would liberals have passed the Patriot Act?

Hiltonian · #1 09-13-2006, 05:35 PM

I recently was involved in a discussion with a few people and someone mentioned how republicans and democrats are no different from one another, they just often take opposite stances on things to appeal to their followers.

Ignoring that huge debate, what I found interesting that someone mentioned is that they believed even if Democrats had been in office presently that they would have still passed the Patriot Act. He brought up some decent points too, such as ECHELON which was passed under the Clinton Administration (I am fairly naive on the ECHELON subject and am only going by what he claimed was true so correct me if this is somewhat incorrect).

Do any of you think that had Gore been elected over Bush that the Patriot Act, or something similar, would have been passed for similar reasons, or is it something that only conservatives would ever have crafted?

iron81 · #2 09-13-2006, 05:51 PM

Something similar would have passed for the following reasons:

1. We would have still had a Republican Congress
2. The whole county was in "Do something" mode.
3. My understanding of how the PATRIOT act came into being is that the Justice Department went to Congress with a wish list and Congress largely passed it. Its likely that Civil Servants in the DOJ had a lot of input in that bill, and Civil Servants stay on between administrations.

bobman0330 · #3 09-13-2006, 06:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Something similar would have passed for the following reasons:

1. We would have still had a Republican Congress
2. The whole county was in "Do something" mode.
3. My understanding of how the PATRIOT act came into being is that the Justice Department went to Congress with a wish list and Congress largely passed it. Its likely that Civil Servants in the DOJ had a lot of input in that bill, and Civil Servants stay on between administrations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly right, except for point 1. The act passed 357-66 in the House and 98-1 in the Senate. OF COURSE a Democratic administration, with or without a Democratic Congress, would have passed the bill. Anyone who says different is distorting the facts or has a bad memory.

sweetjazz · #4 09-13-2006, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Something similar would have passed for the following reasons:

1. We would have still had a Republican Congress
2. The whole county was in "Do something" mode.
3. My understanding of how the PATRIOT act came into being is that the Justice Department went to Congress with a wish list and Congress largely passed it. Its likely that Civil Servants in the DOJ had a lot of input in that bill, and Civil Servants stay on between administrations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly right, except for point 1. The act passed 357-66 in the House and 98-1 in the Senate. OF COURSE a Democratic administration, with or without a Democratic Congress, would have passed the bill. Anyone who says different is distorting the facts or has a bad memory.

[/ QUOTE ]

OF COURSE any bill dealing with national security would have been written very differently had Democrats been in power. For better or worse.

The online gambling bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and a majority of Democrats voted for it. I think it is pretty absurd to suggest that the bill would have passed -- or even saw the light of day -- had Democrats controlled the House.

bobman0330 · #5 09-13-2006, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The online gambling bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and a majority of Democrats voted for it. I think it is pretty absurd to suggest that the bill would have passed -- or even saw the light of day -- had Democrats controlled the House.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that?

iron81 · #6 09-13-2006, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Linky

steve9789 · #7 09-13-2006, 05:52 PM

Excellent question. I think that they would have something very similar, and then perhaps it would then be a conservative senate minority leader at the capital claiming victory for "defeating the patriot act" as Sen. Harry Reid did.

I've wondered at how often politicians have to take the opposing side just because of party affiliation. Let's be honest, at the end of the day they are all lying crooks trying to get re-elected.

New001 · #8 09-13-2006, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent question. I think that they would have something very similar, and then perhaps it would then be a conservative senate minority leader at the capital claiming victory for "defeating the patriot act" as Sen. Harry Reid did.

I've wondered at how often politicians have to take the opposing side just because of party affiliation. Let's be honest, at the end of the day they are all lying crooks trying to get re-elected.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mostly agree, I doubt "liberals" would have been any different. Some aspects of the bill might be different, but the same sort of stuff would have been created.

troymclur · #9 09-14-2006, 12:56 AM

They would have done something, that's for sure. Whenever the people get scared, politicians scramble to do ANYTHING, so long as it placates the vocalists and holds the appearance of doing something. The other side of this coin is that it gives a supercharge to government to not just do something, but clean house as well. The sad fact is that national tragedies force the spotlight on the cobwebs in governement and motivate people to pressure politicians to do their damned job better than they have been (the other sad fact being the rush to getting results can easily end up with hastily made band-aids rather than fully beneficial vaccinations)

[ QUOTE ]
Let's be honest, at the end of the day they are all lying crooks trying to get re-elected.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't being honest.

steve9789 · #10 09-14-2006, 06:20 AM

I disagree.