My View: I Do Not Believe Obama On The FISA Capitulation Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:02:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Yesterday, Barack Obama said:

Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

I do not believe Barack Obama. I will go further. I do not want to believe him. Because the alternative is worse. Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President. More . . .

If Barack Obama really believes this about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is as dangerous as George W. Bush:

[G]iven the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."

(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me, but the Constitution does not work that way. Firm pledges from the President do not compensate for evisceration of the Constitutional right to privacy. As John Adams said:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

(Emphasis supplied.) Obama's "firm pledge," (given he pledged to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity, the irony of his new pledge is nauseating), IF HE WINS is worth nothing. His position here is nothing short of disgusting.

But politics is disgusting. And pols do what they do. I remind Barack Obama of the words of Louis Brandeis:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

They tell me Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I assume he is familiar with Brandeis' words. So no, I do not believe he believes this FISA Capitulation bill is good or even acceptable. I believe he is acting out of political calculation (and bad political calculation at that.) Indeed, if that is not the case, then his position is unacceptable and he is not fit to be President.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Late Night: Jessie's Girl and Open Thread | FISA: Giving Bush What He Wants >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

My View: I Do Not Believe Obama On The FISA Capitulation Bill | 199 comments (199 topical)

BTD, you are too funny! (5.00 / 22) (#1)
by Grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:28:19 AM EST

I thought you wanted to hold his feet to the fire!

Personally, I find Obama kind of scary simply because he appears to have no real "set" values. He's always like a moving target. Today it's this, tomorrow it's something else.

As of right now, I can't vote for him. I wish I could because he is the Democratic candidate and I've voted for all of them since 1975! But this candidate makes me really nervous... Really nervous. I don't want to be bamboozled or okie-dokied or tricked.

Please bring Hillary back! ;-)

BTD...yup, we know that pols are pols... (5.00 / 19) (#59)
by Shainzona on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:39:11 AM EST

but is it too much ask that one or two of them know how to "play that game" - but to be a leader, too?

Unfortunately, IMHO, pols who are just pols decided the Dem nomination this time and picked one of their own kind. And while I acknowledge that pols and pols, we - this nation and this world - need a leader not a hack.

[ Parent ]

Oh Man!!! (5.00 / 24) (#67)
by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:48:50 AM EST

Armando almost has me with this one:

Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President.

Wow! I was ready to say welcome to the real world - welcome to the club.

But then he let the air out of the balloon:

I believe he is acting out of political calculation (and bad political calculation at that.)

OK, Go on.

Indeed, if that is not the case, then his position is unacceptable and he is not fit to be President.

So much said for nothing IMO.

Bottomline is this is what was said:

>>> If Obama believes what he said then he is not fit to be President

BUT!

>>> "If that is not the case" (if it is political calculation) - then it is OK to stomp all over the Constitution!!!

What!

Being a politician is now an excuse for doing wrong? If Obama truly believes what he says then he sucks - but if it is being done for political reasons then he get a free pass?

What kind of logic is that? If it is wrong it is wrong.

How about an analogy: I don't get to steal your property just because my family is hungry and needs food and get away with it. Stealing is stealing and that is what Obama is doing to all of us - Stealing our Sacred Rights!!!

Sorry Aramndo - but ANYONE who gives a pass to the the stealing of our Rights because it is for political calculation is just as guilty as the thief themselves.

So even though Obama HAS NOT SAID his vote is for political calculations then just thinking it is, is reason enough to give him a pass.

Only In America!

[ Parent ]

Excellent (5.00 / 16) (#115)
by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:57:22 AM EST

talex26; well said!! The cynisim of giving someone a pass to something so wrong so dangerous just b/c it's a pol (who by the way RUN solely on the notion he
was just "different" and NOT a usual pol) makes me sick. I am not naive about pols (at all) but there has to be a set of core positions and he doesn't have ANY. aa BO Pres. will be indeed Bush III.
Enen on abortion his comments about mental distress and women "feeling blue" was disgusting.

[ Parent ]

: I think we have the answer to BO's (5.00 / 12) (#180)
by Shainzona on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST

"present" votes on choice...he was unwilling to take a stance and "stand for something" (anything!). And now we're seeing it played out - again - in this campaign.
Not a pretty sight.

[ Parent ]

talex26 (5.00 / 10) (#126)
by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:07:36 AM EST

Great post! Are we now giving candidates a pass because "a pol is a pol?" Too bad that wasn't the meme during the primaries, not that I think Hillary is really guilty of that but it was the only thing the opposition could come up with.

Hillary'08!

[ Parent ]

Thanks (5.00 / 14) (#144)
by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:26:48 AM EST

It is just common sense what I wrote and I knew others felt the same way so I posted that for all of us.

The one thing I forgot to include was this:

Where does it stop?

You see if you give Obama a pass for stomping all over the constitution because it was for "political calculations" then by extension you have to give every Pol pass for anything they do for "political calculations".

The next time Pelosi caves in on something for "political calculations" - she gets a pass.

