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
Well stated article.
agreed
Someone dug up the February 28, 1933 surveillance "ammendments" law that Hitler passed and posted the text ...
... it's really eerie the similar sounding language of the sections.
Hitler's 1933 Spying Law VS Obama's Spying Law
http://www
BTW - I actually did read the entire surveillance law they are going to put through and it sounds all "nice" until you realize that all the provisions mutually contradict and are so ambiguous that it basically allows the government to do anything it wants to whatsoever.
Please cite the sections that "mutually contradict
Michale...
um.... sections 702 and 703????? Since the one requires a warrant if they know that they are tapping a citizen, and the other allows them to tap ANYONE, ANY time, ANYWHERE if they don't KNOW that they are tapping a citizen...
America borrowing torture from the Chinese and surveillence from the Nazi's.
Ah - multiculturalism!
multi-mili
Mr. Ostertag: amen. I'm in the same boat as you. I'm already sort of considering Obama a lost cause; I'll vote for him, and he'll probably win, but the enthusiasm is gone. He's "just another politician" despite the soaring rhetoric.
So my money goes other places -- to congressfolks who will stand up for the Constitution (hey Mr. Feingold, do you need any money?), to local issues. My enthusiasm goes to other places. My devotion to Obama becomes yet another "lesser of two evils" situation -- I'll still vote for him because he's marginally better than McCain, but... meh.
I guess what saddens and angers me so much is that, like you I think, I really thought that THIS time would be different. Hoped, I guess, rather than thought. But still -- I hoped.
Also, I think we have to start educating people about politics -- reading the discussions here on HuffPo has really opened my eyes about how diseased and crazy American politics are. We vote for a rock star rather than a set of principles. We turn viciously on someone whose ideas differ from our own only slightly.
Maybe a strong, progressive Congress will serve as an effective countermeasure to "just another politician" Obama.
Go read Chris Dodd's brand new article here on Huffpo! I think this will silence Telco trolls like Michale32086!
I think you are wrong. :D
But then again, what else is new....
Michale...
Not a chance, he will still be shilling for bush and AT&T!
I know that this issue is important.
This issue is NOT AT ALL the most important issue facing the country.
So why is Congress so obssessed with imposing it on us and pushing it through? The existing FISA law is fine, it doesn't need modification of any kind.
Congress should be FIXING OUR PROBLEMS rather than devoting 40% of it's legislative time trying to justify why it wants to spy on it's citizens.
}}}}The existing FISA law is fine, it doesn't need modification of any kind.
And what experience and/or training allows you to make such an assessment???
Law Enforcement experience??
Military experience??
Security experience??
Anything???
Michale...
"why is Congress so obssessed with imposing it on us and pushing it through?"
Very, very good question, AtheistAd. Why this? Why now? Why give Bush what one Republican senator called "more than he could ever have hoped for"? Why?
Why - because the telecoms have stuff on them as well!
Also Obama received 10 million from the communications and electronics industries for his candidacy, H.C received 8 Mil and as we've read here on Huffp the dems who voted for FiSA were lobbied at twice the Donation rate of those who voted against.
The telecoms are salivating over billion dollar federal contracts.
Our tax dollars at work.
Because our gutless democratically led Congress abdicated their responsibility to the Constitution 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, 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. The violations of the 4th amendment HAPPENED already, when the Bush administration violated the existing FISA laws and spied without warrants on American citizens. Last week, a judge ruled against the administration, finding that the original FISA law had jurisdiction over all eavesdropping. Since Bush already admitted it had eavesdropped without a warrant, there is no dispute that the 4th amendment was violated.
Additionally, many keep hanging their 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.
Without our civil rights, we are not a democracy nor a free nation. It's not just "one issue," it is THE issue. Nothing is more important than protecting the civil liberties of the citizenry.
Additionally, nobody can clearly explain why Obama would be hurt on election day for fighting this.
I'm actually far less concerned about what an Obama admin would do than I am about what would a McBush, or a jeb bush or ANY other politician do with that law??
"...power, once granted, does not disappear like a magic gift when it is wrongfully used."
Justice William J. Brennan, Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
Problem is bone heads picked the wrong candidate! For what?
