Understanding Obama's Recent Right Turn
OK, we all knew, deep down, that our wondrous golden boy of change would one day reveal his feet of clay. What most of us did not anticipate was just how easily they would fit into jackboots.
There has emerged a conventional wisdom among progressives that is not entirely wrong about why Obama has so readily embraced police state surveillance, and why he felt compelled to express his solidarity with Scalia, et al, on the death penalty. As the thinking goes, these moves are simply the expectable, if disheartening, political positioning typical of Democratic presidential candidates, once they enter the general election campaign.
He surely did not want to rebut Republican ads like this:
Low, rumbling, ominous music gradually increases in volume as a solemn voice that oozes manly gravitas announces, "Barack Obama voted against a bill to that would help our intelligence agencies detect terrorist plots against our nation before they can be carried out. Why does he want to protect the privacy of Al-Qaeda's phone calls more than he wants to protect Americans from Al-Qaeda? [Cut to an image of a World Trade Tower falling.] Barack Obama doesn't want the death penalty applied to criminals who sexually assault and brutalize little children. Why does he care more about child rapists [cut to image of a swarthy unshaven convict doing the perp walk] than he does about their victims? [Cut to an image of doe-eyed little blond girl with tears rolling down her apple cheeks, as she lies in an oversized hospital bed holding tightly to her teddy bear.] Barack Obama and his friends at the ACLU care about terrorists and rapists. Vote for John McCain. He cares about us." [As reassuring music swells, cut to an image of a younger looking, photo-shopped McCain in his crisp Naval officer's uniform. One arm is around a child, the other rising in a determined salute to the flag.]
It is certainly reasonable for Democratic candidates to fear they might face attack ads such as this, and we might have seen something like this one air had Obama opposed the new FISA bill. Facing the possibility of this kind of right wing assault, it is not surprising to see so many erstwhile liberal politicians preemptively surrender their principles. That Obama, too, would adopt this strategy has been particularly demoralizing for his progressive supporters. After all, he has a mostly excellent and morally consistent voting record. But more importantly, he has very vocally eschewed the Machiavellian political calculations that we have come to expect from other members of his party. To see Barack Obama behave like any other invertebrate Democrat is an especially painful blow.
However, this conventional wisdom on his political cowardice doesn't plumb the problem deeply enough. Obama's resort to the triangulation of the old politics is an admission of a much more serious limitation. It tells us that he does not believe in his own ability to reframe certain key issues in a way that makes a progressive stance the one that is obviously the most moral. It shows that he does not feel up to the task of rendering some liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling.
His limited ability to exercise moral leadership leaves him with no choice other than to accept Republican frames on issues. So, on the FISA bill, for example, loss of privacy and immunity for criminal telecom companies become a trivial price to pay for protection from unfathomable and pervasive Evil.
But this raises the question of what a progressive reframe on an issue like this might look like. Here is one idea. But I'd love for commenters to offer theirs. Someone from Obama's staff is probably monitoring the Huffington Post in order to take the temperature of the progressive blogosphere, which has grown increasingly feverish over the Democratic candidate's recent unprincipled retreats. If they are reading this, perhaps together we may be able to revivify the Obama campaign's moribund moral imagination.
The 30-second ad opens on a scene in a middle class suburban kitchen. A mother is speaking on the phone. Her voice is muffled and is drowned out by an intermittent electronic beep, along with the sounds of someone frenetically striking a computer keyboard. The screen quickly splits in half to reveal the woman's nine-year-old daughter speaking by cell phone to inform her mother that she is ready to be picked up from the school bus stop. The screen is then split in thirds to reveal a man wearing headphones sitting in front of a computer typing notes, obviously monitoring the mother-daughter conversation. Behind him is a massive warehouse filled with computers and scurrying NSA technicians. This image then takes up the entire screen. The voiceover says, "Republicans, like George Bush and John McCain, have taken away our freedoms, invaded our private lives, and made us less safe." We then quickly see a succession of images -- a scene from Iraq that features a burning American tank, a scene of grenade launchers being placed into a packing crate, a scene of an unguarded American port where uninspected shipping containers are being off loaded, and finally a scene of a car with blacked out windows slowing down in front of an unsecured nuclear power plant. A window rolls down. A hand holding a camera reaches out to snap photos. Then the car speeds away. The voice over then concludes, "Protecting America means preserving our rights [cut to an image of the Constitution in which the camera scrolls down the Bill of Rights section], along with defeating terrorists." The last image is a scene of Barack Obama standing up and pointing toward a large map of some unidentifiable part of the world. Below him is a large conference table of twenty or so advisors who are listening with rapt attention.
