Obama Tries and Fails to Put Out the FISA Fire in His Own House
In an unprecedented attempt to put out a fire in his own house, Senator Barack Obama yesterday issued a response to supporters who had been protesting his position on government surveillance. The release was followed by an 90 minute interchange on MyBarackObama.com between campaign officials and supporters (though as far as I could tell, the campaign officials made no comments themselves but just read the comments being made, leaving it unclear who was actually reading and for how long)..
Unfortunately, there was nothing in Obama's response that addressed the harsh criticism some of his supporters have voiced. I could go into detail on why the statement stinks, but since this is the Internet I don't have to, since I can instead direct you to the excellent point-by-point analysis offered by Glenn Greenwald. My focus here will be the novel political dynamic unleashed by the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com.
These are uncharted waters we are dealing with here. Yesterday I asked the question whether 18,000 people protesting on the campaign's own web site (out of hundreds of thousands) were a lot or a little. Apparently they were enough to get the attention of the campaign and the candidate.
The comments were a mix of people who were star-struck that Obama had noticed them and written a reply, people who felt any criticism on the site was inappropriate, people who just spouted typical Internet invective at each other, but then an awful lot of extremely informed and thoughtful people who did not back down an inch.
Some defending Obama's position questioned whether the protestors were really from the Obama camp or were Republicans who had logged on to wreak havoc. However, since MyBarackObama.com is a full-fledged social networking site, one can check the profile of each commenter, see how long they have been active on the site, what action groups they are part of, and so on. It appeared that many angry critics were people who had put a lot of time and money into the campaign.
The whole episode raised more questions than it answered. Certainly what is going on here is something new. There are going to be many more controversial issues. A presidential candidate can't always be having to log on to the Internet to defend himself from his own supporters. I am reminded The Obama campaign promised to give its supporters new Internet tools to empower them to make the campaign their own. Now that it as done so, the leadership has to be wondering if it was a good idea. of the musicians who have figured out how to make modest livelihoods marketing their music directly to fans over MySpace, only to discover that doing requires spending hours every day maintaining the sort of direct relationship fans on social networking sites expect.
On the other hand, overall this has to be considered a victory for, and an extension of, democracy. This is a clear-cut case of a candidate promising one thing and doing another. Turns out that in the age of the online campaign there will be a higher price for this time-honored activity.
The folks at Obama HQ better tighten their saddle. They have let the horse out of the barn, and it might be a bumpy ride.
* Some sample comments:
Frankly, I'm disappointed. No, Senator Barack, it's not a "deal breaker". But even using these words is almost like taunting your position in our face. Almost like you are taking our votes for granted because you know we have not choice but to vote for you. No, I don't want McCain, but I can say with clarity that my personal enthusiasm, and many of others who I talk to, have certainly diminished by a huge margin.
At the end of the day, the question is, do you want your supporters to vote for you because you are the lesser of the two evils, because they have "no choice" when comparing the alternative (as you say yourself) or do you want people to vote for you because they are proud of what you stand for?- Christine
Christine, I, too, did not like that "deal breaker" line. I felt like it was dismissive, especially when he has been trying soo hard to get the gun advocates, the evangelicals, the death penalty advocates...It's like, ok, get lost. I got plenty more voters and money!! What has happened to him???
- JonnieRae
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
Excellent analysis by Glenn Greenwald. I am an Obama supporter, I've donated to him and am working as a volunteer over 20 hours a week on his campaign. That said, I am not happy with his FISA stance, and believe that I should do everything in my power to try to persuade him not to support this bill. And if this means disagreeing with my own candidate on his own forum, so be it. Thats the joy of democracy - candidates need to be responsive to voters, especially their voters and supporters. Obama gave the little people a voice, and we're screaming at the top of our lungs. We'll see if he listens...
he's already shown he listens. he's responded. don't like the response, okay. but it's his decision to make, he's made it, he isn't budging on this one. like he said... if it's a deal breaker for you, that's ok.
no, really, it's ok. it's alright for you to find a better place for you to place your vote.
