Fred Hiatt's Partisan Bickering

Fred Hiatt, an extreme partisan on behalf of the Bush Administration, insists on bickering about the FISA bill. Mr. Hiatt insists on partisan sniping at, for instance, Ron Wyden:

An amendment to the Senate bill by Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden would go too far by requiring that a warrant be obtained when U.S. citizens are the target of surveillance overseas; this would be an unnecessary and potentially disruptive precedent.

Rather than explaining why he believes requiring a warrant for government surveillance, as the Fourth Amendment requires in the United States, of US citizens residing overseas is "unnecessary and potentially disruptive," Hiatt instead engages in empty partisan bickering.

It is people like Fred Hiatt, who engage in partisan bickering, who keep our good representatives in Congress from enacting bipartisan laws. After all, the FISA bill Hiatt is engaging in partisan bickering about was passed overwhelmingly 13-2 by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Why does Fred Hiatt hate bipartisan legislation? Why must he constantly engage in partisan bickering

On the other hand, Hiatt is wrong in his diatribe against those who oppose Telco Amnesty. That is principled and brave representation of the principles of our country. You see the difference I hope. When I support or oppose something it is principled. When Fred Hiatt supports or opposes something, it is "partisan bickering." We must end the gridlock in Washington. Fred Hiatt must be detained by the government.

< Fred Thompson Commits Political Suicide | Dodd On Meet The Press >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is snark obviously (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    But I just hate the hypocritical invocation of "bipartisanship" and the labelling of opposing views from one's own as "partisan bickering."

    Hiatt is a tool.

    A turning against (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by manys on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 12:35:42 PM EST
    It's true that the conversations in politics these days devolve into polarized name-calling, but it's also important to speak the same language when trying to bridge the gap between viewpoints.

    The Republicans have successfully defined "partisanship" only in terms of opposition and they only apply it to people who disagree with them, so one way of defusing the control they have over the word it makes sense to defuse it by throwing it back in their faces. Reclaim "partisanship" for both sides of the argument even though it is only used in a narrow sense.

    Once the(ir) word is turned against them they will likely stop using it and move on to the next adjective (of which they likely already have a list for 'next steps').


    A dollop of snark at the end (none / 0) (#5)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 07:46:18 PM EST
    But the main body of the piece seems exactly right.

    Mr. Hiatt needs an extended vaction (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 10:46:43 AM EST

    He's On One (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Oct 27, 2007 at 12:10:18 PM EST
    A vacatoin from reality.