The flag amendment — the last refuge of scoundrels

September 20, 2005

When we last checked in with the constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, proponents were busy but short on votes. As of now, the measure has 58 co-sponsors — a number that’s been unchanged for a couple of months. Observers on both sides of the fight say that the effort is a vote or two shy of 67, which for supporters, is the magic number to pass the Senate and go on to the states.

So, without the necessary support, are Republican sponsors of the amendment prepared to move on to real issues and forget this nonsense? No, they’re holding onto it until next year — as a principal campaign strategy for 2006.

The Republican-led Senate is unlikely to vote on a flag-burning amendment this fall, but the measure will almost certainly hit the floor months before next year’s elections.

Republicans will use the proposed amendment to the Constitution as political ammunition in 2006. Several targeted Democrats in the upper chamber oppose changing the Constitution to prohibit flag burning, including Sens. Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.). […]

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has repeatedly seized on the flag-burning issue and this year has zeroed in on Byrd, running ads on his vote against a constitutional amendment. Byrd fired back, claiming the ad was misleading.

Forget the usual rant about this amendment being outrageous nonsense and consider the underlying Republican admission here — after six years of Republicans dominating every branch of the federal government, the one thing they’re really counting on in the 2006 cycle is a vote on a constitutional amendment that addresses a problem that does not exist.

This is the Republican Party of the 21st century. Looking ahead to a tough midterm cycle, they’re not anxious to talk about achievements on national security, job creation, health care, or the environment, because they can’t. Left with nothing else, they have to hope voters are so easily misled by cynical nationalism that they’ll back GOP candidates because Dems are hesitant to amend the First Amendment for the first time in American history.

Remind me again, which is the party with the reputation for not having any new ideas?

That would be the Democrats. 😉 snark

Actually, neither party has any new ideas. The Repugs just have ideas that serve as great distractors to real issues. Really, they should retire the elephant as their emblem and adopt David Copperfield.

  • You know what’s really scary, CB? That the GOP may be right. That enough of the great American public might still be so clueless and totally f***ing stupid that they’ll actually buy into that one pathetic, useless non-issue. Sorry, early morning, no coffee, very grumpy…..

  • The flag-burning issue is also a sop to veterans’ groups, and a distraction from the many ways in which Republicans have cut or tried to cut veterans’ benefits over the last five years.

  • “….they have to hope voters are so easily misled by cynical nationalism that they’ll back GOP candidates”

    Unfortunately, these kinds of misdirections work all too well. In 2004 we saw people voting against their own self-interest, voting against our national security in order to make sure that gays couldn’t get married.

    In 2006 we’re going to see the Rethugs use this flag burning amendment to Swift Boat candidate who doesn’t support this pointless amendment.

    The sad truth is we’re not going to be able to compete with the Rethugs effectively until we learn to lie and cheat, to misdirect and misrepresent, to baffle, befuddle, and bewilder the electorate as the Rethugs have done so successfully.

  • I think that the tide may finally be turning. I see adds by Dems along the lines of “(candidate) is fighting to make America safer, eliminate the deficite, help all Americans, while our opponents onely idea is an amendment on flag burning. Who do you want to represent you in Wshington?”. Or some such.

  • The flag thing as a wedge issue only works because the Democrat on the receiving end of the smear either ignores it (“refuses to dignify it with a reply”) or else replies with an apologetic tone, hoping to “explain” his/her position. The proper response would be to fire back aggressively, to rip the phony patriotic mask off the faces of the mud-slingers, and to expose them as the true enemies of liberty.

    When you take the high road, and sit around waiting for the inate fairness of the American people to prevail, all you do is keep a clear, noise-free channel open for the slur to be endelessly repeated — to eventual effect. Or doesn’t anyone remember that swift boat shit?

  • Jim,

    “The sad truth is we’re not going to be able to compete with the Rethugs effectively until we learn to lie and cheat, to misdirect and misrepresent, to baffle, befuddle, and bewilder the electorate as the Rethugs have done so successfully.”

    That may appear to be an expeditious approach, but the long-term detriment to the democratic system would outweigh any short-term gains. George W. Bush will be nothing more than an unpleasant memory 3 1/4 years from now, but one of my greatest fears is that he will leave a legacy of anything-goes partisanship that may permanently affect the practice of American politics. Democrats might be able to make some quick political gains by adopting the disingenous style of their adversaries, but where does that leave us when both parties agree that dishonesty and cynical manipulation of the worst in human nature for political benefit is the appropriate way to run a government? I am not so naive as to argue that either party is entirely free of that attitude now, but I think the very worst thing that may be left over when the Bush administration finally comes to and end is that the ideal of integrity and rational debate among elected officials may be abandoned by both sides. Should that occur, Karl Rove will have won, even from behind bars.