Get over it, the telecoms didn't break the law. They have billions and many lawyers and followed their government in a time of war. FISA courts were a bad idea from the beginning, take them away. I am for civil rights but understand in this tech world you have to have a reasonable expectation of privacy online or on the phone. That does not apply to foreign nationals using our telecom networks. Let’s just expand the constitution to the Whole World. How many dictators would be laughing their asses off? Obama alter ego is going to drive him right up to that line that General Powell and Ms. Rice have seemed to cross in their tenures in the liberal State Department.
The FISA law is the law. See? And Bush broke the law. Simple. And now everybody's pretending the new law that they're going to cave in and pass is going to make a difference, when the law in place (FISA) already forbids what Bush and his fascist-lite cronies have done. Passing a new law will do nothing to restore the mettle to legislators who now can't be bothered to make sure the old FISA law is followed, and that those who broke it are punished. It's just more fiddling at the margins of their constitutional obligations, while the republic burns past all recognition.
Get over it yourself. This isn't about foreign nationals, it's about the government monitoring every single electronic communication made by every single citizen of this country. The US routinuely monitors all communications in other countries via picking up microwave tower transmissions. And is able to seperate all callers, so we hear *EVERYTHING* from "Mom's sick" to faxes of technical documents; again, I'm referring to within other countries. So there's no technical problem monitoring every single communication between Americans.
You're a liar and not a very good one at that. Michale32086 could give you some pointers!
Some of my fellow liberals have made a strange choice and that is making it a priority during this time of the campaign to attack Obama and NOT attacking McCain?
Are these the same people who invested a lot in Obama? Can't some of us realize that time and resources spent attacking Obama (with who we largely agree) is time not used to attack McCain (with who we seldom agree)?
Are we keeping our Eyes on the Prize if we are CONSTANTLY attacking Obama, a candidate we supported, funded, volunteered for, and thereby weakening the candidate and sabotaging our own investment?
Do we on the left have our priorities straight or have we become too used to loosing the presidential race that we cannot focus on the bigger picture?
If we liberals continue on the Obama-bashing path, we should then stand proud and congratulate ourselves for ENABLING McCain to become the 44th POTUS come November 4th.
I am using my time defending Obama and also registering new voters rather than bashing Obama at each turn - I leave that for the MSM
And so am I and will continue to do so. Obama is a man of integrity and if that cannot be seen among the whiners here, then maybe they should vote for McCain. He seems to be more of what they are looking for.
Thank you Global. I totally agree. At least 50 to 75% of the comments posted at HuffPo are Obama bashing. It breaks my heart. No one is talking about the alternative, McCain. It's hard to come here anymore because I become so discouraged with all the invective. I used to think Dems never win because of the corruption on the Right. From what I can tell, the Left is also complicit in our defeat. People here now talking about supporting Nader? This is insanity. How do you keep the faith and optimism, Global? I've about run out.
My feelings exactly. I will continue to express my opinions - strongly disagree if I believe it is an important issue (ie FISA), but I will not lose sight of the bigger goal - taking back the White House. I strongly agree with Obama on many more issues than I disagree with him about. He will have my time, talent and meger treasure as we attempt to win the most important election of my lifetime. I hope others will join us.
Good night, nurse!
18,000 disgruntled Obama supporters?
Nah. I suspect it's about 500 disgruntled Obama supporters.
The rest of the group members are probably comprised of (1) Obama loyalists who have signed up to watchdog the FISA group and to be able to blog on that group site, (2) McCain trolls who have signed up to foment chaos, and (3) reporters and bloggers who have no history with the Obama campaign but signed up for the group so they could read the emails.
Bush got warrant requirement removed last August.
So if you want that to continue don't suppor the bill.
The Bill will make warrant wirless tapping illegal.
Support Obama's and Dodd's attempt to remove telcom immunity.
Even the casual political observer should be able to note that has more to do with defeating Obama
in November than FISA. Only Obama is being criticized. Bush, not McCain, not any of the other 500 legislatures who vote on this bill. Little or no attempt is being made to persuade other politicians to vote against the bill only Obama. Litlte or no cricticsm of the mostly democratic congress for supporting and the passing the bill.
