Stop the presses, Norquist is saying something sensible

February 1, 2006

When conservative scholars denounce the president’s warrantless-search program, that’s one thing. When conservative lawmakers raise serious doubts about the surveillance, that’s something else.

But when Grover Norquist, perhaps the most powerful conservative activist in DC, takes an aggressive, principled stand against Bush’s domestic spying, it should raise eyebrows throughout the political word. (via TP)

Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says he knows some fellow conservatives have labeled him a traitor for condemning the same administration that instituted the biggest tax cuts in recent American history — cuts for which Norquist vigorously lobbied. But an even greater disloyalty, Norquist responds, would be to allow what he regards as the trampling on civil liberties to go unimpeded.

“The president’s friends are exactly who you want telling him this,” said Norquist. “No one else has the credibility. We are being team players by telling him, not by keeping quiet.”

Norquist said one of his main concerns is that, once the government becomes so intrusive, there is no way to prevent continued erosion of individual rights.

“Even if you believed an angel was making these decisions, and that’s not what I’m saying, at some point the person in the White House will change,” he said. “Hillary Clinton might be making these decisions.”

I literally had no idea Norquist was capable of such consistent thinking.

In case there was any doubt, I take a backseat to no one in rejecting Norquist’s vile smears. We’re talking about a guy who believes the Estate Tax is morally equivalent to the Nazi Holocaust, calls WWII veterans “anti-American,” and believes “bipartisanship is another name for date rape.” But on the NSA controversy, Norquist is spot-on.

What do you know; a broken clock really is right twice a day.

I literally had no idea Norquist was capable of such consistent thinking.

wait a sec – Norquist has well-publicized ties to the Islamic Institute, which is partially (or wholly, I forget) funded by the Saudis, and which such ties got a lot of press attention and speculation about Norquist having “ties to terrorists”, etc. in the 2002-03 time frame. Do a Google and you’ll get all kinds of hits. With such ties, it is easy to speculate that Norquist was, or fancies himself a possible subject of NSA spying.

I would submit that Norquist’s position on the wiretap issue is really the result of naked self-interest as opposed to any “principled stand” and “consistent thinking”. You give the guy way too much credit.

  • Hmmm. Maybe with all ths discussion of the expansion of presidential power (especially given the elevation of Scalito) we can make further use of the Hillary Clinton bugaboo. As in “Would you really want Hillary to have such powers?”

  • CB, you do broken clocks an injustice. They are right at least twice. Norquist, however, has only been correct once in his life.

  • “But when Grover Norquist, perhaps the most powerful conservative activist in DC, takes an aggressive, principled stand against Bush’s domestic spying, it should raise eyebrows throughout the political word. ”

    That stand may be aggressive. It may be right. That does not make it principled.

  • While I enjoy all the internecine warfare amongst the right-wingers it’s a good reminder not to fall into the trap of, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Besides, think of all the work that they’re saving us by destroying each other.

  • I think Andy is on to the heart of this matter. He is lobbying for the Saudi’s who know they will be examined very closely. He is no stand-up American. He is a hack lobbyist showing more loyalty to business relationships with Saudi’s (lest we forget the real source of the 9/11 terrorists) than to any American idealistic principles.

    I fart in his general direction.

    The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

  • That stand may be aggressive. It may be right. That does not make it principled.

    Fair enough, drinkof, perhaps I should elaborate. I meant it was principled in as much as Norquist’s comments reflected a consistent idea that would be equally applied to others. In other words, he doesn’t want Hillary to have unfettered power, which also means he doesn’t want Bush to have the same unlimited authority.

    This is not to speak to his motivations, only the consistency of this particular idea.

  • #2 I think you’re on to something. Maybe the GOP might grow a spine if they were forced to think “Do I want Hillary Clinton with these expansive presidential powers?”

    “The president’s friends are exactly who you want telling him this,” said Norquist. “No one else has the credibility. We are being team players by telling him, not by keeping quiet.”

    What might end up hurting Norquist is this is exactly why no one else has the rapport with the President, and will probably get Norquist ostrasized as well.

