 2013 #26
Yeah, Dick Cheney would be the better choice! mhatrw Jun 2013 #36
OK, I'll compromise. Russ Feingold. Jim Lane Jun 2013 #40
Sweet Jesus... a "STRATEGIST"... sibelian Jun 2013 #17
There are many. baldguy Jun 2013 #27
Lots of closeted and not so closeted libertarians. nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #29
You said it! zappaman Jun 2013 #42
Yes...nt SidDithers Jun 2013 #31
Nope. I'm not talking about people who talk politics online. I'm talking applegrove Jun 2013 #39
Next you will call them commies nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #45
I'm not saying the right orchestrated this. I'm saying the crisis/scandal plays into the narrative applegrove Jun 2013 #46
Why is Issa not going there? nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #48
I think Issa isn't going there because the right likes the datamining. It is an important applegrove Jun 2013 #61
Well at least you understand this is nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #62
if they're actually on the 'far left,' it's unlikely they're low information voters. HiPointDem Jun 2013 #49
"We have to fight for our coalition on the margins." Wrong ... Scuba Jun 2013 #19
^^^ THIS MNBrewer Jun 2013 #22
+1. We need to fight for our coalition among the marginalized. winter is coming Jun 2013 #60
Backwards... ForeignandDomestic Jun 2013 #23
Rand Paul does not stand up for civil liberties and the Constitution. baldguy Jun 2013 #33
No, the fringe left is just wallowing in its love of fantasy. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #28
Are you in favor of the NSA domestic spying programs? mhatrw Jun 2013 #37
I think they need to be scaled back and subject to more transparency and controls. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #38
I meant domestic SECURITY programs. mhatrw Jun 2013 #52
What do you mean by "domestic security programs?" geek tragedy Jun 2013 #53
This has been happening on the ground in my city loyalsister Jun 2013 #35
Simple solution. Shut down the NSA, prosecute banksters rather than whistleblowers. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #43
Clearly a game changer. avaistheone1 Jun 2013 #64
Good analysis. They need the Paulbots nt flamingdem Jun 2013 #47
Democratic politicians have to start representing the people. liberal_at_heart Jun 2013 #50
Yes they are. Dawson Leery Jun 2013 #51
These conspiracy theories baffle me. JoeyT Jun 2013 #57
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Looks like the right is m...»Reply #14