MrUniteUs, it is as you say... the Protect America Act was an abomination. That is the act that is set to expire and around which so much urgency seems to revolve. However, the worst parts of PAA are being moved into the FISA resolution: the ability to surveil without "particularly". The bill extends from 72 hours to 7 days the length of time required to obtain what can best be described as a "generic" warrant. It does not require the FISC to provide for individualized review, judicial finding of apparent wrongdoing, or directives to a specific entity for a specific communication collection. Further, it provides for a 60 days period in which surveillance can continue if the warrant is denied. Nor does it direct that intelligence erroneously obtained by destroyed, or even than an innocent target be advised that their privacy was invaded.
Good Point, MrUniteUs.
However, he is now our Leader, but not yet the Leader of the entire Country.
I read his autobiography. This man, in thinking about every issue, reaches back through our history and each time cites the highpoints of liberal thought. That is what he believes, sincerely. He is a progressive, rest assured.
For the moment, he must not appear to the "low info voters" (read, independents and moderate Repubs.) to be too "radical," even though what the MSM would portray as "too radical" is in fact an agenda that would benefit 98% of Americans.
That being a given, we must hold our powder dry until our Leader has won the prize.
Then, we lobby him with a fervent calling, an unrelenting passion, so that he must listen and act accordingly.
With O in place, it is a negotiation between the center and the progressive movement, leaving the extreme right wingers out in the cold. This has not been the case since the 1960s.
The outcomes on health care, campaign finance, the occupation of Iraq, et al., should be quite satisfying.
So bide your time, my fellow progressives, for our ascendency is near.
I for one am an Obama supporter who joined the group, is disappointed in his FISA position, has been very active in his campaign, was gratified that he wrote a response, was not convinced by his arguments, will still clearly support him but will continue to make my concerns known to him. As I never viewed him as a messiah or perfect, I am not surprised I have disagreements with him, I just wish it was not on this important issue involving core principles.
I think there are more disgruntled Obama supporters than you think. Let's wait until the next report on how many people are donating to him on-line. My guess is that these numbers will come way down, as people realize the "change we can believe in" candidate has "changed" back into the typical politician who promises whatever the voter wants to hear to get your vote and then goes on to do whatever works out to be in his/her best interest.
So what will yo do Larry? Give up your vote to Nader, Bob Barr
It's interesting how people can come away with two completely different views on something:
"Christine, I, too, did not like that "deal breaker" line. I felt like it was dismissive"
I didn't see dismissal at all. I saw a personally written and public recognition that he realizes you might not be able accept his judgment call on the bill, and that your convictions are strong. It read like respect to me.
He personally acknowledged your concern and condemnation. He made room for the idea that you might not be able to condone. He made no attempt to shout anyone down or shut them up.
True. Also, this headline Bob used is misleading
Thank you. We certainly don't all think alike and translate alike. So everyone should speak for themselves only.
Tough love may be him losing the election. I say if we're going to continue to be screwed, let the rethugs do it because the next democrat may keep his/her word up until at least the day *AFTER* the election. If I vote, it will be for McCain.
Why is Obama practicing "tough love" on those of us who value our Constitution more the politicians who have been raping, subverting and undermining it despite their pledge to "uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"?
Shouldn't the "tough love" be applied to those who have driven our country into the ground since W first slithered into the Oval Office thanks to those unelected, activist judges?
And why, with Obama's contradicting himself so glaringly about the FISA rewrite-"I'll filibuster telecom immunity" turned to "I'll vote for the bill"-does anyone think he'll actually go after anyone in this Administration, or any of the vile war profiteers, with aggressive, criminal prosecutions?
Also, if "Obama will do the right thing about FISA when he's President", why would the same people he's sucking up to now in that respect-the worthless Bush Jr bipartisan lackeys-suddenly flip-flop and back his decision once he's President if Obama changes course then?
I agree. I appreciated the fact that he realized that some people wouldn't be able to reconcile with his position.
Agree. I didn't get "dismissive" out of that at all. Anyone who was offended is a wee bit hypersensitive, I think.
