Obama Social Networking Group Forms -- To Pressure Obama On FISA
There's been a bunch of speculation about what will happen after the election to the formidable Internet social networking tools Obama's Internet operation has spawned, such as the networking groups over at MyBarackObama, for instance.
Well, here's one interesting possibility: What if they were used in some way to oppose Obama on one issue or another?
That's already happened in one case. Over on Barack Obama's Web site, someone has set up a new social networking group devoted solely to getting Obama to oppose the FISA bill he announced his support for earlier this week.
It's got almost 500 members, which is dwarfed by other MyBo groups, though it's only been existence for 24 hours. This is perhaps suggestive of what this machinery could be used for on occasion if Obama makes it into the White House.
Countdown to when MSM starts saying "The Democrats are in disarray over FISA, and even Obama supporters are starting to doubt him".....
June 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliantly engineered trainwreck here by the netroots. Way to go in these quixotic ideological battles that only hurt our cause!!! It's a great chance for all the still-bitter Kucinich supporters to revive their grievances about "if only", instead of, you know, actually working to win the election. Hey, why don't we spend the next five months daydreaming about "what it" Feingold ran for president!! Wouldn't that be swell.
The left wins ONE election cycle (one!!) and is already resting on its laurels.
I even heard someone say "Obama has a 12 point lead, so he can afford to lose a few point by voting against FISA". Can you believe this? Obviously doesn't remember any of the lesson of the past 10-20-30 years.
June 27, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
But at least they're pure.
June 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
sure. blame the folks who are RIGHT. its all their fault. it couldn't possibly be obama's fault for being WRONG. no way. far better to shoot the messengers. god forbid they speak the truth. especially to power.
June 29, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, it ia about us and not him, if I remember correctly.
June 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to say, this election is not about us, but it's about Michelle Obama. We want to get Obama elected so Michelle can be realy, realy be proud of America. We don't matter to the Obamas.
June 27, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That didn't even make sense as a joke.
June 28, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he votes against the FISA bill he'll be hammered just like Max Cleland was for not supporting the Patriot act. Any hope he had of winning the close Red States would evaporate...and he knows it.
June 27, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, maybe not. Secret police are not popular. I would be willing to take my chances that the electorate is not nearly so sold on warrantless wiretaps as you suppose.
June 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats ever framed this in terms of "secret police", I'd agree with you. However, since they've demonstrated, repeatedly, that they are inept framers of important issues, I have to agree with SFC Wallace on this.
(As you already know).
June 27, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
...well, it's not "warrantless wire taps" it's data minnig to establish calling patterns, then warrants issued to wire tap suspicious callers.
June 27, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Toh-MAY-toh, toh-MAH-toh. It is spying on average citizens. I doubt that many average citizens would care for it if it were called out by name, and Obama is the sort of candidate who could make people pay attention when he did the calling out. I am not still not convinced that this issue would be the sort of loser for democrats that you and CT Voter are claiming.
June 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you remain unconvinced that being against FISA would be a loser I for one am glad that you are not part of Sen Obama's strategy team. The sheeple would all bleat for McCain.
June 27, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr Geater,
There are a million and one reasons to be glad that I am not on Sen Obama's strategy team. If you are glad that I am not part of that team, then this is a point on which we very much agree.
June 27, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me to.
June 28, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except as I said downthread - Americans by and large are convinced that they aren't being wiretapped because they didn't do anything wrong.
It's not that they are sanguine about their own phone being tapped - it's that they don't believe it would be because they haven't given the government any reason. That's where the stumbling block is with the public.
June 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. People don't care about this, and if they did think about it, they'd probably say "So? What's the big deal? I've got nothing to hide...and hey, if this helps catch Osama bin Laden, I'm all for it"
However, I do think if you talked about it as an issue of "secret police", people would start caring. Why the Democrats didn't think of that already is puzzling.
June 27, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
then the public need to be shown how abuses of the program can lead to it being used to blackmail leaders of govt and corps. The public believes in corruption, I assume.
June 27, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe the problem is that folks like you don't even realize that the gov't IS spying on you even though you haven't done anything wrong.
because THAT is what this is all about. no wonder you don't get it. you consistently have no idea what you are talking about.
June 29, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if he votes for it, we'll hammer him for that. There really are times that you just can't please everybody. So if you're trying to look at this in pure electoral terms then the question is simply whether (with democratic self-identification at record high margins against republican self-identification) there is more risk in angering the GOP roots that are going to be attacking him anyway; or the Democratic roots on whom his success so far has been built.
At any rate, there's absolutely no benefit in looking at the world this way. "But if we don't do what the Republicans want they'll run ads against us" was the guiding principle of the Democratic Party from 2001 on and it is the reason why the Democrats kept losing everything they entered-- why vote for the people who are trying to convince you they're Repubilcans, when you can just vote for actual Republicans? Whereas the brief abandonment of this logic in 2006 is one of the big reasons the Democrats did so well this year. As long as Democrats allow fear of Republican retaliation to guide their policies, they will always lose.
