For hope, there must first be trust, and no matter why one was inclined to support Obama -- because he had pledged to do this or at least could be counted on not to do that -- that trust is gone. He did not need to support the FISA amendments and their telecom immunity. He said he would not do so. He did not need to vote for cloture. He said he would not do so. Cui bono? Who besides the telecoms?
This was not simply a move toward the center or a gesture toward compromise. It was a gratuitous and reckless surrender of the rule of law to some lesser -- if not contrary -- interest.
McCain has promised to appoint to the Supreme Court justices that would swell its right wing, thus turning a starboard tilt into a capsize for the rest of our lives. That alone was, I thought, sufficient reason he must not be elected. But with today's betrayal of Obama's word on the FISA bill, he cannot be trusted to be any more solicitous of the Bill of Rights than McCain, or indeed Bush.
Obama gave us leave to consider his FISA vote "a deal-breaker." How about a word-breaker, Senator? Did you even stop to consider what you were squandering here?
Obama, FISA and the Netroots
UPDATE: A Powerful, Easy Way to Tell Obama to Get FISA Right
Original post:
The current dust-up in the Obama camp over this week's FISA vote may have real consequences for the rest of this campaign. As you may know, the largest "group" on the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com, is now a group assembled to protest Senator Obama's reversal of his promise to filibuster against the FISA legislation up next week. Reading through the blogoshpere, many commenters appear baffled at the intensity of the passions involved, and criticize the protestors for making such a fuss over "just one issue." But there are good reasons why core activists have taken a strong stand, and why the campaign may look different after this is over.
For many Obama activists, a key issue that propelled them into campaign activism is dismantling the unconstitutional legal measures the Bush administration put in place in the aftermath of 9/11. The prison at Guantánamo, the secret CIA prisons scattered around the globe, the torture of prisoners, and the kangaroo courts set up to process them are the foreign pieces of this puzzle. Warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is the domestic piece. While understanding all the ins and outs of the FISA legislation requires a specialist's knowledge, the core issue is simple: are we working to return the country to the rule of constitutional law or not? (Click here for an excellent analysis of Obama's FISA statement by a specialist.)
Obama made two arguments in his reply to the protestors. First, he argued that though the bill is "far better than the Protect America Act" which the Bush administration pushed through Congress last year. This argument is not only meaningless but downright misleading, for the Protect America Act was written to expire. If no new legislation is passed, we revert back to the pre-Bush, pre-9/11 version of the legal structure of state surveillance of Americans, not the Bush version. The question is not whether the new legislation is better than Bush's, but whether it is better than what the country lived under from 1978 until Bush. It is one thing for Obama to be vague about the particulars of his policies, as he was throughout the primaries. But it is a different thing altogether to make misleading statements about key issues.
So we are left with Obama's second argument, and this one has actual substance:
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.
The "important surveillance tool" he is referring to is warrantless wiretapping. Here Obama unequivocally sides with the argument the Bush administration justice department has been making for years: that in the context of the "war on terror," some constitutional rights must be suspended or at least sidestepped, and key among them is warrantless state surveillance. That is a BIG DEAL.
There are more ways in which this issue stands out among others. Obama's promise to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 18 months is highly provisional and will be subject to many reality tests along the way. His program for global warming will be a major undertaking to put in place, and will surely show many signs of wear when and if it is enacted. The FISA issue is a completely different deal: this is pending legislation that will be voted on next week. It is very much still a fight. There are senators set to oppose the bill, by filibuster if necessary.
Obama had promised to be one of them. On October 24, 2007, campaign spokesman
Bill Burton announced,
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
The position was elaborated in another statement December 17, 2007:
"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same."
What Obama has done here is not a "refinement" of a policy position like he recently suggested concerning Iraq. It is an about face. Imagine how different next week would play out if the presumptive Democratic nominee was joining a filibuster on the floor of the senate, standing up for the constitutional rights of all Americans. The contrast between what would happen if Obama followed through on his promise, and what will happen if he doesn't, is night and day. (See this complete timeline of Obama's statements on the bill.)
Here is another level on which this whole thing stinks. It is one thing for a presumptive nominee to adjust policy positions to reach out to constituencies he wants to bring in to his coalition which were not part of his primary victory. We have seen Obama do that with evangelicals, for example. Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency. There is no sector of the American population that just might jump off the fence and get behind Obama if he only agrees to give telecommunications corporations retroactive immunity for illegally collaborating with the Bush administration's spying. He is not courting votes here. Either he is caving in to pressure from the giant telecom corporations, or he has really bought into the idea that American actually needs warrantless wiretapping. Either option is equally unpalatable to many activists.