In spite of his limitations, there is too much at stake to not work hard to make sure Barack Obama moves into the White House. And, once there, we must hold his clay feet to the fire.
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
Senator Obama has not moved to the center as being bandied around by the media and pundits because that is the known trajectory candidates follow after the primaries.
For instance, Senator Obama has always maintained long before he entered as a presidential candidate that death penalty should be the exclusive preserve for those who committed heineous crimes. Among progressives, there are many who do not favor death penalty under any circumstance. These are the people who seem to think that Senator Obama is moving to the center.
On guns, Senator Obama favors individual’s right to own guns while simultaneously he favors community’s or government’s right to control how the purchase and use of such guns. That is precisely how Suprime Court ruled on District of Columbia’s ban on the use of hand guns.
Absolutely Edmonsky, BHO is a pragmatist, how do we think he got Republicans to work with him in Illinois and in Washington DC? This election will turn on bread and butter economic issues like most do and the curtain will drop when BHO steals a line from two Repugs (one old, one new) and turns it on their pathetic political a**es: "My friends, are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?" Game, set and match.
Stephen Ducat has written a very insightful piece that bears on professorial, lunge-liberal-mindset. He has argued with eloquence and acuity what would make lots of sense to highly enlightened, tiny minority segment of the society. But to vast majority of the people in heartland American, he is elitist and out of touch. Who knows if it has ever occurred to Stephen that it is far much more easier to destroy than to build. If any one is in doubt, try to counter a Republican slogan such as “tax-and-spend liberal” or “big government socialized medicine”. It is far much easier to frame Republican ideological terms of reference than the “Progressive Liberal Equivalent”.
From The American Prospect:
----
The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday, however, goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who insisted that the bill "does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans." She is wrong. It does.
The broader spying powers given to the executive branch by the compromise bill require intelligence agencies to "target" foreigners. But if those foreign "targets" happen to call or e-mail Americans, those communications are fair game. And since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is only permitted to review the broad targeting procedures government eavesdroppers use to determine that a target is abroad, and not the substantive basis for authorizing surveillance of any target, anyone is a potential target.
The bill, in other words, allows the government to conduct "vacuum cleaner" surveillance -- sweeping up international traffic willy-nilly -- then filter it for anything that looks interesting. Indeed, many believe that licensing such surveillance is precisely the point of this legislation. If so, "warrantless surveillance of Americans" could well become routine, whether or not they are the formal "targets" of eavesdropping.
It's for this reason that we shouldn't get too excited about the new protections for Americans traveling abroad embedded in the new bill.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=democrats_capitulate_on_fisa
----
- Tom
>The award for the most bald-faced lie
>on the House floor Friday, however,
>goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA),
>who insisted that the bill "does not allow
>warrantless surveillance of Americans."
>She is wrong. It does.
Please read the new House FISA measures.
And then please point to the section that allows warrantless surveillance of Americans.
If you look at the relevant sections that I posted, you will see that you are wrong and Nancy Pelosi is right..
And I can tell you that it gives me NO pleasure to concede that Pelosi is right... :^D
Michale.....
Still at it michael. Have you yet read the ACLU's opinion on this FISA afterbirth mess?
Allow me to bring you up to date.
