Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer
Here's what's so dispiriting about it. One of the riveting things about Barack Obama's candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country.
Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk "tough." His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong.
Obama has done this already in this general election -- repeatedly. And no doubt he will do it again and again and again in the months ahead. Not this time.
To be clear, I'm not even talking about whether opposing this would or wouldn't have carried political peril. It really doesn't matter. Because if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.
And this time, he abandoned that premise.
Late Update: Glenn Greenwald, a leading critic of Obama on this, sends me his skeptical take on why he thinks Obama's promise to work on the bill in the Senate doesn't change anything:
"I think we do a grave disservice if we try to convince people that Obama is really going to work to get amnesty out of the bill. Reid is already saying it's just theater -- they know it's going to fail -- it's just a way, Reid said, to let people "express themselves." It's all designed to let Obama say, once he votes for this bill: "Well, I tried to get amnesty out." He's going to vote for amnesty -- and his statement today seals the fate of this bill. Why sugar coat that?"
You saw he wants to get rid of immunity, right?
June 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, but does that change it? that's a real question.
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes it does. Immunity is the part that really stings. We cannot afford to bicker in characteristic fashion while Republicans slaughter us and laugh afterwards. In an election where there is palpable GOP discontent towards McCain, we cannot outdo our opponents in fratricide.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
Bickering in characteristic fashion is a strong suit of Democrats.
Meanwhile, Republicans keep getting elected.
June 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, we get off on losing elections by being dumbasses like this.
People need to quit acting like a bunch of spiteful children and get to work pressuring Senators to kill immunity. And if that doesn't work, it isn't because of Obama, it is because we have a less than ideal Congress full of Republicans and conservative Democrats, and we need to keep our eyes on the prize and work our asses off to get Obama in the White House, Republicans out on their asses, and to upgrade corporate Democrats to progressive ones.
Obama isn't the bad guy here and this mess isn't his fault, and he is essentially doing the only thing he can in this situation to do whats right, which is to target the immunity provision and take it down in the Senate. Let's act like we are party here and do whatever we can to win.
June 20, 2008 5:04 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 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for listing the number, but it leads to nowhere. No operators available and you can't leave a message either...
June 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try again. You dialed wrong, or it is after-hours at the office. Choose extension '6' when the automatic routing system recording comes on, and you'll get a live person.
June 20, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Obama is working for his position and in the end is going to lose, but that's democracy. We can have another crack at this statute. I'm not a fan of retroactive immunity, but if it becomes part of the bill, it would also strip the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination - no resulting prosecutions, but we do have a shot at finding out who has been giving us the Big Ear. The doctrine of unintended consequences swinging our way?
Meanwhile, the statute will be less offensive than it was, and Congress is reaserting constitutional powers that the Repubs had allowed to be usurped by the President, all at about the time the millenial King George is about to be swept from the throne.
Two steps forward, one step back, kinda funky, and kinda twisted... but compromise on an important subject and better than what we had.
June 20, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're too intelligent for some of the knee-jerks lurking around.
Well-stated.
June 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a fan of retroactive immunity, but if it becomes part of the bill, it would also strip the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination - no resulting prosecutions, but we do have a shot at finding out who has been giving us the Big Ear.
No. That is incorrect. There will be absolutely mechanism to find out anything when this bill passes which now it apparently will. How would we? In what context would we have any standing or any forum to examine these programs and what they entailed? The answer is none. The civil suits were our only opportunity to do so. Any attempts to address the Administration in a legal setting will end as they always do, with a claim of executive privilege. End of story.
June 20, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, according to John Dean, the language re immunity (which is apparently somewhat ambiguous in the FISA cave-in) may simply be in regard to civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. And Obama, in the past, has talked about looking into criminal prosecutions against the telecoms if he's elected.
Lotta ifs in that sentence, but possibly he has something like that in mind.
June 20, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kowrecked! People all over this board are throwing under the bus. I heard Dean say that, too, and John Dean is no dumbass. It just may be that Obama is a little bit smarter than we think he is. I think we need to let this play out before we get all whacked out about it.
Thanks for this, Lynn Dee.
June 20, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
^^^ "... throwing Obama under the bus ..."
June 20, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I've also heard the immunity is restricted to civil. Also agree it's two steps forward, one back, it could be better, bu it could be worse.
Glad to see some informed and reasonable people here. There are way too many knee jerkers.
June 21, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I just posted the same thing, but as I said in that post, it needs to be said again and again.
June 20, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one is tough for me, working in the telecom industry. The initial surveillance right after 9/11 strikes me as both a prudent use of government resources in a very panicky situation, and for awhile some leeway in the President doing what is necessary for our safety. What I really object to is 1) the attempts at surveillance prior to 9/11 (which this bill does NOT grant immunity for) and 2) the continued use of this technique instead of approaching Congress (until it was exposed in the press) about passing legislation in a bipartisan manner to address the issues. This was clearly done in order to keep it a political issue for the GOP "permanent majority." So, I'm personally stuck, for a year or so immunity would be alright, but really once it is happening, for the telecoms to turn it off would have been really asking a lot. These are companies who, frankly, responded to what they thought was a lawful order, as explained by Ws lawyers (who we now know we can't trust, but did we know that in 2002?) Also, since the legislation clarifies that there is no other wiretap or surveillance authority than this legislation and existing criminal statutes, an important Congressional power is made manifest.
We have to really ask ourselves if something else dramatic happens, and the President approaches a company on an urgent basis with what it claims is a lawful but secret order, would we want them to say no? Ideally, we would give leeway without statutory authority but only for a limited time; so for instance this immunity would not apply to any current or future wiretapping activity not explicitly covered by the statute, even if it was a continuation of an activity that was indemnified. Dont know enough legally, but again asking companies to oversize legal restraint when the very real threat at the time was that another strike could happen is unfair. Imagine the opposite: a company refuses (like Quest) *resulting* in deaths. The outrage would be even worse than now, and the lawsuits for wrongful death would be immediate.
June 20, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that companies would turn down such requests for help in protecting the country is a non-issue. Bush confused a lot of people with that one. Corporations and individuals are legally bound to assist, its not a choice.
June 20, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 21, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
nazettar,
It is true that corporations can be compelled to fulfill lawful national security requests made by the government. In this case all prior precedent was clear that the request was unlawful and the telecoms without question knew this. The question of secrecy is a red herring. Secret requests are commonplace. So I will rephrase the question: if immunity is not granted should we fear that corporations will think twice before fulfilling unlawful national security requests to snoop on the American people? I sure as hell hope so.
Such fear-mongering arguments only serve to obfuscate the reality that our constitutional liberties are at risk, and Americans are being bamboozled into gratefully giving up our rights out of fear and ignorance. There is absolutely no reason the Bush Administration couldn't have gone to the FISA court after 9/11 and obtained permission to tap the phones of suspected terrorists etc. In fact, the law as is stood and stands allows them to begin spying and then get permission retroactively. Of course they knew they wouldn't be granted unlimited spying powers, so they did it in secret, relying on the complicity of the telecoms to keep their secret.
Power is corrupting and must be curtailed -- this is the defining premise of the separation of powers, and underlies the 4th amendment and all precedents derived therefrom. Before you run in fear of terrorists into the arms of government, get some damned education, would you?
June 21, 2008 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
YankeeFree;
Every corporation in the world have attorneys whose responsibilities include Constitutional Law. It is basic Con Law that the Court, NOT the President determine what is lawful. No where in the Constitution is the Executive Branch granted any interpretive power with respect to the law. The Attorneys of the Telecom Companies had a legal duty to so inform their CEO's and if necessary take it to Court to determine their legal responsibility.
If you will recall one of the companies did refuse to cooperate and although they were "punished" with respect to future government projects, there was no legal action brought against them for their refusal.
The companies that did go along with Bush's coercion now must pay the legal price. THAT is what is cut and dried under the law.
Unless of course the FISA Bill grants them retroactive immunity.
BTW-did everyone see that a CA Court did not accept the Executive's argument that the information was secret and could not be made available. Basically, the Court ordered discovery to go forth.
July 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No firend, it is not democracy: it is theatrics!
They are staging this classic Washington style three card monty so they can go ahead and blow the telecom execs and get their 20 pieces of silver out if it while saying to the public Obama and others opposed it but could not stop it from passing. It's nothing but theatrics and lies! Democracy it ain't! Quite the contrary.
June 20, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I meant "friend"
June 20, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually this bill is more offensive then before, and reasserts nothing. FISA included language making it the "exclusive" avenue for the executive from the beginning, and as Sen. Kit Bond has stated, "the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."
June 21, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. Great comment.
June 21, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, what part of "I'll vote for it whether or not it has immunity in it" did you not understand?
Telecom immunity is a done deal. Voting for it means he supports it. How is it possible, exactly, to say "I don't support this bill" and then vote for it?
Second, "I'll do whatever it takes to win" is, in point of fact, Politics As Usual (TM) in Washington. Now, tell me again, exactly how is that "Change you can believe in"? I missed that part.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voting for it does not mean he's for amnesty. It means what he said, that he's voting for the bill as the best deal they can cut.
It's tradition that many will vote with a bipartisan majority, to show solidarity with a fraction of their party, in this case Bluedogs. It's reciprocated later, in a reverse situation. When for example Pelosi may pass Progressive legislation with moderate Republicans, and Bluedogs will vote with the majority out of solidarity, and some Republicans will vote with their moderates out of solidarity.
It's important to understand no outcomes are changed, it's done for symbolic reasons of party unity.
Whether or not it makes sense, is questionable but that's a longstanding parliamentary tradition, in both parties, and around the world.
June 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, my two cents worth: Many of the low information voters in OH
July 3, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid will see to it that Obamas back is covered in the Senate. We do not need any more terrorist crap being sold in the General Election. Lets face it. It is a done deal. I am as infuriated as anyone else and have sent many e mails to Pelosi,Reid and Hoyer. We are going to have to eat this fisa bill for a while in order to get Obama in a position to do something about it. Feingold or Dodd will try to filibuster to no avail.
June 21, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention Bluedogs, who are siding with Republicans on FISA.
There's going to be a lot of bellyaching and trolling to claim that because Obama can't magically solve everything, before he's even in office, he's a letdown.
It's just the usual sour grapes, tantrums, and fifth columns. Not to mention freepers.
:rolleyes:
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once he gets into office it'll be too late for him to do anything. The lawsuits will have been tossed. The time is now.
June 20, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. The time is definitely not now. If he presses this issue now, it will only weaken his chances to win the election. Voters on the left can't hand him a win. There aren't enough of us. He's got to expand his support. And taking a left-leaning position on this will do nothing but harm his chances in the general. He's playing this one exactly as he needs to.
June 21, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
so are there any issues or principles that obama shouldn't run to the right on just so he can "win"??
June 22, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's only a letdown to the people who believed that "change you can believe in" was ever anything other than a snappy bumpersticker slogan. Any promise that he would be an exceptional President fades as the bloom comes off his candidacy and it becomes clear that he's just another politician who'll say what it takes to get elected.
This is not news to those who supported other candidates.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well maybe. But you're kinda full of crap, aren't you? The way Obama campaigns has nothing to do with the way he will govern.
June 21, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 22, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not about DEMs inbred tendency towards throwing tizzies and run about accusing one another of shit.
This is about the anointed leader of the Democratic Party doing his farging job and acting as a leader.
June 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Thank you.
June 20, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not anointed yet, Daddy-o. Let's get him into the Oval Office first, before we start asking him to do his job. Right now, his job is to win the election.
June 21, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silence is not an option. I'll hold Obama's feet to the fire just as I'll hold any of my representative's feet to the fire - especially in an election cycle. I want him to know exactly where I stand. I want him to know I care about this issue, so that, even if he can't do anything about it now, maybe in 2009 he'll remember the huge number of people who were outraged by the situation and do something to prevent future abuses. This isn't a small issue - we're talking about a constitutional violation of the 4th amendment and our representatives - the people who are supposed to protect our interests - are turning their backs and walking away from their OATH to protect the constitution.
June 22, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
. Right now, his job is to win the election.
Right now, as a sitting United States Senator, his job is to UPHOLD HIS OATH OF OFFICE.
You know, the one that says: ""I, Barack Obama, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
That just happens to include the part of the Constitution that reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
June 23, 2008 5:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does it matter if Republican keep getting elected, since Democrats keep bowing down and voting with and for their version of legislation anyway. What do you all propose to do now that we know even Obama will just be a continuation of taking us to the same old place that doesn't work? We have a wayward Democracy that is now heading wildly in the direction of dictatorship, and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it. Our only choice seems to be a benevolent or a malevolent dictator. Personally, if I could leave this country, I would.
June 21, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do it. Nobody likes a whiner.
June 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Democrats vote like Republicans, why not just have the real thing. At least you know what you're dealing with. DINOs represent deceit.
June 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Let's keep our eyes on the ball, people.
June 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that my eyes are open, I will keep my eyes on the ball.
To think I had the audacity to hope that Obama was different. To hell with them all. I'm checking out.
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead clutch those pearls a little tighter why don't you.
You've never checked in, and everyone here knows that. Go ahead and concern troll if you want, but don't try to play us for fools and act like we don't remember who you are and what you've said.
June 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
beautifull... how f---ing many times have i been chastised by SENSIBLE, obsequious dems to shutup and cheer the leader? You guys behave EXACTLY the way the dem leadership behaves when they lecture their uppity congresspersons to shutup and stay in line. This is the same dem leadership you are criticizing out of the other friggin side of your mouth. Bush tells the dem leadership they're either with him or they're with the terrorists. Then the dem leadership tells uppity dem congresspersons that they're are either with pelosi or they're with the repubs. then congress tells the people they're either with them or they're with the repubs. and the Sensible dems tell the uppity dems to shut up.
no. no man. no more. sorry. i'll be happy to physically fight you m-----f------ if that will help, but i won't shut up any more. there isn't one time in the last eight years that i haven't had to bite my lip til it bled while i watched the dems cave in on one crucial issue after another. not one single time that i've been proud of the dems. no. i won't be voting for obama. what you b------- won't admit is that, while the repub condidates continually suck up to the most extreme elements of their party, the dems piss off, flip off and then walk over even their moderate base in their rush to pander to the same extreme wing of the repubs! it's the freaking lack of symmetry there that is so intolerably infuriating. obama was the worst at this. he chinches the freaking nomination promising change on one evening, and within TWELVE FREAKING HOURS he's freaking swearing allegiance to AIPAC and promising to nuke the shi- out of iran. no.. no mas. i won't be voting for obama. he's a cardboard cutout. an empty suit. keep him and your freaking dems.
June 20, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it impossible to disagree with anything you've written. You are absolutely correct, but many here and elsewhere simply do not want to face reality and admit this is the case. They are focused on "winning" but they fail to ask what "winning" gets us if it is this sort of disgraceful capitulation? I'm with ya!
June 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb and my other brothers in spirit:
I'm with you on this and I recall we knew Obama would wind up a disappointment merely from his thin record in the Senate (state and fed).
But here is the thing. WE HAVE to vote for Obama because the only other option is to let McCain win.
We will not forget this
However we need to be Machiavellian enough to realize that we put our money on this guy and now we have to see it to the end. Once in power the guy will be fretting about getting a second term. Then we have something substantial on him.
I NEVER had the illusion about the Democratic party being other than progressive in rhetoric only.
It is a task we have to perform: to change the Democratic party from within. It will be long and tedious. But I believe it can be done. Pelosi, Reed and Hoyer what a bunch of rubes!!!
June 21, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woe, if Mr. Sargent a Clinton "supporter" were in the position of BO, having to deal with the inept Clintons STILL. If BO does nothing more than win the ge, will that be enough? Then if BO is able to put forth a viable energy policy, which was never forthcoming from the Clintons then and now, will that justify the election of BO? FISA at this stage is an argument that BO cannot win on an any front, thanks in part to the Clintons. BO has to pick his shots. He has an unpalatable plate winning this elcetion going forward and managing the inept Clintons will be a distraction and is an enormous burden.
June 21, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it does. The compromise was necessary in a political sense. The immunity is not.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We just need to quit bitching and get to work to pressuring everyone, including Obama, to STOP immunity in the Senate. If they can do that Bush will likely kill the bill with his veto pen, Bush will be choosing his corporate friends over safety, the tables will be turned, the Dems can go on the offensive and attack Bush on it, and it likely wouldn't come up for a vote again until the new Congress is up and running next year.
June 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I need to find someone to run against Howard Berman during the next cycle . . . or do so myself.
June 20, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are missing the point here. The dems don't really care about the FISA changes in the bill. Many of their campaigns are funded by the telecoms -- for them its all about the immunity, so don't hold your breath on that one. Obama may be funded by "the people", but the rest of 'em are just politics as usual and he needs them on his side, so immunity here we come!
I am disgusted by this, and by Obama for not being more of a leader. Can I charge back my campaign contribution?
June 20, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. I agree with you it's a downer, but I disagree that he's bought into the Republican frame that it's a question of "toughness." Perhaps he actually thinks it's a reasonable compromise. I'd say he's wrong. Fair enough.
But I think we have enough evidence to suggest he's not changing his entire frame of reference for what it takes to be "tough on terrorism." I think that's a big leap.
A downer, yes. But the hyper-ventilating around the blogosphere (and I don't mean you), seems like overkill.
June 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously.
For everyone who now says "That's it! Not gonna vote for him" I have only one question: you actually believe that McCain is a reasonable alternative?
June 20, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't quite say that he's "bought into" a republican frame, just that he didn't challenge one. and his whole campaign has been about challenging those frames, to his enormous credit.
June 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when do we care about giving him credit? Your last three posts have been one giant hatefest against Obama without any attempt to give context to all of this.
I'm so glad Daily Kos exists because at least a majority of the people on there are politically savvy enough to not be trashing on Obama, instead they are trying to figure out strategy and how we can win, and they acknowledge that even if we can't win this one, it isn't Obama's fault, it is Congress's fault, and this doesn't change their support for Obama.
I thought people on here were sensible, but it is either troll day today or people have lost their goddamn minds all of the sudden, because I can probably count the people who are sensible here on one hand.
June 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I recommend you stay over at Kos, which has been the tool of the Obama campaign from the beginning.
People here are actually capable of holding in their minds a thought other than "Obama is The Anointed One. All hail Obama."
You obviously don't get the ironical intent of the title of this site. But at Kos, you'll always feel on the cutting edge, because you'll be among the first to get the daily talking points from the Obama camp.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes . . . But framed with Obama stating that his voice was worthless during the Mukasey nomination so he did not bother even showing up . . .
Obama is and never will be my choice for the Ofiice for President . . . He is simply the least offensive asshole running for the job . . . So I will vote to eliminate the worst choice just like I did during the Primary.
At least Obama pays lips service to avoiding being a fear-mongering thug.
June 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the problem with this process was best stated by a libertarian candidate: "If you keep voting for the 'lesser of two evils,' why are you surprised when you end up with evil?"
So, we are in the position of electing a man who will not provide the leadership we need to get the 'ship of state' upright and steering properly again; but of whom the best that can be said is that he most likely will not drive the ship onto the rocks.
In the long run, how much will it matter that the ship sank slowly, over a long period of time, with plenty of warning and no action; rather than abruptly, with little warning and futile action?
By electing Barack Obama as President we simply prolong the inevitable outcome of our broken electoral process.
Thanks.
mp
June 21, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely. FISA in the abstract is not an awful thing. What is unacceptable about this (so-called) "compromise" renewal of FISA is that, by immunizing the malfeasant telecoms retroactively, it strips the system of one of the checks that exist against its abuse. If this retroactive immunity provision were not in the bill, it would be acceptable (at least to me). If Obama succeeds (in cooperation with his colleagues in the senate) in getting it scrubbed from the Senate version of the bill, he will have earned our gratitude.
June 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My objection is that it provides for automatic forward immunity. If the president asks the telecoms to wiretap someone, and if the president tells them he has determined that it is legal, the courts cannot touch it. If I'm not mistaken, this applies even if the case is not about terrorism. Thus the president is given the preeminent power to determine the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The courts have been cut out of it.
I don't know about you, but I find that pretty damned objectionable. It's a re-statement of Nixon's formulation that if the president does it, it is not illegal.
June 20, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damned right slb. My one hope is that the Court will determine such a law to be unconstitutional. Given its past decisions on such matters, its not such a stretch.
June 20, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, have you read the bill? What does the bill provide sans retro-immunity that is unsettling? What provisions, other than telecom immunity do you take issue with?
If, in fact, this bill is a solid updating of the 1970's FISA law, and Obama and other Senate Dems (and maybe some Republicans like Snowe, who voted against it originally) are able to strip immunity, would this bill then be a cave-in? (I haven't read the bill, in all fairness)
Please expound on these other legislative details before pontificating. Obama gave a nuanced answer. So please give yours so we are certain you know what you are talking about.
June 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
June 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't about really having a reason to bitch, it is about him wanting an excuse to post a third post in a row trashing on Obama, even though Obama is still as committed as ever to sinking immunity.
June 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
LuxVeritas
hello-world was referring to the good post by tennisball.
As for Greg being "concerned" about Obama's reputation and posting his inflammatory "take" on Obama's stand without taking time to study it honestly, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty from a blogger.
June 20, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, have you read the bill? ... (I haven't read the bill, in all fairness)
Just too rich for words.
What does the bill provide sans retro-immunity that is unsettling? What provisions, other than telecom immunity do you take issue with?
Please expound on these other legislative details before pontificating. Obama gave a nuanced answer. So please give yours so we are certain you know what you are talking about.
These should get you started.
Next time maybe you should do a little research before pontificating.
June 23, 2008 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
its called bipartisanship you cant have it all
June 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, third trash on Obama for FISA post in a row, great job TPM!
You do realize that if he succeeds in stripping this thing of immunity then it is as good as dead right? Only it will die by Bush's hands, not by Obama's, so Obama and the Democrats can say "we were willing to compromise, but Bush was inflexible and killed it"
June 20, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on. It's not likely that immunity is going to be stripped, and Obama knows it.
June 20, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
if immunity is stripped, Bush vows to veto it, so it would change things.
June 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it may really change it. Immunity is the only provision of the bill that's really odious. It remains to be seen how serious Obama is about blocking the immunity provision from passing.
I'm absolutely furious at the Democratic House leadership right now, but I'm going to hold off until after the Senate vote (or votes) are resolved before directing my ire at Obama (or anyone else in the Senate for that matter).
June 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure it also has to do with reelection politics. And blue dogs. If you look at the rollcall, besides house leadership, you have people like Udall (CO) running for senate in a red state, and Patrick Murphy (who is a blubbering idiot) in his first term. I haven't had time to go through the rest of the votes, but I'm sure it had something to do with how their constituents will view them back home...
the House doesn't have the 6-year luxury of the Senate...
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you look at the rollcall, besides house leadership, you have people like Udall (CO) running for senate in a red state"
Oh, give me a damn break. Yeah, what a red state Colorado is, what with our Dem-controlled House, Senate, and Governorship. And with Obama cruising in the polls here.
I get so tired of those ancient characterizations of the state I live in, presumably by people who have no clue what's going on here.
June 20, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you read the bill, Greg? Despite all this hyperventilating from normally reasonable corners of the internet, it's actually very sensible. Joe Klein is a disgusting piece of shit, but his take on the FISA bill is worth reading.
June 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I asked the same thing above and still waiting on an answer.
I think what we all would like Obama to have said is "I will only vote for this bill if immunity is stripped from the legislation." But he didn't, and that is why people are upset.
June 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
because he WILL vote for the bill whether or not immunity is stripped. plain english.
June 22, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pinky,
You're too good.
I thought you were a flamer, but have been informed that you are not, just a clever snark.
Sorry about flaming you on the other thread.
Just trying to combat stupidity, just like you.
June 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was completely fooled by pinkystab on the other thread. Excellent snarkiness, pinky!
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Might want to change that avatar to a silhouette of Obama wiping his ass with the Constitution.
June 20, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only if you stop staining this board with your troll jizz.
June 20, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Profound response as usual.
June 22, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you have to lace up those jackboots to make sure you stamp out stupidity, huh? Smart. And when you hear the word "culture" do you reach for your revolver?
June 21, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It means nothing if he'll vote for the bill with immunity in it. It would only be meaningful if taking immunity out would be a condition for his supporting it.
June 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
June 22, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Greg, that this was worth fighting. There are two points. First, the bill does almost nothing to prevent the government from continuing to spy on ordinary Americans with no connections to terrorism. This is why both Feingold & Leahy remained opposed.
Second, this was never about immunity for the telecoms. This was about immunity for the Bush administration, and that, alone, should have made it DOA in a Democratic-controlled Congress.
I don't pretend to know what's motivating Obama to compromise on this, but I'd hate to think that it has anything to do with concerns over appearing weak, because (and I'm with you here) he's done such a good job of trumping fear with principle thus far. This, I'm afraid, is not a good place to begin with nuance.
June 20, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
... adding to my previous comments that Obama's position on this now depends *entirely* on the degree to which he fights the immunity provision. January, 2009, is fast approaching, and Obama's an awfully busy man. He hasn't given me any reason to doubt him yet, but I have to say I'm a little skeptical on this count.
June 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and finally (I promise), does anybody else find it absolutely bizarre that nobody -- not even his spokesperson -- knew Obama's position on this until an hour or so ago? I find it strange that any representative would play such important legislation so close to the vest, but especially one running for president.
June 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. And the reason why Obama's statement is such a downer is that it's a tissue of lies from beginning to end. This is no compromise. This provides no safeguards. This effectively removes judicial oversight, eviscerating the 4th Amendment.
With this one catastrophically unprincipled, spineless, cowardly decision, Obama just went from being the most inspiring candidate since Bobby Kennedy to being the lesser of two evils, just like all the others.
June 20, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find your smug, self-righteous indignation a bit hard to take. I am not an expert on all of the legal and Constitutional ramifications of the legislation, but I do know something about politics:
1) We have to pick our battles. Sometimes the politically correct position is politically indefensible. Part of the reason for the caution/cowardice of the Dem leadership is a calculation about how this issue can be used by the Repubs in the fall. I am not saying that the Dems should be chickenshit, but we should allow them to be careful. Overall, I think Obama has done an excellent job of standing up to the Repubs on security issues. Frankly, I trust his judgement about which battles to fight more than I trust yours.
2) Sometimes we loose. It is the nature of politics that sometimes the other side has more chits and more leverage. Rather than blaming Obama for deciding not to make a huge deal out of an issue where he does not have enough support to prevail, get off your ass and work to elect more and better Dems.
3) At age fifty, after nearly four decades of political battles, I am sick of noble, principled losers. I respect Obama's pragmatism. He keeps his eye on the big picture. We need a Dem Prez and a working progressive majority in Congress.
June 21, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
if you can't defend it as policy, you shouldn't be defending it as politics.
June 22, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That Greenwald
Mind like a steel trap
Of course that's the deal...read the statement. I venture that the "compromise" wasn't finalized until after the statement was written
June 20, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Greg. The real question is, how does Obama win the election? That's the ONLY question. You're being diverted by this single issue, which is exactly what the Republicans are hoping will happen. You think this one's bad? Just wait. The problem with lefties is they always think they're right. Obama is smarter than you.
June 21, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get real. He caved, just like the majority of Democrats time after time on the issues that have mattered in the past 8 years. This doesn't get you thinking, at least, about Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader. OK, the 5-4 Supreme Court decision makes one think that we've go to stop McCain, but this makes one wonder whether voting for Obama will be worth much of anything beyond that.
June 20, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may have been posted already, but even so, it's worth a repost...
...On Countdown tonight, John Dean offered up some hope. He said that while the bill does have *legal* (lawsuits) immunity for telecoms, it doesn't preclude the possibility of bringing CRIMINAL charges down the road, something that Obama has been saying he would strongly consider doing.
June 20, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lipstick, meet pig.
Look, I understand what you're saying -- or, rather, what Dean is saying -- but it still doesn't answer two fundamental questions:
-- why wouldn't Obama use the very real muscle he has to carve out the immunity provision first? Even it if it passes over his opposition, he's standing on the right side of the issue, and he can continue tying McCain to Bush -- in this case over the shredding of the Fourth Amendment.
-- why did he wait so late to make his position known? The issue has been front & center for a while now, even if Congress rushed the vote. Why did we have to wait until this afternoon to know where he stood? And why did a spokesperson have to wait -- or, assuming he knew, why did he string us along?
June 21, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's against the immunity part of the bill. Would you prefer that he vote against the whole bill?
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes
June 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then, I'm sorry. That's not a realistic option.
Honest question. What would be accomplished by not voting for a legitimate bipartisan compromise on this issue? And what would you like to happen instead?
June 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should lead a filibuster against any bill with immunity and then he should say, "this isn't so urgent that it can't wait for the next congress" and Reid should vow that no FISA bills will reach the floor until after the election.
Simple.
The only person rushing this is a lame duck president.
June 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! Fuck campaigning, I want Obama to spend the next five months filibustering on the Senate floor. Also, then we won't need to raise any more funds.
June 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't have to filibuster for five months. Five days, max. Then Reid can effectively declare a "hung jury" and say that no FISA legislation will reach the senate floor until after the election. That's all he has to do.
June 20, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
not even that. just the threat of a filibuster from the presumptive nominee of the senate majority leader's party could even put an end to this.
June 22, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Obama does not have to be present to participate in a filibuster; the people voting to break the filibuster must be present to vote. So no time lost from campaigning.
July 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
First and foremost it is not a legitimate bipartisan compromise. What it is, is a circumvention of the Constitution of the United States. It is illegal to violate the Constitution in case you were wondering. Protecting criminal behavior by exempting telecoms from the law is abhorrent to everything in our legal, political and governmental tradition! This FISA bill is many things. Legitimate is not one of them.
June 21, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
just because the capitulators call it a 'genuine bi-partisan compromise' doesn't actually make it so.
June 22, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want a candidate who agrees with you 100% on every issue? Then why even bother voting for anyone but yourself?
June 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
I'm disappointed about this. But then I remember an argument with a left-wing friend who just couldn't vote for Obama because he didn't (fill in leftist position).
You can't get all of what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get more of what you need than if the other guy wins.
June 20, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Anyone who is not Repub troll on this page is going to vote for Obama, regardless of how pissed they may at this moment. I am pissed. I saw Obama as someone who could lead us out of the darkness of fear-mongering and corporate control of our political process. Perhaps that was too much to hope, or perhaps he has a different strategy for doing so than going at it head on before he has even consolidated his power. Everyone needs to grant themselves some humility in this (and yes that includes Glenn Greenwald as well) and understand that we can't see all paths forward at this moment. The 4th amendment is not going to disappear with this bill. I do wish they would impeach the bastard though, and all his cronies along with him... and inject them with some drano for committing treason and war profiteering. But that's just my opinion man.
June 20, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
that kind of arrogance - expecting that everyone who's left of center will vote for the dem nominee so it doesn't matter what positions the candidate actually takes - is incredibly dangerous. turnout determines elections. obama shouldn't be giving voters like me a reason to stay home.
June 22, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but you fucked it up. Ya shoulda played it straight:
But if you try sometimes
You just might find
You get what you NEED!
June 21, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think you underestimate how fundamentally important this issue is.
this really is a make or break issue for me. and i'm sure i'm not alone.
the only campaign i contributed to in the primary was dodd's when he took the lead on this issue.
i am already underwhelmed by obama and all of his empty happy talk. this issue is so important to me that it can mean the difference between showing up to vote against mccain or not showing up at all.
getting all of the personality voters in the boat only works if the issues voters don't get thrown overboard.
June 22, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if Obama can actually follow through on this-- get immunity stripped and support the bill once that fix is made-- we should consider that acceptable. There are too many Democrats in the Republican camp on this one for us to entirely expect we can make it all the way to 2009 without some PAA-like act being in place by the time the next Congress is sworn in. What we can demand is at least some concession. What we can do is what Obama says he wants to do, draw the line at immunity and accept a flawed compromise given that caveat-- and if immunity is removed, much as it strains all definition of the word, I'm willing to actually call that a compromise
So the question is whether Obama can actually follow through on this. I don't know how much sway Obama actually has over the Senate. And if he's against the immunity part of the bill, but the whole bill including immunity passes anyway, what difference does it make whether he was for or against it? There have been too many votes over the last year where Clinton and Obama jet in to cast a principled vote on some bill and that principled vote loses anyway 17-80.
June 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been too many votes over the last year where Clinton and Obama jet in to cast a principled vote on some bill and that principled vote loses anyway 17-80.
Name some.
June 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, okay. Let's skim through here. These are the ones that jump out at me:
2/12/08 On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture Re. S. 2248; FISA Amendments Act of 2007
Obama vote: No
Result: Agreed to, 69-29, with 2 not voting.
2/12/08 Dodd Amdt. No. 3907; To strike the provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for certain assistance provided to the Government.
Obama vote: Yes
Result: Rejected, 31-67, with 2 not voting.
2/12/08 Feingold Amdt. No. 3912; To modify the requirements for certifications made prior to the initiation of certain acquisitions.
Obama vote: Yes
Result: Rejected, 35-63, with 2 not voting.
9/20/07 Feingold Amdt. No. 2924; To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.
Obama vote: Yes
Result: Rejected, 28-70, with 2 not voting.
5/24/07 Vote 181: On the Motion: This $120 billion dollar package was passed in the Senate by an 80-14 vote on May 24. The bill primarily focuses on funding for the Iraq war but also addresses other unrelated topics. A previous war funding bill was vetoed by the president because it included troop withdrawal deadlines, which were largely supported by anti-war Democrats...
Obama vote: No
Result: Agreed to, 80-14, with 6 not voting.
I believe the 5/24/07 war funding and 2/12/08 FISA cloture votes were the ones I was specifically thinking of when I made the previous post. In both of these cases it was a big media thing when the presidential candidates came in to vote a certain way on the bill. Yet in both cases nearly half the Democratic caucus did not vote the same way as their future presidential candidates.
June 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. FISA works. There needs be enforcement of the bill we got.
What should be done is REPEAL the PATRIOT Acts and the Military Commissions Act (and Taft-Hartley while their at it) . . .
June 20, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes.
June 22, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well stated.
June 20, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that didn't take you long, did it Greg.
I get the feeling that this post has been ready to go for several days now.
June 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, another kitchen-sink strategy from TPM learnt from you know who.
June 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama pretty much did this to himself.
June 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
no. it's TPM's fault. clearly.
June 22, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
need help here...would the government need a warrant to get customer data from the telecoms?
June 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be as it always was, they would go to the FISA court and get it, however, in the case of an emergency, they can just do it but have to justify their actions afterwards as truly an emergency.
June 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so if the government comes to the Telecoms with a Warrant and demands to see customer records, why shouldn't the telecoms be immune from law suits. They're obeying a court order.
not trying to raise a fuss, but I know I must be missing something here.
June 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
They needed a warrant from FISA which they did not have. Bush just said do it and they did. They were also monitoring all of us. They have to have specific targets and information to support the monitoring.
June 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!
June 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is supporting immunity for companies that gouge us and helped Bush with his domestic spying program...to say it's a downer is an understatement.
June 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the pedestal that everyone puts him on just shortened, hopefully a whole lot! He is nothing more than a politician like everyone else. So much for standing up for the "little guy" and the American citizen. Now we will see if all those who cussed and swore at Hoyer will put forth a different tone when discussing this since it is Obama?
June 20, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally disagree with Obama on this. Am I going to jump ship because he didn't do as I would have wished? No, he is still the best thing going, and there are many other issues that I believe he will make a difference on once he takes office.
June 20, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let the triangulation begin!
Still better than McCain. A little less so, though.
June 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with Greg on this. It is amazingly disappointing. It isn't the issue that FISA does or does not need to be updated, but whether blatantly illegal activities will be arbitrated, as they should, by the judiciary.
June 20, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Immunity is where the president says "the law is what I say it is". Immunity is the precedent setting act that says the executive branch can flout the Constitution and the law.
Strip out immunity and the rest is survivable.
Leave in immunity and Barack Obama is another suit with hot air that does not stand up for American principals when the chips are being counted.
June 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't part of effectively challenging the Wingers (in other words, the entire Republican party and many centrist and Democratic pundits) on national security picking your battles? He's going to be in a huge multiple-month fight with McCain on Iraq, Iran, habeas corpus or terrorism suspects, and numerous other issues.
I must admit I don't know enough about the non-immunity portions of the bill, but why isn't drawing the line where he drew it a reasonable approach?
June 20, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I guess the "picking your battles" sentiment is the one that resonates with me most. This isn't about ceding national security cred to the Republicans-- it's about not wasting political capital on a battle that as of the House vote today is most likely a lost cause. Huge political downsides, few apparent benefits outside of principled martyrdom. I don't mean to sound cynical, really I don't. But it's not politics without some measure of calculation. and if Obama actually can get the immunity amendment back in the bill, that would be a meaningful victory.
June 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'd prefer to have immunity out of the bill, if you don't mind.
June 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw geez, you know what I mean.
June 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I need to educate myself better on the specifics of the compromise, as some of you point out above, this is indeed a compromise.
And something that Obama is selling himself on in this election is the ability to reach across the aisle in order to get things done. I think he himself has said that this necessarily entails giving up some of the things that you'd otherwise want if you were the only one writing the bill.
Politics is the art of the possible. Most importantly for me, he's stated an opposition to immunity and a willingness to fight the immunity provisions in the Senate. With that in mind, I'd say the amount of hysterics that I've seen in just the past hour are unwarranted or at least premature.
But this is what I've come to expect from Election Central.
June 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
May be Josh should rightly name this blog as Eruption Central.
But then he lost his control over this blog long time back.
June 20, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Us Clinton supporters told you guys long ago that Obama is basically a moderate.
Ain't pretty when he proves it, is it?
Oh, btw, just who did the Blue Dogs almost unanimously endorse? Obama.
June 20, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoop-dee-doo. Virtually every Democrat in Congress has now "endorsed" Obama. Oh, except for the most conservative Dems in the House. Oops!
June 21, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
A downer, yes. But the hyper-ventilating around the blogosphere (and I don't mean you), seems like overkill.
Yeh, that Constitution sure is overkill. Hey, we don't need no stinkin' 4th Amendment.
Unless Obama can show some leadership here I stay home on Nov. 8th. I abstain. I cannot, in good conscience become an enabler for abhorrent policies and bills.
June 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't care what you do on Nov. 8th, but I'd prefer that you went and voted on Nov. 4th. If your principles are such that you simply cannot vote for Obama because of this, so be it. But you can vote downticket, can't you?
Or are your principles such that you'll stay home, and ennable McCain to win, and the Republicans to get more of an edge in Congress?
June 20, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 8th is my wife's birthday.
I hope Paul sends her some money that he would have otherwise had to pay to Heather.
June 20, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But CT Voter, what actual difference does it make if we elect Obama but get the same crap for policies? This capitulation is more than just an abandonment of the Cosntitution and our laws, it is also foreshadowing of what Obama will do as President. All I see from this disgraceful cave in is weakness and cowardice.
June 20, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. Who did you think he was? The second coming of Christ Almighty? He's a great candidate, and a great politician, and a zillion times better than what we've got sitting in the White House now. If you wanted total sanctitude and Marxist-Leninist zeal, I'm afraid you're going to be very let down. And, by the way, do you still believe in Santa Claus too?
June 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
he is not a 'great candidate'. that notion is pure delusion. and this whole FISA thing proves it.
June 22, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you just specify for us the nature of the Fourth Amendment violation? It talks about "unreasonable" searches and (sometimes) requires "probable cause" -- is it that you think this bill violates existing Fourth Amendment doctrine (in which case the courts will presumably strike it down) -- or that you expect a presidential candidate to have a more capacious understanding of the Fourth Amendment in the counterrorism area than do the courts, which is a lot to ask.
June 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is a lot to ask of our lawmakers, who create and enact on our laws, to understand the law, isn’t it? The Fourth Amendment is clear and easily understood. And the courts cannot strike down something that will never come before them because those being spied on can’t prove they’re being spied on since that information is secret. Of course, if they could sue the ones doing the spying, they could obtain evidence that they were spied on, but immunity prevents that.
June 21, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody would vote against him on this issue, where else could they go? It's probably the right call, if a bit un-idealistic, but he's in it to win it, clearly.
As Yglesias pointed out this morning, if you are Barack, it can't escape your notice that the Republicans are, by this compromise, essentially handing YOU the powers Bush had. Then again, maybe it's some elaborate trap... Watch for the Republicans to immediately demand impeachment of BHO on January 21st, for illegally using his "so-called inherent powers as President" to eavesdrop on phone conversations ;)
June 20, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with the post greg. Big, big downer. It could have been handled completely differently. Big downer.
June 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
appreciate that, thanks. to the commenters above saying that this site "trashes" Obama, we've actually done a lot of very praiseworthy stuff lately.
June 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on the big post, and on this post right here.
June 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, since he locked up the nomination? I shoudl hope so.
What else are you going to do? Push "Hillary might pull something at the convention" memes for 3 months?
June 20, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, Hear.
Greg's "praiseworthy stuff lately" comment just confirms his earlier bias (which hasn't gone away and is still burning in his heart to get out in "gotcha" moments).
TPM has become officially become MSM.
June 20, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks greg. You guys do a great job. It's just human nature to complain and screw around.
Good post again in any event. I'm going to go hurl again over this fisa issue. It is so unnecessary to do what obama is doing. I really don't get it. I am very, very, very disappointed.
June 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obamanoids always exhibited the trait of intolerance towards ANY criticism of Obama. That in itself is troubling to me
June 21, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g04HHlwllHw
VERY INTERESTING ....
June 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's response is dispiriting. This issue is not just about updating FISA but deals with the blatant disregard for the rule of law embodied in the secret wiretapping program.
June 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I already unsubscribed from his e-mail list and will take Obama's bumbersticker off tonight. Plus I gave money to that woman running against the guy Obama cut and add for in Georgia and Glenn Greenwald's ad campaign.
June 20, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impressively pure!!!
June 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm setting the over/under on your age at, oh, 12.
June 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your ideological purity is inspiring. Can I touch you? I like to touch pure and fragile things before they wither and implode upon exposure to air.
June 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly what I was saying after I read his statement, thanks Greg. This bill was as clear-cut an opportunity as I've seen yet for Obama to show us that he is willing to walk the walk on his 'change' talk, and he did no such thing. Wuss.
June 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did I know this was another Greg Sargent hit piece, trying to poison the well again, just from the headline? As others have pointed out, he is against immuity and going to try and have that removed.
Realistically, according to reports, bluedogs and Republicans have a majority on this, so there's not a lot Obama can do. He doesn't have a magic wand. There are also realistic limits to what he can do, and the vast majority of Obama supporters are pragmatic about this. Contrary to whatever mind games Greg Sargent is up to, encouraging both cynicism and unrealistic expectations to poison the well, as usual.
If people don't like these compromises, as i don't, then elect more Democrats good on practical issues, as opposed to cultural wedge issues.
Hope and Change are not magical terms. Yes, they're transformative terms, but no the transformation isn't an overnight thing. This isn't a video game or movie. Ultimately the transformation is going to be incremental and require practical steps,becasue that's how politics work.
Anyone who doesn't get that already, needs to get it.
June 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you were the practical one, Kozmik. Once congress sells us out and the lawsuits are dismissed, this is over. The telecoms get away with it. There's nothing that can be done later to stop that. So it has to stop here and now.
June 20, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a hit piece, but it would benefit from spelling out for those of use unschooled in the bill exactly what provisions of the legislation -- other than retro immunity provisions that he will oppose -- are so objectionable that Obama should have made a stand against both Repubs and large parts of his own party, including its highest elected official (Nancy Pelosi).
Even the most pugnacious boxers, if they are to survive, must choose when to fight and when to wait for a better time and place.
June 20, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many members of Congress are getting immunity from this bill, along with the telecoms and Bush. Therefore, if Obama makes a huge stink about the immunity, which he will lose, he will probably alienate several members of Congress. They knew about this for years but did nothing to stop it. They are guilty and want to cover their asses.
June 20, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out who the Blue Dogs just about unanimously endorsed.
Yes, Obama.
And he's taped an ad in support of John Barrow in his primary against a more solidly liberal (and black) state Senator.
Obama is a moderate. Militant moderate, but moderate.
June 20, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is evidence that Obama is backing down from taking on McCain and the Republicans on national security. The problem for Obama here is that if he had maintained that posture on this issue, he would have been at odds with Congressional Democrats who caved into the Republicans.
Obama apparently doesn't want to create such tensions while still trying to unify the party after Clinton's concession. I don't agree with it but I understand it.
June 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. praise what you like, then bring up what you want to change. A lot of folks are opposed to the whole bill, but the immunity part is the odious piece. and once he clearly says he's opposed to that, WHICH HE DID, he actually has put himself in a position where he HAS to work hard against it, or he'll appear weak.
he didn't have to come out with guns blazing, because he's the leader of the party. that would've undermined the whole message of listening and made him look as ridiculous as mccain did after the habeas ruling.
June 21, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And honestly - calling it a 'cave' on the front page of TPM?!? You're no better than AOL!
June 20, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
what did the democrats actually get in the 'compromise' as you would prefer to call it?
June 22, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want a candidate that i agree with on every issue. But under the rule of law, there is a fundamental difference between a healthcare mandate and illegal wiretapping. One sucks and the others ILLEGAL!
June 20, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the test:
"Among the players, these sources said: powerhouse Republican lobbyists Charlie Black and Wayne Berman (who represent AT&T and Verizon, respectively) ... "
Will Obama cave into Charlie Blacks lobbying?
June 20, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The immunity issue is a good one for Obama to fight on because it (1) has no credible basis in national security needs, and (2) exemplifies lobbyist- and corporate-coddling brand of lawmaking. He could sell the issue, too -- I don't think it's a political winner for Bush and his telco friends when it's exposed to the light of publicity (to date it has gotten attention largely from progressive bloggers).
June 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Greg. This is a perfect opportunity to be the real change he claims to be.
If this is the kind of 'bipartisan comprimise' he mentions often, then we're all screwed.
Maybe Krugman's been right about this guy all along.
June 20, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as this is your first post here, I'm absolutely positive that you didn't just create this account to weigh in on this topic, and that you're not some other user's sockpuppet.
Welcome to the forum. Enjoy your stay.
June 20, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two points.
This is a house bill Obama didn't get a vote.
Beside the telecom immunity what else don't people like about the bill.
June 20, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't care what you do on Nov. 8th, but I'd prefer that you went and voted on Nov. 4th. If your principles are such that you simply cannot vote for Obama because of this, so be it. But you can vote downticket, can't you?
Absolutely and I intend to.
June 20, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing that mattered to me in Obama's statement:
He didn't "cave". Folks really need to calm down; the TPM headline writer chief among them.
June 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he can't get retroactive immunity out of the bill, he'll still vote for it. Given that his opponents know he's going to vote for it anyway... why would they take it out? So I'll calm down when he stops caving in.
June 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'll come down tomorrow. I'm no zombie who follows some prime directive like a cockroach. Obama needs feel the heat. He can't take his supporters and donors for granted that easily. I feel he's above-and-beyond the best choice for pres and he needs to position himself to win, but I hope he remembers that we hold civil liberties with the highest regard.
He's coming down on the wrong side of the issue as far as I'm concerned. He's risking becoming the lesser of two evils. Indulge me in the theatrics for at least today.
June 20, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
calm down
-edit
June 20, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
calm down
-edit
June 20, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
work on your reading comprehension: the "cave" is the so-called 'compromise', not obama's support for it.
and 'working to get a provision removed' is not sufficient when the provision should be a DEAL-BREAKER. 'working to get the provision removed' is another way of saying 'i will vote for it regardless'.
June 22, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for Obama to lead.
Bush and his neocon enablers are on the ropes and it is time to put them away. No compromise. No sell out.
We (if I may) are winning. There was no need to cave on FISA.
June 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems hard to believe this could have caught Obama by surprise, however his statement sounded like something they knocked out in a hurry after he realized he had to address the matter. I suspect there will be further clarification and perhaps (hopefully) even modification of his stance.
June 20, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama caved. No doubt.
Question is, why? Did he just not want to suffer a public legislative defect prior to the election by opposing this bill and having it pass (easily) anyway?
What Obama -- and TPM readers here trying to convince us to "keep our eye on the ball" and stay united rather than "bicker" internall -- needs to understand is: the Presidential election is a done deal. Barack Obama is going to absolutely trouce John McCain in November. It'll be ugly. Celtics/Lakers ugly. Clinton/Dole ugly. John McCain is easily a worse candidate than John Kerry was.
The real prize is the Senate. 60 votes are within reach, if we pull HARD toward that end. Get Al Franken elected. And Obama opposing the FISA compromise and failing would give him an important opportunity to show Americans what the real problem has been for a long time: having a rogue Commander In Chief is bad, but only if the Congress rubber-stamps everything he does. A Democrat is the White House is a start. But you MUST clean house in the Senate (the House is a lost cause - they're mostly clowns on both sides of the aisle) and give the new President some real ability to effect change. Obama should have taken this opportunity -- not just because it's what he believes in and it's the right thing to do -- to set the table for the Democrats running for the Senate in November.
June 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
please see the update I added ...
separately, a note to other commenters -- of course we can't agree with a candidate all the time. that doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our disagreements when we have them, does it?
to voice disagreement isn't to say, "I'm not voting for him."
June 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
no doubt!
afterall it is the freaking fourth amendment of the constitution and the rule of law.
June 20, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
GS: to voice disagreement isn't to say, "I'm not voting for him."
However, to voice disagreement and then say, "I'm voting for him anyway" is to say that he can take your vote for granted, and that even him facilitating the dismantling of the 4th Amendment won't cost him your vote.
Why would any politician, given that knowledge, *ever* opt to represent your interests? Why *wouldn't* said politician betray you at every single turn, knowing that the betrayal will gain him the votes of others and will not cost him your vote?
If you ever wonder why the Democratic Party keeps selling you out every single damn day, just re-read and re-read the italicized sentence, above.
Is there any amendment in the Bill of Rights that IS worth taking a stand over? Not the 4th Amendment, evidently. We'll still vote for a candidate who poo-cans that one. Any others? Or are they *all* disposable, just so long as the person in power has a D next to his name?
Patrick Meighan
Culver City, CA
June 20, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
indeed. and obama does in fact risk losing my vote over this.
June 22, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is truly dispiriting. What happened to change? What happened to hope? What happened to ending the old way of politics in DC? Isn't that why Hillary can't be the VEEP? Isn't that the Obama allure?
And he caved. Unless he can strip the immunity from the bill he should vote no.
He should talk about the unfettered power of the executive branch and talk about restoruing checks and balances to the system. He should talk about restoring the rights of the individual in this country and their civil liberties. And what about accountability? People should be held responsible for illegal acts. No matter who committed them.
This is quite a conundrum with regards to my vote.
June 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Greg -- I think you articulated much of my saddness, too. I always knew Obama to be conservative (as conservative as Clinton) -- he voted for Torte Reform and for the 2005 Energy bill. However, his ability to change the rhetorical game, to say he was willing to negotiate with Iran, to say he wanted to negotiate with Cuba, to articulate the demon of racism in this country -- that shift in the paradigm of rhetoric did give me real hope.
Now, I feel empty.
It will pass. As I said on another thread, we may have needed a reminder that a politician is a politician is a politican. We are the people -- we are the ones who need to lead them.
All the best,
Laura
June 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with North_aufzoo that this particular vote is not worth the policital capital it would consume to take a principled stand on the losing side. If Obama's vote would make a difference on the outcome, I would feel differently. But it is clear that the Dem leadership did not see this as an issue on which they either wanted or had the votes to take on the Admin. All the Repubs and probably half or more of the Dems in the Senate will vote for the compromise, which would leave Obama in a minority with Feingold and Leahy. Sure, in principle that's where we would like him to be, but the cost is potentially too heavy for a symbolic vote.
June 20, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I think Greg's point speaks to this. Part of the promise of Obama was that he would be able to work across the isle to reach common ground and common sense -- not compromise. There's a big difference. In other words, that he would be able to change the rhetoric, so that Democratic values would lead, because they are the values of common sense.
Today, he showed a version of compromise as collusion. That's not the same thing at all.
The hope of the Obama presidency is the hope that things like "political capital" get defined by common sense, not by Fox News and big corporations.
I love Obama, but I'm not willing to let him off the hook on this one.
June 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
really well said. Obama is one of the most gifted persuaders we've seen in a very long time. he could win this argument if anyone could.
June 20, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
While he's running for president? When exactly?
No doubt, this is a total downer. I'm not saying I wouldn't be thrilled if his condemnation of the immunity section of this bill wasn't way stronger but to think that he could actually muster up the political capital to flip this - and then still win the office after pissing off all of those elected officials he needs ground support from in their districts - seems a little grand to me. If he was already in the white house (or this happened on november 5th), the parameters would be very different.
He is a politician running for president. I don't say that with snark or disrespect. He is a tremendous politician. If he's going to be the first black president he needs to be the best politician, ever. Heartbreaking as it is, I'm going with: this is a good political move. Personally, I look to washington for effective politicians. I look in my home or in my community for leaders. Sadly, so does AT&T.
June 21, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Massive Obama supporter and I agree with Greg. (Am I really saying this? j/k.)
Obama's caveat means very little to me because I don't have faith in Congress, or the Senate, that they would actually take that provision out of the bill. (I hope I'm wrong.)
No, that doesn't mean I wont donate, or that I will discontinue my support, but I did not expect this, and I am deeply disappointed.
We cannot afford another corporate President. We have to break this cycle. It was one of my main arguments against Hillary. Now, I'm....dumbfounded.
June 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am extremely disappointed. However, I believe that this is not an issue Obama himself can change. I think he wants to correct the current problems, and let's face it, no way was Congress going to let all those lawsuits proceed. Actually, I blame the Democrats as a whole for not letting this ride until next year, and I am really PO'd at Jay Rockerfeller (sp) for pushing this crap. You know they all have some money tie in with these corporations.
I wish Obama had stood up and said no, but I suspect there are underlying issues here we don't know. Still, he let me down on this one.
June 20, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think of what Obama once said about recognizing that he was necessarily swimming in muddy waters, but his point being that he intended to work to clean up those waters.
I think of what happen when Obama stayed in DC for the Kyl-Lieberman vote throughout a Monday, then, being told that there would be no vote any time soon, he went on to NH on Tuesday only to be given an hour's notice by Reid that a vote would be held early Tuesday afternoon......impossible for him to get back. He took a lot of political heat for a long time in the critical midst of the early primary contests for missing that vote.
I think of the feud between the beltway DLC aligned Dem's and the DNC folks aligned under Dean's vision of a 50 state strategy, which is essentially a struggle for top-down vs grassroots control of the party. [I partly the Florida/Michigan mess in terms of this struggle, too, once the mantra was that 'Dean owned the mess, not those states]
I think back on all the 'baffling' spinelessness of the new Dem majority leaders in standing up to Bush for the past 1 1/2 years, and it makes no sense until I consider the possibility of collusion at the top levels between parties whereby party bosses from both sides are addicted to certain perks of wielding power.
I think of Obama repeatedly saying that he had been in Washington long enough to know that Washington has to change. [I believe him, as I think he is brilliant in doing a fast read of situations.]
I think of how swiftly Obama aligned with the DNC for the purpose of unifying the Democratic message and streamlining the 50-state strategy efforts for the general election.
When I think of all these things, I begin to wonder if this mysterious push for this FISA bill at this time might be a strong nudge to Obama from the beltway Democratic leadership to show that they can and are willing to put him in a box or two, right in the middle of the general election, if he doesn't agree to play ball with them by at least giving them a chance to cover their own asses on their previous behind the scenes colluding on domestic spying.
In other words, I am wondering if Obama, with his fast read of situations, is realizing that he has to handle some strong stuff, once again, from both parties simultaneously. That would make sense of his using few first words on this issue, words that give him some wiggle room to decide how to proceed from here on.
June 20, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A question:
If Immunity is stripped, would it still be a bad bill?
Obama doesn't think so. And he'll work, alonside harry reid and others, to strip immunity out.
So whats the problem? He's not for immunity and he's going to strip it out. And isn't that what everybody is huffing and puffing about?
June 20, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a big problem right there, considering that FISA never needed to be restored. Bush was breaking the law, plain and simple.
June 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kewl. SO its just another meaningless bill we don't need.
So then why don't weget every one to just vote against it?
June 20, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is that he likely can't get it stripped out and will vote for it anyway. There's no going back once immunity is granted.
June 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
how do you know he can't?
he says he'll try.
aren't we jumping the gun a little in assuming the democratic nominee, the leader of his party, and barring a complete disaster the next president of the united states, has absolutely ZERO INFLUENCE on his fellow democrats in the senate?
shouldn't we at lest wait to see what he's able to do before we say he "caved"?
June 20, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truly disappointing. If Obama manages to lose this election, it will be because he allows his hyper-cautious instincts to smother his message of change.
But let's also spare some disdain for all the other spineless Democrats who created this totally unnecessary situation.
June 20, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg's been hyperventilating on this one pretty hard today, but before you people join him in wringing your hands off you need to remember that, unlike, say, Russ Fiengold, Obama is contending for the presidency.
Obama is not going to unravel every injustice of the past eight years from the campaign trail, although his enemies would certainly love to see him try. This thing was never in Obama's hands to begin with, regardless of what Greg Sargent tells you.
Can we please just get our guy in the White House before we light ourselves on fire?
Check yourselves. Seriously.
June 20, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your posts are the best Mr. Williams. I guess I'll put the petrol and matches away. That was my next move after hurling about 10 times. Too funny. Thanks.
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, Lamont.
Hear, hear!
June 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love your Avatar: Obama the Saint with a red white and blue halo. lol. I think the Obama campaign actually does have too much street money for its own good.
June 22, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The vote is now, Lamont. Waiting for Obama to take the presidency means the telecoms get immunity. Unacceptable.
June 20, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right.
I will not send another dollar to Steny Hoyer.
June 20, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a start.
But if Obama votes for this with immunity in it... heck, it's an issue.
June 20, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that I think that this is a touch over-hasty. I am not 100% that Obama & al can succeed in getting the provision scrubbed, but neither am I convinced that the whole thing is just for show. Let us wait and see.
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real prize is the Senate. 60 votes are within reach, if we pull HARD toward that end.
I get an uneasy feeling that, even with a filibuster-proof, veto-proof majority Dem Senate, those wiley Republicans would still find a way to control the show! I know, it sounds crazy, but...
June 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just unsubscribed from the Obama campaign mailing list and told them this was why.
TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. I'll vote in November, but not another cent, no more activism, no nothin'. Bad move, Barack.
June 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep our eye on the ball. I'm starting to think some Democrats who voted for it have a point, and certainly those who support it aside form the immunity have a point. As much as I want telecoms held accountable for lawbreaking, I would trade the immunity in exchange for the truth. I'm not convinced we get there from here, but it does look like it's been stopped from happening again, and the inspector general investigations might get us to the truth. I wouldn't believe that if the investigations would happen under Bush, but I do think they'll happen under Obama. Of course, if McCain gets in, then both the administration and the telecoms get away with it, and we won't ever know what they did.
Also, remember how we hated Hastert's "majority of the majority" rule for letting anything come to a vote. In principle, maybe it's wrong to stop a bill from being voted on just because our side will lose. The people to blame then aren't the Democrats who let it be voted on, but the ones who voted for it. Last night I donated to the campaign of Regina Thomas, who is challenging one of the bushiest of Blue Dogs, Jeff Barrow in Georgia 12. Time to call the blue-dogcatcher.
June 20, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Immunity is stripped, would it still be a bad bill?
Yes. Where did you get that paragraph describing the bill?
June 20, 2008 5:25 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 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not surprised. I just would have expected him to wait until he was actually president before caving in on a matter of our essential freedom as a people.
June 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The REAL cave was Steny and The Blue Dogs.
Also, anyone else who voted for this POS thuggery.
June 20, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're way too smart to be reading a Greg Sargent post.
This post and comments could be a textbook entitled, "Why Republicans Own The White House."
June 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walrus, the Democrats are so f'ing spineless they would probably find a way to let the Rethugs control things even if they had 65 votes. Right now it's certainly essential to do as well as possible in this election, because the alternative is clearly worse,but in the long run little good is going to happen in this seriously messed-up country without major changes in the Democratic Party. The "better" in "more and better Democrats" has never been more important.
June 20, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm bummed about this.
Speaking cynically, if you were favored to be the next president, how strongly would you come out against expansions of executive power?
June 20, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the bright side, once Obama is in office it will give the Republicans incentive to work against expansion of presidential powers.
It will be like Clinton's era, with all the talk of Bubba working to take away our guns and help the UN enslave us.
June 20, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
June 20, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this isn't even good.
June 20, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill not only gives immunity to the telecoms, it also gives it to Congress and the President. To my understanding, since so many members of Congress, yes, Democrats & Repubicans, knew this was going on and let it happen almost from it's perception, then it makes them just as open to breaking the law as the telecoms and Bush. Hence the rush to get this done this year. It will give everyone blanket immunity, and there are a LOT of parties involved.
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard this explanation, but I question it. The Supreme Court says legislators enjoy extremely broad immunity for actions taken in their official capacities -- no matter how crappy the decision, approving (or failing to intervene to stop) an unconstitutional wiretapping program would almost certainly not subject members of Congress to legal jeopardy. Different story for Executive Branch officials (and telcos) -- they could be on the hook absent a legislative absolution like that that is apparently in the current bill.
Members of Congress might have been ashamed, fearful of disclosure, etc., but probably weren't seriously concerned about civil judgments (and certainly not prosecution).
June 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, Cound't agree with you more. I'm calling them Republicrats now. The damage done to the political process by the Bush administration (let alone the damage they've done all around the world!) is going to take decades to correct and need many people of good conscience.
June 20, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me for disagreeing, but I think Obama has earned the benefit of the doubt. If he says he's going to do something, he's gong to do it.
He's not hillary clinton for crying out loud. You can trust Barack Obama.
June 20, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink