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
Loading comments…
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
Let’s review and update the status of the positions of our AT&T operative friend, Michale.
He has repeatedly asserted that, “there is still criminal liability.
Bush can (and no doubt will) grant a blanket criminal immunity to the phone companies (and therefore himself) prior to leaving office. (UPDATE: Michale still hasn't acknowledged his error)
He repeatedly asserted that those who object to Obama’s FISA capitulation are going to, “derail an Obama win in November.” VERDICT: FALSE
Michale has yet to provide a shred of evidence to back this red herring argument. Instead, when I have written long posts eviscerating this line of thinking, he has ignored it, repeatedly. (UPDATE: point still ignored by Michale)
He repeatedly asserts that the “Unconstitutional argument is rendered moot,” and other similar themes. VERDICT: ROVIAN SPIN
Again, a red herring. Numerous Constitutional experts have publicly condemned this bill as being unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. They cannot definitively prove this because that is not an option. In this country, a Judge decides if a law is Constitutional, after a court hearing. So Michale, in true Rovian style, asserts that the lack of definitive proof (an impossibility) somehow proves “without a doubt” that the law conforms to the Constitution. This obviously defies common sense and happens to be the crux of his argument (no doubt given to him by his AT&T overlords).
Michale position review and update (part II).
Our friend asserts that holding telecoms accountable for violating the civil rights of, perhaps, millions of Americans is the equivilant of “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” This was apparently posed without comic intent.
No further rebuttal is necessary as it may be the single dumbest thing anyone has written on this subject.
Now now, I'm sure that he thought it sounded intelligen
Michale position review and update (part III).
Michale asserts that the telecoms should be granted immunity simply because they “acted in good faith” and massive lawsuits could “bankrupt them." VERDICT: IRRELEVANT & EXAGGERATED
This opinion is as naive as it is cowardly. It assumes, erroneously, that the primary reason for the lawsuits is monetary damages. It isn't. Because our gutless democratically led Congress decided to abdicate their responsibility by taking impeachment "off the table," these suits stand as the only remaining opportunity to compel the release of information pertaining to the illegal spying program. In order to understand this egregious program and prevent it from happening again in the future, we must a) know precisely what happened and by whom and b) punish the lawbreakers to the fullest extent of the law. It's very simple. You want the law respected? You must ENFORCE IT.
Additionally, a large judgment against the telecoms would languish in appeals court for years, eventually ending in a deal. Look at the recent Exxon Valdez situation. Billions awarded in damages, eventually reduced to a mere 500 million (chicken feed for an oil giant).
Additionally, if we offer immunity simply based on completely unproven and highly dubious claims of “good faith intentions,” where do you draw the line on who qualifies for this amnesty? How many anti-war activists have patriotically stood up to this administration and gotten arrested for it? Where is their immunity? This concept could be extrapolated endlessly, rendering the law utterly meaningless.
In another post, Michale said that "Bush will probably go down in history as a great leader". I think that tells you all you need to know about Michale's judgement.
I never made any such claim..
Please don't post lies...
Michale...
I think we boycott the Democratic Convention. Have Barack in an empty stadium and tell the empty seats that "I'm just playing politics", wait until tomorrow..
Silence can be an effective protest tool - I think this is a very good idea.
Obama's known for pulling in the crowds - an empty stadium may be the wake-up call he needs.
Yeah, that'll teach him. All this vindictiveness is just what Rove wants.
You are just jealous. We filled the Oregon arena in 3 days with "word of mouth" announcements. We expected 30-40 but 80 thousand people came!
I can tell you now that you're "DREAMING" if you think that this arena is not already filled.
You can stomp your feet, be childish, all you want but get this
Senator Obama will be our next POTUS!!
Obama for America !!!
Before I say anything else let me establish my credentials - I will vote for Barack eventhough his vote on FISA is, to say the very least, disappointing. That said -
Don't you think it is pretty arrogant for Obama to assume that voting for this bill is okay because he will closely monitor its execution as president. Hello? I know it may be heresy to say this, but suppose Barack doesn't win? Suppose another republican thug takes office? Do you want McBush or his VP 'let's double the size of gitmo' Romney, overseeing the new and improved and now quasi-legal warrantless wiretap program?
How come no one seems too concerned about that? I guess if that were to happen illegal wiretapping would be the least of our problems. Canada here I come -
Excellent post, Bob. You hit the nail squarely on the head.
All I can say, is, "Vote Third Party". By compromising and voting against your interests, you are not helping your situation, but somehow, Dems and "progressives" do this every election cycle. There is always some caveat or "well, just this once" or "but next time, I'm gonna..." and nothing changes. All the issues folks complain about on this site are products of their own making. The Patriot Ace, FISA, the War in Iraq, the War on Drugs, -- where are the elected officials that represent these viewpoints at the Federal level? Someone had to vote them in....
Yikes! JohnPaul--
Please reconsider--it was a few thousand progressives that broke with the Democrats in 2000 that handed victory to Bush Rove Rumsfeld Cheney Wolfowitz Abrams Libby Addington and empowered Delay Hastert Thurmond Helms Hatch and handed billions, hundreds of billions to Kellogg Brown and Rot Haliberton and the black death of lawless contract mercenaries.
I'm very eager for a powerful progressive movement to emerge, but pretending there isn't a difference between your progressive brethren in the Democratic Party and the calculating rot in the other party hurts progressives everywhere! Please reconsider!
Actually, I agree with you that the 2000 election was painfully close, but it was the vote of one supreme court judge who gave Georgie Boy the election.
And what about those paperless Diebold electronic voting machines? I bet they are all spiffed up and ready for 2010.
This was an excellent post; however, I will not vote for Obama if he supports this legislation - I found his response to my concerns insulting. Not only was it misleading, he consciously chose to embrace the divide and conquer political tactics used by toadies like Karl Rove - doublespeak meant to confuse and minimize the issues while leading the People to vote against their own best interests.
The Democrats' assumption that they can ignore their base and still rely on our support is fact. As Bob so aptly states, "All my life I have voted for a long string of mediocre Democratic candidates. . .".
I, too, have given Dems courtesy votes for years. And, until Obama further insulted his base by cutting a commercial for John Barrow (BD-Georgia), I supported efforts to replace "Blue Dog" Dems with more Progressive candidates.
I will no longer support cowardly elected officials - those who are ruled by fear, propaganda, and corporate interests. Instead of debating inanities and placing blame, we should collectively discuss progressive ideas that help move our agenda forward. We should no longer waste time waiting for the Democratic Party to morph into what we believe it should be - it isn’t going to happen.
This country desperately needs an opposition party and I refuse to become one of the sheeple we've rightly belittled for years. If Obama fails to defend my constitutional liberties, I will either write--in the candidate of my choice or vote third-party.
}}}This was an excellent post; however, I will
}}}not vote for Obama if he supports this legislation -
That seems to be the general consensus.
The Anti-HR6304 crowd are going to insure a McCain victory in November..
Truly a shame..
Michale...
Trolls are best ignored; however, I would point out that I am not a majority.
I find it unlikely that the anti-HR6304 crowd is going to ensure a McCain victory in November.
"That seems to be the general consensus.
"The Anti-HR6304 crowd are going to insure a McCain victory in November."
The consensus is neither general nor are your conclusions true.
You mean the same nutjobs who said during the primary that if Hillary lost that they would vote for McBush??? Cause that's the same words that I'm seeing here!
As if Obama is without choice on how he stands on this matter.
Kucinich '08!
That ship has sailed, Nicole. And it might even be true that our good Mr. Kucinich does more good in his present position -- work to see that he's re-elected.
Yes!
I don't like this legislation either. However, enabling a Mc Cain victory by not voting for 0bama ( or by not voting at all) is utterly irrational - given the fact where Mc Cain stands on this issue and other issues.
The only way your decision can be rationalized is that you support Mc Cain on other issues.
.
I could not possibly agree more...
Michale...
Love your posts, Skeptic, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I've spent too many years watching the Democratic Party demoralize themselves and their base. While I understand the importance of this election, I believe the writing is on the wall with regard to Obama's abrupt shift.
He'll have to do something pretty spectacular to get my vote in November.
Peace.
Hume:
His post was perfectly rational. We have been voting for one set of principles for years, those we have been voting for have had other priorities once in office. There can be no more telling argument in favor of this dynamic than the Congressional elections of '06. I sincerely doubt that there would have been much of a groundswell of Democratic support had the Nancy and Harry show run on what they have actually done since then.
The Democratic Party has moved to the right of the Republican Party of the seventies largely because they know that we will continue to vote for them regardless of what they do. This is how we got "welfare reform"; deregulation of banking, energy and media; the AUMF, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, a seemingly endless series of existing and proposed off budget wars in the middle east and a Supreme Court packed with right wing ideologues without so much as a whimper from Party leaders. It is not we who support McCain on the issues, but those we have voted into office.
One more point: it is refreshing, however, to see that we have now reached a point where the Party leadership capitulates in advance of the elections. It is really nice to see a dose of honesty injected into our political discourse.
rrenke, so much of your comment (and Bob Ostertag's piece) resonants for me. It distresses me that I cannot in good conscience argue that you vote against your own good conscience, yet I feel a McCain victory would be the end of all hope for our country... more FISAs with less opportunity to object.
You mentioned "I supported efforts to replace 'Blue Dog' Dems with more Progressive candidates
I absolutely agree that "This country desperately needs an opposition party" and some of us suspect, once again, that the Democrats are not it. But as I've said before, the time to mount a third party charge is November 5. With the Supreme Court hanging in the balance (and the best we can hope for is balance), we have to move forward with Obama and work for change from the ground up instead of the top down.
Talk about clinging to god and guns - Obama 's doing just what he pontificates against and now we're all bitter.
Since we are asking Michale for answers, here's another point he has ignored:
How, exactly, does this issue have any chance of costing Obama the election?
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?
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?
Tell me how sticking to his guns in this way would help him lose the election?
Your argument has NO LEGS (it never did, but that doesn't matter to your AT&T bosses).
Nobody has provided an acceptable answer to this question..
Maybe those supporters who sent him money and now believe Obama lied to them about his positions on abortion, the death penalty, bringing the troops back home, and FISA should contact his campaign and ask for their money back.
Couldn't agree more with the sentiment that although I will vote for Obama, I will stop contributing or volunteering if he backs down on the FISA vote. I'll just send my money to the candidates who stand for the rule of law and reversing Bush's tragic policies.
I have to confess I've been in a state of denial as to why would he turn a 180 and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on such a no-brainer that is so important to many of his supporters, but your point about changing the campaign to a top-down big money based on makes sense.
Oh, Obama. Et tu?
Michale:
1. What is the purpose of retroactive immunity if not the protection of corporations who might have violated basic rights of citizens?
2. Why any kind of immunity for corporations is good for the citizens?
Those are simple questions. What are your answers?
And if immunity is against the best interests of citizens, why should any elected representative of citizens accept it?
.
1. I can think of several reasons... It's been established that the public good trumps individual rights. Which is why, among other things, you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Unless, of course, there IS a fire.. So, if it can be established that the telecoms acted in good faith (and you have to know it would be) then there isn't a court in the land that would take the case. But, even allowing for that possibilit
2. See above...
While my personal opinion is that the telecom immunity is a good thing, it is a judgment call. I trust the judgment of Senator Obama and the majority of the House and Senate Democrats.
I will be happen when HR 6304 passes tomorrow, with our without the telecom immunity..
Michale...
Grrr..... I hate typos....
I will be HAPPY when HR 6304 passes tomorrow, with or without the telecom immunity.
Michale...
Good God. Is this a joke?
1. Public good? What is "public" if not citizens?
Every single American is allowed to sue telecoms now on other matters. If telecoms violate our rights on other matters, there is nothing to stop all citizens to sue them.
Big and widespred illegal activity can and should cost companies millions. That is the deterrent for to prevent similar future behavior.
2. I saw above, but didn't see direct answers to my questions.
You failed to answer the key question, and we both know why. It is beause an honest answer would show that retroactive immunity hurts citizens and protects corporations.
That being the case, your personal opinion clearly is for the benefit of the corporations, and against the best interests of your fellow citizens.
.
"So, if it can be established that the telecoms acted in good faith (and you have to know it would be)"
How, exactly are you going to prove that they broke the Constitutional rights of Americans and that it was for the public good? We don't even know HOW MANY were illegally spied upon! Thus you have rendered your first point moot.
The proposed FISA “compromises” - endorsed by Sen. Obama and scheduled for a vote in the Senate on July 8th are a sham.
The bill protects unchecked domestic spying and creates loopholes for this AND future Presidents.
The bill grants complete immunity to telecom companies rather than determining whether they broke the law.
The bill gives the appearance of “judicial review” – in reality, it protects telecoms that have AND will turn millions of phone and email communications from prosecution.
How?
1. Lawsuits are either sent to a district court (cf. Sen. Hoyer) the FISA court (cf. Sen. Bond).
2. When at court, Congress directs: IF a telecom company produces documentation that the government gave assurances that it was legal to participate in the warrantless spying program, that company is “off the hook” whether or not they actually broke any laws.
3. Because the White House DID give telecom companies assurances that their behavior was legal, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the judge MUST dismiss the lawsuit.
Read for yourself: http://act
Senator Obama promises “change.” If, by “change”, he means eroding Constitutional freedoms and supporting the Bush regime’s way of doing business, I’ll vote for a no-namer like Mike Gravel!
Contact Barack Obama AND your legislators. Urge them to vote “NO” on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act.
QWEST documents leave no doubt that these telecoms were viciously competing with one another for the right to cooperate with the Federal Government -- long before 9/11 -- because they were hungry for the multi-billion dollar contracts for this work.
There is obviously nothing inherently wrong with corporations competing for lucrative government contracts. But the work they were to perform here -- in providing unfettered data and other information regarding the communications of Americans -- was illegal under multiple federal laws enacted precisely to prohibit telecoms from providing access without warrants to the data and content of their customer calls.....
Since these contracts are paid for with our tax dollars, we are effectively funding the teleoms to incriminate us! Isn't that in itself unconstitutional ?
links please...
http://www
Mr. Ostertag's "constitutional specialist" is the ubiquitous Glenn Greenwald. There are other experts on constitutional law that vehemently disagree with him (like John Dean who knows a bit about the Constitution). Right now we do not have a working Constitution under Bush and his Supreme Court. For those who think their self-righteous outrage will get us back to the Constitution I would refer them to those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. It's been a great eight years, hasn't it?
The last I heard, John Dean didn't "vehemently" disagree with Greenwald. He said that it was a horribly written bill. And please don't bring up Ralph Nader. As with Bob, Obama will get my vote. But that's all he'll get. And he'll get it as "the lesser of two evils."
Its early on yet ESerafina.
As stated above, I mistyped. Dean did say it was horribly written and (I think) said that the telecoms still had criminal liability. Nader (along with a broken election system) is why we now have Bush. Go ahead, send Barack twenty bucks. Since I started voting in '64 and working in campaigns, it's always been "the lesser of two evils". Hillary wouldn't have been any different.
So, dissent is wrong or dangerous? Sorry. I'm not buying it. King George the 43rd talks that way. I'm sure the FIRST King George thought that way.
I disagree; to dissent -- even vehemently -- with those who claim to "represent" you is about as fundamentally American as you can get.
I have more sympathy for the Naderites every day; folks imply that I must vote for the lesser of two evils. Perhaps that's true.
However, the older I get, the less willing I find myself to vote for evil.
John Dean has not vehemently disagreed with Greenwald. You are flat out wrong here...
John Dean did not mention Greenwald. I mispoke, but still think we need to get out of this mess instead of forming a circular firing squad. Since Bush was installed by the Supreme Court, his Administration has been spying on everybody, and everybody has something they can be blackmailed about. I'll bet that's what's been going on and being pissed off and voting for McCain isn't going to fix it.
John Dean does not disagree with Glenn. Keith Ollberman disagrees slightly with Glenn.
As other have stated, John Dean does not disagree with Greenwald. Another expert I would cite is Jonathan Turley (George Washington University) who has been very outspoken about the FISA amendment, as well as the Democrats' failure to mount any type of opposition to this unnecessary legislation.
I can't imagine anyone disputing Greenwald's knowledge of constitutional law. While his posts may not be the infotainment many seek, they're factual and based on substance. To try to diminish Greenwald's opinions is a ridiculous argument - he's obviously much better versed in constitutional law than Obama.
Though I like him now, I did not agree with Turley in the ninties when he felt that Clinton's lies about his sexual antics were an impeachable offense. Greenwald's fury at Obama is what is so off-putting. That much rage comes from something inherently out of balance. As I've said elsewhere, Greenwald's anger reminds me of David Horowitz's, and I think it's unhealthy. He is doing the work intentionally or not of Karl Rove, and we will all pay the price, again
@ Michale32086
"Can you admit, like Tommybones did, that you COULD be wrong??"
Yes, I can admit that I might be wrong, and it's even possible that I'm wrong in this case. However, I'm still waiting for YOU to admit that you might be wrong and that bush MIGHT just maybe be lying to the whole country about needing this law! You haven't done so yet, and somehow I doubt that you're ever going to!
I'm still waiting for an answer here Michale!!
Obama's decision on this is wrong on so many levels. On top of everything else mentioned in the article, this one vote could completely undermine Obama's criticisms of McCain as Bush v.2.0. This goes way beond merely violating his promises of change, this steps firmly into the realm of retaining and affirming some of the WORST aspects of an already intolerable status quo.
Do we really want the legacy of having voted for a Democratic president who's willing to spy on us without warrants? And if he's willing to support legislation like this, what else is he willing to vote for? What else would he be willing to veto? I had my doubts before, but the more I learn about this man, the less and less I like.
Obama wasn’t my first choice for the democratic party, but I was willing to support him until now. The democrats have caved on so many issues that the party lines have blurred and become one. My vote will go to McCain because of how blatantly Obama has lied and hopefully Obama will lose and the rest of the democrats will take notice. I also have vowed that if I’m ever called up for jury duty I will hang the jury by voting innocent after all why should there be laws on the books for only the poor?
I am disturbed by Obama's position so I am in no way defending it. But I found your reply disturbing too. "and hopefully Obama will lose and the rest of the democrats will take notice" - are you really willing to risk the next four years with McCain to make some point? I only hope you are making a stupid joke about jury duty. If you are not, you are clearly showing your contempt for our legal system and your responsibilities as a citizen, and therefore are in no position to judge someone else's willingness to side-step laws and the constitution. Throwing what amounts to a childish tantrum and acting out will only hurt the situation. Try to channel your obvious anger (which from reviewing your earlier comments was there before this) into something productive.
You are directing your contempt for legal system at the wrong person RhondaSTL.
Maybe you should write a little reprimand to Bush, Verizon and BTW , Obama and the other Bush suckups .
That seems to be the argument..
The vast majority of the Anti-HR6304 crowd are actively trying to derail Obama's presidential campaign..
Michale...
Are you Rhonda willing to risk the next four years on Obama? I also have nothing but contempt for the government and its legal system. The current system allows for Enron C.E.O.’s to steal millions from the average person allows immunity for companies that break the laws, steals elections and if your rich enough to commit murder without spending a day in jail so yes I’m filled with contempt and as a citizen my responsibilities are to help correct the unjust system we live under. As an average American the only way I can protest this current system is to throw a jury or vote to show my disapproval of this system. Do you really believe that doing what the sheep dog tells you to do is what is best for this country?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
