« Top GOPer Admits It's "Impossible" For Party To Take Back Senate | Home | Lieberman Suggests There Will Be Terrorist Attack In 2009 »
Networking Group Opposing FISA Cave On Obama's Web Site Grows And Grows
This is something. On Friday I noted that someone had set up a social networking group on MyBarackObama.com specifically devoted to opposing Obama's decision to support the FISA cave.
Well, since then it's grown rapidly: It now has over 4,000 members.
That's six times the 500 or so it had on Friday. It's a strong signal from Obama's own supporters that they won't sit idly by when he takes a position that they view as a betrayal of the change movement he's building.
It's also a suggestion that the powerful social networking tools spawned by Obama's formidable Web operation could end up being used to pressure Obama on this or that issue, should he become President. You can sign up for the anti-FISA-cave group right here.
Advertisement
wait, i thought we were all kool-aid drinking cult members.
June 30, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say this clearly speaks well of Obama's supporters...
June 30, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
How's that work Greg?
June 30, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
atleast there are some Obama supporters who will differ with him on some issues to counter balance all the lovestruck yes-men and yes-women
June 30, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think that "lovestruck yes-men and yes-women" fairly characterizes those who don't have a problem with Obama's FISA stance?
June 30, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
some, yes, absolutely
June 30, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for revealing your true feelings.
Why not just call those who disagree with you on this issue "Hitler Youth"? "cultists"? There has to be some language left over from the primary fight that you could use to denigrate those who disagree with you, isn't there?
June 30, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
so you don't think some supporters, of almost anything, are yes-people? There are. Even in Obama-support.
If you don't see it, it is because you don't want to see it.
June 30, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I don't agree with you on FISA, I'm a "lovestruck Obama supporter".
And if I can't see that, it's because I "don't want to see it".
My way, or the highway, in other words.
June 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say any of that.
June 30, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Direct quote from above:
If you don't see it, it is because you don't want to see itAnd:
who will differ with him on some issues to counter balance all the lovestruck yes-men and yes-women
You're right. You never said "lovestruck Obama supporters". You said "lovestruck yes-men and yes-women".
June 30, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I said those that disagree with him balance out those who are yes men and lovestruck.
The person said, do you believe that.
I said yes, some people are that.
At no point did I say you were, or that it was my way or the highway, or whatever.
Carry on this argument by yourself.
June 30, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other than a few disgruntled outliers, you are. You obviously had a bad batch of the stuff.
June 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Charming as ever...
June 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously we prefer different flavours eh!
June 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"a betrayal of the change movement"???
dont you guys get it? obama loves being attacked from the left. makes it harder for the republicans to paint him as liberal mclefty the communist black panther...
oh yeah, and while it does allow civil immunity, the fisa bill still allows for CRIMINALM prosecution.
i'll gladly take that trade-off.
June 30, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on this. Obama is making it increasingly difficult for conservatives and reactionaries to call him a "hard left" or "far left" candidate and retain any credibility.
June 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The new FISA bill may allow for criminal prosecution. Even John Dean is not sure. But it may not matter. All Bush needs to do is pardon anyone involved in the wiretapping program before he leaves office. Boom. No criminal prosecutions.
June 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush pardoned Scooter, you think he's not gonna pardon the telecoms.
June 30, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, I don't care if he pardons the telecoms for a couple of reasons.
1. Accepting the pardon is an admission of guilt.
2. They would still be compelled to comply with a thorough investigation of all the bad acts of the king's administration, which would be revealed for all to see, when obama becomes president.
I say let's move on and help this guy get elected.
June 30, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I ain't holding my breath waiting for an Obama administration to set things right. Afterall, he said he'd stand beside those who were fighting against telecom immunity, and that a line needed to be drawn, and people needed to know that you can't break the law...but that changed.
Obama was also for signing statements, I think McCain is the only one that was against them. So my Obama-skepticism isn't new, though I am planningon voting for him.
but, the precedent that is being set is, break the law if the president says it's okay. You may be exposed -ooooooooo, like Enron I imagine. Not much happened there. Media said people just weren't interested anymore.
