The Washington Post calls it right in this editorial, lambasting senators for their politicking around the flag. The debate surrounding an amendment to ban desecration of the flag, the paper said, “managed to bring out some of the worst in politicians of both parties.” There was “the smarmy statement” issued by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who essentially accused the handful of princpled senators who voted against the amendment, of disresepcting the country and the people fighting overseas.
“Old Glory lost today,” Mr. Frist said, starting on a low note and heading lower. “At a time when our armed services are defending America’s freedom in the war on terror, it’s unfortunate that a minority of my colleagues blocked this amendment.” We don’t know which is more repugnant: Mr. Frist’s cynical invocation of troops “defending America’s freedom” as an excuse for limiting freedom of speech or his insinuation that it was dirty filibuster-like tactics that killed the amendment when, in fact, the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote.
The majority leader went on to inveigh against the “activist Supreme Court decision” that invalidated flag-burning laws. Perhaps Mr. Frist should read the ruling — or at least take a look at the lineup. Among the “activists” in the five-justice majority was archconservative Justice Antonin Scalia. after the amendment’s defeat.
Not that the politicking came only from the right. Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid voted for the amendment saying he did so because he was confident it wouldn’t pass. “Not exactly a profile in courage,” the paper wrote.
The roll call of bad votes includes our own junior senator, Robert Menendez, who backed the amendment and who happens to be running for re-election. Think the two are related?
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
Hank Kalet 