"After years of being outraged at the Bush administration's flagrant disregard for FISA, Congress is poised to endorse its lawless behavior with this bill," said Fredrickson. "Not only will this bill allow for the wholesale violation of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights, it will close the door to any further investigations of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program by shutting down active court cases.
Fredrickson explained that no matter how often the FISA Amendments Act is called a "compromise," it is clearly a win for the Bush administration and the telecommunications companies. She said, "It allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The court's role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on Americans' communications even after the FISA court has objected".
The ACLU, with a battery of legal minds, has condemned the act. Now, what are your legal credentials again?
Gee, I'd think it's the section which allows the A.G. to hand over justification documentation and then declare it "secret". .. forever.
If I'm going to be accused of being a terrorist I'd sure like to be
able to face my accuser - that's another RIGHT being stolen here.
We have the "I" country agenda here being wrapped around our necks like a collar and leash...oh wait, that's exactly what it is isn't it?
Look, as I have said before, all that we know about Obama is what he says and that wherever he’s going he’s in one hell of a hurry to get there. To me he seems to be little more than an overly ambitious arriviste and not the savior that our nation will need in the next four years.
My support of Senator Clinton was based on the fact that she has a record of accomplishment beginning with her service as an advisor to the House Judiciary Committee in its investigation of Richard Nixon’s crimes in office, through a vast improvement of the Arkansas education system, and her attempt to provide health care to all Americans, which was defeated by a half-hearted and pusillanimous attempt to pass it through the Senate.
I’ve also pointed out that on the whole the American electorate is just a little right of being centrist and that the job of convincing them to adopt a more progressive stance has not been accomplished or for that matter not even tried. In light of that fact Obama is forced to join them instead of them joining him. So you can expect this “liberal” to veer to the right of center if he’s to win the November election.
You all bought a pig in a poke. What did you expect?
Hillary was not a advisor to the Watergate committee. She was a third level staffer who left under a cloud. If things were so great under the Clintons in Arkansas, why is Huckabee governor. Do you think that having failed @ health care reform in '94 Clinton might have tried a different approach instead of spending 6 Y blaming every one else for her failure. That's what leaders do. They persuade and adapt. They don't throw temper tantrums when people don't do as they say.
If Hillary left the staff of the House committee “under a cloud” as you claim, there’s no mention of it in her biography at wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
It says only “Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum, Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment. The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974”
Nor is there any mention of a “cloud “in her Whitehouse biography. http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/firstladies/hc42.html
I think that a lot of the “baggage” Hillary has been carrying came from her service to that committee. Some Republicans have admitted that Bill Clinton’s impeachment was in retaliation for Nixon’s forced resignation.
As to the failure of Hillarycare and her not pursuing its passage, Her Wikipedia bio states
“some protesters against it became vitriolic, and during a July 1994 bus tour to rally support for the plan, she was forced to wear a bulletproof vest at times.” America clearly was not ready for a health care plan that forced employers to provide healthcare for their employees. It still isn’t. That’s why single payer is the most likely plan to succeed, but only if it’s pushed very hard.
Doesn’t it strike you as a little silly to blame the Clintons for something that happened in Arkansas after they’d left for the Whitehouse?
No they throw them under the Bus! Better throw a temper tantrum.
Thank you for your reasoned and temperate observations. While this is an important issue to me, in the many elections in which I have voted, I have never found a candidate with whom I agreed on every issue and I do not expect to do so in the future. I believe that Senator Obama will be more open to reason on this subject than his competitor. That alone makes him, to my mind, the superior candidate. Those looking for the "perfect" candidate are doomed to disappointment.
Obama knows he needs to cater to the Republican and Conservative block, too. That is, of course, if he doesn't want to be a one-time-Charlie like Carter.
You want to reframe this FISA legislation into an argument about fighting against the tyranny of the state. This will appeal to both progressives, real conservatives (like Bruce Fein and John Dean), and libertarians. In other words, the proper truthful framing will have broad bipartisan appeal.
(continued below)
- Tom
Script
-------------------------------------------
You've done nothing wrong. You're a law-abiding citizen. So why is your government spying on you?
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
Our government exists to serve and protect the People's freedom.
Our government does not exist to take away the People's freedom.
Nor do the People exist to serve their government's freedom.
Do you want to live in a free America, the one that's been around for over 200 years, where your rights and privacy are protected and you are truly free?
Or do you want to live in a police state, where, without your consent and without any judicial oversight, your government is free to spy on your every phone call, every email, every web site you visit, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Do you want your government monitoring your family members' online purchases, financial transactions, religious and political beliefs, and family health issues? Do you want to live in a police state where you have absolutely no idea what your government will do with your private information?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, we the People, need checks and balances on our government's power.
We need both security and freedom. But don't believe your government when it tells you to give up your freedom in order to be secure. Because then you exist to serve the government's freedom instead of it serving yours.
Great agrument! You hit the nail on the head with this one.This should be Obamas TV AD.
Totalitarian Regimes With Unchecked Spying Power Over Their People:
Stasi Secret Police (East Germany)
Nazi-era Gestapo (Germany)
KGB (Soviet Union)
Khmer Rouge (Cambodia)
DPRK (North Korea)
-------------------------------------------
- Tom
Well, then I guess it's a good thing that the Bush Administration doesn't have "Unchecked Spying Power Over The People", right???
Michale.....
We understand. Either he was lying to us to win the Democratic primaries or he's lying to the rest of the nation to win the presidency.
We get it.
Whoever the sucker turns out to be "change" just got thrown under the bus.
Looks like for one more election cycle I'll have to hold my nose and vote "against the other guy" instead of having a candidate I can vote for. And we wonder why fewer Americans choose to exercise their option to vote.
Yup, it does suck...but it's also a fact of politics. If Obama sticks to just stances he used during primaries, he loses in November because he base is not enough to get him elected in a general election. It's unfortunately, but any candidate who is one you feel is GREAT because they never flip-flop, etc., is one we NEVER have the chance to vote for in November...or that simply cannot win. All I know is that in spite of his flaws, I truly believe Obama has to be a better choice than McCain as our next president (I also personally believe that his primary "self" was closer to who he'd be as a president then his "general election" self, and that now he's pretty much just trying to widen his appeal to get a larger base).
I totally agree with your logic.
Uhh..."No more politics as usual"???
P.S. Your analysis assumes voters don't care about the process of politics. And only care about policy "change." Hmm. My guess is, with someone who is intelligent, a superb communicator, well-versed on issues...AND...who speaks honestly, sincerely, no bull, no pandering...voters would run, not walk toward this kind of "change."
Obama has done absolutely nothing wrong recently in expressing opinions which are non binding, that help his general campaign and which do not in any fashion actually affect what is going on.
Had Obama come out against the 2nd Amendment Ruling he would have been destroyed by the RNC. Instead he took in stride, took that issue off the table [FINALLY!!!] and now can look strong to the right and has done nothing but agree in principal with a decision nothing he could do to change. The same thing about the death penalty issue for child rapist. What difference does it make what he says about that issue? He's not going to be sentencing people as President of the United States.
And FISA was not his compromise. It was a compromise of Pelosi and the gang. Had he fought them he would have just opened himself up to horrible attacks. When he's President and he has a Congress that he can control he can deal with this issue. The FISA law will probably be in effect for no more than few months and if it really needs to be modified, it can happen in 2009.
Obama is not running to the center. He is being a good sound rational politician. He's trying to bring people together which does not mean that everyone gets what they personally want. He's acting Presidential people. Get used to it!
I think you're missing the important part of the essay. No realist politician or voter will deny that everyone in power has to "go along to get along" -- that politics is never just about principle, it's always about practice and power. Obama knows that and that might be OK.
What we're missing here is an ability to present the democratic point of view or attitude in a way that is compelling even to independents, if not actually to Republicans. We have allowed the right to set the agenda and describe their vision of the world and we have chosen to declare "Yes, we are that too, but not as much as them."
