Vroom –
I realize what Roy thinks the quote means. Why don’t you re-read it and see if that’s what Roosevelt is saying?
The quote is saying that it is unpatriotic to disallow criticism of the president. Which, of course, is not happening.
Dur.
BostonBarrister said:
A bit presumptuous aren’t we? The arrogance from the far-right… Jeez!
I guess you had the TV and radio off during the months that followed 911. I seem to remember that if ANYONE said anything negative about the administration during those golden days they were quickly put in their place. The very fact that things like the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq were even allowed to happen was the fact that critical voices were suppressed. In fact, there were even reporters who were stonewalled if they asked negative questions, and the rest pretty much clammed up because they were afraid they would lose access (at least for the time). He hid behind the “importance of national security” and used that as an excuse to give out billions in no-bid federal contracts to all of his buddies who financed his campaign. All of that happened right under our noses because after the horror of what happened, in our state of fear and vulnerability, we just wanted to be safe, and we as a nation were afraid to criticise. Well, some of us were. My point is, that is the exact reason it is “unpatriotic and morally treasonous” to stay silent… I wonder if maybe its YOU who doesn’t really understand what Roosevelt was saying.
BB,
True republican thinking. A law has not been passed stopping it, therefore it has not been stopped…
Dur
To announce that there must be no criticism…
The Tedmeister isn’t around to tell us what he meant with the quote, but looking at this first part might be a bit indicative.
My take is that by squelching criticism or attempting to make it difficult for people to criticize (as you have suggested the Bush administraton did in another thread) the administration is acting in a manner tantamount to treason. It is not in the public interest to eliminate discussion.
The right has been doing so, trying to make it difficult to voice reasoned dissent, ever since 9-11 occurred. You don’t have to be a stinking liberal socialist commie to find that bad or wrong.
So, Roy, you think people were not allowed to criticize the President? Would you care to bet me on an over/under of how many pieces of journalism I could find with a simple Google search that were critical of the President during the lead up to the War and after 9/11?
BTW, refusing to answer a question from a reporter amounts to disallowing criticism of the president? Allowing for the sake of argument that it did happen (which I am not agreeing with in general), that’s hardly coercion of the free press. I suppose the administration barred these reporters from press conferences at least, so their networks/papers wouldn’t have access to the news? No?
Perhaps he cut the tongues off of people who criticized him? No, sorry, that was Saddam. My bad.
I’m not even going to get in to your paranoid delusions on Halliburton et al, which have been debunked at length previously.
Suffice it to say that the 1st Amendment is my Constitutional bailiwick, and no one in the government was chilling any free speech w/r/t the president or the administration.
As I said above, freedom to criticize the president does not equal the divine right to lay down criticisms without having them examined and answered. That is our system at work – debate of ideas. If your idea happens to be unpopular, you can’t cry that it’s unfair or that you’ve been disallowed to say your piece.
vroom:
I suppose you think that those whose opinions question the validity of your opinions should be muzzled? True Democrat understanding of freedom of speech: it only applies if you agree with me. See, e.g., Canada’s laws on hate crimes, which have been used to prosecute people for both questioning gay marriage and for criticizing the American war effort.
Questioning the president and other leaders is one’s obligation as a citizen. It is also important to question the questioners.
Plenty of folks around here have said that criticizing the President and/or the war is unpatriotic. Plenty.
BB, I’m happy if you disagree or otherwise question my comments. I don’t see where you get the idea that I wouldn’t like it.
However, I will be unhappy if you hold demonstrations and call for hundreds or thousands of people to call me anti-american and get them to boycott my business.
Of course, both are allowed under the law. Act number two though can be quite malicious and do a lot of damage to me and convince me just to shut my mouth instead of speak out since I have to feed my family.
What is and isn’t legally allowed is not the only arbiter of what is right and wrong, in what has or hasn’t been done and what should or should not be done.
You need to apply your brain a little bit to the reality of life and not just to the letter of the law – life isn’t a courtroom.
RSU:
People can say what they like. That’s their freedom of speech. It’s important that the government not stifle it.
However, back to the quote at hand: TR didn’t mean that one couldn’t question the patriotism of those who questioned the president. He himself was explicity questioning the patriotism of those who did not question.
vroom:
Obviously life isn’t a courtroom. I’ve never really been in a courtroom though, so I guess in a sense I am trusting you on that one – I’m a transactional lawyer.