But whatever. I see your position. I know mine.
June 30, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was for signing statements? That's good to know. Would you mind helping a newb out and sending me in the right direction for further reading? (Thanks!)
June 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a big story during the primaries. You can read more in the WaPo's write-up on the subject here>.
June 30, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. That's very disturbing.
June 30, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's that work, exactly? AT&T may be "an individual before the law", but how do you issue a "pardon" for a corporation?
Furthermore, any pardon must reference specific actions, and acceptance of a pardon is considered admittance of guilt. Seems to me those two things right there are the sticking point, and why the telecoms want immunity in statute. That may be the only place they can get such a guarantee.
June 30, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I hope this isn't a double post. 4,000 is nothing out of millions and millions of obama supporters. I think this indicates that he made the right call once again. There are bigger issues, Iraq and the Supreme Court. Obama can investigate and pillory the king's administration once he is president. Mcbush will just continue covering everything up and continue the trashing of the constitution. Good move obama. By the way, I have been against immunity until recently. Obama is moving to the center.
June 30, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Just as a single letter to Congress is known to represent some number of voters (I believe approaching 1000), so too there is a multiplicative factor here.
June 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
really? i thought a single letter to congress represented a single letter to congress.
this sounds like the old FCC argument where one phone call equals 7 billion complaints or something.
June 30, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. There is a multiplicative factor... all people in Congress know this.
June 30, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
4,000 is nothing out of millions and millions of overall supporters. But I’d bet 4,000 is not an insignificant chunk of those who use mybarackobama.com. I know I've never been to it and I'm as big an Obama guy as there is.
June 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right, but vocal opponents of the immunity provision have been pushing joining the group and that's all they have gotten. I don't like or want the immunity provision, but I want obama to win in november. I still don't see 4k as a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Based on the way obama ran his campaign and the fact that the guy is brilliant, I trust that he is making the right decision.
June 30, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not clear to me why you speak as if the 4000 might be a "big deal" even if ours (I joined the group) was a much larger number. It is not like we represent 4000 people looking to torpedo Obama's chances. I am still an Obama volunteer in Missouri, working to deliver this state for him in November. I am still an Obama donor sending money to him and to the DNC to combat Republicans across the country. We are simply 4000 Obama supporters who admire the man, want him as our president, but wish him to change one particular policy position which he has taken. Considered from that perspective, I daresay that the "4000" is something of a big deal (can you think of any other position in his platform which has motivated any more than a few dozen of his supporters to speak up in contradiction).
Still and all, we are not some sort of fifth column. We are still on the same side as everyone else on mybarackobama.com.
June 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what, it probably was a bad choice of words. I know we have gone round and round on this. I do respect your opinion on the immunity and it was my position as well for a long, long, long, long time. Maybe I am getting overly optomistic, but I get the feeling of a huge win in november. I think that obama is on the right side politically on this issue. Republicans would paint opposition as soft on terror and it would be a huge convoluted explaination why opposing the bill is not soft on terror. Low information voters won't get the distinction and opposition to the bill would allow republicans to paint obama as a flaming liberal. I just think its a smart political move.
June 30, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering his aboutface on FISA, public financing and his trying to play both sides of gun control, death penalty and other issues, what is it that is going to get you to realize or admit that Obama was all talk and his action does not reflect his words?
IMO it is not good enough to just say McCain would be worse. It seems time for Obama supporters to admit he has feet of clay and decide where to go from here.
June 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What actions has he taken that are inconsistent with his words? Given that he is not president yet, I am hard pressed to extract any cogent meaning from your complaint. How can a man's actions be at odds with his words when he is not in a position to take any action? It seems to me that what you really mean is that some of his words do not match other words of his, which is fair but not necessarily troubling. Reagan was very good at that, much to our (left-of-center types) chagrin. So was Bill Clinton, to the chagrin of the right. If Obama is simply good at running a con operation to bamboozle the right, that would seem far more of an asset than a liability to me. In other words, I am not convinced of the aptness of your critique here.
June 30, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
He reversed on FISA. That is action.
He reversed on public financing. That is action.
He was for gun control but now embraces ownership rights. That is action.
And the list is longer.
You just are too smug to admit that he cannot be trusted to do what he says he will. So, play the semantics game all you want. He has shown himself to either be unkown or unknowable and does not hesitiate to act against his own claims.
Feet of clay. Should I put back up the "Owned" avatar or the "Chicken-O"?
June 30, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, none of those are actions. If you are going to posit a distinction between words and actions (as you do in your post) then it would behoove you to understand that distinction and employ it appropriately. All you have managed to adduce is evidence that his words do not match his words; not that his words do not match his actions. Words not matching actions only matter if I like the words and not the actions. If I like the actions and not the words, then I consider such duplicity a good strategic move. If you cannot see how a talent for saying one thing and doing another can be an asset, then you must have been asleep between 1981 and 1989 and between 1993 and 2001.
June 30, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That right there is the definition of a dishonest or confused flip-flopper.
Obama's word cannot be trusted and you just confirmed your agreement with your above statement.
June 30, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is enough to say Obama is better than McCain. How ridiculous. McCain is worse than Obama. What a silly thing to say.
June 30, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. But there aren't 41 Senators willing to vote against cloture on this bill. And this legislation is something that is likely to be revisited frequently in the next 5-10 years. This isn't up there with a constitutional amendment, a Supreme Court nominee, or universal health care -- which are not frequently revisited, and are difficult to repeal.
So politically, it's worth taking the hit from liberals like myself on this bill. On the big-ticket items this year -- ending the Iraq War, universal health care, the economy, and energy independence -- those Obama has to stick to his guns, and toe the (mostly) party line.
June 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't kid yourself. Once passed, this is going to be difficult to repeal as well. Letting it go because you think it's going to be easy to back out later on is foolish. If you're going to be in favor of passage, it had better be with the idea that you're OK with it as permanent legislation.
June 30, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what little my opinion is worth, I definitely agree with this. I think that it is terribly misguided to say "pass it now, we can always repeal it later." The truth is exactly opposite - it is important to stop it now, because once it makes it onto the books it will be much harder to undo.
June 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I'm not one bit happy about Obama's positions on FISA compromise bill and the Supreme Court's decisions on the death penalty for child rapists and the DC handgun ban.
I also understand that Barack Obama is a practical politician who simply doesn't want to wage a quixiotic fight on FISA when there are nowhere near 41 Senators to vote against cloture on the bill. Barack Obama sees the big picture: you can't run as the party 10, 20, 30 years from now as the party that stood against telecom immunity and domestic spying; that's not an uplifting view of the party. Barack Obama wants his legacy to be the party that ended the Iraq War, provided health care to everyone, and made America more energy independent. That's something the Democratic party can run on 10, 20, 30 years from now.
June 30, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really couldn't care less about the FISA issue. As Freadtown points out criminal prosectuion is still on the table.
June 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
And of course when your "criminal" charges theory fails we can always count on some magistrate in Spain to indict them and have them extradited to Spain for trial.
Jeesh, did you idiots ever pay attention during your civics class in junior high school. The utter lack of knowledge of our judicial system is mindboggling.
June 30, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the idiot? You really think suing them is going to work? Here is what will happen, given the lower court finds for the plaintiffs (and that is a big given,) the telecoms will appeal the ruling and for the next twenty years it will bounce around between courts until the Supreme court throws out the case or lowers the award to next to nothing.
As a plaintiff in the Exxon Valdez case I can tell you it isn't worth the effort.
June 30, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Different case, different goals. The point of the civil lawsuit was not so much to win damages as it was to shine light on just what the extent of the illegal spying was and who, ultimately, was behind it.
If the telecoms are granted immunity, that will never happen.
June 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, until Bush pardons them all on his way out of office.
Duh.
June 30, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many of those who are signing up are really from the PUMA Republican Trojan Horse Trolls movement. Who is checking out the validity of each signer?
June 30, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The more Greg tries to stir this "cave" issue up, the less interested I become about it, or its ramifications on Obama's campaign to become President.
What freaktown and nisleib said.
June 30, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
News flash, Bucky: It really doesn't matter how interested you are in anything. What matters is how interested the American people are in The Dear Leader's words, as opposed to His actions. The more He gets chumped out saying, "That depends on what the definition of is is," the worse He looks.
If you children really want The Dear Leader to win this thing, you need to do your best to be sure He stops hanging out with the rest of the Girly-Crats. If He doesn't grow a set soon, the Repubs will stomp Him.
Bottom line, Bucky: He caved. You may not like it, but you can't wish it away.
June 30, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, and by that standard it seems (for better or worse) that Sen Obama's FISA stance will make little difference. Few people appear to be paying attention to this debate, so while I wish that he had not taken the position he is taking, it is hard to believe that this will be either an electoral disaster or an electoral boon for him. There just are not enough voters who care one way or the other to make a difference.
June 30, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument that it doesn't seem to matter to the public cuts both ways. If it truly doesn't matter to the public, why not take a principled stand and do what he can to stop FISA? He has to know what a piece of crap this legislation is, he knows how to turn things around on the republican attack machine. I see this as making him look weak, and a loser for him to NOT fight FISA.
Anyone who thinks that criminal prosecution is even slightly likely is living in a fantasyland. If this passes, it's over, and we'll hear nothing about it, but we'll all be worse off because less and less privacy will be the result.
I'm going to vote for Obama, but I wish so many wouldn't pretend this is anything other than what it is, a total capitulation to bullshit talking points from the republicons and weaselcrats.
It's a huge mistake, and lessens Obama's standing amongst everyone except evil toads like Lieberman, or washington pundits, the most out-of-touch people on the planet.
--Ron
June 30, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I am as disappointed as you are in Obama's new FISA stance.
June 30, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
let's not pretend you were ever interested in the first place. you've been nothing but an apologist for obama on this issue from the word go.
July 1, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Don't you have 48-point fonts ?
Sheesh, talk about eating their own. Sacrificing the good on the altar of purity.
June 30, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you understand, to go against FISA is sacrificing evil for the sake of the good. Obama is diminishing himself with his weaseling on this, going against his previous rhetoric when the primaries were still going, and now that he's got the nomination he's playing just like every other weaselly politician.
Makes me wonder if there's more to his friendship with benedict lieberman.
--Ron
June 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Well, since then it's grown rapidly: It now has over 4,000 members.
That's six times the 500 or so it had on Friday. It's a strong signal from Obama's own supporters that they won't sit idly by when he takes a position that they view as a betrayal of the change movement he's building."
Wrong. Do the math. six times 500 equals 3,000. Eight times 500 is the correct answer.
By the way; is anyone doing something similar to pressure Senator Clinton. Strange how her Sargent At Arms has made no mention of her position on this issue. Well, not really.
June 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe that anyone can view Obama's position on FISA as politically smart for him.
Think of this from a Republican or a McCain leaning independent's perspective. Here's what they know:
1. Obama is against telecom immunity and has said he would support a filibuster
2. Obama promised no warrantless wiretapping when he's president and ridiculed it as being unnecessary to protect us
3. Obama now claims to believe we need warrantless wiretapping, and we need it so badly that he'll let telecom immunity slide
4. Media talking heads talk about him being politically expedient for changing his position
If I were someone leaning towards McCain, my beliefs are already colored a certain way. All of these facts would lead me to one conclusion: Obama is another spineless Democrat with no principles who doesn't believe in anything.
So how does this make any sense for Obama? He takes the wind out of the sails of his supporters, which means there will be less volunteering and less donations. He reinforces the weak democrat theme that runs rampant in Republican circles. He reminds us all of Kerry when he does this.
Voters don't mind if they disagree with a President. But they really mind if a President doesn't believe in what he's doing.
It's as clear as day that Obama thinks this bill is a farse, and yet he's still voting for it. That is never a good thing in politics. If you support Obama, you should criticize him passionately so he learns this lesson right away. Remember, many of his advisers have spent years on the losing side offering advice like this. If he doesn't hear anything else from his real base, he'll continue listening to those idiots.
June 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Suffice it to say, I mostly agree. I do not see that the FISA issue is really nearly the sort of political hot-potato that some here are making it out to be, so I simply am not convinced that Obama's reversal represents a tactical retreat in the furtherance of an ultimate victory. That said, I would take minor issue with your reasoning in that your little four point argument begins from the presupposition that a sizable number of voters care enough about the FISA issue to know what Obama's stance once was and what it now is. I am not sure that this premise is altogether sound. I see little evidence to support the idea that the public is paying this issue much attention. Opinion surveys do not suggest that voters rank it very high in their list of concerns. The letters to the editor section of major newspapers are not flush with missives on this issue. Call in radio programs are not getting a lot of calls on the subject.
In other words, while I agree that this was not a clever approach for Sen Obama to take, I expect t the effects of it will be somewhat muted in the end. For better or worse, the issue's profile in the minds of the electorate is simply too small to make much of a difference.
June 30, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Said. I was working on the same post...not as well written.
June 30, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If criminal prosecution is still available after the passage of this bill, then it may be one of the most clever Trojan horses in recent legislative history.
Could Obama not be defending himself as well as he might, so as to not tip off pro-FISA Senators of his plans to prosecute once in office?
Presumably, some high profile prosecutions would open the door to revamping the program to a more reasonable, judicially supervised approach.
Is this Barackarate on a whole 'nother level
June 30, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If criminal prosecution is still available after the passage of this bill, then it may be one of the most clever Trojan horses in recent legislative history.
Could Obama not be defending himself as well as he might, so as to not tip off pro-FISA Senators of his plans to prosecute once in office?
Of all the responses to Obama's gyrations, this is the most labored and silly. Please. Did you sleep through the Clinton years? Why is it so hard to admit that Senator Obama has simply been better at being a screen onto which his supporters can project their fondest personal wishes? He'll do whatever it takes to get elected.
July 1, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
In less than a week, this group has vaulted from no members to having the 5th most members of all the groups at Obama's Web site. At this rate, it will be the largest group by the time the FISA vote rolls around.
Those who support Obama's push to the so-called center are doing him no favors. From having something of an image as a principled politician, he has, since securing the nomination, taken several steps that (fairly) positioned him to get tagged as a "flip-flopper." That's not smart politics. That's dumb politics.
Besides, where is the evidence that his previous position--unequivocal opposition to telecom immunity--was an electoral albatross? Here in Connecticut, GOP Rep. Nancy Johnson tried hanging the albatross of "he won't let us spy on terrorists" around challenger Chris Murphy's neck in 2006. He crushed her. The GOP has also tried using it in the special congressional elections this year. They lost.
Obama's moves--on FISA, appointing Jason Furman to head his economic team, backpedaling on NAFTA--indicate he's paying attention to the same tired DC insiders who for years now have been afraid of Republicans.
People can't stand the GOP now and they don't buy the fear that they are pedaling. But by acting scared--and that's what Obama is doing--he empowers the GOP fearmongers.
It's time for Democrats to define the frame on issues. Obama was doing that during the primary campaign. He's not doing it now.
The networking group on FISA is a viral way to get Obama back on the path of smart, aggressive, principled politics. Not just because it's right but because it's a winning strategy.
June 30, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree (for whatever little my opinion is worth).
June 30, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too.
June 30, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for providing needed context! 4,000 is just a number, it may or may not be all that big. But if this is the fifth largest group, that's saying it's gotten pretty big. And if it becomes the largest, it sends a more powerful message.
June 30, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the page that lists groups by number of members, starting at the top with the most, Action Wire, which has 13,320 as I write.
The Obama FISA group has gained more than 500 members since I posted earlier.
(And now, on the front page of TPM, we are saying that Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton is "rejecting" Wes Clark's completely reasonable statement yesterday "I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." Is it only a matter of time before they cave and denounce him, too?
Pressuring Obama on FISA is a way to support him and support progressive change.
June 30, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should be "we are seeing that Obama campaign spokesman..."
June 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, my God. What, is Obama now in agreement with the McCain campaign that McCain would make a better president??!
I wonder if Hillary Clinton has a very subtle strategy up her sleeve: back off and let Obama's candidacy implode, let the buyer's remorse roll in, and then arrive at the convention as the ready alternative to the Hope that was far less Audacious than advertised.
June 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just joined!
June 30, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get a kick out all these 'pragmatists' who portray Obama's vote for FISA as a 'run to the center'. "Oh, it would be too difficult to explain why opposing this bill isn't appeasing the terrorists."
What utter bullshit. There was absolutely no pressure on congress to pass this bill right now. Obama could easily hold to his promise to oppose it, but chose not to for what can only be quid pro quo backroom compromising.
"But this way the Republicans won't be able to say mean mean things about him in the campaign!" Ugh. And there again is exactly the mentality that has gotten us into the very Iraq, torture, and domestic spying debacles in the first place.
The media loves John McCain, in case you hadn't noticed. Nothing Obama does is going to change that, so why not stand up for principle, since that seems to be the one thing that trumps the media messaging in 2008?
June 30, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, it's so dumb. FISA is not a 'centrist' position. The only people who support this are telecoms lobbyists. And besides Obama already voted against the Protect America Act, which would give the GOP plenty of Ammo in calling him soft on terrorism.
June 30, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the immunity issue that is a centrist position, it is the fisa overhaul, which in my opinion is unnecessary as well. The problem is with the lazy media and the lazy congress that allowed the "overhaul" to be originally implemented in the first place. If immunity was seperate, it would be doa. It's encompassed in the "protect america act." Now, if obama would be jumping up and down opposing the "protect america act," how do you think that will be played by the republicans, in the debates and in the lazy corporate right wing media? It really isn't that complicated.
You do realize that the fisa "overhaul" was deemed necessary by the f'n king to cover-up the administration's incompetence prior to 9/11 and the king's criminal violations of fisa. When it was proposed, congress should have said no way fisa is not the problem. They didn't and it caused this huge cluster f*ck of a problem.
June 30, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the correct link.
June 30, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Netroots movement is as strong as many seem to think it is, then why do the candidates that they rank most favorably, such as Dodd and Kucinich fail to attract much voter support in the Primaries. Dodd did not even gain one delegate in Iowa after he moved to the state, and lived there.
If that is all the Netroots could do for Dodd, then they appear to be just a paper tiger.
Show me where they have actually made a major difference in helping a candidate to achieve a national victory.
June 30, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You could add traitor joe's opponent to that list as well. I can't even remember his name anymore. I think that speaks volumes. Whenever traitor joe opens his mouth we all go into fits, but the netroots couldn't defeat him. Ouch!
June 30, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ned Lamont.
June 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the criticism that you are voicing here is more fair than not, but I do rather wonder why you speak of the netroots as "they." The netroots is us. If you engage with your fellow left-on-the-political spectrum types online, you are part of the netroots (or at least that the understanding of the term from which I have been working). In any event, I agree with you that, so far, our effect on the body politic has been limited (although I think that it is fair to say that it is growing).
June 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps more of a tiger cub than a paper tiger?
June 30, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me the results. Where have they delivered for a National Candidate favorite of their's?
June 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that Lamont's primary victory is the sort of result germane to your point. There was once a time when the netroots would have not had even enough power to challenge Lieberman in the primary. In 2006 they (we?, I feel reluctant to take any credit here as I was not part of the effort) succeeded. The netroots did not have the power to go all the way and unseat Lieberman after he decided to make a bid as an independent (as I already said, I agree with you that our power is still quite limited), but the primary upset testified to the growing power of the netroots. I think that the same can be said of Obama's primary victory (Obama being heavily favored over Clinton by the netroots this year).
June 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
ActBlue has already helped drive significant Democratic victories in Congressional races. Donors and activists connected through ActBlue, for example, helped send Jim Webb to an upset last fall of Republican Senator George Allen of Virginia by contributing $900,000.
The surprise victory of challenger Joe Sestak in a Pennsylvania Congressional race last year illustrates the powerful nexus between ActBlue and the liberal blogosphere. When Sestak, a three-star Navy admiral, became a favorite of liberal bloggers, they began championing his candidacy and sending readers to ActBlue to make donations. Sestak unseated Republican Curt Weldon, thanks in part to the $868,000 his campaign raised through ActBlue -- more than a fourth of all the money he raised.
http://blog.actblue.com/blog/2007/08/actblue-feature.html
June 30, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. George Allen called a person a racist name on Video, and that destroyed him. The polls show that he sank like a rock after that became public, and still Jim Webb barely squeaked by. For the record; Jim Webb is not the poster child for the issues that the netroots crowd are most concerned with.
Howard Dean had a hell of a lot more to do with what happened in 2006. I still think netroots and MoveOn are just a bunch of self promoting paper tigers. Dodd is their man, and they could not deliver one solitary Iowa delegate to him. That makes them all Hat and no Cattle. Yes, I mixed metaphors. So revoke my poetic license!
June 30, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
sure dismiss the large sums of money they raised for these candidates (nearly a million dollars), which is all they've promised to do.
they are the bad guys and so are all the netroots, like grass roots, politically active people on the internet pushing for progressive ideas. Obama should just ignore us. Sounds like good advice.
June 30, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a lovely strawman that you just build. Congratulations.
June 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
strawman?
If that is all the Netroots could do for Dodd, then they appear to be just a paper tiger.
so here, you are saying the netroots just seem formidable, but should be ignored because they are weak. If I mistated your position, then clarify it. Why were you asking for proof of where they've helped a national candidate?
June 30, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does it have to be one or the other? Surely Webb could be said to have profited both from George Allen's self-destructive flub and from substantial netroots fund-raising. In order to get my car out of the garage, the garage door needs to be open, but there needs also to be gasoline in the tank. It would be surpassingly strange to say that the gasoline in the tank was unimportant because the garage door was open.
June 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly:
Netroots is a recent term coined to describe political activism organized through blogs and other online media, including wikis and social network services. The word is a portmanteau of Internet and grassroots
June 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, Greg. Tell us how you really feel, even conveniently providing the link.
June 30, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right?
June 30, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong? Just thought the reporter was leading the reader to the water. Can't make me drink though (bad mangled metaphor).
June 30, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check:
Time to go back and get the facts. Here is what really happened. Senator Obama just said OK to MoveOn just to shut them up. Read the following and you will see that back in Oct. 2007 his position was pretty much where it is today. Here is the proof, and it was written by Greg Sargent of all people. Sometimes we say OK to some one who is pestering the hell out of you, just to get them to shut up.
----------------------------------------------------
Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity
By Greg Sargent - October 24, 2007, 1:18PM
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."
As we reported here yesterday, MoveOn and a dozen top liberal bloggers were preparing to wage an aggressive campaign today to pressure Obama and Hillary to say that they'll support Chris Dodd's vow to filibuster any Senate FISA bill containing telecom immunity. And late yesterday both Obama and Hillary put out statements saying that they'd back Dodd's threatened filibuster of the current legislation that's just come out of the Senate intel committee.
Those statements, however, lacked the clarity that immunity opponents have been looking for, so today the MoveOn and lib blogger campaign has been in full swing. MoveOn emailed members this morning urging them to call Obama and Hillary and...
Tell him/her the public is counting on him/her to filibuster any bill that gives immunity to phone companies that broke the law.
June 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's statement:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
A grassroots movement of Americans has pushed this issue to the forefront. You have come together across this country. You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
It's time for Washington to hear your voices, and to act. I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.
June 30, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty words. But according to Liam, he didn't really mean any of it -- he was only trying to get MoveOn.org off his back.
But maybe that is a lesson: if you want Obama to do something, get in his face about it. He apparently doesn't like confrontation, so you can get him to go your way if you confront him aggressively enough. Which is just what the anti-FISA group at MyBarackObama.com is doing. And what we on the left had better be prepared to do during his entire presidency, or he's going to cave to the unquestionably aggressive right wing.
June 30, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama said from the beginning that he would fight the immunity provision. It's only the pundits and bloggers that claim it was a hollow promise. I think we should let our opinions be known, but wait and see before we condemn.
June 30, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is a hollow promise because he has already indicated that he would vote for the bill whether or not the immunity provisions were removed.
July 1, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for keeping the focus on this issue, which I care a lot about. I don't particularly think immunity is that huge an issue, but the expansion of surveillance powers is VERY worrisome to me and should be fought by Dems.
June 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
He reversed on FISA. That is action.
He reversed on public financing. That is action.
He was for gun control but now embraces ownership rights. That is action.
And the list is longer.
You just are too smug to admit that he cannot be trusted to do what he says he will. So, play the semantics game all you want. He has shown himself to either be unkown or unknowable and does not hesitiate to act against his own claims.
Feet of clay. Should I put back up the "Owned" avatar or the "Chicken-O"?
June 30, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think people should remember, regarding the FISA program, that the 4th amendment still exists and can't be "trashed" by legislation as long as we have a solid judiciary. The problem is that we don't have one because of so many years of Republican reign. Honestly, I'm more concerned about helping Obama get into office than any particular issue, even this one, although I wrote and wrote, and faxed and faxed. I hope he fights the immunity provision as hard as I'd like, of course. But when it comes right down to it, his energy should be in winning the election and getting the federal judiciary back.
June 30, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
you mean the federal judiciary that would be prevented from doing its job when obama votes for immunity and has the civil suits yanked out of court? that federal judiciary??
July 1, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Number in the MyBO group now over 5000.
June 30, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi all,
I'm not the sharpest tool in the toolbox so don't flame me if I say I can't figure out what we are fighting about among ourselves.
This TPM site is not Obama Central, I grant you that. All kinds of democrats are here.
But I think, I think we're all voting for the Obama-man FISA or no FISA right?
So what's the deal?
Why are there orthodoxy police patrolling. What's at stake..we are all going to be voting, yes?
This is just what the Republicans love to do. Take advantage and divide and conquer. We all ought to get a stack of bibles or korans or sutras and swear up and down we won't even mention "FISA" until after the election.
June 30, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's fine to show our feelings. But trashing Obama over FISA is kind of self-defeating.
June 30, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
no. voting for obama regardless of his positions on your rights is self-defeating.
July 1, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
i will not shut up about anything as important as FISA and retroactive immunity for telecom giants complicit in violating our most important rights.
the bill of rights is more important than obama. and if obama has no more respect for the bill of rights than mccain, then obama is not the lesser of two evils and he most certainly can not count on getting my vote.
July 1, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lux Umbra Dei @ 6:56 PM posted - "...we're all voting for the Obama-man (sic) FISA or no FISA right?"
If Sen. Obama continues to backtrack on his given pledges and promises, that may not be a given. I can vote for every other Democrat on the ballot except the one at the top if need be. I don't like the idea, but if Sen. Obama is not going to keep his word now, how do we know he will once he is elected?
Remember, there are supposed to be three parts to the Federal government: legislative, executive and judicial. There is no reason an increased Democratic majority in the Senate and House couldn't control a President McCain if they wanted to. It's that "wants to" that worries me the most. If the head of the Democratic Party doesn't consider the Constitution important, why should the Senators and Representatives?
And yes, the FISA Bill, ALL of it, is a must to me; if the Constitution is to be shredded for political gain, it won't be with my support. Without the Constitution there is no United States of America.
June 30, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Friend des,
What will you do then? Will you not vote at all?
Perhaps BHO has taken away from you one of the reasons to vote for him.
But doesn't he still have a lot more reasons to recommend him over his opponent, McCain?
I can't think of a single political figure of note who hasn't at one time or another had to go against previous statements. Bill did! FDR did! Probably Kennedy too! Now Obama did and if thats a sign of weakness of character..then you better put all those other presidents in the same shopping cart.
June 30, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink