Originally Posted by PatrickHenry1775
No U.S. politician wants to criticize TSA/DHS, thereby allowing an opponent to claim weakness on security and terrorism. Kennedy and Sanchez fit this pattern. They do not care about the blacklists on a conceptual basis, as long as they are not subject to the blacklists. Again, no politician can afford to be tarred as weak on security, even if the politician tries to point out the inadequacies of the current mess.
Oh, but some can afford to stand up for and do the right thing, even when it's unpopular, even where their opponents will try to tar them as weak on security. I salute the example of Sen. Feingold, a politician who opposed the USA PATRIOT Act and voted against it in October 2001. That time people said his career was over; and most of his staff and supporters thought he had committed political suicide. Yet he won re-election in 2004.
The lesson: an unpopular vote of conscience is not always a career-ending move, especially if it's understood to be a vote of conscience. Also, it's a bit harder to try to tar and feather someone with the "weak" label & image when that someone is willing to sacrifice their career and stand up against the majority for what they truly believe when so few others are.