[Mb-civic] Bob Barr, Bane of the Right? - Dana Milbank - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?

By Dana Milbank
Saturday, February 11, 2006; A02

You could find just about everything at the annual Conservative 
Political Action Conference this week: the bumper sticker that says 
"Happiness is Hillary's face on a milk carton," the "Straight Pride" 
T-shirt, a ride on an F-22 Raptor simulator at the Lockheed exhibit, and 
beans from the Contra Cafe coffee company (slogan: "Wake up with freedom 
fighters").

As of midday yesterday, a silent auction netted $300 for lunch with 
activist Grover Norquist, $275 for a meal with the Heritage Foundation 
president and $1,000 for a hunting trip with the American Conservative 
Union chairman. But lunch with former congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga.), with 
an "estimated value" of $500, had a top bid of only $75 -- even with a 
signed copy of Barr's book, "The Meaning of Is," thrown in.

No surprise there. The former Clinton impeachment manager is the skunk 
at CPAC's party this year. He says President Bush is breaking the law by 
eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without warrants. And fellow 
conservatives, for the most part, don't want to hear it.

"You've heard of bear baiting? We're going to have, today, Barr 
baiting," R. Emmet Tyrell, a conservative publisher, announced as he 
introduced a debate Thursday between Barr and Viet Dinh, one of the 
authors of the USA Patriot Act.

"Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr 
beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in 
Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of 
allegiance to principle?"

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that 
believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this 
country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as 
conservatives say yes."

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited 
only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, 
booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening 
to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," 
Sorcinelli fumed.

Far more to this crowd's liking was Vice President Cheney, who stopped 
by CPAC late Thursday and suggested the surveillance program as a 2006 
campaign issue. "With an important election coming up, people need to 
know just how we view the most critical questions of national security," 
he told the cheering crowd.

Dinh, now a Georgetown law professor, urged the CPAC faithful to carve 
out a Bush exception to their ideological principle of limited 
government. "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of 
governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism 
needs to yield," Dinh explained, invoking Osama bin Laden.

Dinh brought the crowd to a raucous ovation when he judged: "The threat 
to Americans' liberty today comes from al Qaeda and its associates and 
the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men 
and women who work to defend this country!"

It was the sort of tactic that has intimidated Democrats and the last 
few libertarian Republicans who question the program's legality. But 
Barr is not easily suppressed. During a 2002 Senate primary, he 
accidentally fired a pistol at a campaign event; at a charity event a 
decade earlier, he licked whipped cream from the chests of two women.

Barr wasn't going to get a lesson on patriotism from this young product 
of the Bush Justice Department. "That, folks, was a red herring," he 
announced. "This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or 
not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law 
or the whim of men."

He invoked Goldwater and Reagan and even said he would support Bush's 
program if it had congressional support. But Barr was a prophet without 
honor in his own land. "Why does the FISA law trump the Constitution?" 
one woman demanded of him. "Why should a non-elected, non-briefed judge 
be able to veto our national security?"

Conservatives were sore that Barr put his disagreements with Bush in the 
pages of Time magazine. Another questioner scolded Barr for agreeing to 
introduce an Al Gore speech that was also sponsored by MoveOn.org. "I 
have nothing whatsoever to do with them," Barr pleaded.

Still, the old prosecutor managed to elicit a crucial concession from 
Dinh: that the administration's case for its program comes down to 
saying "Trust me."

"None of us can make a conclusive assessment as to the wisdom of that 
program and its legality," Dinh acknowledged, "without knowing the full 
operational details. I do trust the president when he asserts that he 
has reviewed it carefully and therefore is convinced that there is full 
legal authority."

The crowd was against him, but Barr, leaving the event, claimed the 
clear conscience of a conservative. "I just told them what they need to 
know," he said.

Barr elaborated on his conundrum. "It's difficult," he acknowledged. 
"It's not about sex, which was very easy to explain."

Love him or hate him, you have to give Barr high marks for consistency. 
"Whether it's a sitting president when I was an impeachment manager, or 
a Republican president who has taken liberties with adherence to the 
law, to me the standard is the same," he said.

And, besides, who cares about a little criticism?

"No more than normal," Barr reported.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001799.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060211/1815f6b6/attachment.htm