We refuse to get out front into the controlling position and declare "this is what we believe and this is what it looks like". We have refused to lead. That's the point that Ducat is making. He's right.
What many people who paint Obama as a flip-flopper are missing is that he takes a thoughtful approach to the Constitution and what it means in today's world. He eschews sound bites and one liners that pigeon hole our politicians into positions. In his book 'The Audacity of Hope', he talks about how the Constitutioin was an evolving document when it was crafted and remains a living document today. I don't see anything wrong with changing positions on issues IF there is given a reasonable and well thought out explanation. People like George W Bush who cannot admit that they were wrong or made a poor decision are the worst kind of politician. (BTW, he actually did what Obama suggested with regards to N Korea but not Iraq or Iran, I wonder why?...oh, yeah, CHINA and OIL). McCain has not explained why he changed position on offshore drilling, tax cuts for the rich or his cozying up to to the religious right. Obama, by contrast, has explained why he voted for the FISA compromise bill, the nuances around the ruling on the DC gun ban (the current DC mayor has articulated the SAME position as Obama, by the way) and his rejection of public financing ( this article actually demonstrates one such scenario). Principled changes or clarification of position does not equal flip flop!
No one who doesn't condemn Senator Obama's cynical expediency of the last week can ever complain about Bush v. Gore or Karl Rove ever again. Senator Obama has convincingly proven himself to be just another "win at all costs, morality be damned" politician.
Troll alert. This is not a progressive, but a RNC spokesperson.
Please go to the Limbaugh page.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a lifelong, _very_ politically active Democrat--who refuses to applaud Senator Obama's recent Nixonian/Rovian actions. Pretend, if it pleases you, that moving not to the center, but the far right, is a glorious choice full of integrity and honor and _change_, but Senator Obama spent the week demonstrating that he stands for absolutely nothing whatsoever--other than his own quest for power at any price.
By the way, in case the reference went over your head, Richard M. Nixon was a Republican. You could look it up.
I'm a Democrat (still...but may change to Independent); I feel the same way. Don't you think it intolerable that we have to come here and argue for the Constitution and the rights it guarantees? We're not fighting to establish a new country here; these politico players are forcing us to fight (after they've WTO'd and Free Traded our livelihoods away for their profit) to maintain what is ours.
Sorry, not acceptable. Ever.
What his 'recent right turn' shows is that he is going to throw 'progressives' under the bus along w/Rev. Wright and other past pals. Get used to it.
That's not the way I see it..
The way I see it is Obama is going to do what is necessary to protect this country. Regardless of whether or not it is politically popular to do so...
The real cowards are the ones who are castigating these measures.. THOSE are the people who are posturing and pandering for political purposes.
Now, to be fair, they may have some legitimate concerns. I have to acknowledge that possibility, even though the Hysterical Left refuses to reciprocate..
However, if they DO have legitimate concerns, they should air them. But all I have heard is outright lies and fear-mongering and hypocrisy....
Michale.....
......all I have heard is outright lis and fear-mongering and hypocrisy....
Then, you simply aren't listening. Go re-read the Constitution (I'm amazed by how many Americans don't do so, regularly), read the Supreme Court decisions (yes, the actual decisions, not the newspaper reports), then examine Senator Obama's wildly fluctuating responses to them this week. He was _always_ in favor of guns--except when he wasn't, for most of his career. He was _always_ against the abuses caused by FISA legislation and the danger to our 4th amendment protections--except that now, he isn't. And so on.
Obviously, you can hear whatever you want to hear--but, it seems to be solely based upon blind faith in/affection for Senator Obama, and not the actual events which have taken place recently.
.
Perhaps he's just doing what he knows he must to get elected. Perhaps he's NOT surrendering his values at all, just being a kind of "stealth" candidate, who will show his real (more liberal) colors once in office. What you, and others who purport to support his candidacy is not feed the Republican BS machine with hurtful musings of your own. Before he can champion the progressive change he espouses, he first has to get elected, He knows this, why don't YOU??
