Levin, Discussing Warrantless Surveillance to JABBS: "You're Annoying Me!"

[JABBS]

As part of JABBS' continuing coverage of the debate over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, I called one of the better-known conservative legal minds in the country: radio host Mark Levin.

Once I identified myself to the call-screener as a "liberal," I was on the air within two minutes. Could Levin explain to me what I saw as an illogical stance by the Bush Administration?

I offered Levin my premise -- a variation of what I have been writing on JABBS:

The White House claimed it had "inherent authority" to conduct warrantless surveillance, but then supported legislation from Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) to "further codify" the surveillance program. It ultimately cut a deal with Senate Republicans to provide Congressional oversight for warrantless surveillance. Why?

Levin repeated his basic premise: the White House has "inherent authority" and doesn't need Congressional approval or oversight.

That didn't answer my question, though, so I tried a different tact, even though I was clearly irritating him by daring to ask a follow-up.

So I asked him: Why did the White House cut a deal he felt it didn't need to make? Why didn't President Bush get warrantless surveillance approved in the first Patriot Act, when "he had Congress at his disposal."

But that was too much for Levin, who quickly dismissed me, saying "You're annoying me!" before hanging up. To his listeners, he suggested I was just going around and around in circles, and would never understand his logic -- a point I'd agree with.

***

Conservatives apparently don't want to debate such details. As DeWine said, "We don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional."

Conservatives want the debate to be about homeland security. Are you for it or against it? Do you want to give President Bush the tools he needs, or not?

Some conservatives are quick to point to minutiae when the debate is over whether Bush lied when saying, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," because the flood waters "topped" the levees. When liberals say, "You're missing the big picture: the president and FEMA were caught unprepared in spite of clear warning," these conservatives argue that liberals "hate Bush."

But with the minutiae of warrantless surveillance -- the question of why the administration supported DeWine's legislation, and ultimately cut a deal, and the ramifications of those decisions -- these conservatives take the opposite stance. In this case, they argue that liberals don't see the big picture. When liberals say, "But what about the law?" these conservatives argue that liberals "hate Bush."

In both cases, I think these conservatives are wrong.

***

This item first appeared at JABBS.