  • I am not surprised that they are going for something frivilous as opposed to substantive but I am not sure making an issue of flag burning for the 2006 cycle is going to help them electorially. Are the voters going to even pay attention to that as opposed to Iraq, Katrina, Social Security, deficit? We will see.

  • I’m optimistic that when they run that up the flagpole, not too many will salute. That kind of issue gathers momentum when there aren’t any crucial problems to address. Though Katrina may be off the radar by then, the graft, cronyism and incompetence of repub rule will not.

    I’d advise the Dems to quote Jon Stewart on this: (paraphrasing) Since most flag burnings occur overseas, it’s like a constitutional amendment to ban the metric system.

    Before we take steps to protect Old Glory, let’s clean up the mess the repubs are hiding behind her.

  • The Republicans are staying true to form. In the past this strategy might have worked when everyone was dumb, fat, happy, and asleep.
    But now things are changing since Katrina has exposed the dismal
    quality of Republican leadership in this country. Flag amendments
    and their like are luxuries Americans can no longer afford.
    The true Republican attitude seems to be screw the country but
    we must keep the flag intact. Their priorities seem a little confused.

  • Well, they’re trying a similar thing in Wisconsin. There will be a tough governor’s race in 2006, so the right-wing wants to put an anti-gay-marriage amendment up for the people to vote on, to increase turnout and try to defeat the dem. incumbent governor.

  • Ah, flag burning. My favorite subject. Any time it appears the public is about to get a clue about what the real Republican agenda is, the dust off the old flag burning amendment. Gridlock’s idea about David Copperfield is beautifully apt.

    I am hoping that many of the rest of the comments are correct and that the public won’t be so easily distracted this time. Let’s hope we aren’t once again giving the 51% too much credit. I just wish someone could get it across to these “patriots” that making it illegal to burn the flag flies in the face of everything this country is supposed to stand for. That we live in a country where (supposedly) citizens are allowed to disagree with or disapprove of their leaders and to express those feeling freely.

    It’s dismaying to know that most of these ardent flag-wavers (including elected officials) have such a wrongheaded idea of the principles our flag actually represents.

    Shannon

  • James Dillon:

    “That may appear to be an expeditious approach, but the long-term detriment to the democratic system would outweigh any short-term gains. George W. Bush will be nothing more than an unpleasant memory 3 1/4 years from now, but one of my greatest fears is that he will leave a legacy of anything-goes partisanship that may permanently affect the practice of American politics.”

    James, until a few short weeks ago I felt just as you do – that we Democrats/liberals/progressives are better than to engage in such shenanigans, that we are too noble to debase ourselves with smear tactics, that we can prevail by arguing the merits of our position rather than by denigrating the opposing candidates, that the American people would see thru the smoke and mirrors of Rethug misdirections, that we should turn the other cheek, hold ourselves above the fray, and good would triumph over evil.

    I am no longer so optimistic.

    You fear the long term, even permanent damage to our politcal process. You posit that BushCo’s reign of (t)error will end in 3 years and change, after which Rove and his ilk will slither back into the muck from which they sprang forth and political discourse will return to a more civil tenor.

    I am no longer so optimistic.

    I trace the origin of Rovian tactics back to Lee Atwater in the 1988 campaign. If anything, the situation is more dire now – almost 20 years later – than it was then. I see no reason to think the Rethugs will abandon the tactics which have made them so successful. If anything, I anticipate right wing smear tactics will worsen in the future. And I see nothing to lead me to think that the Rethug ticket in 2008 will be any less craven, any less dishonest, any less greedy, any less incompetent, any less beholden to the (ir)religious right, to big business, to the agents of fear and hatred than the current gang of thugs. Just as the current regime makes me nostalgic for the days of Nixon, I fear that in 2010 I may look back fondly to 2005 when my civil rights stood largely intact, when the gap between those who have and those who have not gaped, but was not insurmountible.

    I do not espouse that Democratic candidates engage in a campaign of first strike ad-hominem attacks. Not yet, anyway. But I submit that we must be ready to fight fire with fire.

    We must not be afraid to engage the Rethugs with their own tactics. If we continue to take the higher ground, I fear that path leads to oblivion.

  • So the 2006 campaign will be about “flag-burning” and “support the troops.” Shoot me right now, OK? Just shoot me.

    #5 Liam and #6 Jim S are right about how the Dems should respond. But no, I’m sure it’ll just be more Shrummery. Focus on “pocketbook” issues. Oh, and don’t forget our great healthcare plan. Sigh.

    • Comments are closed.