Just like Bush with his "I'm a uniter, not a divider" comment against Al Gore. Expedient, yes, and damned lies. Obama needs to articulate his rational behind these rather distastful votes.
Here is my "reframe" per your request.
Senator Obama:
These new FISA measures are necessary to the safety and security of this country.
FACT
These new FISA measures have ZERO Constitutional conflicts.
FACT
These new FISA measures actually INCREASE the 4th Amendment protections that Americans now enjoy.
FACT
I am committed to do what is best for this country and her citizens. I will do what I believe is right for this country and I don't care whether or not it is politically popular.
You have trusted me and my judgment enough to nominate me for President Of The United States.
I ask you to continue that trust with the assurance that it will never ever be betrayed.
Thank you for your continued support.
Senator Obama
It must be true, because you wrote FACT in such big letters.
No, it must be true because that's what the new House FISA Measures say..
As I have just proven beyond any doubt...
Again, before you speak out, you might want to READ what you are speaking out about.. Instead of having someone tell you what to think... :^/
Michale.....
This FISA bill allows for wiretapping/surveillance of the over seas communications of American citizens without probable cause and without a warrant. That is a violation of those citizen's 4th Amendment rights. So your comment that this law has 'zero conflicts with The Constition is patently false. Let me give you one disturbing scenario of how this information could be used by our government:
A soldier in Iraq nearly done with his tour is talking to a family member stateside about his plans when he comes home, he tells them that he doesn't plan to reenlist and that he realizes this Iraq invasion was just for the oil. The conversation gets passed on to the Pentagon who then in turn gets it to the soldier's commander. A week later the soldier is told his tour has just been extended. Being able to monitor the communications of soldiers and preventing them from leaving the service for civilian life would be a great way to guarantee retention numbers wouldn't it?
This bill also calls for the Inspector General to be the watchdog for the operations this bill defines. The IG is a political appointee and an administration employee. There is no independent oversight of these operations. There is no real protection for our civil liberties in this bill. That's why my Senator voted against it and that's why Obama should too.
And when he is President and he has a filibuster proof Senate, he will do what needs to be done. Get over it. It's the general election and we can't satisfy every liberal progressive concern right now. Had Obama come out against FISA compromise would it have changed anything? NO. So why should he go that path. Have some trust!
``SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING
UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
``(a) Jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court.--
``(1) In general.--The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to
enter an order approving the targeting of a United States
person reasonably believed to be located outside the United
States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the
acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the
acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored
electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such
acquisition is conducted within the United States.
``(2) Limitation.--If a United States person targeted under
this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the
United States during the effective period of an order issued
pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such
United States person under this section shall cease unless the
targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to
be located outside the United States while an order issued
pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this
section shall be construed to limit the authority of the
Government to seek an order or authorization under, or
otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any
other title of this Act.
As you can see, I have just proven you and your vaunted Congress Critter wrong, CC....
Michale.....
More proof that you and your Congress Critter are wrong, CC..
``SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
``(a) Authorization.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a
determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the
Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period
of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the
targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the
United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
``(b) Limitations.--An acquisition authorized under subsection
(a)--
``(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the
time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
``(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably
believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose
of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person
reasonably believed to be in the United States;
``(3) may not intentionally target a United States person
reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
``(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to
which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the
time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
``(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Michale.....
Note Section 702 subsection (b) above ...
(5) is the real kicker and bears repeating...
It says that all acquisition " ``(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
How can anyone ask more than that???
Game.....
Set.....
Match.....
Next time, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.... :^/
Michale....
Let me know if you need any of these provisions explained to you, CC...
Michale.....
Thanks Michale..