The next time Reid caves in on something for "political calculations" - he gets a pass.

When Dems vote for a bad bill so the Repubs won't attack them then it was for "political calculations" - a pass.

Where does it stop? Once you apply it to Obama you have to apply it to all.

It's just a fatally flawed rationalization. It's also dangerous. When we start overlooking the damage done by Pols through flawed rationalizations then we have ceded all political power we have as citizens. That is a non-starter.

I hope Armando rethinks his position presented in this diary regarding not only how wrong it is to apply it to Obama, but also to the ramifications it would have on politics if you naturally extend it to all Pols. It just makes no sense at all.

The logic here is that Armando, or you , or me, could never ever again criticize a Pol for any vote or any action, or anything they said ever again as long as they did it for "political calculations".

[ Parent ]

Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 17) (#153)
by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:33 AM EST

Nowhere, unless we stop it.

[ Parent ]

I can't believe how depressed I am (5.00 / 11) (#161)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:40:50 AM EST

this a.m. Since 2004 it has been one long unfixable nightmare that just won't go away.

[ Parent ]

It will never stop while voters on both (5.00 / 18) (#165)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:44:53 AM EST

sides of the political spectrum use the rationale of "the lesser of two evils" to justify voting for candidates who offend their core principles.

[ Parent ]

You know what? (5.00 / 13) (#179)
by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:54:41 AM EST

This is the first time I have ever been so down on a Democratic candidate for President. I didn't think Kerry was all that great, but he had a long record of standing up for Democratic principles.

I never thought Nader was right. But this current crop of "Democrats" is making me agree with him.

Word to Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Obama et al. - Between a real Republican and a fake one, the American people will pick a real one every time.

Say hello to President McCain.

[shoots self in face]

[ Parent ]

: I suppose Kerry was upholding (none / 0) (#192)
by brodie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:18:28 AM EST

"Democratic principles" with his AUMF vote if we assume he was doing it in the grand tradition of Dems lining up like sheep to vote for a dishonest president's blank check warmaking powers, like Lyndon's Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
Before that, in the 90s iirc, there was a bill to modestly increase the minimum wage. Kerry, a senator from a famously solidly blue and liberal state, actually thought about voting against it. Ted Kennedy heard about it and gave him a tongue lashing for not standing up for basic liberal principles, and JK finally backed down. A modest minimum wage increase, ferchrissakes.
Kerry overall was pretty good, and I voted for him in 04, but let's not overlook some of his important downside aspects. He was a pol like all the rest, just not as smart a pol as we needed in 04.
Reid, Pelosi and some of the others are about the same -- flawed but basically good Dems who usually do the right thing but will occasionally disappoint. Ditto for Obama.

[ Parent ]

Dodd last night (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST

on the floor of the Senate speaking on FISA and quoting Margaret Thatcher:

"Where law ends, tyranny begins".

[ Parent ]

so the dems assume we should vote (5.00 / 12) (#155)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:36:55 AM EST

for obama on the hope that he won't stomp on us? I DON'T THINK SO! just saying he isn't bush means less and less to me everyday that goes by.

[ Parent ]

To be fair to BTD, (5.00 / 3) (#181)
by dk on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:57:27 AM EST

my bet is that he views the "pols are pols" thing not as a justification for what Obama is doing, but rather as an explanation for it.

My problem with BTD's post is that I think that neither of the two explanations he offers are correct. BTD seems to say that Obama either 1) believes what he said about FISA or 2) is lying because he believes it will further his chances to win the election. I think there there is a third, and IMHO more likely explanation.

Namely, that Obama is lying, but not because he thinks he needs to for his campaign. Rather, he is lying because he knows that the bill is an affront to the constitution but wants the bill to pass because he and/or the democratic leadership that supported him would be personally compromised if there were lawsuits allowed against the telecoms. Essentially, it is about personal greed, and protection from criminal punishment.

[ Parent ]

: No, Sorry, it was not (5.00 / 3) (#199)
by talex26 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST

an Explanation. It was an 'It's OK IF'.

[ Parent ]

Grace (5.00 / 1) (#112)
by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:52:33 AM EST

Exactly. I couldn't agree with you more.

[ Parent ]

One other thing (5.00 / 26) (#2)
by Grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:32:39 AM EST

If he isn't going to pay attention to you now, while he still needs your vote -- how much attention to you is he going to pay when he doesn't need anything from you?

: None! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by kimsaw on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:08:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Whatever his reasons (5.00 / 19) (#7)
by Florida Resident on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:47:48 AM EST

this is a dangerous move. He and the Democratic Party have become a joke if the only thing they can do as the majority is to capitulate to the most unpopular President in history and his minority party on such an important matter. What else awaits us?

Capitulation or Complicity? (5.00 / 22) (#64)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:43:31 AM EST

IMO this bill did not have to come to floor for a vote. Why did the Dems CHOSE to vote on this atrocity at all?

