General Hayden and the C.I.A.

[ndebord]

It is now official, GWB has nominated the NSA general to head CIA. Time to look at his qualifications for the job and the first issue that will headline his nomination is his support and work for the President in performing wireless wiretaps while at NSA.

General Hayden told the world back in January of 2006 that he went ahead with the warrantless wiretaps because the Justice Department assured him that it was legal and that he also ran it by "3 wise men" in the NSA legal department. (You can't make this stuff up!)

On Mon Jan 23, 2006, General Hayden was questioned by the press about his views on warrantless wiretapping and the legal justification for it in terms of the 4th Amendment.


QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder. I'd like to stay on the same issue, and that had to do with the standard by which you use to target your wiretaps. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure. That's what it says.

QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure..

GEN. HAYDEN . . . Just to be very clear -- and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable."

The actual language:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Judy G. Russell]

Sigh... An entire two hundred plus years of fourth amendment jurisprudence down the drain ...

[ndebord]

Sigh... An entire two hundred plus years of fourth amendment jurisprudence down the drain ...

Judy,

The word in military circles is that this guy is a spit and polish general, not a promising omen from my personal perspective.

[Judy G. Russell]

It's fascinating to watch Republicans saying this guy is too military for them...

[ndebord]

It's fascinating to watch Republicans saying this guy is too military for them...



Judy,

Yeah, what's that all about? Are they worried about what might come out in the hearings?

[Judy G. Russell]

Are they worried about what might come out in the hearings?I think they're far more afraid of what might come out in the elections!

[ktinkel]

The word in military circles is that this guy is a spit and polish general, not a promising omen from my personal perspective.Then there is the question of whether any military person should manage a civilian intelligence agency. Rumsfield is already usurping much of the traditional CIA function within the Pentagon. It gives me chills to see CIA handed over to a general.

On Morning Edition today a batch of old CIA hands all raved about how wonderful this appointment is, saying that some of the old guys who quit under Porter Goss are now considering returning to the agency.

Gee, wonder where they came from? From what I read, almost no one thinks Hayden is the right guy.

[ndebord]

Judy,

ND>> Are they worried about what might come out in the hearings?

JGR>> I think they're far more afraid of what might come out in the elections.

Yes, the elections. The most interesting off-year elections in the history of the Republic, if you ask me. I say that because of the historical record that suggests the rascals will be thrown out to some degree and because of the technological probability that they will not.

[Judy G. Russell]

The way that the various election districts have been gerrymandered gives an enormous advantage even to rascals who really should be thrown out. My own election district (http://www.house.gov/ferguson/images/Nj07_108.gif) consists of parts of four counties!

[ktinkel]

The way that the various election districts have been gerrymandered gives an enormous advantage even to rascals who really should be thrown out. My own election district (http://www.house.gov/ferguson/images/Nj07_108.gif) consists of parts of four counties!Have you looked at the current Texas U.S. Rep districts (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/plans/planc01374/viewer.htm?Title=PLAN%2001374C%20-U.S.%20CONGRESSIONAL%20DISTRICTS%2C%20109th%20CONG RESS)? (I hope that link works; if not you can get there here (http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/) and then click on U.S. Congressional Districts at lower left.

Some of them look like spaghetti: 13, 31, 15, 25. Tsk.

[Judy G. Russell]

Those are pretty bad, all right, but no worse than the NJ districts (http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/cong_dist/cd108_gen/ind_pdf/New_Jersey/NJ_CDloc.pdf).

[ndebord]

Then there is the question of whether any military person should manage a civilian intelligence agency. Rumsfield is already usurping much of the traditional CIA function within the Pentagon. It gives me chills to see CIA handed over to a general.

On Morning Edition today a batch of old CIA hands all raved about how wonderful this appointment is, saying that some of the old guys who quit under Porter Goss are now considering returning to the agency.

Gee, wonder where they came from? From what I read, almost no one thinks Hayden is the right guy.

Kathleen,

Looks like we need Ralph's input on this. Perhaps he can help convince Hayden that he should resign first before trying on his new civilian hat!

