Posted on 06/23/2005 12:15:26 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Symbols are everything in politics. They can get you elected — or defeated. That's why Democrats fear getting singed by a proposed flag-burning ban, forced into a vote that Republicans will cast as a test of patriotism.
The GOP-led House voted 286-130 on a measure Wednesday that would give Congress authority to ban desecration of a U.S. flag. Its prospects aren't good in the Senate, but Republicans could still get what they want — an issue that divides or even conquers Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Democratic Party leaders generally don't want to tamper with free-speech rights in the Constitution, but they were split on whether to bow to political pressure. After all, the flag means more than ever after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and Republicans are not shy about evoking Sept. 11 in political fights.
They did it in the 2002 congressional elections, gaining seats, and again in 2004, when terrorism remained the defining issue of congressional races and President Bush's re-election bid. Republicans returned to Sept. 11 in the flag-burning debate.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: 'Pass this amendment.'"
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center, accused Republicans of exploiting the attacks.
"If the flag needs protection at all," he said, "it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
Still, some Democrats, mostly moderates, said the power of that symbol shouldn't be underestimated.
"I can't imagine when it gets down to it that any Democrat would vote against the ban," Democratic strategist Ray Strother said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
LOL, That's because the Democrats are funded by those who burn our Flag
If I recall correctly, there was one instance of flag burning last year so he/she must have deep pockets.
This is silly. Hateful words from somebody like Dick Durbin can cause much more harm than burning an American Flag. If COngress wants to respect our country, they should balance the budget and secure our borders.
I wish they'd make this much effort on the borders.
Flag burning is an annoying and disgusting tactic, but there is silver lining.
Eventually, one of these leftist idiots will accidentally set themselves on fire, just like that Islamist did in Pakistan a few years back.
Split?
Okay, ALL Democrat politicians vs Zell Miller.
Bill Clinton would consider that a split.
This forces every senator to go on record, exposing those who lack the nads to vote for that which they claim to believe.
For those who think otherwise, I suggest you spend some time in Turkey or Saudi Arabia and report back after three months under their laws...
Why wasn't this vote scheduled closer to the election?
"Voters simply don't believe Democrats are hostile to the American flag," Democratic strategist Jim Jordan said.
LOL! Speak for yourself, Jim.
Burning something - anything - isn't speech. Speech implies the use of reason; it certainly doesn't imply some amorphous concept like "expression."
And, as a society, we hardly allow all forms of "expression," anyway.
If I had the choice to make a Constitutional Amendment, it would be to revoke and eliminate the absurd ANCHOR BABY rule that gives citizenship to an illegal's baby and gives her and the daddy (if known) the keys to the US Treasury. It also makes the foreign relatives instant American Lottery Winners, as soon as they can make the trip !
With disdain and in public for reasons of personal or political gain.
Burning the flag is a good thing when it has reached it life expectancy through pride and usage.
To burn it in public for personal gain, notoriety and influence in such a way is pure selfishness and anti-Americanism.
Perhaps. But such tallies are useful--and instructive to the public at large--as an instrument to separate the wheat from the tares. Further, it divides the Dims and makes them visibly nervous in public whenever the subject arises.
"Silly"? We'll have to agree to disagree: I find the exercise quite useful, both politically and symbolically.
No, they prefer to tamper with free-speech - political speech! - rights in Campaign Finance Reform laws upheld by the Supreme Court.
They sound like Republicans in fear of proposed legislation to regulate campaign spending or hike the minimum wage.
Perhaps that's how all the bad legislation gets passed: too many spineless politicians who follow instead of leading, even when their core principles are at stake.
How far they've sunk.
If someone were to light up a bedsheet in public, I imagine they would be arrested or fined for "unlawful burning" or whatever. The same should apply to a flag--no more, no less.
Having said that, I have to admit I enjoy when these votes come up, because we get fools like Nadler calling Republicans names because he knows how bad he and his fellow toads are going to look in any kind of debate on this subject. Hey Jerry, can't you answer a question straight without smearing the Republicans? Can't you make a statement based on your own values (?) and not just do the dem knee jerk?
You've brought up a topic that is of FAR more consequence than this. McCain-Feingold is a disgrace that the media swiftly moved on from.
Suggesting that we follow them in outlawing public displays of dissension? I don't follow...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.