The protection and restoration of Constitutional rights is my number one issue. Also, it is imperative that the precedent that The President Is Above the Law or Is the Ultimate Law be completely debunked. Granting immunity to telecoms for the breaking the law because they complied with a president's request IMO strengthens the precedent that the President Is Above the Law.

I do not think that a President Obama will roll back any of the presidential powers that Bush claimed. His willingness to vote for this bill and his justification for it only confirms this for me. Therefore, he is potentially just as dangerous as Bush. I do not find it acceptable that any president of any party have these additional powers.

[ Parent ]

Bingo! This is not capitulation. (5.00 / 11) (#77)
by lizpolaris on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:02:42 AM EST

The Democratic leaders clearly support this bill or it wouldn't be on the floor for a vote.

What's scary to me is that this clearly demonstrates that the Democratic party is no longer about safeguarding citizens' rights under the Constitution. I guess it's time to turn out the lights as we leave the party that was our experiment in constitutional democracy in the US. What's left? Maybe we can each individually ask the ACLU to file lawsuits for us? That's going to get really far with the 'laws' now being passed.

[ Parent ]

The whole leadership is capitulating (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:35:50 AM EST

I believe they are
a. capitulating to look 'tough on terror'
b. saving their own hide for the 'gang of 8' approval of it to begin with, which included Dems.

It is a politically motivated capitulation. I agree with BTD - if I thought they really believed this manure I would be for impeaching all of them.

[ Parent ]

Whatever the motivation the results (5.00 / 14) (#117)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM EST

are the same. Citizens of the U.S. lose 4th Amendment rights, illegal actions by Bush and numerous others are covered up and the precedent that the President is Above the Law is strengthened.

IMO Democratic leadership CHOSE to take this action and the Democratic nominee supports this action. Both the party and the nominee are distorting the truth in exactly the same way that Bush and the Republicans did to justify their actions. Outrage at actions taken by Bush and the Republicans and then justifying or rationalizing the exact same actions when Democrats do it makes us no different IMO than the Bush supporters that we vilified for the past 7+ years.

[ Parent ]

: Well said (5.00 / 3) (#143)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST

I wish I had an answer as to how to stop it. Electing more Dems did not seem to do any good.
I forgot to add in my post that I am against the capitutlation, for whatever the reason. And I am probably deluding myself by thinking it was capitulation and not voting based on belief in the bill.
I feel as helpless to stop any of this as I did in 2005.

[ Parent ]

at what point was the dem party (5.00 / 3) (#141)
by sancho on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST

ever committed to this ideal? until 1964, they could not fully support civil rights. w/ republican help, they impeached nixon. but after choosing not to prosecute iran-contra (and letting gwhb pardon the culprits) they have been partners in crime or malfeasance. they did not support bill clinton on healthcare and did little to stop his impeachment. and we've seen the last eight years (and how they handled the stolen election.) many would argue that right now we live under corporate fascism. choosing not to believe what dem leaders say is the sweet and sad recourse for people who wish to believe politics in this country is not an absolute nightmare.

most americans do not vote. with good reason when there are no choices.

[ Parent ]

I think Obama has little interest... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:06:43 AM EST

... in limiting his own potential powers. That certainly does not make him unlike previous Democratic Presidents (FDR, most notably), but it's not really a good thing.

[ Parent ]

Not limiting President McCain's powers (5.00 / 12) (#87)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:17:59 AM EST

is the thing to think about, too. Dems are capitulating to that potential outcome, too.

Everyone here kewl with that?

[ Parent ]

That's something we should be considering... (5.00 / 3) (#89)
by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:22:02 AM EST

... but I doubt it's something Obama is. I imagine he's almost certain he'll win.

[ Parent ]

: What we imagine Obama imagines (5.00 / 4) (#93)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:26:53 AM EST

is beginning to ask a lot of us, isn't it?
Now let's imagine that McCain, in voting for this bill, imagines that it would be a good thing to endow President Obama with these powers.
I need more coffee to cope with this mental pretzeling.

[ Parent ]

Or someone worse than both of them (5.00 / 5) (#111)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:52:29 AM EST

FISA's been around since what, the seventies? It will be around long after Obama and McCain.

We're very focused on the two of them now, for obvious reasons, but there's all the presidents who come after them too.

[ Parent ]

Exactly right (5.00 / 8) (#130)
by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:11:49 AM EST

The Democrats initiated this bill. And I always believed the whole purpose of the Obama campaign (which I got in trouble for on this site) was for a group of career politicians to be able to hold onto the expanded executive power and wield it themselves. They didn't want a strong president, so they helped destroy everyone and then pushed weakling Obama onto the ticket. Now the guy is already acting like he's King of the World.

[ Parent ]

The Dem version... (5.00 / 4) (#193)
by sj on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:19:30 AM EST

...of the empty suit. You gotta admit, it worked pretty well for the R's.

Find someone basically lazy
Pretend he has personal charisma
Install him as titular head
Feed his ego as you carry out in secret what could not be carried out in the open.
Protect execution of secret plans from prosecution

How depressing.

[ Parent ]

: And that's why... (5.00 / 4) (#198)
by Mike H on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM EST

they had to get rid of Hillary. Because she's stronger than Barack, and wouldn't be controlled.
The more I think about it, the more I think this theory has some relevance. But who will end up being the Cheney to Obama's Bush?

[ Parent ]

think donations for the general election. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:38:32 AM EST

obama's fund raising last month was a disappontment. they haven't paid for the democratic convention yet. and on it goes.

[ Parent ]

Do Obama supporters (5.00 / 17) (#8)
by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:54:46 AM EST

realize they too have now been thrown under the bus??

>>>>Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make

Do they realize Obama demolished their one thread of hope that his flip flop on FISA is merely a political calculation??

>>>"You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

I honestly (5.00 / 19) (#13)
by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:04:49 AM EST

don't think they care, as long as they win. H*ll, they fight for the best position under the bus that they can (at least his hardcore supporters, certainly not all of them) and brag that they got there first. The Constitution is just a quibble that must be done away with or we're "bad Democrats" if we dare to raise an objection. John Cole may even yell at me if I don't meekly go along with whatever Obama wants as winning is the only thing.

Yeah, we "won" one of the most historic victories in the history of the Republic in '06, and boy did that accomplish a lot. Well, we got a mediocre bump of the Min. Wage and several stern letters to Shrub. Hooray!!!!!!!!!!

Jackson

[ Parent ]

: "As long as they win" -- electability (5.00 / 1) (#200)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:34:47 AM EST

was a worrisome argument for me. This is where it leads. It is the opposite of fighting for principles.

[ Parent ]

Some of them do (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:41:36 AM EST

I have resumed listening to the Young Turks podcasts. I really enjoy their show, but the Obama fanboyism during the primaries turned me off. I am happy to report that Cenk Uygar is every bit as hot about this as most of us here. He minces no words in calling Obama out on this issue especially, and all of the moves to the right generally. I was glad to see that his critical functions are still intact.

[ Parent ]

A little late, I would say (5.00 / 13) (#156)
by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:37:09 AM EST

From the Department of Closing the Barn Door After The Unity Pony Drops A Steaming Load.

Eh?

[ Parent ]

Uh, (5.00 / 7) (#170)
by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:49:57 AM EST

YEAH.

I stopped listening to them after their Hillary Hatred became obvious.

Personally, I didn't think that the "progressive" media should have chosen sides until after the primaries. In an ideal world, they would have evaluated all the candidates honestly and not fallen into the trap of an early endorsement.

They have absolutely no credibility now, as their Chosen One knows they will vote for him no matter what he does. Even FISA won't cause some of them to abandon him.

[ Parent ]

: I agree. I also think (5.00 / 4) (#185)
by dk on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST

that giving these people site traffic, or any kind of support, is wrong. We should not be encouraging these people to continue in their roles. They have discredited themselves, and frankly should choose another line of work.
This is not, I should stress, to mean that I think they necessarily are awful human beings. I'm sure that on many issues I probably share their point of view. Rather, what I am saying is that as "professional" progressive activists (whatever that means) they have discredited themselves permanently through their actions in the primaries, and should therefore move aside.

[ Parent ]
: I'm not sure it would matter even if (5.00 / 8) (#190)
by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:11:30 AM EST

they did all turn against Obama.
Obama's playing for the general now. He no longer needs them. He's got to play now to the millions and millions of folks who've never heard of Dkos and wouldn't care two bits about the big Orange even if they did. If anything, the alliance of a bunch of kids playing White House dress-up would likely turn off the majority of grown up voters.
Although, I have to say, the DK audience crowd's big trick of consistently licking the hand that bites them is impressive. But it doesn't matter. This political season is so rife with irony. Because for all their taunting, they're the ones who really don't have any other place to go.

[ Parent ]

LOL! (none / 0) (#211)
by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST

It appears Bush isn't the only politician (5.00 / 12) (#12)
by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:03:46 AM EST

in Washington who believes the Constitution is just a "GD piece of paper."

A standard (5.00 / 15) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:13:02 AM EST

tactic of Obama shows up here too. It's called blame someone else. This is really tiresome. It's what George W. Bush spent 8 years doing.

yeah when he said that (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:07 AM EST

sometimes i just disagree with you, heh the FISA cave in never even came to my mind.

the FISA cave in is just obviously a cave in I don't even listen to the democrats about it.

I just took it to mean he was talking about everything else. but yeah i give no democrat any benefits of any doubts if they vote yes on FISA, F that, we aren't idiots just admit you guys are too chicken to deal with Bush and the White House on this, lets us know what a bunch of pansies you are so we know who to begin replacing after we take control of the white house.

Doesn't sound like 'we' at all (5.00 / 8) (#74)
by BarnBabe on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:01:14 AM EST

It sounds as if some stranger with a D after his name wants to be President and it might be a lot worse than the alternative. The fox guarding the hen house. I am not for McCain, I also do not like BHO's personal changing agenda. Maybe this is what he meant with the Change mantra. Maybe it is a good thing he is speaking out about this now so that many can take off the rose colored glasses. Six months ago I thought any of the top three would be a fine Democratic President. Now, I am sure the last man standing might be very dangerous for Democrats. AND, I am not over-reacting. The bells and whistles are going off and they are so loud I can hear them from under the bus even muffled by all the new additions there.

[ Parent ]

I agree (5.00 / 4) (#189)
by g8grl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:08:07 AM EST

This makes Obama in some ways even worse than McCain because Obama is a Democrat. When the Democrats do this, they are essentially saying that they are not giving you any other option. When Republicans did this kind of thing, if you didn't like it, you could vote Democratic. Now with Obama, we have no hope to defend our Constitution.

I have been on the fence about holding my nose and voting for Obama. I REALLY don't like him but I've been thinking I may just take one for the team. It's getting to the point where I'm gonna have to say this isn't my team anymore.

[ Parent ]

: I tried but I couldn't resist (none / 0) (#195)
by MMW on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST

Perhaps you're watching the world cup in Germany, with Italy and France playing in the finals?
In other words - get off the neighbor's fence, neither team is your home team.
Other than that I have much love for you.

[ Parent ]

ahhh...right (none / 0) (#102)
by TruthMatters on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:40:55 AM EST

I agree with him that we won't agree on things 100% of the time.

I just don't agree with why he is doing this. he feels he needs to for political reasons, fine, I disagree I think Democrats could have fought on this and stood up to the white house but they refuse too, probably somethings they too want to hide, whatever cave I don't care they are all a bunch of wimps.

but I still 100% support Sen. Obama. no politican agrees with all my stances on the issues, I have a mix of many things so I am not going to fault a poltician for NOT agreeing with my views.

[ Parent ]

support for the constitution is not a (5.00 / 7) (#162)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:40:54 AM EST

popularly contest. this isn't american idol.

[ Parent ]

: And if it were (5.00 / 4) (#172)
by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:51:51 AM EST

Obama would be filibustering, because the majority of the American people DOES NOT support telecom immunity.

[ Parent ]

There are just too many flip-flops (5.00 / 5) (#24)
by glennmcgahee on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:17:50 AM EST

Can't you just see the Republicans with those shoes clapping again at the Republican Convention. I'm flapping mine now already and I'm an Independent. Just what does Obama agree and disagree with? We obviously can't assume we know by what he has said previously. This is too bizarro. Instead of a fighter, we've got a wimp.

I strongly disagree (5.00 / 7) (#38)
by BernieO on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:01:52 AM EST

Obama is no wimp. He is over confident and calculating. A wimp would not blame his strongest supporters. A weasel, yes. Wimp, no.

[ Parent ]

I strongly agree (5.00 / 13) (#46)
by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:18:28 AM EST

He is overconfident which, if not checked, could possibly come across as condescending and impatient with what he views as others' "stupidity" eg. the sigh he begins most "refining" statements with and the disbelief in his voice that he actually needs to explains what he meant AGAIN.

Add to this his penchant for turning his speeches into lectures (as well as tending to go on and on and on) and I can clearly see where many voters -- come the Fall -- may see him on TV, go "ugh" and tune him out 'cause they either don't believe he's going to bring anything to the table other than yet another speech followed by more "refining" or they have no clue where he stands or if he's going to be standing there tomorrow or next week.

Voters know that speeches and refining don't put food on the table, gas in the car or protect one's job from going overseas.

Is McCain bringing anything to the table that will help either? No, probably not. But at least voters "know" who he is and feel he understands them and their needs. They may not agree with him, but at least they "know" what he allegedly stands for. (I don't think they do, but he's got an established brand which carries with it it's own beliefs and assumptions eg. Straight Talker, POW, many years of service in the Senate, Moderate, etc)

Or, as a friend of mine put it, McCain is a familiar juicy steak and Obama is a shimmering bowl of Jell-O in a supposedly dazzling new flavor you're unfamiliar with. If you're hungry, which would you choose?

(and, yeah, she was hungry when she used this analogy, ergo the usage of steak and Jell-O)

:-)

[ Parent ]

The thing (5.00 / 2) (#157)
by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:37:15 AM EST

John McCain has going for him is that in spite of his cow-towing to Bush to stay in the party is that he's perceived as having good character and integrity. At one time, he did stand up and do the right thing and make sacrifices. He also has military experience that shows leadership and he's had way more time in the Senate. Of course he has a downside, but it's beginning to look like the things that would be a problem with McCain are also a problem with Obama. Obama is selling out to the big money interests--even voted for Cheney's oil give away and certainly threw money to the nuclear plants in IL.

Just look at Rod Blogojevich's behavior in IL if you want to see how Obama will behave in the WH. They're bosom buddies, both part of the same corrupt Chicago machine. It's very ugly.

