Oh, my. Our "friend" is now to the Right of Instapundit re: the Lieberman bill

[beachmom]

I missed this but was alerted via Glenn Greenwald about Scott Brown's SUPPORT of Lieberman's absurd bill to strip U.S. citizens of their citizenship and rights all in the name of hysteria. Well, Instapundit, had this to say:

JOE LIEBERMAN’S TERRORIST EXPATRIATION ACT. I think this is a terrible idea. As I’ve said before, we need a bright-line distinction between citizens and noncitizens to reduce the temptation of political abuse. This blurs that distinction, which is a bad thing.

Meanwhile, the junior Senator from the great state of Massachusetts saw it differently:


Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) has “signed on to Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (ID-Conn.) proposal to strip Americans of their citizenship and the rights that go along with it if they associate with foreign terrorists or terrorist groups and are captured outside the U.S.,” Roll Call reports.

Lieberman and Brown are scheduled to unveil the legislation Thursday during a noontime news conference on Capitol Hill. The Senators are set to be joined by Pennsylvania Reps. Jason Altmire (D) and Charlie Dent (R), who are co-sponsoring the legislation in the House.

The proposal, known as the Terrorist Expatriation Act, would build on a World War II era law that enables the government to strip the citizenship of any American fighting for an organized military of an enemy of the U.S.

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/scott-brown-backs-lieberman-bill-to-revoke-citizenship-of-terror-suspects/

I think somebody is not being advised very well. Um, does this match the values of the people of Massachusetts? I think not.


Edit: oh, my. Hmm.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/06/2296285.aspx

[Inuca]

1. "A privilege, not a right" ????

(from the last link) Anybody with a legal background (or just more knowledge/understanding of these issues) around here can comment on that? I have no idea.

Edit to add: also it seems to me that the comment implies (maybe, not sure) a distinction between naturalized and born citizens. I belong to the first category (and yes, I do feel privileged to have acquired the US citizenship, but not in a legal sense), and I always thought that from the moment I got my naturaliztion papers, I was on equal footing IN ALL RESPECTS with everybody else. Am I wrong in assuming this?

[karynnj]

4. I always would have made the same assumption as you did

That I think is what is most unsettling about this amendment. Apparently their argument is that, in essence, becoming American was a contract - on both sides - and that it was violated by the very act of supporting a terrorist. Three obvious problems are:
1) that it seems to be triggered on the accusation, not the conviction which is contrary to everything I ever believed was American law and
2) it makes naturalized citizen second class. Previously, becoming President was the only thing I ever heard about as being different.
3) who determines what "supporting" terrorists actually means. What about naturalized Irish Americans who send money that they have reason to know will end up with the IRA? If you go back in time, would doing anything in support of the Contras have counted? Even with what Joe Lieberman should not be calling "Islamafascists", where do you draw the line - everyone that contributes to what looks like a Muslim charity, but which the US later finds links to extremists? Coming out with this in reaction to the Time Square bomber makes it look more reasonable to some, but this starts a very slippery slope. Not to mention, if passed, how long would it be before an American born person does something heinous and there is a call to expand this to everyone?

What stuns me more than Brown, who I do think of as a "deep" thinker, is what is Lieberman thinking. There are so many examples in Jewish history where we were the outsider subjected to special laws. Lieberman has had a very good record on civil rights, back to the time when he was one of the Yale students who actually went on the trips South to demand registration of black voters. That was in keeping with his heritage - this isn't.

[Inuca]

6. Thanks for the comment Karyn

Interesting fact about Lieberman, I did not know about his civil right record from back when. And I 10000% agree with your last sentence. Unfortunately I don't think this "jews and Israel first and foremost no matter what and how and no matter how much it may contradict our other principles and ideas" is that uncommon, especially among older folk. My mother (VERY old, still living in Romania) mentions the younger but still in their 70s and 80s ladies that she meets once or twice per week at the kind of senior center organized by the jewish community over there, and where she says that she is almost afraid to mention anything vaguely political during the conversation because she knows she will be the odd one out and cannot take conflict any longer. She was (and still is AFAIK) very enthusiastic about BO's rise and election and she recalls how disappointed she was when she realized that in that smallish group of elderly, mostly well educated, Jewish ladies she was the only one not to regard him as an "enemy". But I digress :-)....

