You know that we’re gearing up for another round of mid-term Congressional elections when someone rolls out another bill calling for a constitutional amendment that would ban the burning of the American flag.
The Phnom Penh blog calls the proposed bill the “Bad Idea That Just Won’t Die,” noting that “It’s already passed the House, which isn’t too surprising, because the House has, for some time now, contained more than its fair share of vicious, thoughtless people. But the Senate may be only one vote away from approving this, too, in which case it would be up to the states to stop this.”
Let’s remember that the House has passed the measure four times previously, only to have it die four times in the Senate. This time, however, the Senate might have the votes to push it though. (Among other things, the fight this time is putting Hillary Rodham Clinton in an odd position, just as she appears to be gaining momentum for a presidential bid in ’08. In a hair-splitting statement yesterday, she said that she would “support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration … but I don’t believe a constitutional amendment is the answer.”)
Military blogger Citizen Smash at Indepundit isn’t into the idea, writing that he hates flag burning “[a]lmost as much as I hate the Flag-Burning Amendment. Burning the American flag is offensive, but it does no harm to the nation or the forces that protect it. It’s a symbol of our national spirit, not a physical manifestation of it. Besides, we can always make more flags faster than they can burn ’em.”
Panda Ponders, conversely, is solidly behind the bill, framing it with the easy-to-digest red state/blue state dichotomy: “If passed, I hope all states follow suit ASAP, however I can see several blue states causing enough problems so that it will fail the seven-year deadline. I don’t know when exactly patriotism became such an evil thing in the eyes of a Democrat, but it has.”
Karl Rove has been kind of quiet lately, hasn’t he? Never fear, gentle reader, the Boy Wonder is back in a big way this morning on the pages of the New York Times, telling a crowd at a Manhattan fundraiser last night that “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”
Rob Schumacher finds this more than a little disingenuous, asking “Did I miss the strongly bipartisan resolution to go to war in Afghanistan? Nope … I think only one lawmaker voted against it … Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).”
While many in the lefty blogosphere are frothing at the mouth over Rove’s comments (and the right seems strangely silent), Josh Marshall takes a step back and looks at the big picture:
Read this piece in today’s Times, absorb it, give yourself 90 seconds for outrage, then rededicate yourself to wresting a great country from his hands.
Don’t forget that these statements are meant to outrage you. You’re a targeted audience. They’re meant to perpetuate a state of maximal polarization in this country — the state of affairs most suited for vampires like Mr. Rove to suck the nation dry.
–Paul McLeary
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.