Exactly

Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

The New York Times on the torture bill:

Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

It’s about time someone started to call the Bushoids on their sheer unpatriotic cynicism. Much of the Bush Administration’s “anti-terror” policy can’t be understood in any other terms. It’s not about winning the “war”; it’s about making an issue. Feh.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

2 thoughts on “Exactly”

  1. But aren't Democrats in tough races actually voting for it? I'm thinking of Brown in OH and Ford in TN. Heck, my Democratic Congressman, in a marginal district but facing a severely underfunded opponent (I can't even tell you his name–I haven't seen it), voted for it.
    I think it's pretty clear that this isn't a made-up issue. How to proceed is an open question, and there are clear differences in approach. What's surprising is that Democrats don't believe they can win on the issue. Heck, Democrats should have offered legislation increasing the penalty for the techniques they object to.

  2. I view this bill as our generation's version of the Fugitive Slave Act (1850). A grotequely amoral "compromise" which will lead to further disaster.

Comments are closed.