"It is the most important issue in the campaign" right now because it raises the question of Obama's trustworthiness. We all understand that when people run for office they often have to finesse their statements and so on. But this is plain and simply going back on a specific promise, one that caused a lot of people to sign on with him in the first place. As Bob noted in his commentary, many democrats saw this as a statement of rejection of the bush administration's criminal activities. They have been committing crimes with impunity for their entire tenure. Our democratic "leaders" have been woefully ineffective in response and those of us who have been paying attention all along, have been appalled and demoralized. The fact that Nancy Pelosi is touting this bill as a success (and that republicans think it's great!) has disgusted many of us. For Obama to cast his lot with others who are aiding and abetting bush administration crime is equally disgusting. Those of you screaming that is "one issue" need to explain to me why we should now believe anything he promises? Why should we trust him? Because you say so? Because he says so? Don't you see, actions either support or negate people's words. He is taking an action that counteracts his word. When someone you know personally does that, you stop trusting them.
I think another reason why people are so upset about Obama's about-face on FISA, in addition to the merits, is what it says about how he's going to conduct himself once in office. We have seen very little strength exercised by democrats for 7.5 years. They not only allowed Gore to be de-selected as president, some of them actually encouraged him to step down. From then on it's been one incredible litany of failure to defend the American people, and the world, against the most corrupt administration this nation has ever seen. Even now they are letting Rove, Meirs and others crap all over them.
Now we have a huge list of problems. Other than inspiring words, what evidence do we have that Obama has the actual intestinal fortitude needed to exert the tough leadership necessary to overcome corporate and institutional resistance? A lot of us saw his position on FISA as an indication that maybe he did have the cajones. His reversal now makes him look far worse than if he'd never made strong statements in the first place. And he only deepens the disappointment by presenting easily punctured arguments, as Bob discussed. And Bob makes the point, which is also disturbing, which is that perhaps Obama WANTS to be able to spy on Americans with impunity. That's not comforting either.
I agree with everything you say, but I just don't understand why you aren't looking for a third party write-in candidate.
1. FISA
2. faith-based initiatives
3. mental distress of mother not grounds for abortion
4. his statement that impeachment is "off the table", that it should be reserved for offenses that are more "grave" than what the Bush administration has committed.
Well said!
There is nothing "artificial" about this debate.
I will make one point of contention. This debate is raging absolutely everywhere on the Internet.
It is a debate between the "Obama Apologists" and the "4th Ammendment First" people.
One of these two groups is going to win this debate over the long term and if the Obama Apologists lost it ... I bet it costs Obama the election in 2008. Obama has never polled above 47% nationally. There is no Ross Perot candidate to allow him to win with 47%.
Obama needs 51% ... and he lost a huge chunk of his most fervent supporters over this issue. They think "the leftists will vote for him anyway", but what they don't realize is, this isn't a left/right issue. This is a "fascist / not a fascist" issue.
What they also don't realize is that a great number of Obama's prior supporters are much more inclined to vote McCain on economic / tax policy, but we are putting Constituti
Obama isn't "moving to the center" he is just becoming more of a fascist and is losing the middle on this.
My prediction right now is that the 4th Amendment people are going to "win" this debate online costing Obama the middle, and he is going to lose in November because of this issue.
I do not agree that those who claim unconstitutionality will "win". HR6304 will be voted on this week and I am certain it will pass intact.
However, I do agree with you that the Anti-Obama crowd will score some major hits, thereby all but guaranteeing a McCain presidency
As much as it pains me to say this, that's what I believe will happen.
Michale...
Well, I've read a lot of your posts Michale, and I honestly think you are basically a paid AT&T Sales representative.
But, anyway ... if Obama gets pigeon-holed as "Obama the Fascist" online, that's a win, irregardless of the bill ... and I think it could easily cost him the election.
This vote isn't going to go away after Obama votes for it.
I don't think it's ever going to go away to be honest. He's going to be more associated with that vote as a justificationist for it than even Bush was for starting it.
I'm not going to vote for him, because I don't want a fascist for president. And I'm also not going to shut up about it, and nor are all the other people who don't want fascists to run the country.
This vote is going to mean unyielding, unmitigating, unending misery for Obama, for his campaign staff, for his policies, and a lot of people, myself included, are going to make sure that happens.
I believe you're confusing disappointment in what appears to be an Obama about-face on FISA (and other issues) as defection to McCain. I also believe it's disingenuous to suggest that the choice is between a staunch belief in the Constitution and support for Obama. Very few of us who have had the 'privilege' of jousting with you have suggested we would not vote for Obama, only that we feel deceived and dismayed.
