Anon

Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag-Burning

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer 36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Symbols are everything in politics. They can get you elected — or defeated. That's why Democrats fear getting singed by a proposed flag-burning ban, forced into a vote that Republicans will cast as a test of patriotism.

The GOP-led House voted 286-130 on a measure Wednesday that would give Congress authority to ban desecration of a U.S. flag. Its prospects aren't good in the Senate, but Republicans could still get what they want — an issue that divides or even conquers Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Democratic Party leaders generally don't want to tamper with free-speech rights in the Constitution, but they were split on whether to bow to political pressure. After all, the flag means more than ever after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and Republicans are not shy about evoking Sept. 11 in political fights.

They did it in the 2002 congressional elections, gaining seats, and again in 2004, when terrorism remained the defining issue of congressional races and
President Bush's re-election bid. Republicans returned to Sept. 11 in the flag-burning debate.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: 'Pass this amendment.'"

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center, accused Republicans of exploiting the attacks.

"If the flag needs protection at all," he said, "it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

Still, some Democrats, mostly moderates, said the power of that symbol shouldn't be underestimated.

"I can't imagine when it gets down to it that any Democrat would vote against the ban," Democratic strategist Ray Strother said. "Something strange is happening in this country. More than ever, people seem to be looking for symbols. What does this flag amendment really mean? Doesn't matter; it's a symbol for something else. People, particularly the conservative movement, are trying to leave a trail of signs that have larger implications."

He pointed to the Georgia Senate race in 2002 when Sen. Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in a grenade explosion in Vietnam, lost his re-election bid after Republicans ran ads with pictures of
Osama bin Laden and
Saddam Hussein that blamed him for thwarting Bush's plans for a
Homeland Security Department. Strother said the ad was an assault on Cleland's patriotism, a sample of what Democrats can expect if they don't rush to the defense of the flag.

"Democrats ought not put themselves in a position of fighting symbolic fights that are meaningless," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane of San Francisco. Instead, he urged Democrats to find wedge issues that can be used against Republicans, such as passing a congressional resolution demanding to know why bin Laden is still free.

But many Democrats say it's cowardly not to fight the ban, and are convinced they won't be punished by voters for doing so. "Voters simply don't believe Democrats are hostile to the American flag," Democratic strategist Jim Jordan said.

Still, he conceded the issue "makes Democrats' knees wobbly," and said some politicians are in a tough spot — "surrounded by staff and consultants and supporters who are probably more worried about this than they ought to be."

According to a 2004 poll by the Freedom Forum, the most recent available, 53 percent of Americans believed the Constitution should not be amended to make flag-burning illegal, while 45 percent supported a ban.

An informal survey by The Associated Press found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment — one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote.

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former
President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.

However, a law like the one proposed by the senator would likely be challenged in courts because Congress has no clear right to outlaw flag burning. That is why supporters of the ban want to add a one-line amendment to the Constitution that says, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Whether it passes now, later or never, the proposed amendment complicates the lives of chastened Democrats. Says Strother: "We now know the power of these symbols."

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Ron Fournier has covered national politics since 1993.

Bluesman

Every time somebody burns the American flag, patriotic citizens see red. As in, each state gets a little bit redder.

I absolutely deplore the desecration of the flag, but I do NOT want anybody mucking around with the Constitution for anything less than threats to our rights, and while I do not easily live with flag-burning being accorded the same protection as freedom of political speech, I do not think it's a threat to the Republic.

Let 'em burn Old Glory if they've a mind to, and all the rest of us can hold the flag-burners in scalding contempt. And if there is ANY action that will discredit their message in the minds of the middle-of-the-road citizen, THAT'S IT. For every flag burned, there are patriots born and energized.

And America gets redder all the time.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Anon

I see no reason whatsoever that burning the flag should be constitutional.

dalem

I am not a fan of any amending of the Constitution for the flag.

I'm with Bluesman - let 'em burn it, let me think what I will about them.

-dale

Hawg166

I'm with Snipe. There are some things that should exalted to a higher level. I agreee that the flag is s symbol of our freedom. Well so isnt the Quran or the Talmud but if you burnt one of those you would get arrested for hate crimes. The Washington Monument and the White House are also signs but I'd be damne if we let the Brits come and burn it again because they disagreed with our policies. Are the ideas that are represented in the Constitution or the declaration really bigger than the parchment ? I dont think so. Why not ? because the parchment is the idea, it is the bridge between what a spriritual that we have faith in and the physical that bears its witness. There cannot be one without the other. When all the flags are gone then what do we observe to testify to the validity of a notiuon or an idea ? Nothin because there is nothing substantial to connect with on a physical plain that would testify to the truth of an idea or a belief. Our flag is another physical proof to the belief or the notion that freedoms can exist and evolve with the changing of time.

__________________
"Now we shall have ourselves a pell mell battle!" ......The Immortal Memory, Admiral Nelson

dalem

We make more flags.

-dale

troung

I don't like flag burning at all. But I don't think we need a law about it...

Not really. I could burn those all day and as long as I keep the fire in my fireplace I doubt I will be arrested...

Now if I go to someones house and throw a burning Koran at them... well back to jail for me...

True.

Hold them in contempt or just have a good laugh at them...

Semper Fi

I can't believe, I agree with you but yes.

This is the US not the Soviet Union americans have the right to express their freedom of speech no matter how classless it may be.

Anon

I disagree.

No one should have the 'right' to burn a flag.

Burning a flag is not 'free speech', it's incitement to riot, and extremely disrespectful to our veterans.

Semper Fi

Saying the word nigge* infront of a black person is extremely disrespectful and it's also an incitement for violence. Should we also make the saying of the word nigge* or any other derogatory meaning against a certain group illegal?

Anon

Saying the word nigge r is for all intents and purposes illegal.

Say it at work, you lose your job.
Say it on TV, you lose your job and face national condemnation
Say it in office, you face impeachment.

And seriously, one cannot compare this nation's flag to a racial epithat. It's ridiculous.

troung

Burn a flag at work and you get fired...

Burn a flag in the halls of Congress and you will not be reelected...

Burn a flag at a funeral for a veteran and get beaten to death...

That seems pretty illegal as well...

dalem

I would argue that burning a flag in my house is not incitement to riot. burning a flag in front of you IS an incitement to riot and should be punished as such.

-dale

Semper Fi

It's not ridiculous it's freedom of speech. Every american has the right to make an ass out of themselves.

Leader

I see no harm to free speech here. Some things are over the line. Burning the flag is one of them.

__________________