« More conservative attacks on McCain '08 | Main | Jon Stewart goes Colbert? »

June 07, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d25c69e200d8345c8c1369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary's flag-burning feint fools Dowd, others:

» Senate set to reject gay marriage ban from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
President Bush offered a new pledge of support Monday for a constitutional amendment that would ban [Read More]

Comments

(a) Hillary's position requires reporters and commentators to actually understand a complicated political/legal question

It's not clear what's complicated about the question--she's supporting legislation she assumes is unconstitutional.

You say there's a complicated legal issue involved, but then never actually explain it. And those links to news stories don't either - they simply repeat she's for a law that bans flag burning. That is not correct.

The law she co-sponsored bans flag burning intended to intimidate others. The origin of this federal law is a 2003 Supreme Court case, Virginia v. Black, that upheld a Virginia anti-Klan law prohibiting flag burning on the property of another to intimidate them.

While there may be constitutional issues with meeting the evidentiary threshold to charge someone under Hillary's law (i.e., what if the police arrest all flag burners thinking they are all Klansmen?), Hillary's support does not contradict her support of general flag-burning as free speech. And saying she supports a ban on flag burning is not really right.

Nitpicking if you ask me. Maureen Dowd is hyperbolic. Is this news? Hillary Clinton is a sellout. Not news either. I realize this is your "angle," holding the press to account, but Democrats like Clinton acting like Conservatives is a bigger issue to me personally. So whether she's making flag burning a crime, or supporting a constitutional amendment, it's all the same misguided crap. Which is why I couldn't care less if Dowd misstated her position. The part where Hillary sucks--she got that right.

So it seems we are supposed to somehow divine a politician's intentions by how they speak rather than their actions? Actions are louder than words. We also know what a politician's words are worth.

Doesn't seem to be a complicated issue to me...

The government has no business saying what I can do with my property or my speech. Hillary does not agree with my opinion.

Therefore, Hillary does not share a significant political view with me.

The mechanism of her choice is irrelevant.

The comments to this entry are closed.