[ Parent ]

: The other thing McCain's got going for him (5.00 / 2) (#197)
by g8grl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:28:40 AM EST

is that he's probably not going to run again in 2012. That means once he becomes President, he'll be able to spit in the eye of all the Fundie Evangelicals if he wants to. I actually think he, more than Obama, will be less objectionable AFTER elected.

[ Parent ]

I don't believe Obama on the FISA Agreement Bill. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:35:47 AM EST

That's Ok (5.00 / 11) (#28)
by cmugirl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:39:48 AM EST

I think Obama's consistent because I don't believe him on most anything else he says either (NAFTA, reproductive rights, Iraq, health care, education, etc.)

BTD - Thank You for Your Clear (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:42:46 AM EST

Statement on the poverty of Obama's position on the FISA bill.

The Leader has spoken! (5.00 / 10) (#32)
by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:57:05 AM EST

Why do you doubt him?

What's wrong with you?

Heh (5.00 / 8) (#41)
by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:04:33 AM EST

Check the files under "Principles, Possessing Them." All of this stupid freedom-loving does get in the way of a good Election, eh?

: Shut the f*** up and send Obama more money! (5.00 / 2) (#160)
by lambertstrether on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:40:27 AM EST

He needs it!

[ Parent ]

At this point it would seem most everything! (none / 0) (#138)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:17:28 AM EST

Word n/t (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by kaleidescope on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:00:14 AM EST

Don't Blame Obama (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by This from a broad on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:01:31 AM EST

He is only doing what Pelosi told him to do. She made him the nominee and he will do whatever she tells him to do, now and for the next eight years!

: eight?? (5.00 / 3) (#124)
by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:06:36 AM EST

No way... BTW, Pelosi must go as Speaker of the House of the house. She is no leader and has done nothing of value as Speaker.
Time to start lobbying your Representatives in Congress !!

[ Parent ]

BTW, Did anyone See Turley (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:03:33 AM EST

last night at KO - Turley was interviewed by Maddow, who made clear she doesn't agree with Obama's position (IMO).

Turley, I believe, said he cannot explain why the DEMs are allowing this bill to pass when they clearly have the power to stop it & the bill clearly is so damaging to the 4th Amendment.

Olbermann on vacation (5.00 / 7) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:05:22 AM EST

Well timed.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:12:14 AM EST

pimping such fake outrage is really hard work. I wonder if he has a place up in Nantucket with all of the other "blue collar" NBC folks, he does need a place to unwind. :)

I find your (none / 0) (#49)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:25:43 AM EST

calling Turley's position "pimping" offensive.

[ Parent ]

I was (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Jackson Hunter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:36:01 AM EST

referring to Olbermann actually, and his way of pumping up the volume of some of his rants. I actually agree with Turley if what you are saying he said is correct. It was also a backhanded slap at the whole Schuster "pimping out Chelsea" remark.

If you were being snarky in your reply, then I'm sorry if I didn't get the joke. If not, see my above clarification, it was more of a reply to BTD's 'well timed" remark than your original comment.

: Turley's interview (5.00 / 1) (#175)
by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM EST

pretty powerful stuff, with Maddow as sub. host on Countdown

(If this link doesn't go directly to the vid, it is story number 4.)
Turley "completely astonished by Sen. Obama's position [that this is a good compromise] and obviously disappointed." Said this is not a compromise...it's a cave in.
Compares it to a story when someone is assaulted on the street and 100 people stand around and do nothing. In this case the 4th amendment will be eviscerated and 100 people will stand around and do nothing. "The fix is in."

[ Parent ]

KO has come back from vacation (none / 0) (#202)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:38:24 AM EST

before, when an issue mattered to him -- and didn't conflict with his fanboyism.

[ Parent ]

WYSIWYG (5.00 / 9) (#47)
by makana44 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:21:50 AM EST

Believe it. Either way he isn't fit. The only thing presidential about him are his powers of prevarication and his ability to raise money.

blog reactions? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by jjsmoof on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:24:59 AM EST

anyone know if agent orange is melting down or in spin mode?

They seem to be okay (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Lahdee on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:46:58 AM EST

with it in a twitchy kind of way. I think many bathe after said support is vouched.

[ Parent ]

This issue plus, unlimited presidential (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:33:33 AM EST

powers (i.e. President above the law) use to be a major issue on DKos. KargoX posted on this subject non stop back when I frequented the site. If he is silent on this issue, it is just another example of how far they have fallen.

[ Parent ]

Kagro has been in fine form. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by Burned on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM EST

Multiple front page stories that don't give an inch.

[ Parent ]

: Glad To Hear That (5.00 / 2) (#125)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST

He has always been a strong voice on this issue IMO. While I won't go back to the site, I'm happy that KargoX is continuing the fight.

[ Parent ]

Spinning and melting (none / 0) (#95)
by Burned on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:30:20 AM EST

Spinners are mad at Markos for announcing that he was withholding his donation and at FISA FP'rs, diarists, and commenters for causing Obama to lose.
Nothing unusual.

