Thursday, May 21, 2009

Dana Garrett nails it on President Obama's disdain for civil rights and constitutional protections

Chronicling the visit of some human rights activists to the White House, where they discovered that the new President is mulling a policy of completely unconstitutional preventive detention for terror suspects [which you should read in its entirety], Dana closes with a paragraph that proves his intellectual integrity:

Imagine their shock. Here they thought that at a minimum they would be talking to a President who wouldn't be as insensitive as George Bush on the human and legal rights of the detainees, only to confront a President who is considering creating a policy (and a political legacy) of disenfranchising these detainees of their rights in perpetuity. The differences between Obama the candidate and Obama the President are so vast they make one's head swim.

That sort of intellectualy consistency is why Dana Garrett represents the progressive conscience of the Delaware blogosphere.


Tyler Nixon said...

I agree, Steve. Dana can sling the arrows with the best of us but he never lets his partisanship drive his ideology and never lets his ideology eclipse his principles.

I strenuously disagree with some of his ideology but we share many more core principles and I respect Dana's views, which he never buries beneath senseless partisan diatribe or personal viciousness.

Above all Dana not only has a heart, but it's in the right place on all this.

I think Dana represents that that being progressive does not mean exclusivity to one dogmatic ideology or one end of the political spectrum or one political party.

The substance is all that matters, not the labels and the talking points.

Delaware Watch said...

Thank you for the compliments, Steve and Tyler. I appreciate them. :)

Anonymous said...

Not only is Obama being the arch flip flopper~ he is proving himself to be a true political animal. All the apologists for his flip flops should take a different tact.

In four months, he has managed to take us from a high hope, to a mediocre apologist! Claiming to be a constitutional lawyer was one of the reasons he was overwhelmingly supported. We really believed he would not go back on his promises. Literally every day another one is broken. As I have always said, it doesnt matter which party is in power. They both work for international corporate interests and not the interests of hard working americans. Personally, I am over him.