If the thrill ain't gone,
It's at least gettin' ready to wave bye-bye.
You didn't need much of a thrill it seems if you're leaving already:)
Frankly, I am getting tired of this whole FISA line. We keep repeating the lines 'moving to the center', 'sellout', and other 'buzz phrases. And we (I mean that WE) and keep repeating them and pretty soon we're all running around with our hair on fire weeping and wailing and saying "I told you so' and meanwhile the Republican machinery keeps puttering along, secretly PLEASED because we are doing the McCain campaign's work. The founder of THIS site, Arianna Huffington, has coined a couple of phrases in her new book (no, she's not paying me for this) "zombie lies", "zombie rationalizations", and "zombie theories". Ninety percent of the commentary written in blogs comes from zombies. People who don't have too much more to do with their lives than sit in front of a screen and type. The other ten percent is thoughtful criticism. DID ANYONE READ BOB CESCA'S ARTICLE YESTERDAY?
Obama has said, and I for one believe THIS ONE, that he WILL WORK to remove immunity from the bill and will also MAKE SURE THAT ALL of the Bush Administration's policies on National Security get a THOROUGH VETTING once he is in office.
BY the WAY, with few exceptions, the entire list of Senate Democrats that voted AGAINST CLOTURE (FILIBUSTERED) were "S-A-F-E." FEW, if ANY of those Senators were up for REELECTION. I will WORK for Obama, I will VOTE for Obama and THEN I might have something to MOAN about in December.
Yeah what if Obama loses in November? What then? Who will fix this FISA bill for you? McCain? If Obama thinks the bill is flawed and needs fixing then he needs to fix it now or vote against it. Next year may be too late.
Otherwise it's just another bait and switch tactics. Or the check is in the mail...
Dear Zombie, Obama once promised to fight immunity. Now he's promising vote for immunity but will **TRY** to remove it .......som
Yep, you're brain-dead alright. First lesson in making a deal: never accept vague promises like "agent of change", "compromise", "I'll try to change that later."
This whole thing about we need to compromise to win is bogus. The Dems including Obama are for it out of fear. They are afraid if anything happens before November they will get the blame. They have been operating out of fear since 9/11, from Iraq to this FISA thing. Anybody really thinks the CIA and NSA will just stop listening in from now to election day just because there is no FISA? If Obama and the Dems are so sure Bush is taking the Reps down this election why can't they wait until next year to pass the bill that they think is right?
Anybody who compromises out of fear doesn't deserve to be Commander In Chief. Say what you will about Bush the guy has never been accused of running from a political fight out of fear.
Anybody who compromises out of fear doesn't deserve to be Commander In Chief. Say what you will about Bush the guy has never been accused of running from a political fight out of fear.
You sound just like Jesse Helms, "NO COMPROMISE" yeah look where that's got us. As for Bush not running from a political fight out of fear, Bush didn't run this country it was Rove, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfield. Bush was out playing golf at the ranch of course he didn't have to know what was going on and didn't that make him look good. Wake up!
There are indeed many reasons to compromise in life, to reach the middle ground, to move forward, etc. The Dems and now your guy have been compromising since 9/11 because they are afraid Bush and the Reps will use the security issue to beat them over the head with. From Iraq to this they have gone along with pretty much anything Bush wants. Don't forget they have been in control of Congress since the last election; what have they done say to stop the war in Iraq or even to wind it down? No they went along with the surge. They, including Obama, have voted for every single war budget Bush sent to them. If Pelosi really wants to end the war she can cut off all funding except for the money needed for an orderly withdrawal. So don't lecture me about Jesse Helms. Jesse Helms stood his ground and got what he wanted. Whether Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rove run the White House is irrelevant. They have called the Dems bluff on issue after issue and and the Dems have caved every time.
The way things go ten years from now we will still be Iraq fighting no matter who wins in November. They are all too scared to leave. And perhaps too greedy as well.
The fear you talk about is fear of losing a political battle. It has nothing to do with qualifications of the person as Commander-in-Chief.
