In Chris Christie’s increasingly small-tent GOP, only neo-con hawks and religious conservatives are welcome. As for gays and now libertarians, who needs ’em.
I liked Rand Paul’s tweeted response, reported in the Washington Post: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”
21 Comments for “Christie Wants GOP to Thin Its Ranks”
posted by Houndentenor on
I watched Christie’s shameless evoking of 9/11 widows in defense of the NSA. Shameless is the only word I can think of. We clearly weren’t doing enough to track people whose visas had expired and other issues that one hopes have been corrected. (I suspect they have.) But I agree with Ron Paul on this one. I don’t see how collecting personal information about US citizens would have prevented 9/11. If someone has evidence that it would, I will reconsider my position. National security is one thing; a police state is another. We are in very real danger of giving up too much privacy and freedom out of fear.
posted by Jorge on
Much as I disagree with him, Ron Paul is a genius. I will be sad to see him go. He can be very concrete about things like this. Certain questions really need to be answered.
The IRS scandal gives me a lot less reason to defend the government on faith. It’s supposedly an open question whether it reflects the random actions of a few rogue agents or a deliberate act of political terrorism ordered by the Obama administration. Either way, it shows that tremendous power can be abused with tremendous force. Worse, without knowing which explanation is correct, there is no way of knowing whether there will be accountability for the abuse of power.
Still, let me try to argue this. The question is not whether certain actions would have prevented 9/11, but whether they may prevent the next 9/11. The ability to listen to foreign national terrorists who have developed very sophisticated ways to communicate is very important.
posted by Houndentenor on
The IRS “scandal” is a joke. Agents asked follow-up questions of new applicants for 501(c)3 status that had political sounding words in their names. There was nothing at all inappropriate about that. There is entirely too much political activity by nonprofit groups (especially religious ones) and they are by and large too chicken to take them on. There was no scandal and no reason to distrust anyone because of that.
As for prevention, we can speculate all we want. I don’t know what it would have taken to figure out the 9/11 attacks. Personally I think it would probably have required a level of trust and communication between US, British and German intelligence agencies that seems highly unlikely, even now. As George Will pointed out several years ago, the advantage that they have is that they only have to be partially successful at what they are doing whereas our security forces have to be right every time. It would appear that quite a few people spread across our government have been doing a very good job (perhaps in ways that they themselves aren’t aware…disrupting the flow of laundered money could easily be disrupting organizations we never even knew about). But I am not convinced that the government itself needs to be collecting phone records of US citizens. It is easy enough to get them from the phone company with a warrant. Why do they need to to keep all those records? I find it odd that you are so concerned about a non-scandal involving the IRS but allowing the government to collect private records without cause doesn’t bother you in the least.
posted by Jorge on
“political sounding words”
What the heck does that even mean?
According ot the Treasury Department Inspector General’s June 26th response to Senator Carl Levin, 100% of groups with the words “Tea Party,” “Patriot” and “9/12” in their names received greater scrutiny, while only 30% of groups with the words “progress” and “progressive” in their names were processed as political cases.
The Inspector General report itself repeatedly concluded that the processes used to identify potential political cases in non-profit applications were inappropriate and that other, content-based criteria, should have been used.
Stop making **** up. This is exactly why I am more concerned than before about the government running amok with random biases that have no basic in fact or due process.
posted by Houndentenor on
Where did you get those statistics?
And are you claiming that a group with “Tea Party” in its name isn’t very likely to be political? Political groups are not eligible for 501(c)3 status. They were right to ask them questions.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
The inspector general’s letter has a lot more to say than the statistics you mention, Jorge.
The inspector general’s letter deals with an audit of groups that were reviewed by the IRS as “potential political cases” applying for tax-exempt status (a no-no, to use not-so-technical language). The audit looked at the time frame of May 2010 to May 2012, with a total of 298 applications reviewed.
Yes, the inspector general’s letter notes that 100% of the organizations with Tea Party, 9/12, Patriots were processed as “potential political cases” during the time frame of the audit, and that 30% of the groups with “progressive” or “progress” were likewise audited. The letter also states that inappropriate criteria were used in this process.
But the letter also notes that 69 percent of the 298 cases audited for the report had “indications of significant political campaign intervention”.
The IG goes on to note that the IRS looked at a sampling of additional applications for 501(c)4 status – and found that an estimated 175 cases were not properly identified as potentially political cases.
In other words, Jorge, after the explosion of ‘tea party’ groups from 2009 (Obamacare) – the IRS ‘inappropriately’ tried to monitor the avalanche of organizations applying to get tax-exempt status by using certain phrases as filters.
Out of the 298 cases that were audited in this IG report – 206 of them were determined to NOT qualify for tax-exempt status because they were “political cases”.
And in a sampled review of organizations not involved in this report’s audit – another 175 organizations were found to be “political cases” as well.
i.e., there seems (in hindsight) to have been ample reason to have tried to monitor this rash of organizations applying for tax-exempt status.
The IRS used “inappropriate criteria” in trying to manage this situation.
But if there was a rush of organizations with ‘tea party’, ‘9/12’ and/or ‘patriots’ in their titles, and these organizations were trying to acquire a tax-exempt status for which they did not qualify (i.e., they were political organizations) – then this is not a case of “government running amok with random biases that have no basic in fact or due process”.
How would you suggest the IRS monitor these waves of organizations trying to avoid their legal resposibilities?
posted by Jorge on
Where did you get those statistics?
According ot the Treasury Department Inspector General’s June 26th response to Senator Carl Levin
Perhaps I should have been more clear. It is a letter. The full title is the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. And you can find it on the World Wide Web.
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration office is the author of the May 14, 2013 report, “Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review”.
Furthermore, if you were to read the Inspector General’s report, you would again learn that 100% of applications by organizations with the words “Tea Party”, “Patriot”, and “9/12” in their names were reviewed as potential “political” cases.
One of the things I learned in college was the importance of reading what are called primary sources when researching an event. These are first-hand accounts of historical events rather than second-hand research or summaries which are colored by other people’s interpretations and priorities.
I take your rather pathetic attempt at a denial in the face of the most direct source of information possible as a full concession that you are not sufficiently educated on the IRS scandal engage in a discussion on the topic, and that you wish to remain so. Now kindly answer my question and respect my request before requesting that I answer question.
The inspector general’s letter has a lot more to say than the statistics you mention, Jorge.
Yes, but one topic at a time. “Agents asked follow-up questions of new applicants for 501(c)3 status that had political sounding words in their names.” That is one, a statement so vague as to be designed to mold itself into the shape of any definition one chooses, and too, yet it’s so deceptive that it still manages to be demonstrably false. Credibility before content.
And the content is this: if you’re going to try to suggest that I should not be trusting the government less because of the IRS scandal and you have a different reason why I’d be interested in hearing it. So far you’re telling me, “but there was such a big problem to handle!” Regardless of whether the scandal happened because of bizarre incompetence or unacceptable malice, it still tells me that random acts of government abuse are prone to happening any time the government acts. And thus, we should not have faith in the government or give them the benefit of the doubt just because they’re responding to a supposed need. My solution is to have Ron Paul run for president and let his vermin swarm into Bradley Manning’s court hearings. Sane people do smarter things when challenged by smart loons.
posted by Houndentenor on
No, I was not vague. It is perfectly reasonable to question whether or not a new organization with the words “Tea Party” in its name is political. The IRS was right to ask them further questions. It should have been 100% of them.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Ron Paul is playing the ‘See, I am libertarian’ con today, while the next day he will probably pull out a totally different card…er…con.
Do I have concerns about giving the government more power to ‘spy’ on American citizens. Yes, but my concerns did not somehow magically appear when a Democrat got elected to the White House.
My concerns are as they were when Bush W. was in the White House and, frankly, I have concerns about when private companies do spying as well.
posted by Tim on
I read your comment as somehow implying that Ron Paul only raised privacy concerns now that Obama is in office. If that is the case, nothing could be further from the truth. He was dead set against Bush’s Patriot Act and the Iraq war.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I doubt that Christie is trying to “thin the ranks” so much as establish ne0-con and soc-con credentials. Christie can’t make it through the Republican primary process unless he is seen to be both tough-minded and mean-spirited with respect to the “homosexual agenda” and “terrorists”.
posted by TomJefferson III on
1. I was not saying that Ron Paul only cared about the privacy issue when a Democrat was in the White House. However, a fair number of conservative ‘commentators’ have suddenly started to care about the government spying on citizens or engaging in partisan-based discrimination (i.e. IRS accusations). It is BS. It undermines any effort to address these problems like mature adults and I felt the need to call them on it.
2. Ron Paul (and his son) pretend to be libertarians — not that I am a follower of the wacky philosophy, but I know enough about it to identify it or a false prophet claiming to be a true believer for some coinage — but they have little problem with religious right running the country — as long as its clouds its in a mantra of ‘state’s rights’. He rejects the idea that privacy rights exist when the government goes into someone’s bedroom, but wants to pose as the libertarian on this issue. Again, different sort of BS, but BS none the less.
posted by Tim on
It’s pretty clear that you don’t know much at all about that “wacky philosophy” which is sort of ironic given that you use the name Tom Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson and most of the other founding fathers along with philosophers of the Enlightenment were the originators of that philosophy. You’ll find much of it in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers, among other places.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Um, Yes, I have read — in between my studies — several books about the libertarian party, libertarian theory and so on and so forth. All are the sort of books that libertarians have suggested/endorsed.
One of the common myths promoted by libertarians (or I should say the right-libertarians) is that the founding fathers were all libertarians and America was a libertarian paradise until something evil came along…
Libertarianism came later — mostly forged through anarchists and social democrats — and it was redefined and remarketed for right-wing interests later on.
The two Red Scares and the Cold War made anything remotely ‘red’ or ‘pink’ seem down right un-American. These new libertarians were disciplines of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
Politically, the founding fathers would have probably seen themselves as being liberals or Whigs. It is also dangerous to cut and past modern political thinking into the minds of someone from the 18th century.
They had different opinions and viewpoints among them (and not to mention hopes of being elected in the new republic). Calling any of the opinions ‘libertarian’ is dishonest and deceptive.
Thomas Jefferson, who is not technically a founding father, was certainly not a libertarian.
posted by Jimmy on
“One of the common myths promoted by libertarians (or I should say the right-libertarians) is that the founding fathers were all libertarians and America was a libertarian paradise until something evil came along…”
Yes. It never seems to occur to those who perpetuate that myth that whenever one of those founders became POTUS, he pretty much became a statist.
posted by Jorge on
Yes. It never seems to occur to those who perpetuate that myth that whenever one of those founders became POTUS, he pretty much became a statist.
Well, they do benefit from the myth that John Adams was the only president who governed like Darth Vader.
posted by Don on
Conservative commentators care nothing about government spying. They care only about criticizing Obama. When he cut taxes, half of them cried he didn’t cut taxes enough. The other half shrieked “it’s a lie, he hasn’t cut taxes at all!” There is nothing the man could do that would make them happy. Enacting their entire agenda would morph into “trying to destroy out country” in a matter of minutes. The only principal I see in action is Nobama. Shame really. He’s a liberal they would have gotten a lot done with had they found room to compromise. Hell, he enacted Dole and Gingrich’s healthcare plan. I wonder what else they would have gotten had they been interested in working on the country’s problems.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Getting back to the main ‘thrust’ — if you will — of the post.
1. Yes. Christie is probably pandering to the likely GOP primary voters who tend to ultra-conservative about anything to do with God, gays or gender. The fact that he did so seems to be a common plan for ‘once-sane-now-saved’ GOP-ers seeking their party’s presidential nod.
2. Ron Paul opposed the U.S.S.C. ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. In fact he basically rejects the idea that their is a right to Constitutional privacy with regards to sexuality or birth control or abortion….yet — his tweet — suggests that he also wants to be taken seriously as some sort of libertarian defender of privacy rights. That was my main complaint about him. That and his views illustrate how he is not a libertarian.
3. I am more then happy to get into a debate about the pros and cons of libertarianism, but I am not sure that Stephen wants such a debate to occur here and now.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m trying to think of an elected official who isn’t self-contradictory on issues of privacy or states’ rights. Thinking….I got nothing. Anyone?
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I am not entire sure that ‘everyone is doing it’ is the best line of reasoning for Ron Paul (and his son) who like to get on their ‘More-Constitutional-Then-Art-Thou’ high horse…..
posted by Cheap Nike Dunk Be True Haze Chronicles Sale on
I’ve been browsing online greater than 3 hours these days, but I never found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It’s beautiful worth sufficient for
me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content material as you did, the net
will likely be much more helpful than ever before.