(Fellow HuffPosters Logan Nakyanzi Pollard and Jason Rosenbaum have shared their thoughts on the meaning of Sen. Barack Obama's decision to support the latest FISA bill. Below is my addition to the conversation, originally posted at the Campaign for America's Future blog.)
My Campaign for America's Future colleague Isaiah Poole urged Sen. Barack Obama to take the lead in fighting immunity for telecom companies that may have helped the Bush administration break surveillance laws.
I do not have high expectations.
It appears quite clear to me, from Obama's recent statement on the new surveillance bill, that he is not interested in letting this bill become a flashpoint of disagreement between himself and his presidential rival Sen. John McCain. So he is expressing reluctant support of the overall bill, he will likely vote for an amendment stripping telecom immunity, the amendment will likely fail, and the overall bill will become law.
It will be a disappointing outcome. But there are worthwhile lessons to take, as progressives prepare for a possible Obama presidency.
It's a reminder that Obama is a politician. Not in either a negative or positive sense. It's just a plain fact.
Which means that we cannot sit back and assume he, or anyone else that may become president, will simply do what we like all the time. We will always have to push.
On telecom immunity, prominent liberal bloggers joined civil libertarian organizations and pushed their hearts out. But the hard fact remains that the push did not succeed in turning intense opposition into broad opposition.
No one in the netroots deserves blame for that. It was extremely difficult to draw attention to an abuse of power issue, when most voters see economic issues more directly impacting their lives. (And the traditional media's dismissal of the telecom immunity issue didn't help.)
In turn, Obama and other Democrats don't have evidence that elevating this issue -- potentially crowding out differences on the economy, gas prices and Iraq -- is something that enough people want to make it politically worthwhile.
Is it reason to be disappointed? Yes. Is it reason to feel that those politicians cannot be presumed to always act on progressive principles? Yes.
But it's not a reason to believe grassroots voices won't be heard or can't have a major impact.
Obama -- along with former rivals John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton -- was successfully pushed to adopt bolder positions on health care and global warming than Democratic politicians in the recent past. Why? Because progressives pushed, and pushed well.
When we push well, and show that there is broader public support for ideas too bold for narrow-minded Beltway elites to accept, that's when we move our nation forward.
And there is, and will be, a need to keep pushing.
For example, while Obama is calling for greater public investment in infrastructure, his proposal of $60 billion in infrastructure investment over 10 years pales in comparison to the challenge we face. My colleague Eric Lotke recently noted that our infrastructure needs $1.6 trillion to get up to snuff. Robert Borosage lamented that Obama's specific proposal "won't build many bridges, much less seed modern transit."
Obama calls for more in the area of clean energy and energy-efficiency: $150 billion over 10 years. But the Apollo Alliance reports says we need twice that amount to rapidly transition to a clean energy economy a decade from now.
There are five months left to build a crystal clear mandate that will set the table for progressive change no matter who gets elected. It's indisputable that the desire to change from eight years of failed conservatism is strong across America. But there is still more work to do to define what real change looks like.
So if there anything to take from Obama's telecom immunity move, it's that the need to push the parameters of acceptable debate is as critical and urgent as ever.
Follow Bill Scher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billscher
My Drinking Liberally chapter recently hosted David Sirota, whose new book "The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of The Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington". What his research has shown him is that the left makes the mistake of throwing all of their support for a candidate while the right throws their efforts towards issues and goals. I don't think it's any mystery who has been more successful having their issues paid attention to the last 25 years: unions are struggling, science has been put on the defensive, anti-gay marriage laws have been passed, reproductive choice has been severely limited...etc.
The left needs to force their candidates to take their side on the issues, not just support them without condition and hope they do the right thing. That is why I can and should vehemently disagree with Obama on caving on FISA and use the leverage of my money, volunteering time and vote to pressure him to do the right thing.
Ask yourself why Republicans are hammaring Obama for rejecting public financing for the general election. They know that with enormous resources, Obama could win the presidency and impact downstream elections that will give Democrats clear majority seats in the legislative houses. Without such mandate, all talks about progressive agendas such as universal healthcare is a mere optical delusion of consciousness. It is bizzarre to see some so called progressives joining forces with Republicans to undermine Obama’s credibility by stigmatizing him as flip-flopper.
When Bill Clinton ran for office he ran as a progressive populist and didn't change his tack just because Republicans picked on him. Clinton attacked their frames, their policies and turned it on them. Obama is not attacking or debunking their policies and frames. He's accepting them, that's a problem. The big joke in the GOP right now is that next Obama is going to change his mind on Iraq. That's a big problem. They've been successful at painting him as an unknown, a Muslim, inexperienced...adding untrustworthy to the list by caving on FISA was unnecessary and a huge mistake.
The propaganda continues! Obama is not "moving to the center," he is MOVING TO THE FAR RIGHT. These positions are NOT centrist:
1) Granting immunity to lawbreakers
2) Granting sweeping new spying powers to the executive branch
3) Capital punishment for child rapists
4) Opposition to gun control
These are far right positions, and we need to acknowledge it. Every time someone makes the claim that Obama is "moving to the center," it implies he is moving away from the lefty "fringe" as opposed to the truth of the matter, which is he's moving away from the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens in deference to the right wing which currently rules our government and news media.
Thank you.....you are doing a great public service
Myth #4: At least this bill returns oversight to FISA!
How this bill is any different than the last FISA bill? Did the last FISA bill not make it perfectly clear that the President needed a warrant to spy? Yes, it did. Did the President IGNORE that provision? Yes, he did. Was he held accountable? No, he wasn't. So, please tell me why he should suddenly feel compelled to adhere to the provisions in the NEW FISA bill? Because the gutless Democrats REALLY want him to? THIS time?
It's simple, if you want someone to obey the law, you ENFORCE the law. How do you do that in this case? Impeachment. No? Okay, then at least allow the civil suits to go forward, so we can reveal what actually happened, which laws were broken and by whom. No? Okay, well say goodbye to your 4th amendment rights.
Myth #5: Obama has a plan to conduct CRIMINAL inverstigations AFTER he gets elected!
In order to believe that Obama is actually going to proceed with criminal investigations in 2009, you must have:
a) been born yesterday, and
b) arrived at this blog on the back of a turnip truck
Do you really believe that? Let's look at some recent history, shall we? Remember 2006? Vote democrat if you want to end the war! Vote democrat if you want accountability!
Yeah, that worked out really well. Now, I have this really great bridge in Brooklyn that I'm selling... you interested?
Myth #1: the FISA debate is a "progressive" issue.
If defending the 4th amendment and holding corrupt officials accountable are "progressive" ideas, then we may as well start goose-stepping down Main Street, because we no longer live in a democracy.
Myth#2: Obama is being "pragmatic," looking to avoid being called "soft on terrorism":
Firstly, we must acknowledge his real reason for backing this bill. He ISN'T backing this bill because it's politically popular (it isn't), he's backing it because it protects corrupt democrats, who were knee deep in the 4th amendment violations.
But speaking to the idea that he needs to vote for this bill to avoid being labeled "soft," are you telling me that Obama couldn't make a strong case passing the same bill, only without telecom immunity? You don't think he could ask the obvious question; if these provisions are so important, then you wouldn't deny them merely to give immunity to a few phone companies, right? Protect phone companies at the expense of national security? You don't think Obama could win that argument with the public? Who are overwhelmingly behind those sentiments already?
Myth #3: Obama is only one Senator, what could he do all by himself? After all, the dems are caving across the board, right?
Are you telling me that a Democratic controlled Senate would OVERRIDE a filibuster by their own Presidential nominee, in an election year? Just to protect telecom companies who spied on their constituents?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html
Yeah, the Dems are really going to "fix" the FISA law once Obama is Prez. My ass.
I have read many articles and comments claiming that doing what was "right" - sticking to the principle and punishing telecoms for their caving to the administration in this case was more important than winning the election in November. These people must be completely out of their minds!
Yes, telecoms wont get prosecuted in CIVIL COURT for their caving in to the Administration's requests, this is true. But the bill does fix the problem by taking that power away from the administration - the real crux of the issue. Fascism is not coming because of the lack of prosecution... that slope would be slipped on if we didn't fix the problem. This is not the case.
Its one thing to be accused of being "elite" and another of actually being so elite that you don't know whos vote you are trying to get!
I have to remind myself always that there will be many tough calls to be made, and I am going to have to have patience and know that not every battle I want won will happen that way.
Come on guys! I'm not fretting. Obama knows the game better than any of us here.
It seems a lot of his supporters fell for his critics claim that he was naive and inexperienced. After listening to him about any subject whether you agree with him or not, he has great analytical skills. He is very well informed about how "stuff works."
Not only is he a politician but he is also Human. And before you judge him or any other candidate, yes McCain too, think about what you have done and seen in your own lives. This goes for Clinton also.
Say what you want about any of them, nobody here would have the guts and intelligence to do what they do everyday.
I also wrote an email to Senators Dodd and Feingold and told them that there are many Democrats out there that support them in their attempts at a filibuster.
Now that we have our second amendment rights guaranteed, let's restore our fourth amendment rights as well.
Once again Obama is allowing the republicans to set the agenda. He is playing their game, by their rules and, if history is any indicator, he can't win. I thought he was going to make McCain debate him on his own terms, from a platform of the highest moral integrity. This vote, while fundamentally reprehensible, is politically stupid as well. Disappointing on every level.
A few samplings from JFK's Profiles in Courage, a godsend in the moments when hope seems most elusive. Sen. Daniel Webster:- 'There is one sort of inconsistency that is culpable: it is the inconsistency between a man's conviction and his vote, between his conscience and his conduct." Sen. George Norris: "I would rather go down to my political grave with a clear conscience than ride in the chariot of victory as a Congressional stool pigeon". The belated public vindication of Edmund Ross: "He acted for his conscience and with a lofty patriotism, regardless of what he knew must be the ruinous consequences to himself. HE ACTED RIGHT." Sen. Tyler: "The man of today gives place to a man of tomorrow, and the idols which one set worships, the next destroys. The only object of my political worship shall be the Constitution... I regard as nothing any position or office WHICH MUST BE ATTAINED OR HELD AT THE SACRIFICE OF HONOR."
Infrastrastructure, environment, energy, - important issues. Protection of the Constitution
trumps them all. Pity those who mimic Scarlatt O'Hara that we'll think about the ramifications of the FISA amendments on the 4th Amendment 'tomorrow', because once they became law,
tomorrow will not be just 'another day'.
I would rather compromise than have 4-8 years of Republicans - you are in the minority my friends!
Why was it we didn't want Hillary?
It makes no sense for prominent bloggers and thousands of commenters to help McCain just because they disagree with Obama.
Flashpoint? Telecoms get immunity from crimes committed against the citizens of our country, and someone's worried McCain will scream bloody murder? Idiotic nonsense, I say. This is about slathering over the huge power shift that continues government control of the masses. Not a very progressive trait, is it?