« Still Nothing | Main | Losing the Base »
April 14, 2005
Hillary's Chance
Senator Hillary Clinton is trying to remake herself as a moderate so she can run for president in 2008. Although she's mouthed the appropriate words to the right audiences, Clinton has not yet done what the Democrats need to do - denounce the hateful left. As Michelle Malkin and Ace have pointed out, the latest incarnation of Bush hatred comes in the form of products that endorse the assassination of a sitting president.
Evan Coyne Maloney has found a disturbing new example of this sort of thing - George W. Bush shooting targets. This goes far beyond the bounds of any sort of civilized or legal discourse and in my opinion is not protected by the First Amendment. Brandenburg v Ohio states that speech can be prohibited if that speech is:
"directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action"According to federal law, it is illegal to threaten the life of the president:"likely to incite or produce such action."
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.(Emphasis mine)
The problem is a growing one. We have seen products sold at internet retailers, wishes for the president's death are routinely made at Democratic Underground, and now the fake targets. There's nothing amusing about this, and these threats should be taken seriously by those who protect the life of the president.
In 2000, Al Gore tried to litigate his way into the White House. In 2004, John Kerry's supporters tried to force recounts and challenge the electoral results to do the same. As Powerline pointed out during the attempt to disenfranchise millions of voters:
Today's Democrats have no respect for our country's insitutions or for democratic processes. Partisanship is all. Surely they must understand the damage they do to our institutions when they refuse to accept the basic principle of democracy: when you lose an election, the other guys get to govern.That lack of respect continues, and it grows worse. When is someone, anyone, in the Democratic party going to take on the spittle-flecked malcontents that make up the angry left?
Hillary, here's your chance to prove that your moderation is more than talk.
Posted by slublog at April 14, 2005 08:59 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1136
Comments
I'm still waiting for the Right to start apologizing for letting Randall Terry, who has financed and aided abortion-clinics bombers, speak for them in the Schaivo clusterf**k. Not holdin' my breath on that one...
Posted by: Don Myers at April 14, 2005 05:14 PM
You bring up a good point, but many right-wing bloggers did criticize the Schiavos for allowing Terry to speak for them.
I was one of those bloggers.
A lot of people on National Review were just as critical, including Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, etc. So who do you mean by the "right?" We're not some homogenous entity, you know.
Posted by: Peter at April 14, 2005 05:31 PM
Oh, and another thing...
Congratulations. You're my first liberal poster.
Posted by: Peter at April 14, 2005 05:46 PM
What is the law in relation to threatening the life of a US Senator?
Posted by: Aimee at January 18, 2006 09:26 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it's about the same severity, to be honest.
Um, why do you ask?
Posted by: Slublog at January 18, 2006 03:58 PM