Obama's FISA Fiasco

I'm afraid it had to happen -- after inspiring us with promises of change, of honesty in government, of civil rights and respect for the law, Barack Obama has caved in.

His vote in favor of the new FISA law is not merely disappointing, it is shameful. Here is a man who would, audaciously, engage in open talks with our opponents, but who will permit spying and surveillance of his compatriots.

Here is a crusading lawyer who will fight for the underprivileged, but will grant immunity to corporations that broke the law.

Are we seeing the beginning of the dumbing-down of Obama?

John McCain circumvented the FISA vote just by staying away. That leaves him open, as usual, to flip-flop on the issue.

Ted Kennedy, bless him, rose from his sickbed to go to Washington and vote against it.

Hillary Clinton... where was she? No one has mentioned how she voted, if at all.

I will not be kind and say Obama's vote was merely a question of political expediency. It was much worse than that. It was a blatant denial of what he claims to stand for. His campaign managers are saying: No matter, once he's president he'll be able to change all that. Nonsense! If he can't stand up now as a voice for justice and freedom, how can we be sure he'll do it when the pressures of high office fall upon him?

How can we believe in his call for change, when he is aligning himself with the present corrupt administration?

If Obama continues to fluctuate, transmutate, and modify his principles in order to attract the masses of borderline voters, he will surely lose the formidable following he has acquired. He slipped on Iraq, suggesting a withdrawal might take longer than 16 months (even before visiting there). He has now stumbled badly on the FISA vote. He is, in a way, Swift-boating himself, not through direct attack but through reversal.

This is no way to run a campaign. More importantly, it is no way to demonstrate integrity and courage.

Comments

[tomtwist]

I was pleased to see that Senator Obama held his position and voted to strip out the telecom immunity. Here are the other senators who stood by Senator Dodd's amendment 5064:

[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]
YEAS--32

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Clinton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Murray
Obama
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Whitehouse
Wyden

[Lemeritus]

Sad to say, Kennedy did not vote against FISA. Suffice to say, even if Senator Kennedy were well enough to participate, his vote in opposition to Obama's "yea" might have strained their partnership. Kennedy returned to the Senate to vote on HR 6331 - "A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the Medicare Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas, including pharmacy access, and for other purposes."

Senators voting against HR 6304 -- an act which will live in infamy -- were:

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)

[bgregs]

Notice that they are ALL democrats except Bernie Sanders, who is an Independent, but has always been a strong Constitutionalist!

[Michale32086]

The simple fact is, there is no Constitutional conflict with HR6304..

Our country is safer and our liberties MORE secure with HR6304 approved.

Senator Obama and the Democrats who supported HR6304 should be commended for taking a VERY unpopular stand at GREAT political risk to themselves to insure the safety and security of this country.

They are American patriots in the truest and most noblest sense of the word...

Michale.....

[tommybones]

The ACLU position on the new FISA bill:

The FAA violates the Fourth Amendment because it allows the government to gobble up the constitutionally protected communications of American citizens and residents without getting individualized warrants, and without specifying the time, place or length of the surveillance, and not specifying how the info gathered will be disseminated, or how long it"ll be kept. (You know, the who/what/where/when/why.)

The FAA also violates the First Amendment by chilling lawful expressive speech without adequate justification by authorizing the government to intercept constitutionally protected communications without judicial oversight.

The challenged law violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing the government to continue surveillance activities even if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has deemed those activities illegal.

Next stop.... court.

In spite of Michale's assurances, numerous Constitutional scholars, Civil libertarians and lawyers believe the new FISA law violates the Constitution.

[bgregs]

The FACT is that FISA has either a STRONG Constitutional conflict, or at least the QUESTION of it, which means that MORE information is needed!!!

[sptatt]

Went for the hope a dope, now that he's the only game in town he just slaps you around and takes the check what's amazing is that you're surprised.

[eshalom]

I'm amazed by how disillusioned Obama supporters still find a way to knife Hillary Clinton. You seem determined to drag her down with your fallen idol. Your question as to where she was during the FISA vote? It's been all over the media - Hillary stood up and voted No!

[Michale32086]

Political pandering on a grand scale..

I sense a PUMA revolt in the making...

Remember, you read it here first...

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Please, Hillary only gets the vote right when she's not taking any real chances... have no doubt, were their positions switched, Obama would ahve voted 'nay' and Clinton 'yea'. Bet the farm on it....

[Michale32086]

Hell just froze over... :D

TB and I agree 100%....

Michale.....

[eshalom]

And Obama is the candidate who voted present on over 100 controversial issues as an Ill. state legislator. Then he made a speech in opposition to the Iraq War at a time when no risk was involved as he was not eligible to vote on the resolution. That airy speech remains his one example of good judgment. He later acknowledged that had he actually been a member of the US Senate at the time, he doesn't know how he would have voted.

Now that he is the presumptive nominee (not yet official), all kinds of valid questions about his judgment are being raised.

Ad David Broder said recently in Wapo, "No one in recent decades has emerged as the party standard-bearer from so truncated a political career: four years in the U.S. Senate, during which he has yet to lead on any major domestic or foreign policy issue, preceded by largely anonymous service in the Illinois state Senate. "

[CanadianAmerican]

"Hillary Clinton... where was she? No one has mentioned how she voted, if at all." From Wednesday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/clinton-fisa-compromise-a_n_111742.html

Please pay attention to details. The reasons Obama backed FISA, *despite* his disagreeing with certain parts of it, like telecom immunity, are reasonable: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html.

Personally, I happen to largely agree with Obama's priorities and reasoning on this legislation. You can of course disagree, but why is it "shameful" to have a different opinion from yours?