Obama Backing FISA "Compromise"
Obama's statement on the FISA "compromise" is in, and suffice it to say that it won't make opponents of the Dem cave-in very happy. He's supporting it.
Here's the key part:
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act."It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -- and the liberty -- of the American people."
Full statement after the jump.
Late Update: My take on his decision is here.
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
I'm sure that this will go over well with the netroots.
June 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama:
This is the part for me that is weak. To show leadership, he could've said more. Indeed, if he really wanted to strip immunity from the Senate version, he would've expanded on the issue and been more forceful. Saying he'll work on it isn't saying much. No promises, and not exactly a tough stance for someone trained as a civil rights lawyer. I expect more from Obama.
If you did too, call his office and let him know:
1-866-675-2008
June 20, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote this to the Obama campaign:
This is what I wrote:
A few days ago, the House passed a bill aimed at granting retroactive immunity to the Telecoms as well as expanding the wiretapping powers of the President in violation of the original form of FISA.
Instead of standing up to those monied interests, as he has said he would do, Barack Obama said he agreed with the FISA law and gave what could be described, at best, as a tepid condemnation of the immunity contained therein.
As an american concerned with the erosion of civil liberties under the current President, Obama's stance on this concerns me greatly. I have to date given $450 to the Obama campaign and have worked with friends and family to get them to contribute as well. I have volunteered for the first time in my political life as well, going door to door and spreading Barack Obama's message of hope and change.
No more.
Until Obama lives up to his promise to filibuster and block any bill which grants the Telecoms retroactive immunity, I simply will not lift a finger to aid his campaign. This is a travesty against the rights of Americans and completely gets at the core of his message to stand up for us.
Obama wanted people to become engaged in the political process so that we could hold our representatives in Congress accountable. Well, I'm holding Barack Obama accountable as the democratic nominee, my future representative in the White House.
Stop this bill.
June 22, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear not!
Be of good cheer!
For my ways are not your ways
My thoughts are not your thoughts
Psalm something or other
June 20, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The O! is our shepherd
THE NUMBERS - Newsweek
Barack Obama, 51 percent (46)
John McCain, 36 percent (46)
June 20, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be the prophet Isaiah
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,' says the Lord.
'For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
That and a 15 point lead are all the comfort ye need.
June 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm replying here so this will be up top. Can we get a new headline? Three days now? We know TPM is mad, but today Bill Kristol said Bush is planning to bomb Iran if Obama is elected. Other things are happening. So can we get a new headline? Is there nothing else to talk about?
June 22, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
for the first time since i've been a supporter, Barack Obama has seriously disappointed me. this is weak-kneed and counterproductive.
June 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wholeheartedly agree. This is just incredibly disappointing especially after waiting out the news cycle until the vote had already passed. I guess the purpose of waiting was so that his statement wouldn't add fuel to the fire of passage, but whatever, it sucks now and it would've sucked last night too.
And to think I was just getting ready to donate once again...it'll be some time now before I do. I guess politicians always play politics, but that doesn't mean we always have to play along.
June 20, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope he means it.
June 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly does he mean? He'll vote for the bill and later try to remove retroactive immunity??
June 20, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think that this language admits easily of that reading. He claimed that he would work in the senate to remove it. Given that he will not likely be in the senate much longer, it would seem that he means that he will try to remove the provision from the senate version of the FISA "compromise" now. At least that is what I hope it means. Suffice it to say, I will be among that mass of democratic voters who will be very, very disappointed with him if he votes for retroactive immunity.
June 20, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what it means, they are going to try to strip immunity in the Senate.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Though it's not likely to happen. If the House couldn't do it (bludogs blocked it) then I seriously doubt the Senate can.
Anyways, from what I'm hearing, the immunity is only civil, not criminal. For what little that's worth.
Another thing to consider is this sunsets in 4 years, presumably while Obama is in office and with a larger Dem majority.
So yeah, it still sucks, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest how a better bill could be passed under the present circumstances.
June 21, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So yeah, it still sucks, but I have yet to hear anyone suggest how a better bill could be passed under the present circumstances.
SO DON'T PASS ANY BILL.
That simple.
We don't need a new bill. FISA is just fine. If Congress wants to fix the tiny glitch that currently exists in FISA, it can be done in less than 200 words, and a few minutes of legislative time. Failing that, keeping the "old FISA" is infinitely preferable to this new abomination.
So not seeing "how a better bill could be passed under the present circumstances" is a red herring.
June 24, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he aims to remove it now, but what i got out of it was that he'll vote for it any way, if it doesn't get removed, and then try to fix it when he's President. Which really makes me mad, first there is no guarantee he will get elected and he should do what's right irregardless. Second, he should make a stand here- that's leadership.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how he could vote for the bill with immunity in it, and then work to strip immunity after he's President. For one thing, who would believe that he means it? For another, Presidents have the power to pardon (ie. GRANT immunity retroactively), but they don't have the power to prosecute people who have been granted immunity (ie. revoke immunity retroactively). Don't see how that would work for him.
So unless he takes us for idiots, he must mean he would work to strip immunity now (and presumably vote against a bill with immunity in it).
June 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure that this is a coherent reading. After all, once retroactive immunity is passed, it is a done deal. The lawsuits will be dismissed and that will be the end of it. There would be no second chance to repeal the law that wrought retroactive immunity and revive the lawsuits. As such, I think that this can only be read to mean that he plans to work to scrub this provision from the bill now. Admittedly, I would have rather he said that he would only support the compromise if the retroactive immunity provision were removed, but I am not impressed by the reading of this statement which takes him to mean that he plans to do something about it after the fact as president.
June 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take back this comment. After a re-read, I disagree with my interpretation. All I was seeing was red.... Let's see how it shakes down on he Senate floor. Cross your fingers....
June 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's what I got out of it. lame.
June 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the Senate and House bills will not necessarily be the same. Obama is claiming that he will work now to make sure the Senate version lacks retroactive immunity from civil suits for the telecoms.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is much less than I had hoped for from Obama.
My guess is he will back an amendment to remove the retroactive immunity, and then, when that amendment goes down to defeat, he'll go ahead and vote for this "far from perfect" bill.
So now it's a question of who gets to spy on us -- Barack Obama or John McCain. I guess I'm still voting for Obama...
-- ARG!!
June 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I foresee him backing the amendment to remove retroactivity, then voting against the bill if that amendment fails. Flipping on the issue can do him more harm than good.
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means he'll try to fix it before it passes the Senate.
June 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds as though he'll try to remove immunity before the vote. The House and Senate have voted on different bills, so another vote is coming. Let's hope for a filibuster. I've already contacted my senators.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how it will go down:
Obama, Feingold and a bunch of others who oppose retroactive immunity will first move an amendment stripping that clause from the bill.
There will be spirited debate, including a stirring speech by Obama on why retroactive absolution for illegal acts is bad.
The amendment will then go to a vote and be soundly defeated.
Pure theater; everyone knows it.
Then, in debate on the main motion -- the "compromise" as received from the House -- Obama will either repeat what he said in today's statement -- that the bill is better than nothing -- or he'll stay silent.
Feingold and a few others will refuse to cave, and vote no.
Obama will vote yes.
The bill will pass overwhelmingly.
The netroots will sulk for a few days; the general public will hardly notice.
Who's going to make immunity an election issue?
Certainly not McCain.
Whereas if Obama votes no, he'll be tarred as soft on terrorism.
That's how the game is played.
I'm disappointed, too; the constitution is a terrible thing to waste.
But I take some comfort that -- despite everyone clamoring for him to take a position -- Obama needed 24 hours of soul-searching before concluding he had to sell out.
Face it, right now his Job 1 is getting elected president.
Feingold can afford to take the high road; Obama has to do what it takes to win.
June 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
you either do what you believe in or you don't...and yes you compromise but not on 4th ammendment! this is not moving the country forward....what a shameful act..I thought he said do or say anything to get elected was the old washington politics....country under threat my ass! we have attacked and fucked more countries than gengis khan...
June 21, 2008 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I just saw this over at DailyKos. Evidently Sen Reid said today that he will have a separate vote on the retroactive immunity provision of the bill. Evidently, then, we will have a chance to scrub that provision of the legislation from the Senate version of the bill and Obama plans to work with the effort to remove it.
If he succeeds, I will be obliged to him and all the other senators who make that happen. If he does not, and if he goes ahead and votes for the "compromise" anyway, then I expect that my summer will become far less busy, as I will have a lot less volunteering to do.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well we better quit bitching and get to work on making sure the immunity dies in the Senate.
June 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now on that much I can agree with you 100%.
June 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely!
June 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, whole-heartedly.
June 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point Missouri voter. Alot of obama volunteers and activists are very hot over this issue. If he caves, it could spell trouble. I understand that he is walking a fine line, but maybe the way to defuse the issue is to promise full, complete and comprehensive investigations of the crimes of this administration for the past 7 years and complete disclosure. Obviously, he would say it differently, but that might be a smart way to defuse the issue and keep his attempt to "tack to the center" intact, while satisfying his base.
June 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This could turn out to be pretty smart. It removes the cover for senators (and presidents) who want to get immunity (essentially pork for the telecoms) in under the banner of "security."
I'll be curious about Bush's reaction to this.
June 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Means he'll vote against retroactive immunity before he votes for it.
June 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, if he can get the retroactive immunity provision removed from this compromise, he will earn my glad accolades. Here's hoping...
June 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Working won't be enough. Only voting against a bill with immunity in it will be enough.
Looks like what he's been talking about all this time is just pocket change. Which is probably what he'll be getting from party activists from now on if he votes for immunity. Maybe he swore off fed election assistance too soon.
June 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a little melodramatic.
It isn't over and we can still get immunity cut out.
June 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
et tu, barack?
June 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
well...there it is..Obama's position is clear and not so clear, isn't it.
Maybe, there is hope it will be stopped in the Senate.
June 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary should come out strongly against this. Barack is a turncoat.
June 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, like when she failed to show up for the vote last time and Obama did.
Turncoat? Seriously? He said they are going to try to strip it on the immunity provision.
June 20, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
huge cave-in for the dems! but it's a good political decision for the general election by running to the center and defusing this before it becomes unbearable baggage (dems holding up anti-terror legislation...) but it's a definite disappointment to many of the more progressive folks among us.
sad day for the constitution...
June 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. If he opposes the compromise, he's soft on terror, national security, and will allow Osama bin Laden to stay over night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
If he supports the compromise, he's weak, has no character, and has lied and misled millions of heartbroken supporters who, for the good of the country, now vote for Nader.
June 20, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same old weak-kneed dodge that Dems have been giving ever since 9/11 to attempt to obfuscate their lack of backbone. It runs completely counter to the reality of public opinion and makes them look even weaker than the imagined weakness of a negative vote. If Obama goes down that route then he'll look like just as afraid of a lame-duck Bush as the Dems currently do.
June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that most of Barack's voters understand the difference between political necessity in the current climate vice a character flaw. I suspect most of us aren't so childish that we would bite off our nose to spite our face.
I, for one, am not a single-issue person. There are larger things at stake than a couple of executives who shared some billing records. I am willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until elected.
The bar will be raised much higher at that point, but for now we have to be a little more expedient with our All or Nothing mentality. It doesn't win elections and certainly doesn't lead to governing majorities.
Can we elect the guy first and then tear him down later if need be? Or do you prefer President John McCain?
PS: If this reply was simply snark - masterful! :O)
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget childish, I'm not nearly flexible enough to bite off my nose to spite my face.
June 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It most definitely was snark. I should have labeled it as such...
June 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that most of Barack's voters understand the difference between political necessity in the current climate vice a character flaw.
And that is your crucial mistake.
Let's leave aside the fact that your sentence didn't describe the choice between "political necessity" and whateverinhelltheotherchoicewassupposedtobe. I have made more than my share of errors in writing up blog comments. I would be curious to see exactly what you think the other "choice" is. I suspect it would be something tendentious like "ideological purity."
The crucial mistake is that you have nowhere substantiated -- and I dispute -- that this is a "political necessity." Guess what -- Obama and the rest of the Dems are going to be painted as Soft On Terror no matter what they do. "But we/I voted to destroy your liberties in order to save you from the Terrorists" just isn't going to wash with those who already think that we need a dictatorship to save us from Terror. All this does is (accurately) paint D's as weak-kneed in the face of opposition, and/or just as corrupt as the GOP. That's political suicide, not political necessity.
FISA required EXACTLY ONE FIX: making explicit that no warrant was required for intecepting foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to be routed through US circuits or computers. All the rest is a giveaway to the National Surveillance State and the enabling telecom corporations.
Moreover, the tone and content of your post suggests that this particular issue is not worth taking a stand on. May I suggest that if this issue isn't worth it, then virtually nothing is.
To understand just how truly reprehensible this legislation is I'm sorry, but you are going to have to do a bit of reading:
Glenn Greenwald: George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress describes some of the most disgusting provisions of this bill.
Glenn Greenwald: What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by "bipartisanship" give the latest political and procedural updates, including Obama's weaselly statement.
I quote here from the latter post:
So you can forget about ever knowing what crimes the Bush Administration committed in ransacking your private communications, with the aid of some of the wealthiest corporations in the world.
Greenwald already noted last December that the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) together with UK-based Privacy International, in their yearly report on privacy protections worldwide, had already ranked the US as an "endemic surveillance society," the worst possible rating that can be given. It puts us in the company of such democratic giants as China, Russia, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia.
A quote from the Key Findings of that report:
Greenwald also quotes extensively from US State Department reports on Russia in 2001 and 2006 that condemn the very violations that have been going on in the US for the last seven-plus years, and that are sanctified, ratified, and whitewashed in this abomination of a bill. I won't post the quotes here as this comment already is overlong, but you can read them in Greenwald's June 17 post The Company We Keep. That same post also notes that Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe cited the United States as an example in passing his own draconian surveillance legislation.
That's only the surface, Comrade. Greenwald has lots of other information on this abomination, as do Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake.
So that's what you're willing to compromise in the name of "political necessity" in the purported "current climate." A bill that ratifies our status as an Endemic Surveillance Society along with Russia, China, Singapore, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe.
Hope your papers are in order, Comrade.
June 20, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you frame an issue as All or Nothing, nothing is what you usually end up with. Single-issue voting is what killed the democratic party.
June 20, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, no. Single issue voting has been a huge boon for the Democratic Party. The numbers lost to third parties are insignificant; on the other hand, vast swaths vote Democratic primarily for a single issue such as reproductive choice or the environment.
June 21, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then promptly turn against you if you aren't in lock-step with their very narrow view of things, as can be seen by many comments on this thread.
June 21, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which represents a tiny and insignificant sample.
June 22, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight, brother. Damn straight.
June 22, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Single issue voters are bread and butter for the Republican Party--exactly what Obama was referring to when he made his "bitter" comment. On the other side of the aisle, single issue voters are the kind of people who voted for Ralph Nader.
Either way, single issue voters are poison for the Democratic Party.
June 22, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
are you suggesting we elect lesser of two evils..macain the barbarian or obama the con man? I will not vote for macain but I am ceratinly not feeling the love for Obama...what a shameful pandering to power....
June 21, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying that Barack isn't a con man at all and the lesser of two evils argument is intellectually dishonest.
He has a long history of working for progressive change at all levels of our society. That he has written two eloquent books that explain who he is and he will govern. His mom was a progressive. He was raised to be thoughtful and kind of to think of others before himself. Been a long time since a guy like that ran for president.
That he is pragmatic enough to win in today's highly polarized and propaganda-laden America is nothing short of a miracle. It is way past time progressives quit knee-capping our candidate before they win based on single-issue noise that is without context or compromise.
I can give Barack a pass on playing the game however he needs to win between now and November.
That free ride ends on January 20, 2009.
June 21, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have hoped that instead of "holding up FISA legislation", the Dems could have supported a bill that didn't have telecom immunity and also didn't have a veto-proof majority. Then it would have been Bush "holding up FISA legislation".
It seemed so simple to me.
June 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is Ralph Nader's number?
June 20, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
1-800-I-HELPED-PUT-BUSH-IN-WH
June 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
1-800-I-Was-Right-After-All-There-Is-No-Daylight-Between-The-Ds-And-The-Rs.
June 20, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
1-800-YOU'RE-FULL-OF-SHIT-IF YOU-BELIVE-GORE-WOULD-HAVE-BEEN-THE-SAME-PREZ-AS-BUSH-AND-IT'S-ASSHOLES-LIKE-YOU-WHO-GAVE-US-EIGHT-DISASTEROUS-YEARS-OF-GEORGE-W-BUSH-THANKS-FOR-NOTHING-JERK
June 21, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd damnit!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
June 20, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold can you slap some sense into him!?!?! Please....
June 20, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama just lost my vote. I will not vote for anyone who supports this legislation, regardless of political party affiliation.
June 20, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
One issue voting = the purest form of stupidity
June 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your insult didn't change my mind.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can appreciate your attitude, but how can you look at McCain and Obama, and arrive at the conclusion that you're not going to vote?
Not voting is the same as voting for McCain.
June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'm going to vote. I'll just be voting for _someone else._ And don't bother trying to convince me that I'm trapped by some faux dichotomy between these parties. As far as I'm concerned, it's time to dump _both_ the Democratic and Republican parties.
The party system in this country has done more damage to our republic in my lifetime than I ever expected to see. We're at the brink, and this time it's the Democrats who are at fault.
June 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA puts us at the brink? Really? This is the most important bill ever and it puts us at the brink? More than launching a war, ignoring global warming, ruining our economy?
You're making it real hard not to want to insult you again.
June 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You go and say whatever the fuck you like.
But you won't change my mind.
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sincerely hope your state goes to McCain by one vote, winning him the electoral college, and that President McCain then drafts you into war with the Persians where you will suffer the amputation of every limb.
June 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in Massachusetts. Enjoy your hope.
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that case, vote for whoever the heck you want.
I live in IL so my vote will make as much of a difference as yours does.
June 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if I did not live in Massachusetts then I would not get to vote for whomever the fuck I wanted?
I don't like that line of logic. It's MY VOTE, not yours.
June 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down. Save the F-bombs, man. Don't piss away your vote on legislation that hasn't even passed yet. Who are you going to vote for? McCain? He supports it. Bob Barr? Ralph Nader? Cynthia McKinney? If you like your vote being a silent message no one will receive, more power to you.
Never in my life have I voted for someone that I agreed with completely. That's life. Once you calm down, maybe you'll agree.
June 20, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
June 20, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. McCain thanks you for getting your underwear in a bunch.
He said they'd work to strip it of immunity, by the way.
June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the statement. It is offensive in its pandering to both sides of this supposed "debate."
Obama lost me.
June 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, McCain thanks you.
June 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did he really say that in your presence?
June 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, you know the drill, Maynard. Anyone who doesn't buy the proposition that Barack Obama walks on water and heals lepers with a touch of his hand is fair game for insults around here.
Barack Obama could vote for the permanent occupation of Iraq and promise to fill the Supreme Court with Scalia clones, and some of these guys would still hail it as political genius.
June 20, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. The guy's overreacting. There are things Obama could do to lose my vote, and it doesn't go as far as your insulting fantasies.
June 20, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If voting for undermining the constitution and giving away our civil liberties as well as absolving telecom companies from their illegal acts isn't enough to get upset about, when do you suppose it would be okay for the rest of us to start fighting for actual, not symbolic, democracy?
June 20, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just remember the big picture. If any change is to occur (substantive or slight) your candidate has to WIN first. In order to win that candidate is most likely going to have to take stances which you don't agree with. This is a lesson we can learn from european politics: pure ideologies don't govern well, compromise and coalitions do.
It stinks. It definitely does. But if some of the things that don't stink are going to get done, Obama needs to win this election and he needs some folks from the other party to help the dems get legislation passed once he does. This sort of a compromise (as bad as it is) can be a step in that direction.
June 20, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY. Obama is one Senator. If he needs to cave a little on this issue to avoid being branded as whatever by Republicans in an election year, I'll swallow my pride and deal with it. If this keeps him from losing his 2-5 point advantage in the swing states, fine. I don't like it one bit, but fine.
The Dems who voted for this in the House, however, are not running for President. They have absolutely no excuse.
June 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, they're not running for president; they are, however running for re-election. So what's the difference?
June 20, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you are being a bit hasty. Reid has just said that he wants a separate vote on retroactive immunity. If Obama succeeds in getting that provision scrubbed from Senate bill, surely there is nothing to hold against him. I think that we should wait and see.
June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course TPM won't add that context...
June 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hope you're right. Seriously.
June 20, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a lot to dislike about this bill besides the immunity clause but whatever. If by some bizarre miracle they manage to strip out immunity, I will certainly manage to be slightly less disappointed. However, this was not the statement I was hoping to see from Obama on this. Its pretty clear to me that he is laying the groundwork for supporting this POS bill, immunity or not. Its too bad.
June 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Look at it this way. If this bill passes, it means the President will still be able to spy on us.
Who'd you rather have spying on us? Obama or McCain?
-- ARG
June 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither.
June 21, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has never really been about protecting the telecoms that obeyed the unlawful orders.
Rather it has been about protecting the government officials who gave the unlawful orders--and those in Congress who were briefed on the warrantless surveillance programs and who chose to look the other way.
Mission accomplished--in a grand bipartisan capitulation to the unitary executive.
And now watch the telecom executives' campaign contributions roll in to Congresscritters of both parties in return for services rendered to the industry. You scratch my back....
What a country!
June 20, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is a sad day, today.
June 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill does not grant immunity to Bush or to any other elected official.
But whatever. Don't let facts get in the way of your tantrum.
June 22, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wish I could say I was shocked, but the words that come to mind are something more like, "I told you so." Well, he is still better than a republican—I hope.
June 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is still against retroactive immunity, and we can still get it stripped.
June 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
He just loves phone companies too much. You can't fault him for that: http://www.thepoliticaljerk.com/
June 20, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, which is why he said he'd work to strip phone company immunity from the legislation.
Weird.......
June 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he will work to remove the retroactive immunity, but I believe he will be going against a lot of compromised Democrats in that endeavor, just as he struggled against fellow Democrats to to try to put real teeth into Senate ethics reform.
This whole business of the oh-so-obvious collusion in Congress is exactly why I support Obama's taking the reins as President, which is a first step in changing the status quo of old style politics, particularly old style quid pro quo arrangements between corporations and legislators of both parties which financed elections and re-elections for the colluders.
June 20, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on, DonnaG. People think that it's just the telecoms, but it's the Democrats who knew this was going on and who did nothing--they have quite a stake in this.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point I was making earlier: get Obama in office with a mandate for change and THEN he can really effect that change. Right now, going completely against the grain and creating political enemies in his own party (even if it pleases a good bit of his political base!) is only going to weaken him in this election and make his winning more unlikely. Like it or not, he IS going to have to take some stances we find distasteful. That's the nature of the game he's in and if he wants to win he's going to have to play ball on some of these issues.
June 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right.
I suspect that most of the so-called "outraged democrats" are really republicans trying to spread disinformation. I am glad that most people don't seem to be falling for it.
Above all else, I believe the democratic party woke up this year to a more adult outlook on how to change our government from the top down. Electing Obama is the first step.
June 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a Republican in disguise. And I'm not trying to spread "disinformation."
I'm spreading my disgust at how the political parties - both of them - have ripped the very core principles of our founders from the government they run.
I want both of these parties booted out of office. Frankly, I think the United States should just be done with political parties altogether.
June 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well -- that was the idea in the beginning, that there would be no such thing as political parties. But it was an idea that proved counter to political reality and the reality of human nature. An absence of political parties didn't even survive Washington's administration, and the two-party system was in full force by 1800.
Unfortunately, the way the electoral system and the government itself is structured by the Constitution, it pretty much dictates a two-party system. I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
June 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed on the facts. But you have to admit, both parties have strayed FAR from what our founding fathers intended.
June 20, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that picture is even grosser than the last one.
The only "disinformationist" in this picture is Uncle Obama. He fooled us all into thinking he was righteous, when actually he's a two-faced hustler who will do and say anything to get votes.
This guy is starting to make Slick Willie seem like a man of principal.
June 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to be a troll, at least you could be entertaining or clever. Better yet, both.
June 21, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, looks like I won't be voting in November. I just can't, in good conscience vote for someone who won't fight for the Constitution. Whoever wins - it won'tbe my fault.
June 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol
June 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, considering you're a British subject, you aren't allowed to vote in the US elections anyway, so it certainly won't be your fault anyway.
;)
June 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feh. I'm certainly still a supporter, but feh.
June 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Triangulation lives! I'll bet you all thought Hillary lost the nomination...
June 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
How will he work to remove the immunity? What makes him think he can do it? Will he vote against the bill if immunity isn't removed? If he'll vote for it anyway, then why would anybody agree to take it out?
A statement doesn't suffice here. The guy needs to answer questions.
June 20, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, saying that he plans to support the bill is not an obviously expedient means of getting the retroactive immunity provision scrubbed. That said, I am willing to wait and see if he can succeed before judging him a traitor.
June 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A traitor?
I'm as disappointed as everyone around here, but let's just say that he lead the filibuster, came out in a blaze of glory and said he opposed the bill.
It still would pass, because there are too many Democrats who are willing to protect those who knew about this illegal activity and didn't do anything about it.
He gets painted by McCain and his ally, the MSM media as weak on terror, and he won't be able to rebut it as effectively.
And what happens when he loses the election? We still have a disastrous bill, and President John McCain.
June 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I guess I am surprised that you of all people would take that line, seeing as you took me to task (and rightly so, we now see) for sticking up for Obama's backing of Lieberman. Have we learned nothing - the weak-on-terror meme is a mirage. We do not lose votes by getting painted as "weak on terror." We lose votes by shamelessly capitulating to the republicans such that the electorate sees no difference between us and them. I really am not convinced that there is a political price to be paid at all for this.
Let me be clear. I am still an Obama backer and I still plan to vote for him. I am even still looking to him for the leadership which will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and unseat the abomination of retroactive immunity. If he does give in, however, to the misbegotten idea that democrats should run for office by moving half an inch to the left of where the Republicans are standing then he will have earned the disaffection which will follow.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's stood up to the weak on terror theme so far. However, people will believe something if it's repeated enough times.
By opposing FISA, he's handing ammunition to the Republicans. And the Republicans, for whatever mindnumbing reason, are still trusted more by the American public when it comes to national security.
Maybe if Obama stood up and took Feingold's stance, he'd have the gratitude of millions of hard core activist Democrats, and some libertarians in there, as well.
Great.
But I think he would diminish his chances of winning the Presidency.
There's no good way for him to handle this vote. None. Call me unprincipled, a traitor of the Constitution, whatever. I want him elected, because he is the best we've got out there running for President, and John Mccain would be a nightmare for the country. Obama isn't perfect. He's a politician. But he's better, by far, than any alternative.
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not really disagree with you in this assessment. However he votes on the FISA renewal "compromise," he will still have my vote in November (although the level of enthusiasm behind that vote will vary accordingly). If he votes for retroactive immunity, however, then "traitor" is still an apt descriptive.
If you read "traitor" as meaning "Greg's going to vote McCain or Nader," then I assure you that you were reading too much into my post. I can live with being disappointed and still realize that Obama is better than the alternative.
June 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think "traitor" is an overly strong term to use, and he's going to vote for retroactive immunity, because he's going to vote for this bill, unfortunately, so I guess you'll continue to refer to him as a traitor.
I didn't think you were going to vote for McCain or Nader. You've always seemed very reasonable. But your statement about having so much more free time because of Obama's stance on this issue troubled me. As do all the other statements about people suddenly deciding that this was the defining issue and they're now not going to vote, or volunteer, for Obama.
It's your right, of course, to do just that, but I worry about the long term consequences of that, and worry that we may be looking at President John McCain as a result next January.
June 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha, ha, ha!
Twenty bucks says Hillary votes against it.
Too late now, suckers.
June 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be interesting if you're right. She never would have voted against it while her hat was in the ring but she no longer has to tack to the center. Having said that, I think triangulation is a guiding principle for the Clintons, so I'll be surprised if she votes against it.
June 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I support Obama as much as anyone. That said: GET THAT PROVISION OUT OF THAT BILL! QUIT BEING A JACKASS!
June 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you really believe that Saint Obama is going to lift a finger to get that provision removed from the bill I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. That's typical political double-speak to cover his ass.
June 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No more money from me, Obama.
June 20, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very, very disappointing. It's hard not to see his promise to attempt to remove the provision for retroactive immunity as empty rhetoric, since I can't imagine how he thinks the Senate would actually accomplish that.
Man, I'm bummed.
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy President McCain, sucka!
June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, right.
McCain's voting against it...NOT.
June 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
idiot..
June 20, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coward!
June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bah! if he votes for this, with immunity still on it, he sucks as bad as the rest of 'em!
June 20, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No difference between Obama and McCain! Nader 2008.
June 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same old crap we heard in 2000.
Sorry, Charlie.
June 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brickheadedly literal-minded liberals like you are the reason Bush won two terms. Christ, you people make me embarrassed to support Obama.
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go support Nader, and then continue beating off in your bedroom.
June 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you retarded? I don't support Nader. You just proved my point, though, about "brickheadedly literal-minded liberals like you" pushing people to support Republicans and third parties. Cheerio!
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo asswipe, who posted:
Uh, that would be you.
June 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was sarcasm (albeit very subtle sarcasm). Pinkystab has been on our side of this contest all along. He is simply poking some gentle fun at the hotheads who are rushing to say that this statement has soured them on Obama.
June 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, if that's true, it flew right by me, and I apologize for all the invective I've thrown his/her way.
June 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But pinkystab has the BEST icon going here in this here invective-laced rhubarb. Wolverine or badger?
June 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like a 'possum to me.
June 20, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Badgers?
We don't need no stinkin'Badgers!
Or Wolverines, for that matter.
Thanks for the chuckle!
June 20, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, to me, was a pretty serious part of his comments.
I took from it, that he obviously doesnt like aspects of the FISA, and it IS a grand improvement over the old Protect America Act.
But you cant have this held up in the senate for any more longer of a period. And thats true words.
I still do hope that a collective agreement can be worked out to remove the immunity clause, as he is stating.
June 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true at all. The old FISA laws are still in effect and are perfectly sufficient to the tasks at hand. Maybe some updates would be useful but there's no rush. Why not hold off on this until after the election?
June 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. I really wish they wouldn't call it the "Protect America Act." What a bunch of horsesh*t.
2. Fisa as originally constituted was perfectly fine. All this is just a bunch of crap and cover for the war criminals. They blew it leading up to 9/11 so they pretended that fisa was out of date or some such nonesense. The original fisa was terribly weak at protecting civil liberties, but at least it was something. This is such a F*cking joke!!! I'm going to go hurl.
June 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama realizes that the American people believe in terrorists just like they believe in Santa Claus. So, he can't afford to disagree that we are in terrible danger now, and have to act quickly or....whatever. In any case we have learned a lot about Obama's courage today.
June 20, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smart insight. We have to win within the climate we are living under, not how we would wish it to be. I think we saw his courage and his intelligence on display. Takes a lot of both to go against the base in pursuit of a larger goal.
June 21, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it was only a matter of time but...
Barack Obama has disappointed me :(.
June 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama to Americans: "The truth, you want the truth. You can't handle the truth"
New McCain ad: "He stood up to the president".
WOW, wish Dems were that politically savvy.
June 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
here's a stupid question: don't we already have "retroactive immunity" in the form of presidential pardons?
Can't president bush- if he was really concerned about "protecting those who helped protect america" issue a pardon and forever relieve them of the responsibility of breaking the law?
why do we need a law for it?
June 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardons only apply to criminal charges, not civil liability. The telcos haven't been charged with any crimes, they've been sued by people for damages.
Also, I believe pardons can only be issued to individuals, not to corporations.
-- ARG
June 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dissapointed in Obama.
Disgusted by the Dems
I smell a Keith Olbermann special comment in the making.
Where does Bob Barr stand on this, he'd be wise to hit Obama about it.
June 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very disappointed. Someone else made the point that the dems fingerprints are all over this crap that the king has been doing as well, so they are willing to give cover because some in the dem leadership are culpable as well. At the end of the day, I think the most important thing when obama becomes president is full accountablity and disclosure of WTF has been going on the last 7 years. Americans and the world want to know and I think that is more of a priority than anything.
By the way, on NPR the other day I heard a european lawyer talking about the war crimes of this administration and the fact that if they go overseas when out of power there is a good chance that they will be arrested and prosecuted. What a sad day for america when we need the europeans to help us clean up our house. I would love to see these criminals sitting in the dock at the Hague, including all their enablers.
June 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.”
from crooks and liars
June 20, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now we're talking.
June 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry man. that was his statement back then.
June 20, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh wait, that was his old statement!
where's that barak?!
June 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy when you're not even in the Senate at the time to pretend that you would have voted against the Iraq resolution isn't it Barack? But damn hard when you're actually now a Senator.
You are a disgrace and a liar!
June 20, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, when did he lie? Oh yeah, he didn't, you are just a complete moron.
And he was running for the Senate at the time, do you think that was a politically easy position to take at a time you were "un-American" for not supporting Bush on the war?
June 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps it was that time back in January where Obama claimed he would filibuster any FISA legislation that included retroactive immunity? Let's see if he actually follows through with that promise. If not, I'll gladly call him a liar.
June 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well let's start with lying about "Change We Can Believe In"
What is the change Obama brings to the Senate on this issue?
June 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
When he wasn't even a Senator he says he had the courage to oppose George Bush
Now that he actually is a Senator his true colors come out
June 20, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putting your drivekl in boldface doesn't make it anymore convincing.
Obama says he'll work to remove it or support the filibuster.
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did he say that? Do you have a dated quote where he claims he'll filibuster the upcoming senate FISA vote? Or are you using that old statement of his from January '08?
June 20, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that people in the netroots will be upset, but let's be honest here. The average, voter (non-pol majority) doesn't know FISA from FICA. The same can be said of Campaign Finance Reform.
I understand that some people will withhold funds from the Obama campaign, but I would be willing to bet that after some time has passed and the Repub send out a really fierce 527 ad, people will begin to give again, because as we know while the internet is great, candidates need money to effectively fight swiftboating.
This sorta reminds me of how some dems bemoaned voters in 2000/2004 for voting/supporting a candidate based on just 1 issue (remember gay marriage amendmends in 2004, Clinton/Lewinsky/Family Values in 2000).
But as long as you still vote, I'm pretty sure that Obama will get by with the regular non-pol donaters they have.
June 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
good luck with that
June 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
People just need to calm down. Yes, this is important, but he is also committed to stripping the bill of amnesty. But in terms of the other problems out there, this isn't even close to the most important. People who are going to vote on this or withhold money on this are complete idiots, and I think most of them weren't really committed anyway, and were probably just looking for an excuse to trash on Obama.
I've seen a lot of short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness today.
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it.
You've also seen a lot of trolls spring into action today after having nothing to say for the past few weeks.
Since a lot of these posters appear to be new, it looks to be orchestrated.
June 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, after all, we'll always have HOPE. As in, HOPE that the Bush administration isn't tapping our phones. And HOPE that the telecoms will get their comeuppance in some other way.
June 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go send your $20 to Hillary.
She's getting sued by a school up in Erie, PA for not paying a campaign debt.
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a classic cop out. There are always more important issues than whatever one we are discussing at the moment. This is a core issue. Its absolutely central with respect to how we plan to treat individual liberty and the constitution. Obama has now responded to that issue, not with the strong "against" that you expected in the last thread, but with a wishy washy statement that essentially supports the bill. You hold out some hope that he will try to strip out some of the more egregious elements from the bill. Well that is unlikely to happen but I will certainly do what I can to try and help on that matter which, of course, isn't much. But it is pretty clear to me, as it doesn't seem to be to you yet, that Obama will be supporting this bill regardless. You should really start working on your arguments for giving him a pass on that now. "There are more important issues" is pretty weak.
June 20, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeap HE is just another Jimmy Carter after all, Congress won't follow Obama ANYWHERE, and he sure does talk big for being able to do nothing and having nothing behind him.
AND it took him ALL THIS DAMN time to show what a coward he is. HE WAS HIDING.
What are we voting for in the Dem Party again????
Because they do anything differently than REPUBLICIANS except of course, give Bush better deals that Republican would have given Bush?
IF Obama can't lead - and he can't, than it isn't CHANGE you can believe in because you can't believe in anything he says and Dems don't follow him, indeed they just crashed him.
And this is why Josh trashes poor old Ralph Nader, everytime poor old Ralph says "the Democrats are not any different that Republicans".
WTF, Obama, you ain't getting NO money FROM ME EVER. Change you can believe in - my ass. Obama is only 5 points over McCain - but I'd willing to bet he must be close to 0 points now and there is nowhere to go but down from here. Talk is cheap and with Obama it is worthless.
June 20, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol! you really don't know much do you?
June 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No vote here for Obama.
What he is basically saying violating and eviscerating the 4th Amendment (with the able and now soon to be immune efforts of the telcos) is a miscarriage of justice if Bush did it, but when I am in power I will, with the able and immune efforts of relcos, continue to violate and eviscerate the 4th Amendment with due respect for the people. Bullshit!
Insofar Obama speaks of change, he is another fucking fraud in a long line of the same.
DC and its current power structure need to fall hard by any means necessary.
Why do americans work and pay taxes only to pay for a government that can and does spy on them inviolation of the Constituion with impunity? All American W-2 workers should quit working for several weeks/months and cut off DC's lefe blood, taxes. Let DC collapse and then rebuild anew with all new faces.
June 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right. No king Bush; no king Obama.
What the parties have done is undo everything our founding fathers stood for. Everyone who voted for this bullshit deserves a nice new job in the private sector. And perhaps some of them deserve a special room with steel bars and an orange jumpsuit to wear.
I'm *done* with the Democratic party.
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's off to pounding your pud again, and bitching about how no one agrees with everything you do.
Amazing.
June 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it helps your candidate when you post derogatory sexual insults in a public forum.
June 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's already lost you anyway, so I say, "let 'er rip!"
LOL
June 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
and how do you suppose one senator change all of that? don't you think a president with a strong mandate for change (via a large electoral victory and congressional majority) would have a much better chance to do so?
I can't stress this enough, folks need to take the ideological blinders off and get back to reality. it's politics. it's a dirty, DIRTY game. the only guaranteed losers are the little people. that's always been the case and probably always will be. the balance in that relationship can change and Obama seems like a very good vessel through which that change can occur. Anything he can change is better than nothing but in order for even a little change to occur he's got to win. Look at the alternatives and think about how much it has sucked and would continue to suck if the dems lost again. Focus on the goal and THEN hold him to whatever standard you want. but please don't lose sight of the goal of winning this election!
this time it was the dems but the repubs are going to try all sorts of legislative tricks to get obama on the wrong side of an issue to split off chunks of his support and prevent him from getting new support. don't fall for it! let's win and then we can squabble about OUR agenda and figure out the best way to get it done.
June 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He could start with a filibuster.
June 20, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, I think some commenters here should chill and examine their kneejerk reactions. The primary thing that everyone has been clamoring for Obama to do is to speak out against and fight the telecom immunity provision of this bill. He has taken a stand and he is going to work against telecom immunity in the Senate bill. Cool off and do what you can to help defeat the immunity provision in the Senate. Contact your senators and let them know your position, and encourage others to do the same.
June 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to see how he'll be able to do that unless he's willing to vote against and filibuster the bill so long as it contains immunity.
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.”
from crooks and liars
June 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That quote is from October 2007. I don't think any clarification has been issued and that's certainly not what the campaign statement from today implies.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
that was my mistake. apologies again.
June 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just disappointing.
June 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is awful...disappointing is right...
June 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to describe how demoralizing and deflating this really is. I am losing resoect, not to mention enthusiasm, daily for Obama. He's sliding back into 'just another talk one way and then cave' Democrat.
FISA surrender, the fancy dancing on campaign limits (I know, I know, the reasons, but he said he'd try to work it out with the Repub candidate and he just plain didn't even try), the endorsement for Barrow in GA. It's hard to make the case that he's not backsliding into just another politician territory.
Given what I've seen in the last month, I would NEVER give money to the Dem party or Obama. He's better than McCain, sure, but he's a long, long way from the answer to the political problems crippling this country and it's ideals.
It's just so sad because he did get our hopes up and now it's apparent it'll be more of the same.
June 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have to say I am also extremely disappointed although not surprised. This is a thorny issue for him.
This definitely falls into the 'I don't agree with all of his positions' category.
However it doesn't make me any less likely to vote for him - I still trust his view on the constitution and executive power more than McCain and even Clinton. So those of you threatening to not vote or vote for Nader- think about that. Who would you rather have this law in the hands of? McCain or Obama?
He will dissappoint us all again I am sure but I still have faith that he is on the correct side of most of our issues. So far.
June 20, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one is perfect, and there is still a possibility we can strip it of immunity in the Senate.
I'm just sick of all of these people who are acting like they were just told there was no santa claus, as if they actually thought he'd sound like Kucinich or Feingold on every single issue.
Hell, he just said this, minus immunity, is about as good as they are going to get right now, and that is the political reality. Is his response perfect? No. Could any statement by him satisfy everyone? No. I can't fault him too much for this, and I look forward to seeing the Dems strip immunity from this in the Senate.
June 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right - this is the most we could expect at present. Those who are taking this opportunity to declare the end of the world, the end of Obama, the end of the Democrats and the end of America need to examine their motivations. If they really give a damn, they will start flooding their senators with calls, Emails and faxes demanding removal of telecom immunity from the Senate bill.
June 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very disappointed in the FISA Compromise, but reading Obama's statement, he leaves open the option to work to strip the immunity parts of the bill. It seems to be the type of carefully worded statement that people make when they're running for President. Keeping that in mind, I'll be watching closely to see how this process unfolds.
I'm mostly disappointed because this statement will give rise to a whole new breed of internet troll.
June 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and they're already in evidence on this thread.
June 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I loved that last sentence. Very, very funny. Thanks.
June 20, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"new breed of internet troll".
Yeah, the ones that will start every message with "I was for Obama until that FISA stand..." and then continue on to rip Obama apart.
And end with a statement about how there's really no difference between Obama and McCain, so the commenter is going to vote for Nader.
June 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be very fair, at least one of the folks on this thread taking that line is clearly doing so with his tongue planted firmly in his cheek. In other words, many of these folks may not be trolls so much as extremely subtle snarkers.
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too subtle for this reader, though I don't do good with that kind of subtle. Would you say that commenter was you?
June 21, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha, as if the Dems could maintain party unity 'til November. Oh well, this fantasy was good while it lasted. See you in 2012.
June 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good riddance.
...and go tell Nader we still think he's a knee-jerk asshole, just like you.
June 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm outta the office for the week, and so I hereby retract my earlier cynicism. G'day!
June 20, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retroactive immunity is not the only problem. On a foward looking basis so long as telcos reasonably followed an request from the feds (not supported by a warrant) then they are immune. This simply makes the 4th amendment only subject of a bullshit request to a telco. This is wholly unacceptable and a complete evisceration of the 4th Amnendment.
June 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable.
Change my ass. This is just total fucking horse shit.
Obama has been making some serious right turns recently.
I'm sorry but, whatever we might like him to be, it's clear that, at best, he's a centrist accomodater.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm...I don't know if anyone thought of this, but Bush has consistently vowed to veto any bill that doesn't have immunity, so what Obama is saying is that if he had his way, the bill would be doomed to execution.
This way, Obama can say he stood for the compromise, and blame BUSH for killing it. Which is pretty brilliant.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama pulls off FISA legislation that obtains a veto, then victory is his.
June 20, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point! If we've learned anything by now, it's that Obama goes for long-term planning over expediency every time.
Keep that light of truth shining!
June 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant for you, Lux Veritas : : :
June 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that is a happy thought to think. Here's hoping that this is exactly the sort of plan at work. I guess we will know shortly when he either succeeds or fails to get the retroactive immunity provision scrubbed.
June 20, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that is the definition of politics as usual. Lots of partisan posturing and finger-pointing...and zero accomplishments.
Great strategy.
In the end Obama has great rhetoric and no principles. Thi is not someone who can be trusted to do the right thing when it has consequences. He is no leader.
June 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just called Clinton's office. Her staff says she is against the bill. I didn't hear that she would vote "no," but it seemed indicated.
Good for Clinton! Krugman deserves to get a good gloat out of this one! So does Greg, whose taken a lot from Obama supporters.
The good news here:
Let's face it, some of us Obama supporters may need a little "kick in the pants" to get us moving on issues as people who love our country. In this sense, even if we like a candidate, and even as we work to get a Democratic Congress and presidency, we still have to fight on the issues. Our office holders -- and candidates -- represent us.
So let's get back to the issues, and stop fighting each other over the Clinton vs. Obama celebrity death match.
A quick note to those who say they won't vote for Obama now:
Do you want a McCain Supreme Court? Think of what you are doing. I worked with the Green's back in 2000, thinking my 'protests' were righteous.
Do you ya kind of wish us Green's hadn't been so GoshDarned Righteous?
Stop being right, and just get us out of this mess. Show your anger by fighting this compromise -- make your statement that way. Be a citizen, be active on the issues, make Obama listen because he has to.
He's still who he was yesterday. He's still the guy who voted for the 2005 energy bill, still the guy who voted for Torte reform, and yes, still the guy who voted against the war, voted against lobbying, voted pro-choice and who has developed an incredible base. He's still, in other words, a politician.
We are the people. We are the ones who matter. Now we need to give him some leadership.
June 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I always rolled my eyes in disbelief everytime I heard someone say, "this nation is going to hell in a hand basket!" I never could understand that, until now.
A part of the oath of office an official takes in Washington is to uphold the constitution and to protect it. I can't get over how hypocritical our politicians are, even now Obama.
There's a famous quote from Nixon, "if the president says it's legal, then it is legal." (or something like that) Last I checked, this used to be a democracy. Nixon sounded like a dictator. The congress is giving our presidential office dictatorial powers. Today is the first time I am NOT proud to be an american. This country is going to hell in a hand basket, and Obama is helping. There is no excuse, none whatsoever, that allows anyone to say our right to privacy is negotiable.
June 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much as I am tempted to immediately cut my ties to Obama over this, we will need to wait for next week to see how he behaves in the Senate. But his weasely statement today is not a good omen.
Sure if he folds, I'll still vote for him, but no more than that.
June 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha, this post is why Republicans keep getting elected.
June 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wake up! The immunity provision will stay in. Watch the Senate pass it.
Money trumps the Constitution.
June 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
what a joke. back to business as usual. shame on you barack.
June 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, how do Obama followers spin this one? Just think of all those comments that everyone wrote and made about Hoyer and substitute Obama's name..............
June 20, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question now becomes: If the Senate doesn't strip the immunity portion will Obama vote for it or against it?
June 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed, but I'm going to hold off any kind of hissy fit mode until we see what actually happens with the immunity fight. I sincerely hope they'll be able to cut it in the Senate, and I'm writing my senators about it. I suggest others do the same.
June 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your avatar is completely appropriate for this thread. Too funny.
June 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Everyone on this thread should be letting their senators know their position. Especially those of you who are doing the blog-comment equivalent of turning beet-red with fury - it's time to come down from Mt. Righteous and engage in a little participatory democracy. That's how the system works - in increments of one, with your participation. Neither Obama nor anyone else is going to come swooping in to make everything instantly right.
June 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't expect them to make everything instantly right. We do expect them to try.
June 20, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's more than the immunity. The whole bill sucks!
June 20, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
perhaps some here may recall that the Senate passed a version giving the telecoms everything they wanted and that it was the house that took a stand.
i don't hold out much hope that a senate version will be markedly different.
June 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the most proactive thing any of us can do at this point is this:
Write the Obama campaign. Tell them that this is unacceptable. Tell them that if Obama does not reverse his stance, that you will not donate to the campaign any more and that you will not vote for him.
Make Obama earn your vote. Don't let him take it for granted.
He seems to think that, having won the primary, he's free to drift as far to the right as he wants. But we need to remember that he is a public servant. He serves us. If he fails to do so, well, then it will be clear that we were wrong about him.
June 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA has no need to be "updated". The fact is BuschCo broke the law and this bill is simply a effort to 1) immunize them from prosecution and 2) allow them to continue the same newly bahviours. Absolute tyranny. If BO is unwilling to articulate why this bill is wrong and just goes along with the bought & paid for Dem's like Rockefeller, Hoyer, Feinstein then this is a very bad omen for any real change.
June 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
'real change' on the level you seem to imply requires guns and riots in the streets to completely overthrow the system currently in place.
Are you down?
Or are you just sitting in an air conditioned room bitching and moaning about how all the politicians are crooked? if you think it's so easy, run for office yourself. Or start your own party! That's the beauty of our country, you can do that!
we'll see how long your principles last...
bottom line, the political system is inherently corrupt. in order for an individual (no matter how well-intentioned) to rise up in it that individual is going to have to compromise with people they don't agree with on issues they don't agree about. in a certain sense it's kind of like marriage. ask any married person if they get everything they want, the way they want, when they want it every time!? yeah right. doesn't happen that way. same deal for politics.
so instead of sitting here bitching about it, get out there and BE the change you want. if you're the one who's going to get all corruption out of politics, i'll support you!
June 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about instead of violence, the netroots organize a General Strike instead. Shut down this economy until our representatives and the executive undo these chains they have bound upon their citizens.
June 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about I wish everything was perfect?
June 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi has to go. I will work actively to get her out of office until she is gone. Same for Hoyer.
As of this statement, Obama has simply lost my vote.
If he votes FOR this bill, I work actively against him for President, and work as hard as I can to have him replaced in the Senate when his term comes up.
Simply calling yourself the opposition party is no longer good enough.
June 20, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you.
June 20, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we get a McCain Supreme Court just so people can protest?
If that your vote is your strongest form of protest, you have forgotten what Democracy is all about.
It is not just about casting a ballot in November. It is about organizing for change.
If you want to make change, then work for it. Check out FireDogLake and Glenn Greenwald -- they are doing great stuff, raising money to get rid of "blue-dog" Democrats who vote with Republicans, and getting progressives elected.
Join the ACLU.
But a protest vote? I understand you are angry, but that's pretty darned whimpy.
Again: Think McCain Supreme Court.
Just think. Please!
I wish you the best,
Laura
June 20, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't want a McCain Supreme Court, then pressure your candidate to stop pandering to the right.
June 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly my point.
June 20, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some issues matter more than party affiliation. This is one of them. The United States will continue sliding toward totalitarianism if our leaders continue behaving in this way. This is unacceptable for any candidate.
Don't wave that Supreme Court canard in front of me like it matters. It doesn't. These actions show that the court and the legislature doesn't matter. All that matters is what the executive wants.
I think if this persists, regardless of who wins the solution is a General Strike against the entire economy to force the issue of civil rights.
June 20, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of things:
Already a member of ACLU, support them with action and with money.
Already have contributed to the ACTBlue PAC.
Have been writing, blogging, protesting, etc. for several years, feel like I had something, maybe even a lot to do with helping to get Dems elected in 2006.
I write and call my congress-people regularly... and they have sold me out. Me and a little thing called the Constitution.
If I choose to protest with my vote, that is my choice. I'm not so foolish that I would allow four more years of McSame, but that doesn't mean Obama is guaranteed my vote.
Your rational of why I should vote for Obama is the very reason they take all of us for granted.
Nader was right. The game is rigged.
June 20, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent suggestion
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You comment cracked me up. Mostly because I think many of us are about to crack and I completely identify.
June 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will reserve judgement until I see how this goes down in the Senate. Fingers-crossed....
(I was a bit hot under the collar when I first posted on this thread. Pelosi got me REAL mad today.)
June 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the part for me that is weak. To show leadership, he could've said more. Indeed, if he really wanted to strip immunity from the Senate version, he would've expanded on the issue and been more forceful. Saying he'll work on it isn't saying much. No promises, and not exactly a tough stance for someone trained as a civil rights lawyer. I expect more from Obama.
If you did too, call his office and let him know:
1-866-675-2008
June 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
This "compromise" has been signed off on by the Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate.
That means it has the votes to pass as it stands.
"Work in the Senate to remove this provision" merely means move an amendment to that effect, make a speech, and watch it get roundly defeated.
Then back the bill.
The votes to sustain a filibuster are not there.
I'd love to see an actual filibuster, but it won't happen.
Anyone who imagines this bill will get fixed in the Senate has an overactive imagination.
June 20, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
But I would still like to see Obama fight the good fight and take a stand.
June 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uncle O strikes again.
June 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missouri Voter always has the best, most well thought out comments. IMHO. Kudos, sir!
June 20, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to the very strong statements against this bill from Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy and Robert Wexler, Obama's statement is like slightly watered down White House Kool-Aid. Even the aide at my Congressman's office (he's a Blue Dog who acts like a White House lapdog), "But it hasn't passed the Senate yet!" My attitude is this: We have had all the shilly-shallying any one country and any one party (the Dems) shoiuld have to tolerate. If you fel strongly about the 4th Amendment, then say so and vote NO on this bill! Quit wasting our time by shuffling your feet and hoping we'll change the subject or that others will do the hard work of defeating this Constitution-crushing legislation! AaarrrrggggghhhhhH!!!!!!
June 20, 2008 5:59 PM |