Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Tom Tancredo said in a recent interview, spotlighted by the Worldnutdaily, "We have a man in White House who brazenly disregards his oath of office." And he's absolutely right. As he has pursued more and more executive power in the courts through his abuse of the state secrets privilege, Obama has indeed disregarded his oath of office and is threatening the basic safeguards to our liberty found in the constitution.
The difference between me and Tom, however, is that he's a hypocrite. He didn't say a word while Bush was shredding habeas corpus, arresting American citizens and holding them indefinitely without charges and using the state secrets privilege for exactly the same purpose as Obama. I did.
Politics
Comments
I'm fairly confident that nearly ever single conservative politician with access to the national media who criticizes the President for not defending the Constitution would be far worse - far, far worse.
Most of their criticisms are frequently false or possibly arguable claims regarding the President is violating the Constitution.
The only legitimate critics of the President's performance in defending the Constitution I've encountered come primarily from the left with the exception of gun rights advocates. Their criticism that the President is a hypocrite regarding his claiming the Constitution describes an individual right to own and carry a gun while the President simultaneously argued in court that D.C. and Chicago should be able to prohibit gun ownership and carry rights for self-defense purposes is convincing. And while they're right it's impossible to square those two positions; they have even less moral authority on this matter given how dishonest their representation of the President's position is on gun rights - even prior to the President making it more difficult to trust his stated positions on this matter.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 27, 2010 9:13 AM
You Bush hater!
Besides, wasn't there a law from 2000-2008 (and 1980-1992) making it illegal to criticize the presidunce? Especially if you -- or the presidunce -- was on foreign soil. Or you played in an all-woman country band. Or something. As I recall it was a very complicated law, and only Sean Hannity was familiar with all it's various nuances.
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | July 27, 2010 9:33 AM
"Correct?" Please. He's correct in the one sentence you quote, but he very quickly goes on (in sentences you quote elsewhere but not here) to become incorrect through sheer hyperemotional (and hyper-racist) exaggeration. And that's not even counting the hypocricy factor.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 27, 2010 9:33 AM
Not the only difference, I hope - in addition to being a hypocrite, Tancredo is also a racist, a homophobe, an anti-choice bigot, a compulsive liar, a coward and insane.
Posted by: Phillip IV | July 27, 2010 9:45 AM
"We have a man in White House who brazenly disregards his oath of office." And he's absolutely right. As he has pursued more and more executive power in the courts through his abuse of the state secrets privilege, Obama has indeed disregarded his oath of office "
Convincing, completely provable, evidence please. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2010 10:05 AM
There is a more fundamental difference. Tancredo doesn't care about the civil liberty issues where the Obama administration is treading on Constitutional bad ground. Instead, he is pretending that policy differences are that, e.g., healthcare reform.
Posted by: Russell | July 27, 2010 10:05 AM
BTW, for those of you who don't follow Colorado politics (ie - most of you, I would assume), our Governor's race just got way more entertaining. Tancredo issued an ultimatum to the two GOP candidates that if they didn't drop out he would run as a third party candidate. They refused, and yesterday Tommy declared his candidacy under the American Constitution Party. The Tea Baggers are furious at his betrayal - especially since two years ago Tancredo was the one urging them NOT to split the party. That sound you hear the Dem candidate, Denver Mayor Hickenlooper, laughing all the way to the Gov's mansion.
Posted by: WScott | July 27, 2010 10:07 AM
Dingo,
Just go back and re-read all of Ed's posts about Obama's stances on due process rights, viz, his efforts to attack and undermine them in the courts. Since his oath includes a vow to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," I think the evidence is clear enough.
He's not as bad as Bush on that score, but then Jack the Ripper wasn't as bad as Pedro Alonso Lopez, and the 2009 Detroit Lions weren't as bad as the the 2008 Detroit Lions.* Faint praise, indeed.
________________________
*Yeah, I know you're from down under. If you're lucky, you've never even heard of the Lions.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 27, 2010 10:33 AM
James Hanley, nowhere in "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" does it mention following it.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 27, 2010 11:00 AM
Modusoperandi is correct. A plaintext reading of Obama's oath of office only requires him to maintain the document itself, not to actually read it or follow it.
Posted by: History Punk | July 27, 2010 11:26 AM
He's not talking about the oath of office you're thinking of but the secret version known only to illuminati and lizard people. It reads "I swear by almighty baby Jesus and Saint Reagan, that I have no negro blood and that I am not now nor have I been, nor will I at any point in the future become a communaziliberalmarxistatheofascist"
Posted by: Matty | July 27, 2010 12:33 PM
In case it hasn't been said loudly enough, Tancredo's belief that Obama has violated his oath of office has nothing to do with civil liberties violations or executive power abuses (to the extent that those are actually violations of his oath), but is instead based on Obama's domestic policies and various deluded fantasies about him wanting to destroy America.
There's no sense in conflating the two. One is a valid concern that people like Tancredo will do absolutely nothing to address, and the other is a series of objectively false beliefs, paranoid delusions, and expressions of contempt for the democratic process.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | July 27, 2010 12:55 PM
Whoops mistake there the end of the oath should read "communaziliberalmarxistatheofascistmuslimkenyan" I think there's also a bit about birth certificates
Posted by: Matty | July 27, 2010 12:59 PM
Steve Reuland "In case it hasn't been said loudly enough, Tancredo's belief that Obama has violated his oath of office has nothing to do with civil liberties violations or executive power abuses (to the extent that those are actually violations of his oath)..."
Tancredo, as with the other member of his tribe, is probably for those. Being an authoritarian follower must be tough when the authoritarian in charge is the wrong authoritarian.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 27, 2010 5:01 PM
Sorry - I meant can Mr Tancredo provide evidence (not Ed).
That's what happens when one posts in haste, one repents at leisure. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 27, 2010 7:15 PM