[MBS]

2. front page story, above the fold, in today's Globe

. . .and not gushingly supportive, either
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/07/brown_wants_citizenship_revoked_for_terror_ties/

[karynnj]

5. This says it affects native born as well

Can we apply it retroactively to everyone who supported the Contras? - definitely a terrorist group!

This really ends up being broad based:
"Some said the Terrorist Expatriation Act was worded so broadly that those who write checks to groups on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations could be at risk of losing citizenship."

After 911, the DOJ charged many organizations that were, at least on the surface, Islamic charities. Now, I would bet that Lieberman gets at least as many solicitations from Israel based Jewish charities that he has no additional information on. He should be able to see that someone could make a donation to one of these charities assuming they were doing what they said. The idea that they first should check the terrorism list might never occur to them. (here's one story - http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/02/25/doj-chasing-islamic-charities-for-terrorism-financing/tab/article/ ) I noticed in yesterday's article, some commented on checks that ended up with the IRA. Certainly a terrorist group.

[Mass]

3. Sigh. Why did MA people not think before electing Brown?

And that he would support this is not even surprising. He spent a lot of time playing on fear after the Christmas bombing.

[Inuca]

7. Good question! Why?

I understand rebellion, Coakley's mistakes, whatever, but the guy is bordering Palin territory in his ineptitude.

[TayTay]

8. It was a "fling" by the voters.

In all seriousness, Scott Brown was a "one night stand" that we now can't get rid of. He was cute, different from our usual safe choices in politicians and looked like he might be exotic and exciting. We were thinking with our short-term brains and wanted a "good time" for a while. Obviously, the thinking, long-term part of the brain that weighs choices and mkes sound decisions based on comparing data was not engaged in our voting decision back then.

Now, we can't get rid of the guy. Yeah, he was an okay one-night stand, nothing great but not bad either, only now he won't leave us alone. He wants us to hang out with him and his dumb low-rent drinking buddies, he wants us to go out with him and be photographed on his arm to give him some credibility and he wants us to take him home to meet our parents and take the relationship to a very serious level. Ack! What the hell were we drinking back in January? Sterno?

We should have listened to our level-headed friends who told us that this guy was really, really not our type. Brown thinks everything is just hunky-dory in his relationship with us. We, on the other hand, cringe every time we hear his name, thinking, "what embarrassing thing has he done this time?"

We are hand-fasted to a moron until 2012. The State that gave us John Adams, Daniel Webster, Charles Sumner, John and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, is held fast for 2 more years to an idiot. Well, that should knock the "holier than thou" attitude out of us. But at what price?

The old adage had it right: Marry in haste, repent in leisure.

[Inuca]

9. He IS cute, I give you that

not my type, but cute :-)

[TayTay]

10. Yeah, he is attractive. But so are those folks from "Jersey Shore"

but they have no business being US Senators. Neither does Scott Brown.

Seriously, Scott Brown is a cross between Snooky and The Situation. (Senator Snooky? Oh. My. God!)

[Inuca]

12. Never watched Jersey Shore

Lived very close to it for quite a few years though, does that count :-)? And yeah, your senatorial average IQ suffered a serious blow (the average is still better than many states, if you get my drift), but you are at the top of the list in terms of looks.

[karynnj]

13. Please NO - Christie is bad enough

[karynnj]

11. I absolutely love your posts - and this is another classic

I hope that this legislation will end up soundly rejected. My regrets that your state does not have a second deserving Senator and hope that even apolitical people will tire of this strangely exhibitionist excuse for a politician. (He might make the case for why NE reserve is a good thing.)

[TayTay]

15. I have missed posting here

I have one old functioning laptop right now. (The other machine needs a repair.) I had to take that laptop to my contracting job, so it was not available to me at home. (Long story involving networking problems, now resolved.)

Anyway, many thanks for the nice compliments and my deepest, most sincere apologies for my State inflicting Scott Brown on the nation. (There aren't enough "Hail Mary's" in the world to atone for that sin in confession.)

I agree; the man is a strumpet. Me being me, I can only express my utter and sincere Puritan guilty feelings about imposing this fraud on the country thusly: (and in way, way over-heated language, of course)

I desire to be humbled before God. It was a great delusion of Satan that deceived me in that sad time. I did it not out of any anger, malice, or ill will...I desire to lie in the dust and earnestly beg forgiveness of all those I have given just cause of sorrow and offense, and whose relations were taken away and accused.

Anne Putnam on repenting of her role in the Salem Witchcraft delusion. Well, it was a delusion and needed apologizing for, don't you think?

(BTW, that "lie in the dust" bit is metaphorical. My knees have been a bit achy lately and actually lying in the dust is out of the question. Just an FYI.)

[beachmom]

17. We miss your sense of humor and total wonkiness!!

Speaking of which, I highly recommend Ezra Klein's answer to the totally stupid & hyped Politico's Playbook. Ezra is now creating a Wonkbook.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/wonkbook/

[TayTay]

19. Oooh, good stuff there

Thanks for the tip. I respect Ezra Klein. His stuff is well-written and well-researched.

Politico is insipid. They started out breathless to cover everything and now are asthmatic in their coverage of everything. (They are wheezy in the coverage and panting.)

[karynnj]

20. But you bear no blame - you voted against him

and helped the wonderful senior Senator get a genuine landslide - a higher percent than Obama even. (It still amazes me that Brown's fan club on the Boston Herald misses the point that the senior Senator got nearly twice as many votes in his race. They also are oblivious that Brown is up for re-election first.

[beachmom]

16. Just curious. As a dissenting Mass. resident to the "fling", do you actually

have real live anecdotal evidence that people who voted for Brown regret their vote now? Seriously? Because, let's face it, NONE of the good JK forum folks from Mass. fell for this guy. However, some of their friends and relatives did. So are y'all really hearing regret from them, or just assuming they regret it?

[TayTay]

18. I am starting to hear regrets

The thing is, Scotty Brown is not that bright. He honestly, truly is not that bright. There was an unusual combination of factors that led to his election in January that are not repeatable in his next election.

I am hearing Scott Brown voters repent of their choice. Some are repenting because he is not conservative enough. Fine. However, quite a bit more are repenting because he is just not a consistent or smart enough guy for Massachusetts.

It's one thing to yell, "throw the bums out." It's quite another thing to realize that you have thrown a bum IN to the Senate. This guy appeals to those who have only hot button issues. He is not a good choice for the savvy State of MA, a State which understands that it wants a partnership with the Federal Government.

I am honestly hearing from folks who voted for Brown and who feel, well, snookered by him.

[Mass]

24. Sadly, the Globe continues his fluffy coverage.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/09/a_star_from_day_one_brown_settles_in/

A star from day one, Brown settles in
The surprise senator generally votes with his party, as he carves an image as an independent and likable player
...

Most of the article is how much everybody like him. It takes two pages before Viser and Mulligan start talking about real things, like votes record and ideology. Probably hoping people would have stopped reading at this point.


Seventy percent of Brown’s votes are opposite those of Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat. Many of his votes in agreement with Kerry have been on uncontroversial procedural, ceremonial, or confirmation measures.

The business community in Massachusetts has been relatively pleased with the stances he’s taken. But Brown angered advocates for teenagers when he voted against a measure that would have funded a summer jobs program for youth, including some 1,500 in Massachusetts, because he said it didn’t include a way to pay for the program.

Brown also clashed with the Massachusetts Hospital Association, criticizing the powerful Bay State group for its support of the health care legislation pushed by Democrats.Continued...

Yet some of Brown’s positions have begun to suggest how he will set his compass. Last week, five days after the attempted terrorist bombing in Times Square, Brown announced that he was filing legislation with Senator Joseph Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut, that in the future would strip American citizens of their citizenship if they were found to be aiding terrorist groups.

Critics, including several Republicans, have said the legislation would be unconstitutional. But Brown struck a note of patriotic indignation. “If someone wants to burn their passport, let’s help them along,’’ he said.

[karynnj]

25. This is fluff, but with occasional passive aggressive comments

that imply that he is in over his head. I STILL don't see how he can both be 100% against earmarks -- and support the engine the military doesn't want. Not to mention, I guess they have forgotten that they trumpeted his potential committee assignments as "good for MA" - like the House assignments are. (In actuality, commerce where Kerry heads communications and technology and small business are likely far better for the state - and he is a senior member on both in the majority party.)

Republican Senator Scott P. Brown has a strong chance of winning a coveted seat on at least one committee with jurisdiction over national security spending, according to Senate aides, which could give him a boost as he tries to fill the late Edward M. Kennedy’s role as leading procurer of federal contracts for Massachusetts’ defense industry.
<snip>
Brown will be urgently seeking to build a positive track record in the three years remaining of Kennedy’s term, which Brown assumed in a special election last month after Kennedy’s death in August. It will be a tall order for a newcomer in the minority party, and his ability to take credit for federal largesse could be largely determined by how well he works with more senior Bay State lawmakers, all of them Democrats.

But in the Senate, Brown will have room to maneuver.

Massachusetts’ other senator, John F. Kerry, does not sit on committees with similar powers of the purse. Kerry is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, a top-rated panel for its role in shaping US foreign policy but which primarily controls foreign aid. He is also a member of the Finance Committee, which oversees policy, and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation panel, which has far less budget power than the committees to which Brown is seeking appointment.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/02/12/brown_may_win_seat_on_key_panel

[karynnj]

26. Here is the transcript of the interview behind it --- Brown really is an empty suit

First question on what have been the highlights so far:

Well, the highlight is obviously getting here, and then trying to get our office painted and moved in, and hire a staff. You know, not miss a step or have a misstep. Be familiar with the issues, and try to get to know everybody, and gain their trust, and then work to solve problems. We immediately, as you know, filed the payroll tax reduction amendment. My first vote was the jobs bill where I voted for cloture and supported the Democrat initiative on that. I've voted with other measures too, even though I may not have agreed with them, to vote for cloture to allow the process to continue with the hopes that it would go over to the House and be improved. I could write a book about the highlights.

Well, it is a big deal to get your office painted. Seeing that he had trouble with a paragraph - I don't think the book would be all that interesting! (The question was whether he was against them - which is what he said "yeah" to, but the rest of his answer really contradicts that.

The ear marks question:

For this year, yeah. I think I think the earmarks process is abused. There are certain projects that are worthy, and when I do fight for things, I will go and speak to the appropriate people through the authorizing process. And it needs to have jobs associated with it. It needs to be something that is going to create jobs usually, and not be one of those silly wasteful projects we hear about it.' I think there's a better way to do it, so I'm going to continue to work to try and improve that process.

What does Brown think that Kerry and the Representatives are funding with their earmarks??

Asked again, so in the first year no earmarks:

Yeah. You gotta work through the authorization process. You work through he administration, get it included in the budget. I'm going to still work with the delegation members to try to let them know my thoughts on particular projects, and try to get them funded.

How are these NOT earmarks?

Pushed again that he would not submit any - he responds that the process is broken!

As to incoherence - it is very hard to even understand what he is speaking about - if I hadn't followed things, this would have been completely confusing.

Usually you have about three months to do everything we've done. We had two weeks. It was a battle getting sworn in. and the fact that we pushed to get sworn in -- even as I was kind of getting sworn in there was still some strategy going on back home with that whole process. And then we got hit with the storm. So if I hadn't pushed to be sworn in, it would have been three more weeks before I actually got sworn in, because we had the storm, and then they vacation, and then it would have been the third week. In that three week block that we had the storm here -- Steve was on board, and I think Colin and Gail were on board, but that was it. I had the truck, so we were actually able to go through snow banks and transport people back and forth. We were literally the only people working in the entire, in any building at all. We were downstairs in the bunker, the trailers, interviewing people. So that week of snow actually gave us an advantage to get up and running and hire people. Just think of it. You're right, going from being a guy in the state senate from Wrentham to being a United States senator. Having to close down my law practice, stop and transition out of the state legislature, obviously deal with turmoil with the family, hire a staff, get new offices, get them up and painted and fully functional. Get the technology, computers, get the security, get the briefings, get the training, do the ethics training, get our finances in order, figure out what our budget is. Go from A to Z in three weeks. And still be functioning and representing and solving problems. One of our first calls, I remember down in the trailer, was Britney Gengel's dad, saying, 'Hey I think they found my daughter but they won't help us. What can you do? Can you help?' You know, got on the phone, reached out to Hillary Clinton, reached out to the Army folks. Got the DNA investigators down there, they identified the body, we were able to help get it back quickly. That was the first case where we said, 'Wow, thank God we were here.'