You are such a gutless coward. I have asked you repeatedly for a response to my rebuttal to this ludicrous point of yours and you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Because you have no answer. Coward.
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? Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, and as such, he could put a stop to this travesty quite easily. He merely lacks the will to do so.
Tell me how sticking to his guns in this way would help him lose the election? Nobody has provided an acceptable answer to this question..
Fortunately, the courts -- not you -- will decide whether the unamended H.R. 6304 is Constitutional.
Thank god for small favors...
In 2000 Al Gore beat his more progressive Democratic rival, Bill Bradley using tactics that I and others found deplorable. Many of those people voted for Nader (I voted for Gore) and, as a result, we got Bush. Imagine what this country would have become without Bush, but because Gore was not "perfect" enough (some friends even called Gore a "fascist" as you have called Obama) we have had a war based on lies that has killed hundreds of thousands and possibly wrecked our economy, and the problems of global climate change have been ignored for another eight years. Go ahead, feeling smugly self-righteous, calling Obama names and ridicule those who see him as immensely preferable to the alternative. Like the "2nd Amendment people" vote one issue and see our Constitution disappear as it has under Bush and his "fascist" Supreme Court. Allow another war-loving sociopath in the office of the President and see what happens to this country and to the world or grow up
Yeah, I actually supported Obama and still prefer him over McCain, but I'm starting to suspect that the Obama campaign (and the "Obama the rock star must win at any cost" crowd) are seriously, seriously underestimating the significance of this very poor strategic decision on Obama's part.
I'm starting to suspect, like you, that this may well cost him the election -- all because of one really poor choice.
Unlike you it seems, I'm (at least marginally) saddened by that fact. McCain would *still* be worse.
You're right ,many independents tend towards libertarianism and FISA will definitely offend them.
Independents are about one third the vote, slightly more.
Noone cares about FISA!! People are suffering through out the US - and this is what you get hung up on. Go on ask a hundred regular people about FISA, what do you thind they are going to say.
So?
There is a small, very vocal, very active group of activists whom this issue is incredibly important to ... and this group is also the same group who seeded all the political seeds that put Bush at 22%.
I think Obama's going to lose this issue in the online debate and he's going to get labeled a fascist online, and it's going to cost him the middle.
So we should only care about what the majority cares about?
Let's ignore the importance of sticking up for the Constitution (which I've posted about, ad nauseum, elsewhere on HuffPo). Just focusing on the premise of your post -- what the hell do I care what a hundred "regular people" think? Ostertag is talking about HIS beliefs... HIS choices. Nobody else's.
For that matter, most "regular people" don't even bother to vote.
I agree--many people won't give a hoot about FISA. Obama should be more concerned about the millions of gun owners and his history of voting for handgun bans. Will his slide to the right on this issue convince them he is actually taking a stand or just looking for votes. And will they trust someone who appears wish-washy and weak.
I really believe Obama caved on FISA because of money. Think of the huge telecom corps. who support Obama indirectly (favors, telecom family members, exlobby, lawyers, etc).
I've never understood the Obama hype-never trusted him. I'm a Hillary supporter for McCain.
Well said - it sums it up pretty nicely.
It is sad though to watch the campaign change its message its Grassroots. I identified myself, like so many others, with the message he sent about the core values he promised to defend - no matter what.
It is disappointing to witness that what many of us expected from him is unlikely to happen. Maybe we interpreted too much into his words, maybe he was fueling our desire and the way we interpreted him in order to win the primaries - it does not matter. What matters is that there are a lot of people very disappointed right now that he is much more of talk than action on the issues he promised to care about.
I say it again, as you have said it, this is no advocacy for McCain, he is not an option, but it reflects the "state" in which many enthusiastic "early" supporters are now, me included. I gave a considerable amount of money and i helped to raise even more from others - since he started "refining" his messages i stopped giving - i will still vote for him, no doubt, but nevertheless i am deeply frustrated that he doesn't take a stand on FISA and instead gives us just some "political" crap.
Just want to throw this out to y'all. The reason we have the FISA court and rules against domestic spying is to prevent the telecommunications industry from doing what it did before; allowing the government to access their data banks to spy indiscriminately. These laws were specifically put in place to prevent such abuses, and the Bush administration circumvented the FISA court (which grants warrants 99.9% of the time, even retroactively) because the spying they wanted to do (I'm guessing political) would never have been allowed by FISA. That's why Ashcroft refused to sign off on the program.
Just because we have laws, does not mean they will be followed. The current administration has proved consistently that the law does not apply to them. The new FISA law is about protecting them, not us. Obama shoul keep his promise to filibuster the immunity provisions in the bill.
The problem that I have with this new law isn't that it won't be violated (I think that it will, just like this one has been!) but that it gives the NEXT president, or HIS successor some legal ground to say, NO, I will NOT obey the Constitution!
Again, well said, bgregs!
Yes, and maybe that's why Obama does not oppose it. He wants that power for himself.
It is worth noting that in the House vote on this FISA Amendment travesty, look who got lots of telecom money (among the Dems) and look who pushed the hardest for it. Steny Hoyer - $29,000; Rahm Emanuel - $28,000; Nanci Pelosi - 24,500; and there are listed here 94 other members of Congress who also took telecom money and ultimately changed their vote on
http://www
You decide if it made a difference. My congressman changed his mind after he told me PERSONALLY he would vote against amnesty. What did yours do. Have a look.
THIS is among the reasons Obama is doing what he is doing.
"My congressman changed his mind after he told me PERSONALLY he would vote against amnesty. What did yours do."
My rep, Silvestre Reyes, did the very same thing, I called him on a local radio talk show, and he said there was no way the House would vote to give the telecoms immunity without knowing exactly what their actions were, or the parameters of their warrantless spying on, and datamining of, their own customers.
Two weeks later, Reyes, and his fellow worthless Bush Dog Dem lackeys voted to do just that.
I'm sure the Dems backing giving even more power to the most unpopular, despised President in living memory made sure that they won't be spied on.
Following the laws are for little people, the Constitution apparently only protects the Legislative branch from an out of control Executive branch, but they don't extend that courtesy to their own constituents.
You guys are going to cost us the election. Obviously you (most of you) haven't been paying attention to the canidate you support. Barack has never been far left. I think some of you projected your own values on him with truely knowing him i.e. reading his books.
FISA presently as it stands for me is a none issue. The only people who care, or even know about FISA are far left liberals. Most Americans haven't got a clue what FISA is and even if they did a majority would back it. You guys are living in a bubble. America has not suddenly changed into a liberal nation and liberals do not have all the best ideas. All Americans are going to have to work together to solve our problems
Since when is protecting the 4th amendment a "progressive" issue?
"We" are going to cost him the election? How so?
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? Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party, and as such, he could put a stop to this travesty quite easily. He merely lacks the will to do so.
Tell me how sticking to his guns in this way would help him lose the election?
Nobody has provided an acceptable answer to this question..
If he makes it to the Presidency, you can always vote him out in four years.
Otherwise you've got McCain who doesn't give a **** about the Constitution.
It's the self-righteous prigs who will do us in.
tommybones,
I think that this may have an effect on his presidential run. I think that it would be a slam dunk for him to FIGHT for this one, EVEN IF he loses the battle, just like it would have been an EASY win in CT this last year for Ned Lamont, had he stuck to his guns and made Joe (republican-lite) Lieberman out to be the pro-war candidate that he is!
Leaving out the most important point (that FISA is a "none" issue -- since when has supporting the Constitution become a "none" issue for any American?), I'll just address one point:
You say: "You guys are going to cost us the election. Obviously you (most of you) haven't been paying attention to the canidate you support. Barack has never been far left. I think some of you projected your own values on him with truely knowing him i.e. reading his books."
You may be right. Obama may have been far more to the right than I thought. He may have been, all along, for security instead of liberty, for authoritarianism instead of the rule of law. He may have believed, all along, the Nixon meme that "when the President does it, it's not illegal." He may have believed, all along, the incorrect and dangerous Bush meme that the illusion of security is more important than the reality of liberty.
But if he truly believes this -- and if you just judge him from his recent words, you may be right... this may be who he truly is -- then why on earth should I vote for him? Why should I care if he loses? Because if he believes this, he's as much a continuation of Bush as McCain is.
I am not interested in Obama. I'm interested in what he stands for. If it turns out he doesn't stand for that, why should I even care who wins?
Most Americans haven't got a clue what FISA is and even if they did a majority would back it.
Because the media has dropped the ball. If Americans knew (we won't know because of the immunity) what has been done and what this legislation does, they would oppose it.
"Obviously you (most of you) haven't been paying attention to the canidate you support. Barack has never been far left. I think some of you projected your own values on him with truely knowing him i.e. reading his books."
Obama promised to filibuster immunity. When he said that, we were paying attention.
If anyone cost 'us' the election, it will be Barack himself. This is about keeping his word, not some illusion he's a liberal.
You are a victim, as are members of Congress, local officials, people running businesses, anyone who has anything they'd like to keep private.
Eager for Orwell's 1984, are you?
Well said..
Many of the same people who are beating Obama over the head with this and actively working towards his loss in November will be the same ones who whine and cry about a McCain presidency in 2009.
The majority of the posters are actively working with the GOP, either intentionally or unintentionally, to insure a McCain presidency
Michale...
Your "Great" Article summed up where I mentally stand. No political candidate is perfect but this one gave me an irresistible HOPE HYPE fix which fueled me up until a couple of weeks ago..I think I am reaching a depression state slowly joining the Clinton backers from an EMOTIONAL standpoint
Quote Bob Ostertag: "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.
These lines are the threshold. Senator Obama may hold the threshold - or cross it. But he is the one and only person to be made responsible for whatever consequences his decision to keep or cross this threshold may have.
@Lemeritus
Look, I know you were completely devastated when your EX POST FACTO argument was totally blown out of the water.....
But this obsession you have with me is getting kinda spooky...
Argue the message, if you can. But your personal attacks are becoming tiresome..
Michale...
Yeah. Tiresome. Like your incessant defense of the FISA capitulation.
Well, I have already blew your Section 702 argument out of the water...
What else do you have???
Michale...
What about those like me who HAVE been arguing the message, and yet you keep coming back to the EXACT same argument about how we NEED this bill (since you said so), it's not unconstitutional (since you said so), and those in the Congress MUST know more than us (since you said so)!
Michale32086, Are you being paid to write on this blog? I am not. I feel it is a fair and honest question.
And I have answered honestly and fairly..
No...
Michale...
And I have answered honestly and fairly each and every time you have asked..
No, I am not being paid..
Of course, that won't stop you from claiming it's true anyways.. Even though you have ZERO evidence to support such a claim..
Much as you find it impossible to find any factual support for your claims that HR6304 is unconstitu
But the simple fact that you cannot come up with ANY supporting evidence other than someone TOLD you, is why your argument will fail..
Michale...
It's hard not to appear obsessed with you, Michale, when almost every other comment on any topic you bless with your "participation" is from you (usually telling someone else how wrong, tiresome, hysterical, shrill, or childish they are). I have, in fact, suggested that you be given your very own blog so that you can indulge your delusions of infallibility in a safe environment.
As for our discussion on ex post facto, I believe my last comment was "It would seem that your opinion gives room for Justice Chase's reading of the Constitution, vis a vis the proscription of ex post facto laws." If you had bothered to read Chase's opinion in Calder v. Bull (and his eloquent definition of ex post facto), you might have noticed I was agreeing with you in principle. Your response, which is typical of your style and bombast, was: "I keep telling you people and telling you people and telling you people. But you simply WILL NOT listen.... Don't bring a knife to a gun fight..."
My attacks may seem personal to you (and I have admitted that you try my patience), but in fact I am really toiling in defense of other posters here who -- were this a verbal discussion -- would not be able to get a word in edgewise.
Your response is so much more bloody levelheaded than mine would have been. I've stopped responding to Michale32086 for the most part because he/she displays such classic trollish behavior: scream at you incessantly to argue some straw man point that requires tremendous specialized knowledge (which I personally don't have) to even understand, and then when people don't respond (either because they don't have the specialized knowledge, or because they're tired, or because they recognize a troll, no matter how learned he can appear, and understand that the best way to fight internet trolling is not to feed it), the troll trumpets "victory."
This behavior pattern is as old as the internet, and I give you credit for such a learned response. I saw this kind of stuff in debates about Creationism -- where Creationists would make some absurd demand like "list every transitional fossil ever found and tell me how it's not just a mutant" -- which would take a huge amount of time to document and obfuscates the real intention (to shut up any opponent with the knowledge or stamina to stay in the debate).
You have more patience than me. I really laughed out loud at the "don't bring a knife to a gun fight" thing -- too true. Trolls typically have a vastly exaggerated sense of self-importance.
Kudos. There's a cold beer here for you when you finally tire.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