As for Bush not running from a political fight, I haven't seen him fighting for privatization of Social Security latey, have you?
It is OK to be critical of specific positions that 0bama takes, just don't over dramatize and extrapolate.
.
There is no point in debating with those who are truly disheartened about the FISA bill. Arguing that they should "trust" Obama on this only fuels them.
I agree. This is very discouraging. Can't come here anymore. It is literally breaking my heart. I will vote for Obama in November and just pray that he will win. All the people here who don't respect and trust him anymore should start really focusing on McCain's positions and policies. There are actually people in this country who aren't really concerned about the FISA debate. They need basic things like food, health care, jobs, an education, and a healthy planet. FISA is important, but would people please look at the big picture. I know no on cares, but I can't come here anymore. All the Obama bashing makes we cry. I just want a better life for my children.
Thanks Bob Ostertag for keeping this issue front page, it ain't over yet! The coverage by Glenn Greenwald is so important, not many constitutional lawyers out here and we need to hear from a trusted source.
I can't think of any issue more important for a candidate than protecting and defending the constitution and our civil liberties. We looked for a leader and found a follower.
Even worse, look what he is following, the criminal course of the widely recognized worst president in our 232 year history. Also breaking his own word to fillibuster this blatant attempt to give immunity to the criminal acts of the telecommunication executives. Ask yourself, how precedent setting is this, for all time to come, break the laws and get a free pass.
Now we have to ask, what does this man really stand for, what issue is important enough to just say no?
I think most of you folks have been BAMBOOZELED and HOODWINKED by the DNC, Donna Brazile, Howard Deam and Obama. They picked Obama because of his connection to the faith-community, they wanted to get the religiouse voters and just knew Obama was their guy, too bad they didn't check Rev. Wright and Father Mike a little better. This was written by DONNA BRAZILE on NOV, 5, 2004, a few days after BUSH WON RE-ELECTION. it's called "Why Americans Hate Democrats" How To Tap Into The Obama Factor http://www
Who is "they" and did you notice 18 million people voted for him? Can you identify one example of any of th voters being coerced into voting for him.
You keep repeating your mantra Hank... Bamboozeled and Hoodwinked. How the hell old are you? 89? Yes, we all know you are a republican troll who comes onto Huffington post to spew your tirade. But can't you come up with something a little more inventive than Bamboozeled and Hoodwinked? Ah, and I see you referencing Slate.com another partisan site.
I thought this campaign was about the Audacity of HOPE... I guess I was wrong.
There are people who want to rescind their support for Sen. O because of this one issue. While I don't think that's necessarily smart... I do understand because it shows their integrity. They would rather vote for someone they believe in... not just the lesser of two evils.
You also have people who just want to win w/out any regard to what they may actually win. Some of these people say "he's doing this to win... he'll change once he's in office". Please don't buy that. Whatever he does to win now... he'll have to continue to do to be re-elected.
You have the ones who go into the details of FISA claiming it's not that bad and he'll enforce it once in office. Question..
Let me remind you. In the primaries.
Got Hope? Not much.
There is too much misinformation regarding teh FISA bill and O's stance on it for it to be a coincidence, or let's just say it has Rove's signature bait and switch fingerprints on it. For instance, Obama was against another FISA bill that was defeated last fall, not this FISA bill that has been greatly strengthened in regards to both Fourth Amendment protections and government accountability.
People fall for this stuff because they let their emotions override their critical reasoning abilities. The Roves of this world depend on that quite a bit. Just because Democrats don't belong to the GOP doesn't mean they are immune from such manipulations.
Misinformation? From whom?
Talking Points Memo ElectionCentral
October 24, 2007
It's official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
http://tpm
support_fi
Do you remember that Bush ran on a "change" platform?
Probably the easiest thing to campaign for is "change" in Washington.
I'm a bottom line kind of person, so I look at policies rather than rhetoric. I never trust ambiguities. Charismatic leaders telling the masses that they stand for change while doing back room deals in Washington
McCain will be terrible for this country. This is another "lessor than" election.