It is also rather despicable that he uses the Gengel case like this - especially in light of the fact that the Gengel's spoke of all the help they got from McGovern and Kerry. McGovern went to Haiti with him a few weeks before this.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/05/09/transcript_from_the_interview_with_scott_brown/

(It is ironic that Kerry transcripts, like the one for the Politico interview and many that were done in 2008, are better than the article - completely unedited. Brown's are not the same.) His comments on Senator interactions is hilarious - as is his last answer on how he is figuring out his position on votes - and his desire to always be the first to vote is beyond childish.

He did mention that "now that Kerry is healthy" they are biking together. (Likely a painless way for Kerry to build a friendly relationship.)

[TayTay]

14. Scott Brown as the Queen of Hearts

"Sentence first -- verdict afterwords."

Good God in heaven and this idiot is a Senator from Massachusetts. Massachusetts, home of John Adams who pledged his honor in 1770 to make sure that British soldiers accused of murder got a fair trail. (The Boston Massacre case.)

Brown's action is repulsive and insulting. Brown, the new Red Queen of the Senate, needs to review the whole idea of "the rule of law." His current notions place him somewhere between The Inquisition and the KGB.

I am horrified that this Neanderthal is a Senator from my state. Heretoforth, I shall be forced to place a bag on my head to hide my identity from others from the total shame of it all. (Does the identity of my other Senator mitigate this? Maybe, but this is one hell of a sin to bear, electing a moron to the US Senate.)

[karynnj]

21. I think your other Senator mitigates it

but I can see that Mr Brown will be a thorn in the side of many MA Democrats. He really does sound like the Red Queen.

[ladym55]

27. I feel your pain

I spent most of 2004-2008 wanting to apologize for my Ohio plates every time I crossed the Massachusetts border.

I know what it's like to have IDIOTS representing my state ... like John BOehner. Then there was the notorious Kenny Blackwell, George Voinovich, and Mike DeWine. The scary thing is that Mike DeWine is running for statewide office this year, so we could get the unscrupulous creep on the state level.

The one plus from Ohio(and it's a biggie) is the REAL Senator Brown ... Sherrod Brown, that is. The other guy is an imposter: the Senator from the Centerfold who is supporting legislation even John BOehner thinks is bad ... talk about a REALLY low bar.

[karynnj]

22. Strong Boston Globe editorial skering the idea - and Brown himself

They end by saying:

Given that this bill is probably unconstitutional and not any sort of real deterrent, it seems designed as a vehicle for expressing political anger over terrorism. But the debate over terrorism has been plagued by tougher-than-thou pronouncements from politicians who fail to fully think out the ramifications of their policies.

Brown, who got a lot of mileage out of applause lines about the dangers of “lawyering up’’ terrorism suspects, is, unfortunately, a major offender.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/05/08/threat_to_strip_citizenship_wont_dissuade_terrorists/

Accusations of "failing to fully think out ramifications" and basically calling him an opportunist are really calling him out here. Interesting that the first comment is from a conservative who hates it because it could be used against the tea partiers.

[JI7]

23. if only they were sexual child abusers

they would be worthy of keeping citizenship.

all this crap about not wanting suspected terrorists sounds even more stupid when you look at others who are suspected and convicted of things like rape, murder, etc.

[wisteria]

28. These are the kinds of people you get when people just believe commercialized political hype

And, elect people like Brown to office is what is termed "needed change" or the "send a message candidate". Cloakley may not have been exciting or "new", but she was capable, smart,competent, and reasonable. But, Brown was the "41" guy, the game changer, the one that was going to set Obama and the Democrat's straight. Now, people realize he isn't as exciting as they thought and he was and isn't even really competent. He is just struggling to make a name for himself and setting up his campaign for 2012 by going along with whatever the latest politcal trends are.