;-)

[ktinkel]

Those are pretty bad, all right, but no worse than the NJ districts (http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/cong_dist/cd108_gen/ind_pdf/New_Jersey/NJ_CDloc.pdf).Guess not. I especially like 5 and 6.

There’s gotta be a better way! I was reading a suggestion to have computers do it, but I suspect there are some social/structural issues that might be difficult for a computer. Still, it would be more impartial.

[ktinkel]

Looks like we need Ralph's input on this. Perhaps he can help convince Hayden that he should resign first before trying on his new civilian hat!Yeah, right — that would make all the difference! <g>

[rlohmann]

Yes, the elections. The most interesting off-year elections in the history of the Republic, if you ask me. I say that because of the historical record that suggests the rascals will be thrown out to some degree and because of the technological probability that they will not. I guess it's time, Nick. I don't know how to tell you this, but there aren't going to be any midterm elections.

You see, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have decided that since you've uncovered their plans for a regime change, there's no further point in concealment.

So you were right. They are indeed planning to cancel the elections, shut down all the news media (except Fox News), and lock up all the Democrats. In addition, they're going to abolish the Constitution, nuke Mexico and Iran, invade China, Montenegro, and Peru, dismantle the Social Security Administration, conduct medical experiments on widows and orphans, provide for mandatory vivisection of puppies and kittens, and impose martial law on all the "blue" states. Since it's apparent that you know all of this, and are spreading the word in public, they've decided that it's too much trouble to set up all the Diebold machines again.

Your cell will be nice, but not too nice.

They hate to do this to you, but...

:(

--
Ralph

Oh, P.S.: It might be a good idea to emulate Lindsey and keep a toothbrush and a few other essentials in a small suitcase beside the door. The RNC guys tend to come late at night.

[Lindsey]

It might be a good idea to emulate Lindsey and keep a toothbrush and a few other essentials in a small suitcase beside the door.
OMG! You guys really do know everything, don't you??

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Ralph,

The real enemy that Bush and company are going after are not emasculated liberals. This cabal of neo-cons figures they've already won that fight. The real enemy is the old-line conservatives and Republicans from the East Coast who insist upon believing that we live in a reality-based system and so are the true adherents of the anti-christ.

If I were you, I'd be packing that toothbrush real fast now!

;-)

[rlohmann]

<sneering benignly>

[ndebord]

Sigh... An entire two hundred plus years of fourth amendment jurisprudence down the drain ...


Judy,

As time passes, a fuller portrait of this General is becoming available. He seems to be a man obsessed with wireless wiretapping, to the exclusion of other important issues at NSA that he was charged with implmenting.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.hayden14may14,0,7602442.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

[rlohmann]

Ah, yes. The Baltimore Sun. Well known for its objectivity in reporting the news. Naturally, if it's in the Sun, it just absolutely positively has to be true.

Right?

[rlohmann]

Actually, the real enemy is the gaggle of aging left-wingers still wearing their old tie-dyed shirts and "peace now" buttons and still secure in the belief that the government is the enemy. They see Al-Qaida, the Iranians, and the North Koreans as really a bunch of warm and fuzzy guys, just like the Viet Cong. It's our own government that's making them mad by saying unkind things about them.

If we'd only give peace a chance, so the mantra has it, peace would guide the planets and love would steer the stars.

I have a bridge to sell you.

[rlohmann]

A vast right-wing conspiracy it is.

(Even now, operatives are scanning your discarded grocery lists looking for coded messages to Nancy Pelosi.)

[Judy G. Russell]

Those may be AMONG the real enemy. The others are those who believe that, in order to have some hope of "security", it's perfectly all right to fork over all of our liberties.

Fortunately, there is some hope that the majority of the country rejects both silly positions.

[Judy G. Russell]

According to other sources, Cheney was pushing for even more even earlier.