Anyway though, there’s a big difference between “right and wrong” and what is constitutionally protected. First of all, I will agree that it isn’t good to try to intimidate your intellectual adversaries. However, in all honesty, people do have the right to call for boycotts against those with whom they disagree. It’s part of freedom of speech.
Unless you are going to disallow boycotts in general, in which case you will not allow boycotts for civil rights, environmental or any other political reason, you cannot stop boycotts of people with whom you agree. Boycotts are political coercion, and to the extent they are tolerated at all they must be tolerated in general. Boycotting a racist and boycotting someone who disagrees with the war is done for the same reason, and unless you would have the government step in and judge political motives (the antithesis of free speech), you need to live with boycotts with which you do not agree.
Well, not exactly: YOu could always boycott the boycott. Or go out of your way to violate it. Or express your disagreement in some other way. That’s what free speech is all about – in real life, not just in the court room. Free speech doesn’t shield you from being a societal pariah – it simply protects your ability to not get fined or thrown in jail for speaking.
BB, I’m happy if you disagree or otherwise question my comments. I don’t see where you get the idea that I wouldn’t like it.
However, I will be unhappy if you hold demonstrations and call for hundreds or thousands of people to call me anti-american and get them to boycott my business.
Of course, both are allowed under the law. Act number two though can be quite malicious and do a lot of damage to me and convince me just to shut my mouth instead of speak out since I have to feed my family.
What is and isn’t legally allowed is not the only arbiter of what is right and wrong, in what has or hasn’t been done and what should or should not be done.
You need to apply your brain a little bit to the reality of life and not just to the letter of the law – life isn’t a courtroom.
TR didn’t mean that one couldn’t question the patriotism of those who questioned the president. He himself was explicity questioning the patriotism of those who did not question.
Are you on drugs? He did mean you should not accuse those of questioning the president of being unpatriotic.
it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else
The above is talking about what is said about the president. Sure, TR may or may not agree with your viewpoint of questioning the questioners BB, but he himself was talking about attempting to pressure those questioning the president. His viewpoint was that it was wrong.
Notice also the use of the word “announce”. This does not mean to pass a law. It means “to say, or print, or broadcast” that criticism of the president is wrong is itself wrong.
TR would, IMHO, expect you to argue the merits of the criticisms, not just blindly question the motives of the person criticising the president in an effort to quell said criticism.
Are you really a lawyer?
vroom:
I am a lawyer, and was a U.S. history major who graduated with high honors, and I mean exactly what I wrote.
You are not wrong to say that the above is talking about what is said about the President. HOWEVER, the above is explicity NOT saying one cannot question those who question the president and decide to disagree with him for whatever reason.
While the first line of inquiry should always be the substance of the criticism, there is nothing illegitimate about examining someone’s motives as well. It’s the whole genesis of the “follow the money” inquiries.
The above is saying it is the duty of every citizen to question the president.
In fact, let’s just look at the specific quote again:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public…
Me: OK, this just said that you cannot ban criticism of the president, and that it is unpatriotic and morally treasonable to ban criticism of the President.
“Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”
Me again: Here TR is saying that we shouldn’t spread lies about the President, but that we must not be afraid to tell unpleasant truths about the President.
What TR is condemning is the idea that the act of criticizing the president is inherently wrong. He is not saying that any legitimate line of inquiry into the questioner is wrong. He is not arguing against any “pressure” against someone questioning the president, to the extent “pressure” consists of arguing with him.
To borrow from you either here or in another thread (I don’t remember which), this doesn’t say what TR would have thought about boycotts and the like. That is conjecture, not something to be drawn from this quote.
That said, I agree with you that the substance of the opinion is what should be debated. Both sides of the political spectrum should work on that. I would hope TR would agree, and I think he probably would. But you can’t tell from the quote; that’s just conjecture.
What do you get when you combine the Godfather with a lawyer?
Someone who says (in your best Marlon Brando voice) “Make 'im an offer he can’t understand!”
BB, you are a lawyer and a wordsmith to boot. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could figure out a way to interpret the quote to say that “all presidents like to be bent over and spanked” and actually sound convincing.
BB,
I think we are pretty close, but just don’t realize it…
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public…
Me: OK, this just said that you cannot ban criticism of the president, and that it is unpatriotic and morally treasonable to ban criticism of the President.