    But it shows that Norquist is at least an intellectually honest libertarian. So many I’ve met almost always end up defending the GOP on everything. You can’t be a consistent libertarian and simultaneously lobby for relentless tax-cutting but turn the other cheek at erosions of civil rights.

  • I went through the 990s filed by Grover Norquist for the Americans For Tax Reform and the Americans For Tax Reform Foundation. In 2004, AFTR made a $650k grant to an organization named the National Alliance with an address in Fairfax Virginia. A William Wilson and a right wing PAC also uses the same address.

    But the only “National Alliance” I could find online is a neo-Nazi group headquartered in West Virginia. Then I read a couple of articles in the local press about the National Alliance being active in Fairfax.

    Initially, I dismissed the possibility that Grover Norquist was associated with a neo-Nazi group but then I read about his work in Africa during the late ’80s with Angolan rebels funded by the South African intelligence agency. Norquist’s pal, Jack Abramoff, was also funded by the South Africans.

    Hello? Abramoff and Norquist were involved with some of the most brutal and cruel people on the face of the planet. Did anyone in Washington DC ever ask Norquist or Abramoff about their views on race? Did they have to?
    I hardly think that one would support apartheid in Africa but believe a black man to be his equal in the United States.

    I imagine that Grover Norquist very much wants to keep the government out of his business.

  • Let’s hope that the second time this broken
    Norquist clock does the right thing is when he
    drowns in his own bathtub.

    Uh oh. Are liberals allowed to say things like
    that?

  • Ever since 20 January 2001, they’ve been acting as if it were absolutely unthinkable that power should ever again change hands.

    But someday all of the long-term debt has to be rolled over. Do they really still want to be in power then?

  • Yeah, I would say it’s just self-imterest. A lot of these conservatives are involved in really dirty things, and they know that whoever’s wirlding the surveillance has basically got everyone else by the balls. So they don’t want to be fettered. They don’t want to wake up and find that they’ve got to answer to Karl Rove, without any ifs, ands, or buts.

    The takeaway is that is Grover Norquist can see what the practical effects of spying without review are, we should be able to explain it to everybody. You talk about it in terms of Watergate. It shouldn’t be taboo to talk about this kind of corruption. The lesson of WWII should have been that if you don’t guard against fascism, you get fascism. We have to be vigilant, and not needlessly polite.

  • Well, well, this IS interesting. What did Christ say about Satan
    warring against Satan? Sooner or later his house must fall if it was
    divided against itself?
    More power to ya, Grover!

  • Norquist is just busy laying the groundwork for ‘Bush wasn’t a real conservative’.

  • “Norquist is just busy laying the groundwork for ‘Bush wasn’t a real conservative’.” – Shoe,

    The problem with that analysis, which could well be right, is that once you start to break down conservatism into its constituent elements you find that none of them are large enough to establish a ruling plurality in this country.

    The Grover Norquist starve Government until it dies conservatives

    The James Dobson regulate you sex life conservatives

    The George Will keep Government small because it is inherently incompetent conservatives

    The Pat Buchanan so isolationist we don’t even like Isreal conservatives

    etc.

    Modern Republican late 20th, early 21st century conservatism is an unstable molecule that exists only under the pressure of a secular liberal nanny-state multi-cultural Hollywood/New York reality-driven pro-choice America. Ease almost any one of those vectors of pressure, and the conservative molecule starts to fall apart.

    Which is why Republican politicans never really fix any of their “problems”. They would then lose the ability to elect Republicans 😉

  • How many principled statements was Norquist making before Abramoff copped a plea?

    At Abramoff’s direction, eLottery paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the Rev. Louis Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition and companies affiliated with Republican strategist Ralph Reed.

    Link

  • Thank you, Lame Man, you’ve gone to the true heart of the matter. The only thing that matters to Grover Norquist is Grover Norquist, and now that the noose is tightening around his neck he’ll try any ploy, no matter how bizarre, to keep his tushie out of prison.

    It won’t work, but it’s good for a laugh watching him betray even Bush himself when the chips are down. Gives a whole new meaning to the term “Yellow Elephant”, doesn’t it?

    • Comments are closed.