[ Parent ]

Fake-out on his "money myth," too (5.00 / 4) (#50)
by SunnyLC on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:28:14 AM EST

The Newsweek blog is showing some signs of life...as in, what's actually going on with Obama's "cash cow"....

Newsweek Blog Finally Decides to Debunk the Obama "Cash Cow" Myth
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xnv42

What can you actually believe about anything that comes out of Obama's mouth? Heck, his bio had fictionalized/composite characters in it. That wasn't the first clue??

One of the most significant (5.00 / 4) (#52)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:28:46 AM EST

changes Obama could deliver is a vision of an executive branch less monarchical than the Bush/Republican brand. Instead he chooses to affirm their style of governance.

It's making the retro Hillaryism of the 90s seem like the best option of all.

It's a Democratic year, but if Democrats don't run as Democrats, who knows what will happen.. I hope Obama is looking long and hard at the Congressional approval ratings.

"Retro Hillaryism"? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:36:35 AM EST

What's that supposed to mean?

[ Parent ]

: Return to the prosperity of the 90s (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:42:30 AM EST

whereas, Obama was all about "the future" etc etc, which apparently includes some of Bush's worst tics and tendencies.

[ Parent ]

absolutely (5.00 / 6) (#108)
by kempis on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:50:33 AM EST

lilburro: One of the most significant changes Obama could deliver is a vision of an executive branch less monarchical than the Bush/Republican brand.

Bingo. That would have been the right position--and politically a winner.

His position is not only deeply flawed in principle but also in politics. The politically astute thing would have been for him to be that RFK-like candidate that some people naively believed him to be and for him to take a strong stand for the Constitution and against powerful special interests (telecoms).

He did not. I can only assume that after he and Pelosi and the Dem "leadership" did some calculations and consultations with the telecom folks, they decided that the influx of grateful telecom $$$ in an election year--without the limits imposed by public funding--was too good to pass up.

I am beyond revolted by the lot of 'em. I'm glad I changed my registration to Independent this spring--but I worry about my country. Washing my hands of the Democratic party isn't doing much to alleviate my anxiety about its future.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, this is the real Obamamentum (5.00 / 1) (#203)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST

when one step down the slippery slope is to get to the next one -- you show the link from the flipflop on public financing to the flipflop on FISA.
So where is this flipflop on FISA leading? What is the next goal? This is a game plan, folks -- a chess game with the moves ahead already planned.

[ Parent ]
: I (none / 0) (#122)
by tek on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:05:20 AM EST

think you've got these people's number as we boomers used to say.

[ Parent ]
: bingo, i wrote that above but (none / 0) (#167)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:06 AM EST

you stated it it much clearer terms.

[ Parent ]

This "careful monitoring" and (5.00 / 18) (#53)
by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:30:25 AM EST

"review" and "taking whatever steps he deems necessary to protect the lives of the American people" was cribbed right out of the George Bush playbook, which makes my blood run cold.

We've had more than enough of "trust me" over the last 8 years, don't you think? And here's Obama, patting us on the head and expecting us to believe that he will be a better steward of the constitution than Bush - even as he advocates for passage of a bill that only further undermines that constitution.

I'm sorry - he can't have it both ways - not on these terms. Not when there is nothing wrong with FISA. Not when there are ways to "protect America" without shredding the Constitution.

Given that Congress seems incapable of serving as a check on the power of the presidency, I fear that they are setting up conditions where the balance of power will be forever tilted toward the president, and we will be at the mercy of whoever that is.

Scary.

Exactly Right And IMO The Most (5.00 / 12) (#68)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:51:13 AM EST

dangerous aspect of this atrocity of a bill.

The way it is looking a President Obama will have all the unfettered powers that Bush assumed, a complicit Congress and control of all Democratic funds under his umbrella. Too much power for any one person.

[ Parent ]

Two presidents in a row (5.00 / 10) (#98)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:36:41 AM EST

from different parties claiming "unitary executive" powers means our Constitution is permanently weakened and the balance of powers effectively drestroyed. These powers will never be rolled back, and no president can ever be held to account for the abuse.

This is what comes of not impeaching Bush/Cheney for the power grab. Hillary said she would get to work canceling all these extra-legislative extra-constitutional powers Bush grabbed for the presidency right away. If she had, it wouldn't have stopped some future presidential power grab, but it would at least have thrown a few rocks under the wheels.

The single most important reason to have a Democrat in the White House, in my mind, was to roll back, "denounce and reject" the Bush administration's massive imperial powers. If there's no hope Obama will do that (and I don't care if he "pledges" he will at some point, since his pledges are obviously just words), there's really literally no point in voting for him, IMHO.

I strongly urge everybody to read Charlie Savage's very thorough, absolutely shocking "Return of the Imperial Presidency" for a catalog of what Bush has claimed -- and exercised without hindrance from the Congress -- for the presidency. It's sickening.