I read “announce” as different than “pass a law against or ban”. I feel he is arguing against making it difficult to criticize the president. If you don’t, then you don’t. However, his quote applies to all people, not just the administration. So, in my interpretation of his words, it would be “wrong” to call a boycott on someone because they were legitimately criticizing the president.
The fact I’m against using admittedly legal tactics to shut up (or coerce) people who want to criticize the president does not mean that I would like to pass laws or don’t recognize free speech. If you look back, I admit the legal ability of people to do what they do over and over again.
I’m only arguing that TR was against such coercive measures. However, I did suggest that the Bush regime encouraged such coercive measures, which I would then find wrong. It is very easy or perhaps subtle when stepping over the moral line as opposed to the legal line, and sure, we can disagree on that.
Anyhow, sorry, the “are you a lawyer” comment was uncalled for. However, it is funny that you aren’t inside of the courtroom so to speak, as your forum name includes “barrister” which is exactly someone who argues in court.
Peace.
BB said “BTW, refusing to answer a question from a reporter amounts to disallowing criticism of the president? Allowing for the sake of argument that it did happen (which I am not agreeing with in general), that’s hardly coercion of the free press. I suppose the administration barred these reporters from press conferences at least, so their networks/papers wouldn’t have access to the news? No?”
Perhaps you know about Helen Thomas, the UPI reporter who has covered the White House for four decades? She got “frozen out” and they stopped taking her questions during the Bush White House press conferences. This was because the White House didn’t like the tough questions she was asking, during the lead-up to invading Iraq.
This has helped lead to what has been called the “most cowed” White House press corps in memory. If you ask tough questions, they’ll stop taking your questions. As a reporter, if they stop taking your questions, you can’t do your job.
vroom:
You’re right. We are close. I just think you’re reading a little too much into the quote. ALso, I dislike boycotts generally, but because they’re part of free speech I don’t generally criticize. I find Jesse Jackson’s threats of boycotts generally repugnant, but he is within his legal rights. As you say, morality would be a differnt matter. However, I don’t think the government should get into morality in most cases.
Also, side note: You’re right about “barrister.” However, BostonCounselor didn’t have the same alliterative appeal. =-)
Lumpy:
That’s a ridiculous conclusion, aside from everything else. A reporter can report irrespective of whether his specific question is recognized. It’s a press conference. Lots of questions are asked and answered (or talked around, as politicians are wont to do). Other reporters will ask questions.
While this could be carried to an extreme, I don’t think anyone is implying that the administration only took questions from Tony Snow.
BB, the administration is too slick and has too many lawyers to act in a way that would widely be considered a “ban” on criticism.
But the fact is that reporter WAS denied access. While every administration limits certain people or questions that would raise uncomfortable issues, Bush has taken it to new levels, no doubt because of how much they have to hide.
People who attend anti-war rallies are harrassed by the FBI, some have even been subpoened by the Ashcroft gang for the “heinous” crime of having a campus anti-war meeting (a college in Iowa).
Kuri:
I repeat, refusing to answer questions from ONE reporter, or even a small number of reporters, is hardly quashing dissent. It would stretch Constitutional doctrine past the breaking point to even suggest that it might have a “chilling effect” on speech.
If you want to find quashing dissent, look to Cuba, with its jailing of librarians and dissenters, or China, with the “disappearances” of democratic activists. Or even to Canada, with its prosecutions of people who take out billboards to advertise their disagreement with homosexual lifestyles, or Sweden, with its similar cases of prosecutions of people for their opinions.
BTW, I would love for someone to come up with some sort of data for all the claims that the Bush administration is raising non-cooperation with reporters to “unprecedented” levels, or that the Washington press corps is now the most cowed in history. Big, flowery claims don’t mean much if they can’t be verfied.
Now, as to people at anti-war rallies actually having FBI agents or police “look into” their backgrounds or ask them questions, I’m sure there are some individual cases where individual cops overstepped, to whatever small degree, what they should have done. Kind of like the police officer who arrested 3 ministers outside of a gay rally who were protesting on sidewalks, after they were not allowed in the public park where the rally was taking place. In examining most of these sorts of things, it is individual officers overstepping their bounds – there is no grand conspiracy among police to disallow protests at gay rallies, and nor is there a grand policy among the Bush administration to harass war protestors. If there were oversteps, I should hope the individuals who perpetrated them are sued.
wow. Entertaining really. Next up, could BB and vroom please tell use multiple posts and a lot of my time to discuss the differences between a yam and a sweet potato?