Good God... I feel like I'm in the twilight zone! Obama is not "moving to the center," he is moving to the FAR RIGHT. Every time someone bases a criticism on Obama's "move to the center," they are undermining their own argument substantially. What could be wrong with a "centrist" position, after all? The criticism falsely makes it seem like Obama, ever the "pragmatist," is merely looking to unite the country, when in reality these new positions cater to the far right wing, who rule this once-great nation.
Since when is defending the 4th amendment of the Constitution a "progressive" issue, which one can "pragmatically" move away from? Since when is granting retroactive immunity to lawbreakers who violated the 4th amendment rights of millions of citizens a "centrist" position? Since when is granting sweeping new eavesdropping powers to the executive branch a "centrist" position? Since when can one consider backing an horrific new FISA bill based on misleading, faulty and outright dishonest and easily refuted reasons be a "move to the center"?
His real reason for backing this monstrous bill? To complete the cover up, which protects corrupt DEMOCRATIC leadership (like Pelosi, for one) who are knee-deep in the 4th amendment violations. It would be refreshing for the mainstream media, as well as alleged "progressives" on this site to stop falling for the "centrist" propaganda.
I, too, recommend the Greenwald analysis the author notes in this piece.
Have you ever wondered how well pissing of the Left plays in swing states? The fact that we progressives are not happy with some of Obama's recent positions scores a lot of credibility for Obama in those states that we need to win in November. Politics is a very dirty game. If you want to play nicey-nice like kindergartners in grade school, then we will lose another election that we cannot afford to lose. My fellow progressives, as long as 50% of the voters are not really paying attention, the game of politics will remain very dirty. We may not be able to make up the rules of the political game, but we must understand them and play to win.
LongBeach - I think "progressives" knew from the start Obama was a centrist the "far left" chose to believe otherwise. I remember clearly his speeches from the onset of his campaign to present. He made it pretty clear that he would be a President to represent ALL Americans now just how is he supposed to that by ONLY addressing "far left" values. One only had to do a tiny bit of research into his legislative record in IL to know he's a centrist.
}}}Since when is defending the 4th amendment of the Constitution a "progressive" issue, which one can "pragmatically" move away from?{{{
Please point to the sections and subsections of HR6304 that violate the US Constitution.
}}}Since when is granting retroactive immunity to lawbreakers who violated the 4th amendment rights of millions of citizens a "centrist" position?{{{
The immunity is only from civil liability.
}}}Since when is granting sweeping new eavesdropping powers to the executive branch a "centrist" position? {{{
There are no "sweeping new eavesdropping powers" within HR6304..
}}}His real reason for backing this monstrous bill? To complete the cover up, which protects corrupt DEMOCRATIC leadership (like Pelosi, for one) who are knee-deep in the 4th amendment violations
Oh yes.. And he was also the second gunman on the grassy knoll...
Seriously, people.. This raging paranoia does your argument great harm.
Michale...
HR 6304 section 702(g)(4)
`(4) LIMITATION- A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.
Mass collection of Americans" communications as permitted under the Protect America Act of 2007 authorizing basket, bucket, or blanket orders which violates the 4th Amendment"s requirement of particularity. ("and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")
Anyone who believes there will be criminal prosecutions for any of these crimes is smoking something. Just like his daddy before him, Bush will pardon everybody he thinks can be indicted--or even linked to the illegal telecoms' activity.
The 4th amendment violations are not in the new legislation. The violations occurred when the government, with help from the telecoms spied on citizens without a warrant. I thought this was obvious.
Obama is going to push for criminal charges? Except, of course, Bush can give blanket criminal immunity prior to leaving office, which would close the final loophole in the cover-up of his own crimes. How naive can you be to think he will leave this option open to Obama???
No new sweeping eavesdropping powers, you say? This bill unconstitutionally and unnecessarily permits the government to vacuum up Americans’ international communications, without a connection to al Qaeda, terrorism, or even to national security. It's called data mining and it broadens the spying capability in the already sweeping powers of the original FISA statute.
When the reasons he lists are proven to be false or misleading, and when the reasons his followers give (like the myth that he NEEDS to vote for this to avoid looking weak) can be rebuffed with ease, then one must look for the real reasons. It is already known that several key democratic leaders were privy to and approved of the wiretapping program, including Pelosi. Any serious investigation would reveal their complicity with the illegal 4th amendment violations of millions of citizens. They broke the law as well... Obama is choosing to protect his fellow dems, at the expense of enforcement of the rule of law, in direct opposition to his campaign rhetoric.
Michale32086
Do you read and comprehend what you write??? Are you just a spin and scam commenter?
QUOTE: "The immunity is only from civil liability.
ANSWER: NO, I would prefer they be punished both ways... Why a "political" created one possibility only? At least 12 of the Telecom's told the Feds to show their Warrants..
There should not be "sides" in upholding the People's Constituti
NO Congresspe
Whether the Telecom's violate peoples Civil Rights can be decided in a Trial...
WE the People are fully Protected under the "old" FISA...
If you grant immunity from civil suits, you basically let them off the hook. Obama isn't going to spend time pursuing them in a new administration. The only way discovery is going to happen is when pissed off Americans sue them for violating their civil rights. Several suits are in the courts right now. If you want to know what Bush really did, you can't give these telecoms immunity.
The hope I am keeping alive now, after having misdirected my efforts toward someone who is a fraud, is that there will be a last minute extreme effort among progressives to write in someone else. Because I'm really not in the mood to settle for "the lesser of two evils". However you would try to spin that, it would only be a lesser version of someone else we know who also misrepresented things to the American people.
Voting for Obama just because "I don't want McCain to win" is sickening. There has to be something better. The alternative would be to accept that the American people really do have no recourse. If our Constitution is compromised, our legislators are all bought, our courts all politicized, and our media is nothing but a propaganda arm of the government
I don't know yet, but it's clear that Obama is one of them now.... Maybe he always was.
What do we do? This:
http://www
Comments like yours remind me why the Democratic Party have been LOSERS so often.
Or... perhaps those criticizing Obama are merely taking their obligations as citizens in a democracy seriously, by holding their leadership accountable through vigorous oversight?
Perhaps these same people have seen how the, "trust us, we'll take care of everything once we are elected" mantra blew up in their faces after the 2006 elections, which promised an end to the Iraq war and a new era of accountability, but delivered more of the same pandering and capitulation that was the hallmark of the previous Congress?
Perhaps some citizens prefer engaging in a free exchange of ideas, as befits members of a free society, instead of blindly following politicians like impotent lemmings?
Ya think?
You can certainly wait until Obama is elected if you so choose. Then you can wait until the 2010 mid-terms, followed once again by the 2012 re-election campaign, all the while gently mocking those on the "left" who aren't being "pragmatic" enough, OR you can demand more out of your leadership.
imagine if all of those "pragmatists" (winners, by your reckoning) actually took a stand for what they truly believed in? Instead of "settling" for the lesser evil, all the while mocking those who actually stand for something greater? Imagine what could be achieved? Who are the real "losers," I wonder?
Hey McCain, I thought you didn't work Saturdays?? What are you doing out? I thought you didn't even know how to power up a computer. C'mon tell us where did this second wind come from?
Oh, yeah, and then there's the Rovian tactic of "turn O into another Kerry" move. Got any more up your sleeve?
I'll bet you are actually a McCain Republican.
All I know is that I'm not having as hard a time with this as some. It's amazing how some people think you have to share and do everything they say and want or your just no good. The hyperbole from some on the left is amazing to me. It's just as wacky as those on the far right. Guess what there are a lot of us in the middle somewhere on many, many, issues.
Its not a Matter of Being Far Left or Right or even in the Middle !
Its about doing the Right Thing.....
And how do you know Senator Obama ISN'T doing the "right thing"??
And, which "RIGHT THING" are you referring to??
The right thing for Obama??
The right thing for the Democratic Party??
Or the right thing for the country??
Michale...
Add honesty, dignity and reliability.