Finally, here is yet another angle. Throughout the primaries, one of the big criticisms of Obama was that when it came to votes, he backed off. Thus all those "present" votes in Illinois. But the campaign came up with what seemed like a plausible explanation for all that, and many Obama supporters decided he deserved a pass on that. Well, here we are, the first big vote Obama faces on the national and international stage, and guess what? He is backing off. Not good.
Yet there has been very little talk among the MyBO protestors of not voting for Obama. What there has been is a pronounced change of tone, which may hold real implications for the rest of the campaign. Obama rode to the nomination in large part on the backs of... well, of people like me.
I always vote Democratic, and I always vote. All my life I have voted for a long string of mediocre Democratic candidates, but I have almost never volunteered for or sent money to a presidential campaign. I am politically active, but on local issues where I feel I can have a real impact, or on international issues that I feel are of global importance. The realm of presidential politics is another world to me: donors who can bring in millions, TV ads which I never see since I don't own a TV, and candidates loaded down with corporate backers with set agendas.
Obama changed that for me. I sent him money. I phone banked. I held street signs. I don't know if I am going to continue with all that. I will vote for Obama of course. I will continue to urge everyone I know to vote for him. But my money and time, paltry though they may be, will likely get redirected to candidates who are willing to stand up for issues I care about. And because of the Internet, I know that there are a lot of other Obama supporters in the same boat; a lot of people considering cutting off their string of small donations to the campaign.
All of this is coming at a time in which Obama's schedule is filled with big-money fundraisers where people can buy face time with the man for $30k. Put all these things together, and one cannot help but wonder if there is a turning point, that from here on out the campaign is will be less of a grassroots affair. This is not the death knell of the campaign. Far from it. I think Obama can do very well against McCain with a traditional, top down, big money campaign. I think he will be sworn in as our next president in January. But it will be a different campaign than what it has been until now. As one commenter to my blog so aptly said, "Senator Obama, you can tap my phone or my wallet, but not both."
UPDATE: A Powerful, Easy Way to Tell Obama to Get FISA Right
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama's about-face on FISA means nothing more and nothing less than he is just another politician
who feels the wind direction changing...........HE and the countless other senators who argue that this is the BEST that they can come up with, in effect are arguing that :"We are only a little bit pregnant"........
Passage of this flawed says to the terrorists:..YOU HAVE WON,.......YOU HAVE CHANGED THE WAY IN WHICH AMERICA LOOKS AT THE US CONSTITUTION..........SHAME on this Congress, for their short-sighted, weak kneed response to this failed man in the White House.
For Hope there must be Trust, and and no matter why one was inclined to support Obama"because he had pledged to do this or at least could be counted on not to do that"that trust is gone, and with it any hope for improving change. He did not need to support the FISA amendments and their telecom immunity"there was no constituency for doing so but the telecom industry"and he said he would not do so. He did not need to vote for cloture, and he said he would not do so. This was not simply a move toward the center or an opening to compromise. It was a gratuitous and reckless surrender of the rule of law to the rule of . . . one can't even tell yet, but we'll no doubt learn.
McCain has promised to appoint to the Supreme Court justices that would swell its right wing, thus turning a starboard tilt into an outright capsize for the rest of our lives. That alone was, I thought, sufficient reason he must not be elected. But with today's betrayal of Obama's word on the FISA bill, how can he be trusted to be any more solicitous of the Bill of Rights?
Obama gave us leave to consider his FISA vote "a deal-breaker." How about a word-breaker, Senator? Did you even stop to consider what you were squandering here?
If Obama is willing to backpedal on his commitment to fillibuster this FISA bill and instead vote for it, he will not get my vote this Nov. Period.
Something tells me you weren't going to vote for him anyway... so who gives a rat's #@$% if you rescind your fake endorsement?
I was going to vote for him. I *DID* vote for him in the primary and I defended him against attacks from Hillary supporters, Republicans and the like.
This FISA vote today broke my heart. I can not vote for him now. I will not support McCain, but the constitution and rule of law has just been shat upon.
I will stay home, vote for another candidate, or leave "President" blank.
Today's vote was a national tragedy, and millions will suffer greatly for it.
W
You weren't going to vote for him anyway... so just shut up!
Doesn't McCain need you?
jeez, someone needs anger management classes. "shut up!" - how classy and helpful.
vvaldo - why not vote nader?
I am heartbroken ... he was my last hope for the US and he seems to be just one of those machine dreams (given the netroots of it all) and I cannot support Obama given his goose-step to the right ... I mean what the hell then was the difference between him and Clinton? Why was so much money spent on a primary battle?
I may have been duped and it has not been the first time in my life ... but, I am not about to send money to someone who is not willing to take drastic changes and move the country out of the theocratic fascist state we now live in ... if democratization cannot work in the US ... well ... and saying well he is a democrat really means little to those of us who registered to vote as democrats to support what seemed to be a breathe of fresh air and a progressive candidate ...
In the end, the most important change that the next president will make will be the appointment of at least 2-3 Supreme Court justices. If you want McCain to be the one to make those appointments, then by all means end your support for Obama. Obama does mean change - even if it is not the 'drastic' change you might personally envision. But with a country so strongly divided, there won't be any candidate that can win on a radical platform. Progressives need to stop whining that Obama isn't Santa Clause and look at the real issues at stake.
Excellent article, Mr. Ostertag. It appears that Barack Obama will do just fine without the grassroots support of the "little people" like you and me who sent him money during the primaries.
I just feel like a schmuck that I actually thought he would be different. His marketing team did a good job-- I got taken in big-time... sure wish I could get my donations back.
Another fine contribution to the discussion and dialogue here on HP. I am still weighing my decision as to whether or not to support Obama in the end. I can see arguments on both sides but I guess what disturbs me most is that this was a bill that didn't need to be passed (pre-Bush FISA was fine) and it really bothers me that we have not had a full accounting of the alleged wrongdoing by this Administration. I agree with Bob's statement: "Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency." And so, I am left a bit confused and baffled as to why Obama so dramatically changed his position here and it leaves me feeling unsettled and unsure of my support.
I both agreee and disagree. Pre-Bush FISA was fine. Senator Obama has decided that the FISA Bill as it stands will work as long as the courts have authority over the wire tapping.
The problem with Bob is that he is uninformed. It matters not the he is allowed to pass on his lack of knowledge on this site. The earlier versions of FISA, DID NOT have the oversight of the courts, i.e the DOJ and ruled out ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF TELECOMS.
If you had watched the measure as it came before the House on C-Span, you would know that the CURRENT FISA BILL allows for Criminal Prosecution of any future wire tapping "abuse". Senator Obama has stated that the Senate cam work with this framework and instead of the flilbuster, he along with Senator Dodd will work with the other Dem's and get the remaining executive restrictions removed.
Glad to see you are so utterly sure of yourself, even though your position is dead wrong on several FUNDAMENTAL levels.
The current FISA law, still in effect, was ALREADY the legal authority on eavesdropping. This was reaffirmed in a court ruling only a few days ago. YOUR insistence that the new law somehow closes an exclusivity loophole is flat-out FALSE. Bush IGNORED the fact that FISA was already the legal authority on eavesdropping. The new bill does nothing to stop him from ignoring the law again.
Additionally, you also hang your hat on the idea that criminal prosecutions are still on the table. This ignores the fact that Bush can (and no doubt will) grant a blanket criminal immunity to the phone companies (and therefore himself) prior to leaving office. Get informed.... you are being duped.
Here's a good place to start:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_NUZ_fM-TQKQ/SHKvVALlR1I/AAAAAAAAGhA/a4cZhlZianU/s1600-h/Picture+2.png
DOJ is not a court, thank god.
Your post is inaccurate. The new FISA bill effectively takes oversight of wiretapping out of the purview of the court system by giving the Executive the ability to cite super secret exigent circumstances and sidestepping them. The old FISA bill makes it plain that the FISA courts are the ONLY group which can okay wiretapping of Americans as only they can provide the warrants necessary to comply with the fourth Amendment strictures on search and seizure. This is why there was no need for telecoms to be subject to criminal prosecution under the old FISA, the warrants were already approved.
Further, the high legal hurdles to prosecuting criminal prosecution virtually assure that it will never be employed, hence the need for a civil prescription which the new FISA specifically rules out. I think you would be better served to read Glenn Greenwald's breakdown of the relative merits of the bills.
Netroots people, there is only
one thing to do, and that would
be (of course) - Nominate Ned Lamont!
Since the convention is still months away,
you can do it. Use all your charm & guile
to persuade the Super Delegates. At
the very least, it'll make things lots
more interesting. Go Ned.
Just to balance the ticket, I'd suggest
Smokin' Joe Lieberman for VP.
I'm right there with you Bob. I especially loved your point that warrantless wiretapping has no constituency and that he wouldn't lose votes if he backed the 15 Dem Senators with the guts to stand up for the Constitution. If anything, it might have won him over some Ron Paul supporters.
And I agree, while I won't vote for McCain or Nader I will not give Obama another dime or a minute of my time unless he changes his approach to this issue.
Bob: Wouldn't your time be better spent pointing out the position changes of John McCain? This is why we always lose. Subsets of progressives feel like they have total claim to the candidate. The most vocal of that minority helps the right do their job for them just like so many bloggers are doing now. Oh sure, they'll make their argument this being a BIG DEAL and they won't drink kool aid and they will push their candidate to blah blah blah. What it comes down to is you guys just like to harp on people with your self-righteousness. It is complete childishness to think a candidate will ever behave or believe exactly the way you do. Tearing down a candidate with the chance to correct at least some portion of the last 8 years is a ridiculous move. It's like linemen standing aside on a play b/c they didn't like what the QB decided to do on the last play. Wait till you've won the game. Continue to provide cover. This vote is now and not after the election I get it. Well, after the election you can blog about the overturning of Roe and the 100 million without health care and the $9/gal gas and the continued loss of life in a country where not a single American should have died.
Funny, that sounds like the same rhetoric the GOP leaders are giving the Ron Paul supporters: if we lose in November, it'll be your fault; so get in line, buckos.
Doing the right thing does not entail turning cheek when your guy does something really, really dumb and can't back it up. It means calling his BS, and if he can't support his position or make it right, dump him. Period. No free passes because you liked him last week, no global forgiveness because he is the top Dem. It should be obvious to anyone by now that towing the party line doesn't ever work (again, the GOP v Paul battle is a shining example, as was the Obama v Clinton fight).
Don't vote parties; vote people.
If we lose this time, it won't be because of petty bickering on the left. It'll be because of political calculation and cowardice, political expedient, and fear. It won't be because his most energized foot soldiers started boo-hooing because we weren't taken seriously.
This FISA replacement is a sell out. It's been "compromised" into a gutless capitulation to a gang of thugs whose threats are no longer taken seriously by the citizenry.
I will vote for Barack Obama, warts and all, and I will take what victories we can secure whether principled or merely partisan. When President Obama is sworn in, he will either have an enthusiastic, energized, and buoyed core of believers behind him, or an irritated, skeptical, cynical electorate who held their noses in the voting booth.
Reading his message to his most energized supporters, I'm glad he hears us and feels our pain.
But it isn't enough.
And even though we will be called disloyal to the party, and traitors by the other side, and we will be called nuts by both, we won't roll over and take a beating, we won't demonstrate the kind of party unity that the Republicans did when not one principled conservative spoke up when it mattered.
This bill that Obama is voting for is not some hobgoblin of the Left. It is one more stake driven into the heart of the country we love. This "compromise" is the betrayal, not the Left speaking up about it.
Thanks for your passion bluespapa. Well said.
right on. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Well said. Thanks.
Convince me that warrantless wiretapping is a good idea. Until then, all your arguments are invalid.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Wrong wording... they aren't invalid, they are irrelevant.
Yes, he has a chance to "correct at least some portion of the last 8 years" by voting against immunity. If he gives the telecoms immunity, we will have missed our last good avenue for holding the Bush administration accountable through discovery. Without civil litigation, criminal prosecution simply will not happen, particularly since Bush can just pardon all the telecoms ahead of the fact. He can't do the same with civil suits.
Here's Obama's chance, *right now*, to show us what sort of leader he'd be. He's caving to big money interests. Not a good sign. Selling us out before he even gets there.
Pay attention now!
Precisely - this is a real vote on a real issue that goes to the heart of what our country stands for. This is a BIG vote -
Obama failed to show for the vote on Kyl-Lieberman (he was campaigning), he wasn't in the Senate during the authorization for war, and now he'll be voting yes on FISA.
Actions speak louder than words - even eloquent oratory cannot make up for a real vote - and this is the first BIG vote we will watch Obama cast. And while I will still vote for the man his vote on FISA is a BIG disappointment - not just to me, but for this country and the world.
Bob-
Like you, Obama changed my perspective of presidential politics. I have given two priceless things to this campaign besides my passion for change: my time, and my very limited money. I have done both without regard to consequences because the message, while sometimes worryingly vague, seemed to be backed by a knowledge of and respect for the Constitution.
Given Obama's positions (plural, note) on FISA - but moreover his apparent refusal to honor his filibuster pledge - I agree with you: I don't think I'll be phone banking, organizing and hosting local events, and certainly not opening my wallet for my debit card any time soon.
Is this a deal breaker for me? Of course not. But I am very disappointed in Barack Obama. He needs to post his REAL position on FISA on his site, and stand up for it - he needs to stop playing spineless Democrat and actually do what he promised us!
In my opinion, he should have gone directly back to Washington and worked with these other Senators who oppose HR6304 to
Posted July 7, 2008 | 01:35 AM (EST)