AP's Ron Fournier: "Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag Burning"

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300127_pf.html

Thursday, June 23, 2005; 2:55 AM


WASHINGTON -- Symbols are everything in politics. They can get you elected _ or defeated. That's why Democrats fear getting singed by a proposed flag-burning ban, forced into a vote that Republicans will cast as a test of patriotism. The GOP-led House voted 286-130 on a measure Wednesday that would give Congress authority to ban desecration of a U.S. flag. Its prospects aren't good in the Senate, but Republicans could still get what they want _ an issue that divides or even conquers Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Democratic Party leaders generally don't want to tamper with free-speech rights in the Constitution, but they were split on whether to bow to political pressure. After all, the flag means more than ever after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and Republicans are not shy about evoking Sept. 11 in political fights. They did it in the 2002 congressional elections, gaining seats, and again in 2004, when terrorism remained the defining issue of congressional races and President Bush's re-election bid. Republicans returned to Sept. 11 in the flag-burning debate.

An informal survey by The Associated Press found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment _ one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote.

<>It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law. They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others _ and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.

[liveoaktx]

1. Please... "FEAR"? Not in this lifetime

Is there any way the AP could use a punched up word for Democrats, such as "Angry", "Dislike" "Object". etc ?

[Beetwasher]

2. Dems FUCKED UP By NOT PUSHING The "Pro-Lynching" Issue

Seriously...WTF was up w/ letting that slide???

[Ganja Ninja]

3. Personally I could care less.

This is just another of their annual attempts to distract people from real problems with the flag burning issue. It happens once every year same as prayer in school and the displaying of the ten commandments. We just keep going through this cycle. I would almost like to give them this one so we don't have to keep kicking this dead horse.

[bowens43]

5. The Constitution was created to limit the power of government.

The proposed Amendment will limit the freedom of the people. This is EXTREMELY important. It takes a big bite out of the 1st Amendment. If passed and ratified , it will set precedent. Do NOT underestimate the importance of this issue. There is no amendment more important to maintaining our freedom then the 1st Amendment.


Once we begin to accept that the Constitution can be used to place limitations on Liberty we may as well accept that individual freedom is no longer a concept in which we believe.

[MindPilot]

4. Does the bill actually define "desecration"?

And isn't the timing nice; right before July Fourth.

[bowens43]

6. No , it doesn't.

Nor does it make "desecration" illegal. It gives congress the authority to pass laws making "desecration" illegal. Congress will decide the meaning of "desecration".

[woo me with science]

7. This is bull.

Every moderate Republican I've talked to is enraged by this, as they were over the Terry Schiavo intrusiveness. This is going to backfire big time on Republicans.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. When the FUCK does flag desecration pose a threat to others?

Hillary, I love 'ya but get off the drugs and explain THAT one to me... please? You are my Senator.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. well

lets say you burned a flag in front of a shopping center with kids around. That's a treat to others. Or burning it in the middle of a protest march, like what happened in NYC with that paper dragon.

[Dob Bole]

20. Yeah, I remember that...

that's why I hereby propose the Paper Dragon Burning Amendment of 2005.

"Congress shall prohibit the incineration of paper dragons, or any lesser burnings thereof."

[flpoljunkie]

10. You and MagicRat make excellent points. A ridiculous finesse attempt on

its face. Perhaps there is something in her full statement that would explain this bizarre postulation.

[quaoar]

11. The article is exactly correct

The Republicans are pushing this because they are hoping Democrats shoot it down.

They don't care about flag burning. They just need another wedge issue. It would not surprise me if Rove was not the driving force behind this.

This will be the Willie Horton of 2006. It will be gay marriage and abortion and every disgusting lie ever told by the GOP all wrapped up in the image of the Stars and Stripes going up in flames in a 30-second TV ad with images of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton in the background.

[TayTay]

13. I don't think so

the war fever and excessive reaction to 9/11 are fading. I don't think this is going to work. It's too blatant. 60% of the people are seriously questioning this war and the actions of the * Admin in support of it. These people know this is a smokescreen.

[quaoar]

16. Whether it works or not remains to be seen

But it is clearly their intention to give it a try.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. O.K. So let's counter with this:

"Why is the GOP always trying to divide Americans? We are all Americans, whether we are Democrats or Republicans."

[Al-CIAda]

12. "Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag Burning"

...or Dems allow the FASCISTS to push them once more.

[Al-CIAda]

15. The Rude Pundit on the flag issue-

6/23/2005
What the Real Desecration Is:
Let us say, and why not, that the Rude Pundit decides to get his nationalistic mojo workin' and needs himself an American flag. In order to get those Stars and Stripes, he doesn't head over to the Government Office of Official Flag-Givin' because, you know, no such office actually exists. Nope, instead, the Rude Pundit has to go shoppin'.

Yep, in order to get himself one of those sacred objects of our national pride, he's gotta head on over to the local Target (since the Rude Pundit would rather shove his hand into a fire ant pile than shop at Wal-Mart) or, you know, Stop 'N Shop, slam down his hard-earned cash, pathetically flirt with the cashier, bag that fucker, and head on home with his Made in China red, white, and blue (hey, maybe that's why the red is a little brighter). Then Target'll have to order some more flags. And somewhere in Wujiang City, slave-wage laborers or perhaps prisoners will get to work makin' more flags of freedom. Because if there's somethin' Americans love more than the U.S.A., it's cheap shit.

Con't-
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[Cha]

19. Rude Pundit Nails

it, again! :patriot:

[m_welby]

17. but how will we ever dispose of a flag?

since the traditional process for disposing of the American flag is burning. just like the traditional triangualr folding.

[cestpaspossible]

18. Fournier is such a blatant GOP tool, it must be embarassing for him