For many years and many elections, the candidates on the right pretended to move to the center before the contest against their Democratic opponents. Remember GWB and the compassionate conservatism costume he wore so well before the 2000 election? The supporters on the far right allowed this deception to take place without whining about any apparent move toward the middle. Once elected, there was no compassion in his conservatism at all. (In fact, I think the phrase is completely oxymoronic, anyway!) Dirty politics? Of course! Unfortunately, that's how elections are won. As long as 50% of the voters are not really paying attention, these games will continue to be played. Those of us on the left need to stop whining and realize that politics is not the pure, fair game we wish it to be. If we want to win, then we need to learn how to play as dirty as the Rethugs play, simply in an effort to level the playing field. I believe that our movement will push Obama further toward our progressive goals once he is in the White House than he can safely campaign on now. First, however, we need to support Obama and his campaign decisions in order to ensure that he is elected..
No need to be "in the middle somewhere" on this issue. There are two kinds of prosecution, civil and criminal. Private lawsuits in civil court might suffer, but there's every reason to believe criminal prosecution remains quite viable. I would love to have every telco/cableco executive placed behind bars for many years, as appropriate for the crimes they've committed.
Are criminal prosecutions viable? Politicians love to pardon people. I think it's a power thing. And sometimes a CYA thing too.
I think you're paraphrasing Keith Olbermann. When he attempted to defend Obama, he deferred to John Dean who, Olbermann thought, held out hopes for criminal prosecutions. John Dean later clarified his position by stating that the 117-page FISA legislation was so poorly written that it was impossible to discern what legal recourse IF ANY might be available against the telecoms. In short, it's a poorly-written piece of legislation and Obama has completely reversed his earlier promise to filibuster the bill.
There will be NO criminal prosecutions for any of the telecom crimes. Just like his daddy before him, Bush will pardon everybody remotely associated with this criminal activity. I can't understand how anyone thinks he won't.
Christine;Obama dosent care WHY you vote for him,just so you do vote for him.Since you have already assured him that he has your vote,he no longer is interested in you nor your views.He has moved on to pandering to other groups and has to appease them.His cult worshipers are trying to convince themselves that "he just has to get elected".I
Bashing Obama.....
Wow, you are so smart. As a REPUGNANT you sure have us democrats figured out. There is no fooling you. Look at your own McFlipFlop. Let's see how true to his cause he is. He can't secure his own base. He panders in his sleep. GO cry on his site.
Hey, where can I get some of that mind-reading potion you're taking? I could really use it at work to help me figure out what my bosses and co-workers are "really" thinking when they say things.
I disagree. This statement form Obama conveys the opposite meaasge: "I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country."
On issues of right and wrong, there is no middle - especially when you are dealing with the corporatocrats in Congress. Where is the middle on Iraq?
Grow up!!@! This is the real world and in the real world their is this thing called compromise. When you are president you have to be willing to compromise or guess what we get into the SAME terrible position we are in now. It is time to pull your head out and realize that everything in life isn't going to go in some ideological fashion, for what is your ideal is not always others. Stick to the core principles - which Obama has done in the FISA stance and work to improve it later. There is only so much that one Senator out of 100 can realistically affect. There is a lot more that a President can affect. McCain as President would have the COMPLETE opposite affect.
No sure what issue you are in the middle of?
Is it breaking the law by the President or telecom immunity?
Obama is trying to convince us that he is adjusting his position. This issue has no compromise position. Only on issues like tax rates can you compromise.
After 8 years of constant glorification of the President as the Supreme Leader a lot of these issues have been clouded.
The President is the Commander of “the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States."
This does not apply to private citizens and companies and cannot be ordered or directed to do anything.
Even soldiers, for whom the President is actually the Commander-in-Chief, are prohibited from obeying unlawful orders.
Yet people are following the corporate media claiming that private telecoms were justified, even compelled, to obey unlawful orders from the President, and are therefore entitled to be immunized.
Compromise on fines and jail times but not on investigating, prosecuting government spying. Our children or our children’s grand children have no right to give up what US soldiers have died for. Do you want to give them up just to win just 1 election?
Obama took the torch. Now I am suppose to believe it’s too hard or hot to carry? We need a President and not another weak President.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