Glad to know that I am not alone on the FISA issue... I "did" take time to read all 114 pages of the bill and I agree with you 100%
While I'm still voting for Obama, I think he is wrong on this issue. While the Republicans would have attacked him on this issue, it's not like they are now just going to pack up and go home. The truth is that this will always be the case until the Dems show enough spine and creativity to find a way to tell the American public that the 4th Amendment wasn't a "just kidding" by the Founding Fathers. As a con law professor he should have more respect and know better.
Plus, among liberals, Dems and Independents, FISA is widely detested and seen as "Bush-like" The fallout would be minimal, if any, and it is sad that he is not taking the opportunity to distance himself more from the Bush policies. How much more hated does Bush have to become b/f the Dems are no longer afraid to oppose him?
Bad choice all the way around
Everyone is really off base with the criticism of Obama over his FISA position. The deal was struck without Obama and had he sided with the progressives on this compromise he would not have made a lick of difference in the compromise going forward. It was going to happen and Obama could not have possibly changed it. So explain why he should create a political monster for his campaign? To impress some whinny people who want everything right now. We allowed George Bush to be put into office twice. It will not be un-done in a few months.
Further, some of us liberals aren't that concerned about the FISA issue because we have some trust in the American system after Bush and his mob are gone. These are things that Obama can fix ONCE IN OFFICE!. Take a deep breath and appreciate that what he is trying to do is not going to be easy and is never going to satisfy everyone.
What if Mccain wins this election? Would you trust him with these powers?I do not want any President from any party to have this kind of power!
What happens if FISA gets passed and Obama loses the election? Do you want McCain having these powers under FISA? He couldn't have changed the comprise but as the party's nominee he could have reframed the debate with oratory skills and constitutional law background. Obama has created a political monster with this move, he has people doubting the trust that he built his campaign on and caused some deflated enthusiasm among his supporters. People will vote for him but he won't have the momentum he had during the primaries. People might still vote someone who isn't hardcore on terror but they won't vote for someone who they don't trust (hence the reason Hillary lost).
What this turn shows is that it is possible to win the Dem primaries with liberal policies, but not a general election. The problem, as some people have suggested, is that in his effort to attract moderate republicans, he might lose the support of the more liberal democrats who gave him the democratic nomination to begin with, and whose votes he needs to win.
That's why the Democrats almost always pick the wrong candidate during the primary process--and they've done it again.
Just another spoiled sport. Obama has run a magnificant campaign and is strategical abilities makes all of the other candidates look like they are playing checkers to his chess.
For Obama to waste political capital on issues and matters that he could not possibly affect would be a stupid thing that Kerry or Gore would have done. Decisions that come out can't be changed and Obama was not responsible for the FISA compromise nor could he have affected it by doing any more than he did. To give the RNC such an argument in the General Election would have been as stupid as taking Public Financing. As to that, Public Financing is broken. He could not do what he plans to do with a 50 state agenda if he was to fall into that trap. McCain is a horribly weak candidate but still in the end, Obama is fighting McCain, the RNC, talk radio and frankly the inherent racism that exists in this country. I'm proud that he did the right thing for the party by rejecting public financing. AND BY THE WAY HE NEVER EVER EVER PROMISED TO TAKE IT! That's just another RNC and MSM myth!
No what this turn shows is that the DEMOCRATS ARE AFRAID TO TRY AND WIN WITH LIBERAL POLICIES. They don't even try and history shows that when Democrats run as populists they win!!! The last successful Democrat to win the White House actually campaigned as a progressive right up until election day.
Bill Clinton didn't fall into the trap of letting the Republicans define him in either his inaugural election or his reelection. When they called him a liberal he blasted their policies which is exactly what Obama should be doing now. When you let them beat your own ideals out of you, you lose. This turn by Obama is going to guarantee a loss not a win.
There are a whole lot of Independents, moderate Republicans and Libertarians pretty freaked out by the Orwellian laws passed by the authoritarian Republicans and weak-kneed Democrats. Most people would not want their conversations and personal information monitored without a warrant and probable cause. Being against this FISA bill isn't necessarily a 'liberal' ideal.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
