From Time Magazine:

“Other Democrats think Schumer is just looking to make up for his support of Mukasey. They fear that attaching a torture ban to the eavesdropping bill would not only give Republicans another chance to beat up on Democrats, but would end with another humiliating defeat. Worse, they say, a failure this time could be more damaging: losing a straight up-or-down vote over waterboarding would implicitly legalize it, they say.”

Despite all of the polls that Glenn cited earlier expressing disapproval of waterboarding, the Republicans are itching for another fight on “torture.” This has become an issue that they feel they can win because it is now not a moral issue at all – it is a National Security issue. For them being “pro-torture” is the new equivalent of being “strong on National Security.

Do you embrace “torture” or are you weak on National Security?

Yes, that is the debate we’re having in this country.

And the Democrats are, at this point, frightened to even take up the issue.

I should have something else to say at this point, but I don’t.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1680943,00.html

“Waterboarding is something of which every American should be proud.” ~Deroy Murdock, National Review.

There’s your “overreach.” Not only does he say that “there is nothing repugnant about waterboarding” but in comments at the National Review he says:

“[T]he whole point of my piece is that I AM complaining that we do NOT waterboard enough. Yes, we need to waterboard more. At the moment, waterboarding appears to have been banned by both the CIA and the Pentagon. As I say pretty directly in my piece, Bush should reinstate waterboarding publicly and proudly, and I called him deluded for thinking he would gain anything by going along with the Left and ditching waterboarding. . . .”

Just a couple of years ago when John McCain was still the “inevitable” GOP nominee this entire debate would be unfathomable. Now, it is inevitable. Being against waterboarding now hurts him with “the base.”

The GOP just watched Schumer wilt at the mere mention of a “Jack Bauer” scenario, and they liked what they saw. That’s why they’re going to “bring it” on the “torture” issue.

As soon as they mention torture as a “National Security” issue, spineless Democrats (like Schumer), trembling with fear, raise a white flag – regardless of where the public stands, or that they have no reason to be afraid of this issue. It’s become reflex; it’s what they do.

Their fear of all these “national security” issues is irrational – no polls support those fears – only the Beltway Wise Ones issuing warnings to them.

Until they stop taking those warnings seriously, they’re going to keep on irrationally caving on these issues. That’s why Glenn spends so much time ridiculing Beltway wisdom; and it’s why his post today seemed so sadly inevitable.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/11/torture-and-progress.html

“Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) showed such courage Friday when they announced their support for attorney-general nominee Michael B. Mukasey." ~Fred Hiatt

Fred Hiatt may think that betraying all your constituents is the very definition of “courage.”

Not surprisingly, Schumer’s constituents have a completely different take on his “courage” and I do believe the word is “cowardice.”

See the YouTube where they express this opinion quite clearly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU1ABD7LscE

“I once strongly suspected that one reason for the limitless expansion of the power of Executive was that junta had already decided that it would never allow a Democrat to take the White House in January 2009.

I now suspect that the prospect of these Democrats running the show does not worry them in the slightest.” ~Blue Meme

Really?

There’s a post over at Booman that had me thinking about this issue. It’s titled, “Hey Wingers: Would You Let Hillary Spy Without a Warrant?”

Considering how I would feel about an operative like Karl Rove having access to his political enemies conversations, e-mail, personal records etc., I can’t imagine the wingers being too comfortable with someone like Paul Begala in the Hillary administration having access to all her political enemies data.

Why would they be? Why wouldn’t they be afraid that Hillary would abuse this power? (I am, and I’m not a winger.)

The Republicans thought they’d be the “permanent” party when they started implementing this lawlessness, would they want anything to change if they lost the White House?

The author of the post asks: “Because having this power doesn’t mean that it won’t be used for political purposes or for retribution or blackmail, right?...

If you are afraid that she would abuse this power, then guess what? There is already someone who is abusing this power. A power that nobody should have in the first place.”

And the final question, which drives home an important and interesting point:

“And if you think that it is ok for one President to have this ability but not another President, then it really isn’t about fighting terrorism, is it?

For this reason, I think that if Hillary gets elected, we’ll suddenly find Republicans “re-thinking” some of their theories about executive power. Look how fast the Republicans turned around on the “filibuster” once they were in the minority. I think something like that will probably happen again.

http://tinyurl.com/33qr9l