[Lindsey]

They see Al-Qaida, the Iranians, and the North Koreans as really a bunch of warm and fuzzy guys, just like the Viet Cong.
A link, please, to someone actually making that argument, and an explanation as to why you think they represent the entire argument against the president's illegal surveillance program.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Actually, the real enemy is the gaggle of aging left-wingers still wearing their old tie-dyed shirts and "peace now" buttons and still secure in the belief that the government is the enemy. They see Al-Qaida, the Iranians, and the North Koreans as really a bunch of warm and fuzzy guys, just like the Viet Cong. It's our own government that's making them mad by saying unkind things about them.

If we'd only give peace a chance, so the mantra has it, peace would guide the planets and love would steer the stars.

I have a bridge to sell you.

Ralph,

Actually the real enemy are the Chicken Hawks, who like the sounds of war fed to them through the speakers on their TVs, while safely at home on their sofas.

I just adore war mongers who have never personally smelled the stench of battle.

[rlohmann]

Those may be AMONG the real enemy. The others are those who believe that, in order to have some hope of "security", it's perfectly all right to fork over all of our liberties. I can only read that as asserting that anyone who supports the Administration, however reluctantly, finds it "perfectly all right to fork over all of our liberties."

That strikes me as disturbing nonsense.

G.W. Bush is not a particularly likeable guy (unless you're from Texas, I suppose). Since we as a society have a tendency to equate likeability with credibility, it follows as the night the day that Bush is not to be trusted; that he lied about the WMD, he lied about those Air National Guard documents that Dan Rather found, and he's lying when he says he never had sex with ... (oops, strike that).

This distrust seems particularly prevelant among those who would be taken for movers and/or shakers. In an article in yesterday's WP, the reporter, who obviously missed the implications of what he was writing, notes that Mary McCarthy, the CIA officer recently fired for leaking information, was "offended that the CIA's general counsel had [sought] a secret Justice Department opinion in 2004 authorizing the agency's [removal of prisoners] from Iraq for secret interrogations without notice to the International Committee of the Red Cross -- because the Geneva Conventions prohibit such practices."

(The full article is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051301311.html )

Miss McCarthy, who had taken an oath to keep silent about her work, expresses outrage at the idea that a CIA attorney would go to the Department of Justice in an effort to determine whether a proposed course of action was legal in the context of the notoriously obscure Geneva Conventions. She doesn't think it's legal, and that, for her--as for many others--is enough. Her mind's made up; don't bother her with statutory constructon. The WP, of course, is in full sympathy.

In this context, the allegation that some of us are "forking over all our liberties" is absurd. When I see the Washington Post editors and the NYT editors and Dan Rather sitting in the Supermax along with Darius Moussaoui, I'll believe that the Gestapo is at the door. Until that time....

[rlohmann]

There is a good deal of argument among lawyers about the reach of the War Powers. No court of competent jurisdiction has yet ruled on the question. Consequently, the word "illegal" in this context is nothing more than an epithet.

With respect to "a link to someone actually making" the warm-and-fuzzy argument, I watched an interview with Natalie Maines, the head Dixie Chick, on "60 Minutes" yesterday evening. In between giggles, Miss Manes answered Steve Kroft's question about whether she was sorry for her public criticism of Bush in London three years ago: "Sorry about what? Sorry about what? Sorry about not wanting to go to war? And not wanting people to die?"

Peter, Paul, and Mary couldn't have said it better.

[ndebord]

There is a good deal of argument among lawyers about the reach of the War Powers. No court of competent jurisdiction has yet ruled on the question. Consequently, the word "illegal" in this context is nothing more than an epithet.

With respect to "a link to someone actually making" the warm-and-fuzzy argument, I watched an interview with Natalie Maines, the head Dixie Chick, on "60 Minutes" yesterday evening. In between giggles, Miss Manes answered Steve Kroft's question about whether she was sorry for her public criticism of Bush in London three years ago: "Sorry about what? Sorry about what? Sorry about not wanting to go to war? And not wanting people to die?"

Peter, Paul, and Mary couldn't have said it better.


Ralph,

There is a fine line between parody and patriotism. By tarring all dissent with such a wide brush, you risk losing credibility.

As for these so-called "patriots," since most of the Bush cabinet are indeed Chicken Hawks, they have quite a bit of nerve to send our sons and daughters off to fight a war they dissembled about to the American Public when they laid out their reasons for engaging in a preemptive war.

[Lindsey]

Sigh... An entire two hundred plus years of fourth amendment jurisprudence down the drain ...
And maybe the first amendment, too.

Apparently ABC is saying (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008467.php) that its reporters have been warned that the NSA's database is being used to scrutinize reporters' phone records.

Bob Herbert's column today (Monday) is sobering, too. Give me a few days, and I may be able to provide a publicly accessible link. The column is well worth reading in its entirety, but the money quote:

Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.

There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.
I've been both alarmed and ashamed for some time now. And I'm told it's only because I hate George Bush. Wrong. It's because I love my country, and I hate what it is becoming.



http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.051506BC2.jpg



--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Peter, Paul, and Mary couldn't have said it better.
Oh, please, this is your whole argument? That Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks is not sorry for being opposed to the war?

First of all, how does Natalie Maines, who is all of 32 years old, equate to "aging left-winger"? She was still in diapers when the bulk of us aging boomers graduated from college.

Second of all, how does that refusal to apologize equate to asserting that Al-Qaida, the North Koreans, the Iranians, and the Viet Cong are all "a bunch of warm and fuzzy guys"? And what do any of them have to do with the Iraq War?

Thirdly, why should she be sorry for opposing this disaster of a war from the very start? Why should any of us who opposed the war because we felt the Bush Administration was lying about WMD, because we thought there was a good chance that toppling Saddam Hussein would result in civil war and we would be bogged down in an interminable quagmire, because we feared such a result would strengthen Al-Qaida, and because we did not trust the comptence of the Bush administration to prosecute the war -- why should we apologize for being right when it turned out that Bush did lie about WMD, that the war has devolved into civil war, or something very close to it, that we seem to be trapped in an unwinnable quagmire, and that terrorism has actually increased worldwide rather than decreased??? Why aren't those who supported the war apologizing to us for doubting our patriotism and our reason??

Angry? Yeah, you bet I am. Why shouldn't I be?

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Consequently, the word "illegal" in this context is nothing more than an epithet.
What message are you answering, Ralph? It's not the one you're replying to.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

When I see the Washington Post editors and the NYT editors and Dan Rather sitting in the Supermax along with Darius Moussaoui, I'll believe that the Gestapo is at the door. Until that time....
Unfortunately, at that point, it will be too late.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Ralph,

RL>> In this context, the allegation that some of us are "forking over all our
liberties" is absurd. When I see the Washington Post editors and the NYT
editors and Dan Rather sitting in the Supermax along with Darius Moussaoui,
I'll believe that the Gestapo is at the door. Until that time....

In what absurd context are you dreaming? Or have you forgotten history?


First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.


-- Rev. Martin Niemoller (1945)

[earler]

I gather this woman is a member of a pop music group. First of all, why was she on 60 minutes? Why did political questions arise?

I don't ask my lawyer for advice about a tooth ache. I don't ask my dentist for advice on taxes. I don't ask a cardiologist for advice about investments. So, why does anyone pay attention to what a pop music singer thinks about bush or any other politician?

-er

[Dan in Saint Louis]

So, why does anyone pay attention to what a pop music singer thinks about bush or any other politician? Why does anyone pay attention to what a school teacher, or a lawyer, or a retired person, thinks about a politician? We can all have valid opinions. The difference is that the pop singer gets the message out to more people.

[earler]

And that is the problem. Show business celebrities have no business mouthing off about their political preferences. Just because they are famous in their line of work doesn't give them the right to use their fame to try to influence what happens in the real world.

Your opinion or mine is valid, of course. But, we don't interviewed on 60 minutes to say that lady is a lousy singer and possible influence the sale of her records. Bush or blair or merkel don't pontificate about things that outside of their confidence.

-er

[ndebord]

And that is the problem. Show business celebrities have no business mouthing off about their political preferences. Just because they are famous in their line of work doesn't give them the right to use their fame to try to influence what happens in the real world.

Your opinion or mine is valid, of course. But, we don't interviewed on 60 minutes to say that lady is a lousy singer and possible influence the sale of her records. Bush or blair or merkel don't pontificate about things that outside of their confidence.

-er

Earle,

Perhaps Bush, Blair or Merkel don't, but good old Ronnie did (and some salute him for moving beyond "Bedtime for Bonzo" and some salute him with a less salutory gesture).

[earler]

You well know that reagan became a politician following his mediocre acting career and his time as mc for the ge theatre on tv. That's very different than those actors or singers who claim to be political gurus. More recently, ahnold used his fame as an actor (and he was a very savvy businessman, too) to launch a political career. Note, however, like reagan, he gave up acting when he entered politics.

-er

[ndebord]

You well know that reagan became a politician following his mediocre acting career and his time as mc for the ge theatre on tv. That's very different than those actors or singers who claim to be political gurus. More recently, ahnold used his fame as an actor (and he was a very savvy businessman, too) to launch a political career. Note, however, like reagan, he gave up acting when he entered politics.

-er

Earle,

Who's to say that this Dixie Chick might not run for political office, down the road? The longing is in the blood of show business types, as we can see by our current environment. In any event, you can't have it both ways. Either they are show business gadflys and should get out of Dodge or they are people making a career change and have as much right as any of us to run for office. After all, my mother told me I could grow up to be President some day too.

[Lindsey]

I gather this woman is a member of a pop music group.
Yes: a country music group out of Dallas. See http://www.dixiechicks.com/ (Caution: Sound plays automatically when you load that page.)

First of all, why was she on 60 minutes?
I didn't see the program, so I can't answer that, but 60 Minutes often has features about entertainers. They've never been "all hard news, all the time".

Why did political questions arise?
My guess is that it was just the one question, and it comes out of the controversy that arose in the aftermath of a statement Natalie Maines made between songs during a performance in London in the runup to the invasion of Iraq: "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Shortly afterward, there were stories that stations that were part of the Clear Channel network (Clear Channel Communications is one of the largest owners of AM radio stations across the US) had been pressured to blacklist the group's recordings. Clear Channel denied organizing a boycott, saying the stations acted independently. I'm not sure the question was ever definitively resolved.

I'm sure there are quite a lot of C&W fans who have not forgiven the Dixie Chicks for that blasphemy, but a top-25 single from their latest album is entitled "Not Ready to Make Nice". :p

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Show business celebrities have no business mouthing off about their political preferences.
Why on earth not? Why don't they have just as much right to express their opinions as, say, Ross Perot or Gorver Norquist or Pat Robertson?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I can only read that as asserting that anyone who supports the Administration, however reluctantly, finds it "perfectly all right to fork over all of our liberties."What a truly ridiculous way of reading a perfectly plain and simple statement. Do you truly believe, for one minute, that there are not people out there who are indeed willing to trade all of our liberties for what they perceive to be security? Do you truly believe such people are merely reluctant supporters of the Bush Administration?

How odd.

[Judy G. Russell]

"Sorry about what? Sorry about what? Sorry about not wanting to go to war? And not wanting people to die?" Oh yeah. I can see that that definitely translates as "Al-Qaeda is just "a bunch of warm and fuzzy guys." Yup yup yup. It sure does. No doubt.

I'm not sure in what language (or for that matter in what universe), but hey... don't let that stop you.

[earler]

I didn't say they don't have the right to express their opinions, only they should do it among their friends and not in a public performance. If warren beatty wishes to express his political opinions, fine. But, not using his celebrity status to do so.

-er

[earler]

You well know that dixie chick won't abandon the income she is earning to enter politics. Yes, she is a show business gadfly. I don't want political opinions from a proctologist either.

-er

[ndebord]

You well know that dixie chick won't abandon the income she is earning to enter politics. Yes, she is a show business gadfly. I don't want political opinions from a proctologist either.

-er

Earle,

But you'll accept political opinions from a former bug exterminator though, eh?

As for the hard Christian Right, many of them are tv-evangelicals, in addition to their day jobs.

Entertainment goes with the territory.

But all of this is thread deviation. You have yet to talk to the issue at hand. Which is the good general with the all-seeing eye.

[ndebord]

I'm sure there are quite a lot of C&W fans who have not forgiven the Dixie Chicks for that blasphemy, but a top-25 single from their latest album is entitled "Not Ready to Make Nice". :p

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

They are I think #37 on Billboard for their new album, but #1 on IPod. The explanation is that the hard Christian right wing employs an organized call in campaign to C&W DJs with a consistent message. Play that song and we'll boycott your station. The dichotomy is self-evident.

Dixie Chicks, if they can modify their sound enough, will go crossover because C&W is now influenced by political considerations, not musical ones.

A hard conclusion, but Ipod stats don't lie. Anonymous preferences y'all.

[ndebord]

Ah, yes. The Baltimore Sun. Well known for its objectivity in reporting the news. Naturally, if it's in the Sun, it just absolutely positively has to be true.

Right?

Ralph,

Are you ever going to speak to the issue instead of issuing blanket smears?

[Lindsey]

I didn't say they don't have the right to express their opinions, only they should do it among their friends and not in a public performance.
Why should they not be allowed to speak publicly? Anyone else can.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

They are I think #37 on Billboard for their new album, but #1 on IPod.
Nope, what I saw said that the latest Billboard standings put that song at #23.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Nope, what I saw said that the latest Billboard standings put that song at #23.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Twenty-three, which means they've been moving up the charts since the interview. Not too shabby, but not where they once were.

[Judy G. Russell]

Is this the time to note that my favorite Dixie Chicks song is "Goodbye, Earl"?

[ndebord]

Is this the time to note that my favorite Dixie Chicks song is "Goodbye, Earl"?


Judy,

That's baaadd!

<snicker>

[earler]

Of course, but not to use their celebrity status to do so.

-er

[Lindsey]

Of course, but not to use their celebrity status to do so.
And how would you suggest they do that? Make a statement with a burlap sack pulled over their heads and an electronic distortion of their voices?

If other people can use their names and their reputations to make political endorsements, why shouldn't celebrities be able to do the same thing?

--Lindsey

[earler]

Just to shut up sometimes and not pretend to be authorities on everything and anything. You don't hear blair or bush, or even gore, attempt to judge poetry, drama or the design of womens dresses.

-er

[Judy G. Russell]

I find it very instructive here that you don't ever criticize the entertainers who AGREE with the politics you yourself espouse...

[earler]

Quite right. I might have named some republican entertainers. Alas, or perhaps happily, few if any do mouth off as do those on the other side of the aisle. Why is that?

And, as far as politics are concerned, how do you know which ones I espouse?

-er

[Lindsey]

Just to shut up sometimes and not pretend to be authorities on everything and anything. You don't hear blair or bush, or even gore, attempt to judge poetry, drama or the design of womens dresses.
So -- celebrities have no right to be full citizens? I don't think you'll find that in the Constitution.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Quite right. I might have named some republican entertainers. Alas, or perhaps happily, few if any do mouth off as do those on the other side of the aisle. Why is that?
Oh, yeah, right -- Art Linkletter, Ben Stein, Charlton Heston, Pat and Debby Boone, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Kathie Lee Gifford, Lance Armstrong, Lee Greenwood, Louise Mandrell, the Osmonds, Mel Gibson, Shirley Temple Black, Tanya Tucker, Tony Danza, Wayne Newton -- none of those celebrities ever espoused conservative causes, even though that's where their politics were. Right.

And, as far as politics are concerned, how do you know which ones I espouse?
Seems pretty obvious to me...

--Lindsey

[earler]

The status of celebrities isn't addressed in the constitution.

-er

[Judy G. Russell]

And, as far as politics are concerned, how do you know which ones I espouse?I ain't dumb.

[earler]

Not dumb, but not omniscient either.

-er

[Judy G. Russell]

Not dumb, but not omniscient either. God, no... (sorry, couldn't resist the play on words)...

[Lindsey]

The status of celebrities isn't addressed in the constitution.

My point exactly: they're not a separate class, and they have just as much right to use their influence as the presidents of Exxon or General Motors or Focus on the Family.

--Lindsey