[ Parent ]

The Imperial Presidency, Part II (5.00 / 3) (#123)
by wasabi on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:05:41 AM EST

I'd like to remind people of the hell that the media gave the Clinton presidency regarding every small whiff of often imagined impropriety. Everyone in the Administration and their brother were called up before Congress to testify continually about all sorts of BS.

Will the Dems get a free pass from the haranging if Obama wins? Congress will be in friendlier hands, but it all depends on how much b*lls the Dems want to exhibit. I am not feeling assured here.

I am sure that no Dem will be given as much of a free pass as is given the present Administration. Perhaps our famously free press will once again righteously demand accountability. Or not.

[ Parent ]

What makes you think a dem (5.00 / 2) (#129)
by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:09:25 AM EST

congress will be friendlier? They are in the majority now....are they any "friendlier?"

[ Parent ]

A Dem Congress is so friendly to Bush (5.00 / 0) (#205)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM EST

that of course it would be friendlier to Obama.

The question is what makes you think that this group of Dems in Congress would not be friendlier? Heck, this group gladly will be friendly to President McCain.

[ Parent ]

If Obama controls the purse strings, many (4.50 / 2) (#152)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:30 AM EST

will be forced to "rubber stamp" whatever he proposes if they want funds to keep their seat. Also, his coalition has proven that they are more than willing to run primary challenges against incumbent Democratic pols who do not give complete and immediate loyalty to Obama. John Lewis is one example and a google search will provide other examples of the challenges against black reps that supported Hillary.

[ Parent ]

yeah dems are tough with other dems (5.00 / 1) (#169)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:48:21 AM EST

but repubs, "roll over boys/girls".

[ Parent ]

wouldn't calling to account (5.00 / 1) (#184)
by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM EST

Republican crimes and misdemenaors be against the spirit of "post-partisanship"

[ Parent ]

is that snark? before all the (5.00 / 0) (#201)
by hellothere on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:37:55 AM EST

political division today the congress critters were able to debate and vote against each other for the benefit of the citizens they represented. at the end of the day they could all go for a beer feeling they had represented what they felt was best for those they represent. now it appears they answer to lobbyists, special interests and corporations while behaving like gangs on the street toward each other without the welfare of the american people even under consideration. so excuse me bipartisan means nothing to me but an excuse to further stick to the american people.

[ Parent ]

: Yes, I guess so... (none / 0) (#204)
by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST

I refer you to Barney Frank's essay
about the need to fight the good fight. (thanks to andgarden for that link)

[ Parent ]

truly upsetting (5.00 / 3) (#131)
by ccpup on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:11:56 AM EST

now, there's nothing saying that McCain won't take advantage of the Powers * has accrued as well. But it's less damning for McCain to take this position because he never sold himself as a candidate of "New Politics" and "hope and change".

For new voters or those who supported Obama because he seemed like a breath of fresh air, this about-face on FISA is more than likely the straw that will break the camel's back. They don't EXPECT McCain to take a stand for the People on this issue. They DID expect it from Obama and he gave into the temptation of Power which, in many voter's eyes, makes him into the thing he promised us he wasn't: just another Politician.

For someone who's, in essence, a blank slate and still introducing himself to potential voters, that's the equivalent of taking 10 giant steps back.

Everything he says from now on will more than likely be met with the understanding that it'll probably change within a week. And, if that's the case, the voters will lose interest -- and he'll lose their support -- fairly quickly.

[ Parent ]

For most of the time I was reading (5.00 / 2) (#148)
by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:30:37 AM EST

Savage's book either my mouth was hanging open or my head was shaking. I mean, I followed all of the power grabs as they were happening, but the realization that it was all deliberate and planned, that Bush administration minions were tasked with finding ways to accrue power to the presidency, was chilling.

I had long been of the opinion that impeachment would have served as a tool by which Congress could assert its mandated check on executive power and draw a line that future presidents would cross at their peril; with impeachment off the table, I knew the precedents set by Bush would be waiting for all future presidents, and I consider that a dangerous gift to have given them.

We have a constitution for the protection of the people from the power of government; Obama, as a candidate for the office of president, has a conflict of interest in any legislation that affects the power of the presidency. If he were as smart and canny a politician as some seem to think he is, he would finesse this whole situation by either announcing that he felt constrained from participating in this vote and would abstain, or resigning from the Senate immediately, on the basis that it would not be appropriate for him to be voting on matters that would affect what kind of power he could wield if he were elected president.

It won't happen, but I would love to see some discussion in the media about the inherent conflict in these votes.

[ Parent ]

Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#134)
by Andy08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:14:15 AM EST

But only if he wins. (5.00 / 4) (#133)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:13:54 AM EST

If he loses...well then he's voting the powers to the Republicans....

[ Parent ]

: yeah (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by sancho on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:48:12 AM EST

why is that? what does he know?

[ Parent ]

My View: I Do Not Believe Obama On The FISA Capitulation Bill

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats