The Moose notes the creation of the unholy alliance.
During the nineties, there was a motley coalition of gun nuts, loony libertarians and conservative cranks who attempted to weaken if not defeat President Clinton's anti-terrorism legislation that he submitted to Congress in the wake of the Oklahoma City attack. These right wingers objected to such seemingly non-controversial provisions dealing with tracking money to terrorist groups and adding tangents to explosives to track terrorists.
Now, the old band is coming together again. Clinton Impeachment Manager Bob Barr is emerging as a hero of the ACLU. Old Grover Norquist is being celebrated on left wing blogs as a brother in arms against Big Brother. They all deserve each other.
If Ralph Reed was truly shrewd and cagey, he would join the emerging conservative coalition against the NSA eavesdropping and win the praise and the affirmation of the lefties! One liberal lad coos, "I always think that if liberals knew the whole Norquist, they might be a bit more sympathetic to him."
Jack Abramoff should issue a press release decrying the fascist Bushies ASAP. These corruption scandals apparently pale in siginificance to the threat that the NSA might have improperly eavesdropped into a communication between Al Qaeda operatives in Karachi and Cleveland. Just contemplate who might want to take out Associate Membership in the "Leave us alone" coalition. Maybe, the left and the right can discuss this over bagels at Grover's place next Wednesday morning. The Moose would love to stop by and watch the spectacle, but he was expelled from Grover's orbit a few years back.
In the nineties, the Moose opposed the weakening of President Clinton's anti-terrorist efforts just as he currently objects to tying the hands of the executive in the war against the Jihadists. And, there is now a left-right moronic convergence in opposition to the efforts to crack down on those who wish us dead.
As the Moose has repeatedly acknowledged, there is a rational and reasoned argument against warrantless surveillance. People of good will are on both sides of this controversy. However, there are also those who are motivated by an ideological predilection to weaken anti-terrorist efforts in the pursuit of civil libertarian extremism.
When some Democrats rail about a "constitutional crisis", the next step is impeachment. Of course, with Republicans controlling Congress, that is not currently an option. There is an outside chance that could change after the November election. Even if it doesn't, does the donkey really want to be defined as the party that believes President Bush has been far too aggressive in fighting Jihadists who are seeking to obliterate an American city? That's a winning strategy!
All of the Democratic laudatory positions on reform, health care, education and the environment won't matter one whit if the American people aren't convinced that the party is as tough or tougher than the Republicans on defending this country and their families. And the Democrats have done absolutely nothing since the 2004 election to dispel the perception that they are weaker than the GOP on defense. If anything, the Democrats have boldly underscored their weaknesses on national security out of hatred of everything Bush. The party is increasingly being dominated by modern day McGovernites with modems.
In any event, the new unholy alliance is yet another confirmation that the extremes in American politics have far more in common than is commonly recognized. --