June 27, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't 2006 the election when if we gave the Democrats a majority they were going to end the war?
June 27, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't 2006 the election when if we gave the Democrats a majority they were going to end the war?
Yup. And the success of that message-- hedged or muted as it may have been-- tells you all you need to know about how real a threat that being "hammered like Max Cleland" is now that Bush and his movement are in 30% territory.
June 27, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...now that Bush and his movement are in 30% territory."
Uh Nancy, Harry and the gang are at 17%...
June 27, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace says;
"...now that Bush and his movement are in 30% territory."
Uh Nancy, Harry and the gang are at 17%..."
Um, aren't there some Republicans in Congress, or are you including Boehner and McConnell in "the gang"?
June 27, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
30%! Wow! I can see now why they just re-funded the war, drafted a new bill to enable war with Iran, and surrendered the 4th amendment to the Commander in Chief! You know, you can't pass a bill without 60 votes so you can see why they have no choice at all and are totally powerless just like we have no choice but to vote them in again because if we don't vote them in again we might have war. We still have war? I guess I just don't do math.
June 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Whereas the brief abandonment of this logic in 2006 is one of the big reasons the Democrats did so well this year. As long as Democrats allow fear of Republican retaliation to guide their policies, they will always lose." Except that most of the new gains in your party were "Heath Schulers" who are bashed daily here with threats to run them out of the party if they don't move left. Obama doesn't need to please the far right, he needs to avoid scaring off the center.
June 27, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very astute observation. Kudos. Are you sure that you aren't a democrat?
June 27, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha...never! I even voted for Ford against Carter in a Middle School straw poll way back in the day.
June 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I voted for nixon over mcgovern. Shows you how things change.
June 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is an astute observation.
LOL
June 27, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The center isn't looking for a particular stance on a particular issue. That's why they're on the fence. They're looking for personal integrity - which is why triangulating Democrats have lost their vote so often in the past 20 years.
June 27, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad you mentioned Heath Shuler who is a real true "red" democrat. I called and talked w/ his campaign manager, Andrew Weyland, who first said he didn't know if he recieved PAC money from the telecoms, then he said he wasn't sure if he did and then he told me I would have check w/ the FEC report to know whether or not he got their money. I checked and he has a ton of telecom PAC money and he refuses to endorse Barack as well. We don't need these type of democrats in congress. I plan to work very hard in 2010 to get him replaced with a progressive democrat.
June 27, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, a "progressive" democrat would never get elected in his district. The dem party is a big tent and we can have dissenters on some issues, unlike republicans. We need blue dogs to help maintain power and push the country in the right direction. We don't need the south to look like the NE for republicans, with only one congressperson.
June 27, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama1st says;
"I plan to work very hard in 2010 to get him (Schuler) replaced with a progressive democrat.
Republicans don't move to the center; when the Democrats do, they're moving from the DLC Center to the right, and you see what that gets us.
Run libs against the Blue Dogs in the 2010 primaries, lets see how many we can knock off.
June 27, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? So there are more republicans in congress? That makes sense.
June 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
look closer at my post, I was suggesting we replace a Blue Dog with liberal in the Primary.
Looking at what the conservatives have rought us, replacing a Blue Dog with a Liberal is no guarantee we'll get a Repub.
Because of the Blue Dogs, the Bush gang and the Republicans are getting just about all they want from Congress.
June 27, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read your post and my point is that a liberal would get demolished in blue dog democrat areas, which in turn would mean more republicans in congress. The blue dogs aren't driving what congress is doing. Pelosi is doing an excellent job as speaker. When she absolutely needs them, they are there. When they can vote against the dem agenda on matters that will make them appear more conservative, she lets them do it. We need dems to maintain the majority, not to pile on votes on matters that might be politically damaging in their districts. In the house all you need is one extra vote to get things passed and you would never get enough liberal democrats in congress to over ride a veto by the king. We need dems, not just liberal ones.
June 27, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
the Blue Dogs are aligned with the republicans on a number of important issues such as the recent
FISA bill, which I said in my earlier post gave Bush and the Republicans all they wanted.
What you seem ready to accept is a two party system;
Republicans and Republican Lite, as long as the Republican Lites (Democrats) are in the majority.
June 27, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, not interested in republican-lite, that was the clinton administration of the 90's. However, I would rather have pols from areas that agree with me on somethings as opposed to disagreeing with me on all matters. I don't expect a pol to agree with me 100%, especially from a red district in NC. Why throw the seat away to a repubican that will fight to prevent anything from being accomplished? That is cutting your nose off despite your face. A liberal democrat would not win in shuler's district and in fact probably wouldn't win the primary anyway. Why waste the time, energy and money and sacrifice the seat? Seems silly to me.
Also, I was all over the fisa thing, like you are, but I am not any more. I want a dem in the whitehouse and huge majorities in the house and senate. That's much more important. And, the fisa issue can be addressed through investigations of the bush administration by the democratic congress and the obama administration. Again, that's much more important than a temporary set back.
June 27, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
He already voted against the Protect America Act once, so he'll be 'hammered' on this no matter what he does next.
Besides voting for bad stuff because you're afraid of getting "hammered" on it in the media is the definition of being a pussy and it's what got democrats in so much trouble over the past few years.
The era of being afraid of republicans is over. The democrats stood up against this bullshit once, and nothing bad happened. They let the protect america act expire, and nothing bad happened.
No, this is all about corrupt democrats helping out their corporate lobbyist friends. It's disgracefull.
June 27, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
With sixty-one percent of Americans expressing disapproval of warrantless wiretapping, this seems hardly a concern, although it is hard to know how those numbers would hold if there were to be an attack.
June 27, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Obama will be hammered for being weak on terrorism and all that anyway. Voting for a bad FISA bill won't make any difference on that at all. Besides, that's not what the vote is about. It's about giving the telecom companies what they want. That's why Pelosi and Hoyer and Emmanual are all gung ho for this. Have you seen how much money they got from the big telecoms? It tells the whole story.
Second, you don't know that voting the right way on FISA is going to have any particular impact in the red states anymore than anywhere else. That's nothing more but conjecture on your part based on fear and on a complete lack of confidence in standing up for what is right. It's certainly an available choice. It's just a bad choice and it's the same bad choice fraidy cat DC Democrats have been making for years now. Some people never learn.
June 27, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no acceptable excuses for being unprincipled or even worse, abandoning your principles for short term gain. There is a very severe price for such action and it appears Sen. Obama will learn this the hard way. It's too bad that the candidate of change is too weak to change anything other than his mind.
June 27, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this group grows rapidly. This is a real test of his new politics. Will this stay up on the site? I think so. This could be a wonderful model for the post election period. The core reason I have been attracted to Obama's candidacy is his background as an organizer. Organizers must listen to and engage their constituents. Social networking groups allow for this process on a huge scale. Let's see what happens.
June 27, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr Sargent,
Thanks for pointing this out. I was not aware of it before, but I just joined.
June 27, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is a mistake to try and crush him with this point during the GE season.
However, whether these networking groups can affect change when he is in office is a great point to make.
My biggest hope from this entire campaign is that when he takes office, these mobilized groups will be able to put pressure on Obama and the congress through coordinated campaigns.
Of course, he is going to tack to the middle during the election season. The hope is that these groups can push him to govern from the left while in office.
June 27, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's fine if people want to organize and encourage him to support a cause they believe in as long as they do it constructively (i.e. not disregarding every other issue and turn on him just because he disagrees with the best way to resolve this one right now). But, it will probably all just get blown out of proportion anyway, as CTVoter suggested.
June 27, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama votes for FISA, I'll vote for McCain (even if he also votes for FISA, and against abortion, and for torturing American citizens at random). Also, I'm boycotting Dunkin' Donuts, and Duncan Sheik, since he should obviously change his name if he doesn't want to be associated with those consumerist fascists. And I'm going on a hunger strike to protest telecom immunity. As soon as I get back from lunch, I swear. But the jar of peanuts under my desk doesn't count.
June 27, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You go, Baby! But, no hunger strikes. Milk does a body good.
June 27, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you stick with Obama, once he has he power to exercise principle, Steny Hoyer, Jane Harman, John Barrow, Claire McCaskill, Jay Rockefeller and the rest of the Democrats who fought tooth and nail for this will then follow his leadership with a bill to repeal this.
June 27, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not for a moment believe that, but it is a lovely thought. I would pay good money to see my senator (Claire McCaskill) put forward a bill to repeal the present FISA renewal disaster. Of course, that would be too little, too late, because immunity, once granted, cannot be revoked, but it would still be a sight worth seeing.
June 27, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep forgetting to use my tags.
June 27, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
sarcasm tags
June 27, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I see. Got it now.
June 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love people involved in our government, since that was the whole point in the beginning.
So I like thinking there will be groups who can leverage our issues.
The only thing about this that bothers me is that I think it's a no brainer for Obama, cause if anything did happen before November, and god knows the Repugs are hoping it does, they would hammer him into the ground on his vote if he votes against it.
maybe that doesn't matter - I don't know. I love my rights and don't have any attention of giving them up. I just believe that our clearest case against Bush is: lying his way in the AUMF and war crimes.
I think those are gimmes.
June 27, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink