« Obama: Iraqi Prime Minister Wants Withdrawal Timetable | Home | Poll: Obama Ties McCain Among Less-Educated Voters »
McCain Hits Obama On FISA -- Vote Set For This Morning
With the Senate vote on the FISA cave-in bill set to take place later this morning, the McCain camp moved to take charge of the FISA news cycle, blasting Obama as a flip-flopper and an opportunist in a new statement...
"A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program. Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he's willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office."
The vote is set to take place at 11:15. We'll bring you Obama's response if and when it comes.
Advertisement
Didn't Obama say he would "support a filibuster" but not lead it? That's what I remember having read.
July 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently there was an agreement to not filibuster, and that amendments to the FISA bill need 60 votes to pass.
The amendment by Dodd and Feingold to remove telecom immunity, which Obama voted in favor of, moments ago, failed.
July 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The amendment failed, 32 YEA, 66 NAY. It takes at least 41 Senators to call for a filibuster, so there was no possibility for one. The 66 NAY would have voted cloture in a heartbeat, obviously.
Obama voted YEA to strip telecom immunity.
Only Kennedy and McCain didn't vote. The former due to recovery from brain surgery, the latter due to political cowardice.
YEAs ---32
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
ZERO Republicans voted YEA. 100% of Republicans voted to preserve telecoms immunity.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
July 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently there was an agreement to not filibuster...
There was no such agreement.
Pay attention to the bolded text.
The fact that cloture was filed, and a vote scheduled, means there was no agreement not to filibuster. If there was, it would have appeared in the unanimous consent agreement, and a cloture vote would have been superfluous.
July 9, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think McCain's going about this the wrong way. He should wait for the vote and say "I'm glad Sen. Obama came to his senses and backed this important legislation" (pointing out the flip flop) or "I can't believe Sen. Obama would choose the trial lawyers lobby over national security." Calling him a flip flopper for voting for a bill McCain's voting for looks asinine.
July 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the same thing. McCain is attacking Obama for agreeing with him. That's a ridiculous line of attack.
July 9, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, unless McCain votes against the FISA bill, which he won't.
July 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not even bothering to show up and vote.
July 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with SFCWallace here, attacking him now just seems to be politically clumsy.
July 9, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. He's attacking Obama for voting the same way...assuming, of course, that he's going to vote.
And given his voting record over the last year, that's a pretty big assumption.
July 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's not voting.
July 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
GTF outta here? SERIOUSLY?
What a moron. Him not voting is a softball pitch right down the middle for Obama.
July 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! McCain's statement is especially ridiculous if he doesn't vote on the FISA bill. With a non-vote,
1) McCain's statement would be tantamount to the following: "Hah! Obama is a flip flopper. He should have followed my lead by behaving spinelessly."
2) Takes any of McCain's derisions of Obama voting "Present" out of play.
July 9, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. McCain supports the bill, so he should be happy that Obama will vote for it also.
If I were McCain, I'd say, "I applaud Senator Obama's switch on this bill, which is vital to defending our country from terrorists. I'm glad he's reversed himself on this issue - that is change I can believe in."
What this quote shows is that McCain believes it's more important to score political points than to win support for the FISA bill.
I'd actually be happy about this if I thought it might help derail the bill (which I oppose). But I doubt it matters.
Obama's retort, presuming he keeps his position, could be to argue that McCain is simply engaging in old politics, whereas he's proving that he's willing to compromise and work for what he believes is right, even when it disappoints many of his vocal supporters.
July 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why on earth would McCain change the Republican formula for exposing the hypocrisy and weakness of a Democrat that has worked so well for them time after time in the past? They wouldn't. Only Democrats are dumb enough to change a formula that works!
This was entirely predictable and with each and every rightward/DLC lurch by Obama, his campaign will fuel more of this from McCain and every right wing pundit on the net, on the air and in the papers. What a surprise!
Once again, DC Democratic wisdom helps to weaken the Democratic nominee for President. How do these losers keep on peddling the same rotten snake oil to Democrats at the federal level? It's extraordinary how successful they are at sucking in candidates and making them believe that the liberal, genuinely Democratic positions that got them nominated are bad and dangerous and will lose them the election so only by becoming more like the Republicans can they survive in the fall. Are these DC Democrats on the Republican payroll or something? Geeeez!
July 9, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say this one time and one time only:
McLame and the Repugs had plenty of help branding Obama a flip flopper. How long was that head on the front page of TPM?
Cause the Democrats just love to cut our candidates off at the knees the minute we get them nominated.
July 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're interested in everyone staying on message and never criticizing 'the leader' even when they screw up, perhaps you should become a republican. I hear that's working out great for them!
If TPM were a site that simply parroted the campaign's talking points and never criticized them or even reported when they'd screwed up, it wouldn't even be worth reading. I might as well just read barackobama.com every day.
July 9, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. TPM is not an arm of the Obama campaign.
July 9, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree 100% with Tena and regard the TPM role in attacking the party candiate as disgraceful. No it isn't an opportunity to share and reflect, it is an election. And it requires organization, clear-headedness, loyalty, and work for a single goal. That's how you win. Beating your breast about "the Constitution" when the other guys are about to put Justices on the S.Ct. that will *retire* the Consitution as we know it, that is how you lose.
July 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
so we should sit around and not hold anyone accountable while Congress subverts the Constitution so we can vote in a president who will appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution.
clear headed indeed.
July 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"subverts the constitution"
Please.
July 9, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
But in explaining his evolution about the FISA bill, The Leader specifically wrote,
Keep ignoring the wishes of The Leader and you'll face party expulsion and a spell in a political re-education/labor camp.
July 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am flattered, of course, that you give us so much credit, but I think that you are being too generous. The Republicans are not so obtuse that they would have failed to notice the flip-flop had we all made nice about it. That he is taking heat for his reversal is Sen Obama's own fault, not the fault of his supporters.
He knew full well that he would take heat for the reversal as a flip-flopper and took the plunge nonetheless. Evidently, then, he felt that there was more to gain from the triangulation than there was to be lost from the reversal. Because I want him to win, I hope that he was right in that estimation. One way or another, however, he was the one who made that bet and he is the one who deserves the credit (if it pays off) or the blame (if it fails).
July 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem isn't the headlines and it isn't the criticism. The problem is that Obama flip-flopped on FISA and that's a plain, indisputable fact.
Obama's flip flop on FISA was not only wrong and intellectually indefensible, it was a dumb move politically speaking and it was done for the same cowardly, self-defeating reason so many Democrats like Kerry and Edwards and Clinton voted for the Iraq war authorization: they thought it would protect them from Republican attacks that they are "soft" on national security. These sorts of attacks by Republicans on Democrats, by the by, date back to the 1950's. That dumb move on the war authorization was the biggest favor any of them could have done for George Bush and the Republicans attacked them in exactly the same way on the war (despite voting against their principles and their best judgement). Obama's flip flop may well turn out to be the biggest favor he and his campaign do for the Republicans in 08. I want him to win, but if he keeps reviving the usual criticisms of Democrats for the Republicans he could lose.
July 9, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a problem that he "flip-flopped" on this turd of a bill, yes. The fact that the bill exists in its current version is a colossal disgrace in the first place.
However, to dismiss the headlines and the criticism as not being a problem is shortsighted. The rumblings and criticism of "flip-flopping" primed our braindead media to treat the use of the word "refine" as another example of "flip-flopping". Sure, the media reports, uncritically, the charges and bullshit coming out of the McCain campaign, but its been doing that for some time now.
For progressives to start loudly criticizing Obama as flip-flopping (and I'm separating the issue from the reaction to it) primes this tendency for the media to frame him, and his actions, in the flip-flopping mode.
Next thing you know, it's received wisdom that Obama changes his positions on issues--even his base recognizes that, right?--and pretty soon, old Straight Talking McCain starts to look pretty good to the typical voter.
July 9, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, the problem is not the headlines or the criticism. The problem is the flip flop itself.
All of this was brought upon Obama by Obama and his foolish advisors who, like other naive and witless Democrats, have committed the same blunder on this as the common wisdom in DC begs Democrats to commit over and over and over on the federal level. How many times does this same stupid move have to wound a Democratic candidate before it gets through to these "smart" guys in DC and the gullible candidates they weaken with it?
July 9, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think dismissing media coverage of this as insignificant is very shortsighted.
July 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was shortsighted was Obama taking for granted that no such media coverage would occur and that telling the left to kiss his ass on FISA would somehow "blow over".
This was not just any old issue. This was defending bedrock guarantees of the 4th amendment to the Constitution from being violated in wholesale manner without consequence and to encourage additional violations in the future. Obama's decision to flip flop on FISA was arrogant and foolish in all respects. Every drop of negative ink in the media and every moment of negative airplay is his responsibility entirely and something he should have taken into account. He assumed, quite wrongly, that most "progressives" would just shut up and swallow it, but he was wrong and if he was in touch with his own base and didn't take them for granted (as is so clearly evident) he would have chosen to oppose this disgraceful legislation as he should have.
July 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just laughable. Every drop of negative ink is Barack Obama's fault.
Take a deep breath and consider what you just wrote.
July 9, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who, other than Obama, flip flopped for him on FISA?
You are willfully refusing to face facts.
Obama is responsible for Obama's positions, actions, and statements.
His very weak excuse for political "cover" is what is laughable! He caved in like every other weak sister, pathetic Democrat on the Hill after he said he would not do precisely that. That's his responsibility and all that results from the flip flop is his responsibility.
July 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could we dispense with the hypberbole surrounding what he has actually said? He never said "I'm voting against FISA". That truly would have been a vote to defend the Constitution.
He "flip-flopped" on the issue of retroactive immunity, which, in my opinion, is the least of the problems with this wretched bill. Excoriate him all you want for not voting against this bill, but the flip-flop has to do with retroactive immunity, not the existence of FISA itself.
July 9, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you don't understand that the fault doesn't lie with Obama, but those of his so-called supporters. Just as it's not Bush's fault he's unpopular; it's America's fault.
July 9, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not the point I'm making. Fault lies with Obama, of course. But to say that everything that comes out of this situation is his fault alone is a bit of a stretch.
July 9, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's no stretch at all. It's quite obvious.
If Obama hadn't have flip-flopped NONE of the criticism would have occured because none would have been necessary. And the Republican attacks would have been there just the same, except now that he has flip-flopped they can also attack him for that and for being willing to do anything (flip-flopping) to get elected just as they have done.
July 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
helped along by an outraged bunch of people on the internets.
July 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey guys, Obama voted for the amendment to strip retroactive immunity, so...? He did exactly what he said he was going to, even if the immunity amendment failed.
July 9, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Constantinople! Well put!
July 9, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey HusseinTenaX,
Check out Al Girodiano's take-down of Glen Greenwald.
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/salons-glenn-greenwald-writes-the-field
You were right, GG seems like a dick!!!
July 9, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really scary Hussein Tena...not for the cultural based name but the fact that so many of you are being so blindly lead. Did we not learn our lessons from the fiasco of Bush Administration to stand up and ask questions????
Think about it for a few minutes before you call me a racist.
July 9, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Glenn Greenwald is writing press releases for McCain now.
July 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is about feeding the anger within Obama's base. Not anything else. It doesn't matter how McCain votes on FISA.
July 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, in the Senate, some members spend half their time trying to persuade colleagues to change their mind on legislation, and the other half berating them for doing so.
July 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
God I hate the "flip flop" attack strategy. "My God, someone changed their mind on something!"
July 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well maybe you should blame your candidate for taking such an unprincipled position. If he hadn't flipfloped, he wouldn't get called a flipflopper!
Obama doesn't shit gold, and he needs to get called out when he screws up. If we hold our tongues we'd be no better then the republicans.
July 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, that was meant as a reply to HusseinTenaX
July 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Complain, agitage and advocate your positions passionately....but have some understanding that not everyone agrees with you on the FISA issue, and that some of us may even have a principle or two. It's hard for a progressive to believe such a thing about moderates, I know.
And the metallurgic properties of Obama's crap are of no interest to me.
July 9, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"not everyone agrees with you on the FISA issue, and that some of us may even have a principle or two"
Apparently those "principles" don't extend to the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, or to punishing those who break the law.
"It's hard for a progressive to believe such a thing about moderates, I know."
What the hell is "moderate" about expanding the secret, warrantless surveillance powers of the government, and passing legislation that prevents prosecution of entities that blatantly and repreatedly broke the law?
July 9, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
If moderate implies approving every sell out and every capitulation to the right wing (as it typically does) that isn't principle: it's cowardice and weakness.
Obama didn't change his mind. His flip flop on FISA was a cold, calculated----and stupid----political move that did nothing to strengthen his candidacy with anyone. The only people who don't see the naked and amoral political calculation here are those who refuse to acknowledge the fact that Obama's position today is in complete and total contradiction to his previous position on FISA and the kool aid drinkers are, of course, also blind to the facts.
July 9, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
sigh
July 9, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how is the kool aid today buckeye?
July 9, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, just fine.
Wait, i have to go to the prayer service and light the votive candles.
What's it like to be a political agnostic?
July 9, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't tell ya Buckeye! I put my faith in beliefs and principles and not in messiah's or idols.
July 9, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beliefs and principles?
Other than over-the-top trashing of Obama and/or his supporters, what would those beliefs and principles be?
Or are you just going to con me and anyone else into believing that you're some expert in 4th amendment jurisprudence?
Maybe you are the one who's drinking the kool aid.
July 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a more meta note: Can't these guys come up with their own attacks? Everything they try to throw at Obama is recylced, either from Hillary's campaign, the 2004 campaign against Kerry or from the interwebs. I seem to recall some articles saying that McCain was driving the news cycles, but everything they come up with is a weak repackaging of prior attacks. The only original line I can come up with off-hand is "My friends, that's not change we can believe in."
Worst. Campaign. Ever.
July 9, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. I am delighted to see that Sen McCain has chosen to employ almost exactly the same campaign as Sen Clinton employed, because it worked so poorly for her. Still and all, one rather has to wonder that no one in the McCain camp seems to notice that they are simply repeating all of Sen Clinton's errors over again.
July 9, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It worked so poorly for her?
In case you didn't notice, she damn near sunk the Obama juggernaut despite running out of money and facing an impossible uphill challenge as a result of Penn's poor initial strategy. I was not for Hillary and I'm glad she lost, but the fact is, were it not for the foolish tactical decisions of her campaign leadership prior to Super Tuesday, she would have beaten Obama with the strategy you say worked so poorly and she would be the nominee today.
Thus, McCain's people are using a tried and true line of attack and they are doing it with a great deal more lead time and with the benefit of all that Hillary did to lay the groundwork for them from Super Tuesday until the day she dropped out. Her successful attacks on Obama was why I was so disgusted by her scorched earth campaign: it only helped the Republicans and despite it's effectiveness was destined to fall short of the number of delegates needed to win. It never made any sense for her to do what she did after Super Tuesday except to damage Obama's chances. It makes all the sense in the world for McCain to follow suit because his only hope is to make Obama even more distasteful in the eyes of voters than he is himself. Thankfully, he starts out much weaker and much more distasteful than Hillary.
July 9, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about revisionist history.
The "Obama juggernaut?"
A relatively unknown 3-year, first term senator comes out of nowhere and beats the inevitable one, the former first lady and heiress to the most successful Democratic political machine in the last quarter of a century?
Huh?
July 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have another kool aid Buckeye!
July 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kool aid?
So pithy.
I bet you just thought that one up all-by-your-little self!
Aren't you so clever!
What's it like up on Mt. Olympus, as you look down on us mere mortals?
I mean, you are a constitutional scholarafter all, right?
July 9, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you are a kool aid besotted, true-believer, robot right?
July 9, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm waiting to see now whether Obama will tell me to sacrifice my wife and daughter.
I'll let you and Glenn Greenwald know what he says once I get my marching orders, 'kay?
July 9, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. The Obama juggernaut wasn't any such thing, or has everyone forgotten how close the race actually was?
July 9, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, suffice it to say, I find your claims here unconvincing. I think that you are advancing an unrealistically gloomy forecast based on an unrealistically rosy past. I am as disappointed as you are on Sen Obama's FISA reversal, but your propensity to see doom in it (exemplified similarly in other fora on other subjects, such as this) just rings hollow in my ears. I am not saying that I know that you are wrong; I have no more gift of prophecy than anyone else here. I am saying, however, that your intuitions on this subject do not jibe with my own. I find your take on Obama's prospects to be implausible.
July 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Cause the Democrats just love to cut our candidates off at the knees the minute we get them nominated.==
Party discipline, comrade! Remain loyal to the Leader! Eat everything they put on your plate!
Pardon me, but did someone appointed you the Komissar?
Seriously, we have got to stop the personality cult. He is a politician, not a messiah!
If we don't watch it we will soon be doing self-criticism sessions and wearing "guilty" labels for "disloyalty to the Great One"!
Our candidate did backtrack on his promise regarding what I consider to be a very important constitutional issue, continuous efforts to whitewash this by the uber-loyalists notwithstanding.
That's allright, to a point - politicians do that. I will still vote for him come November. I guess if he keeps doing this over and over again, I will sit the election out. I hope this is an isolated incident caused either by very bad advice or a personal mistake.
But politically, his decision to do what he did turned out to be a big looser, like I have predicted. Had he not voted for the bill, he would have remained aligned with the strong majority position of the American people, and could have easily rebutted the expected Republican attack dogs trying to paint him as "unpatriotic" by exposing them as being in the pocket of the telecoms, which they certainly are.
Instead, the publicly changed his position, with a unconvincing explanation and now is in a long term defensive crouch, fending of flip-flopper accusations. Does he not remember who damaging this was for Kerry?
He really did not have to do this at all.
July 9, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if this is as damaging as some liberals think.
What are we going to do? Vote for McCain?
No, if this move helps win some conservatives over to our cause, it's worth it. I still trust that Obama will not be spying on or locking up members of Greenpeace.
July 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is far less a question of hurting himself with the left as it is weakening himself with the entire electorate by falling into the Republican trap that was laid for him and which Obama fell for despite having seen this entire scenario play out very, very badly for Democrats time and again over the years! He made himself a flip-flopper on national security. He didn't make himself stronger. He looks like another wimpy Democrat who did this solely to protect himself which ironically opens him up for the very criticism he didn't have the gumption to face in the first place and so in cowardly manner tried to evade. Now he's got it coming at him both ways!
July 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, rubbage. You're actually saying that a "strong majority position of the American people" have an opinion on FISA?
July 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you on this point, dear CT Voter. I think that Obama's shift on this issue was both wrong as a matter of principle and as a matter of strategy. That said, I think it vastly overstates the matter to insist that "the American people" oppose the new FISA "compromise." I see no evidence whatever that any more than ~15% of the electorate are even aware of its specifics, let alone hold opinions about those specifics.
July 9, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
ACLU poll: Majority opposes telecom immunity plan
July 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I read the questions they used in that survey. Given the formulations of questions asked, I am prepared to believe that the survey indicates that a majority of Americans would oppose the provisions of the FISA renewal if they knew them. I am not convinced, however, that the survey indicates that any particular percentage of Americans is even aware of the bill's provisions, so it is difficult for me to conclude from this survey that most Americans even care.
In other words, this survey indicates that Obama could have scored political points by going on offense on this issue. It does not indicate to me, however, that he will actually have lost any support by reversing himself (although I still think that his reversal was a poor tactical choice).
July 9, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is all really great, just as long as what you want to do is lose. As long as that is your objective, stand up and fight the good fight. If Mitch McConnell (perfect score from the American Conservative Union in 2006) loses his Senate seat, he might make a good Supreme Court Justice as your rights are verily pissed down the drain.
July 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What Barack Obama will do is show that he's willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office."
And you know what, McCain?
It's working.
Maybe if YOU didn't flip-flop on immigration reform, off-shore drilling, and torture, you would have something to stand on.
As it is, McCain stands for nothing but more of the usual.
July 9, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Obama didn't change his mind on this. McCain flip-flops with far more ease and frequency.
I trust Obama's judgment will be flexible over time, but not because hi morality wavers.
July 9, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama slammed McCain yesterday for switching his position on immigration reform. So McCain came back with this to take the focus off of the hit that Obama landed on him. TPM does not give a shit if Obama loses. That has been made abundantly clear by now. Greg Sargent, in particular, loves to echo and sustain all attack messages on Obama.
July 9, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
liam, you usually have hilarious stuff (in a good way), and also tight analysis. But, this is why we want you to give TPM and Greg a break: they report "talking points," they don't make them up; they report the shit politicians and MSM sock-puppets make up, they don't make shit up. If you don't like reading what Greg posts, you are totally allowed to say so here, but I hope you don't think TPM owes you support for a particular person or issue just because you are an active commenter.
P. S. Bingaman amendment went down 60-something to 30-something.
July 9, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sure seems like the McCain campaign is not doing much of anything except sending out press releases in response to an Obama move.
Seems to me that the McCain campaign is engaging in a lot of reactive politics, rather than proactive politics.
At some point, won't this start to sound like the boy crying wolf?
July 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad that you pointed this out, dear CT Voter. I remember a lot of anguished garment rending on this very blog not but a week ago, about how Obama was merely reacting and McCain was on offense. What a difference a week makes! Now it is Obama who is clearly on offense and McCain is looking like a tortoise trying occasionally to poke his head out long enough to get a word in here and there. Suffice it to say, I like it!
July 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah.
Unfortunately, though, the McMedia is in so tight with the McCain campaign that McMedia probably isn't even able to recognize this.
July 9, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
==I don't know if this is as damaging as some liberals think.
What are we going to do? Vote for McCain?==
Well, no, but it will tamp down liberal enthusiasm for Obama, which will include a lot of newly registered young people. He needs all of us to win.
==No, if this move helps win some conservatives over to our cause, it's worth it.==
Again, strong majorities of the American people do not want warrantless government spying. What he did was just a basic tactical mistake.
==I still trust that Obama will not be spying on or locking up members of Greenpeace.==
Obama will not by "spying" on anyone - large banks of computers will be doing that, 24/7/365. I really don't understand, having been born in the old USSR, why liberal Americans are so blaze about total loss of privacy and a large lawless intrusion on their communications. Are you people...simple, or you truly don't believe the government does "bad stuff" with information it collects?
Today is definitely "you people" kind of day.
July 9, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you people". Nice.
July 9, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
=="you people". Nice.==
Well, it isn't nice. I use it when I don't understand how native-born Americans think or why they do something.
And I really don't get you people on this one. Why would a supposedly liberal citizen back the erosion of their core constitutional rights, when it brings you nothing but grief - no political advantage, no improvement in electoral changes, just accusations of flip-flopping and a permanent defensive crouch. Further, I don't understand the by now fairly rabid demands to "stop criticizing" Obama, as if we are to blame for the terrible position he took. This is not USSR and he is not Brezhnev. Nor is he a demigod that operates at a level no mere mortal can understand. He is a politician, who in this case has made a terrible mistake, for which he will continue to pay throughout the electoral season and over which may well lose the election. He certainly should be criticized for it - it pains me to see him diminish his chances for victory by shooting himself in the foot like that. All the while his "supporters" hollering that we should ignore his resulting severe limp and a pool of blood.
July 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
well put, dimitry. Barack is losing financial support at a rapid clip and he is deflating the enthusiasm of his grassroots volunteers, but it will not be fatal. He won't lose to McSame because of FISA, no matter how much shit McSame makes up.
Ending the occupation of Iraq-- altogether a much bigger deal. Barack is NOT waffling on ending the occupation, as TPM dutifully and constantly reports, contradicting all the MSM made-up shit.
July 9, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evidence? Marc Ambinder reported earlier this week that the Obama campaign declined to relay information about fundraising, but indicated clearly that the money spigot was open and flowing nicely.
July 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
That quote is not from me, but I would expect Obama's fundraising to take a notable hit over this issue.
July 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, many progressives expect that. My point was that the evidence that exists suggests otherwise.
July 9, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Barack was never a "liberal" he's always been a left-leaning centrist. The whole liberal deal is just the media mouthbreathers repeating Repub slime.
July 9, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the problem people??? Isn't this what many of the anti-FISA posters have been saying themselves lately. Don't try to fool yourselves. If this was a statment from Greenwald or KOS, or whatever other icon of the anti-FISA movement, most of you would not disagree.
I don't have a problem with people who are against FISA, but as Hilary Clinton learned during the primary, once you put it out there for mainstream consumption (i.e. "not ready to be Commander in Chief), then you inadvertently help the opposition with ammo for attack.
July 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a transparently false and unsupportable accusation. Obviously, you had a sudden attack of the vapors which would account for such nonsense. Or perhaps it was just too much kool aid.
July 9, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, somehow posted this as a reply to the wrong post. My apologies.
July 9, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
==TPM does not give a shit if Obama loses. That has been made abundantly clear by now. Greg Sargent, in particular, loves to echo and sustain all attack messages on Obama.==
I think TPM is not officially part of Obama campaign, nor should they be. I don't understand the complaints that a journalism site has not signed on as a mouthpiece of a particular political campaign.
Give them a break, man.
July 9, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, dimitry.
I would add not just give "them" a break, give US a break, too. Any of us who have been subscribers, commenters and/or supporters on this site for years don't have to take any shit from any candidate's supporters for expressing our opinion about their candidate. This site is a virtual public forum.
I'm following the FISA vote on the Senate floor at the moment, so I don't have time to go into details about how long I was supporting Barack and how I have responded to his betrayal on FISA, but he did betray us.
July 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Let's stay on the fence. Man. Fuck the election.
July 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean by give them a break. You just agreed with what I said about TPM, and then you plead for give them some special treatment. I said they do not give a shit if Obama loses. You agree with that, so why do they need to receive a break. If they are just telling it like it is, then allow me to do the same thing. You can remove your lips from TPM arse now.
July 9, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam, did you mean to suggest that TPM owes an obligation to any particular party or candidate?
Incidentally, holy crap Batman, Barack actually showed up and voted for the Bingaman amendment!
July 9, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. They do not, but people need to stop buying into the notion that they are a dedicated progressive site that is fully behind the Democratic nominee. They are not. They are in the business of selling traffic, and stirring up debates on all sides, tends to draw more eyeballs.
July 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Urg, only it isn't the same legislation, and he still opposes the immunity, but whatever. If people on the left eat their own on this one, we can't really expect McCain to get it any better.
July 9, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the point. Eat your own. Flock to Nader and get W. elected. It is the principle that matters, not having the goonsquad run the country for another term.
July 9, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There.
Obama just voted "aye" on the Dodd-Feingold amendment to remove telcom immunity.
Waiting for the response from the flock who claim "he's wiping his ass with the Constitution."
July 9, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cloture is the real vote, idiot.
Obama is a f*cking coward and "missed" the vote. Anything after cloture is campaign theatre.
Gawd.
July 9, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey dip-fuck:
The vote had to pass with 60 after Dod and Feingold caved on the filibuster.
Obama is there asshole.
Are you as stupid as your asinine posts show you to be?
July 9, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your stupidity is amazing. The cloture vote was on the 25th.
"The FISA Cloture vote just passed. The Senate will now consider the motion to proceed with the bill, then they'll head to the bill itself (Various motions will be put forward to strip immunity, odds are they will fail. Then a number of the 80 who voted to restrict debate will vote against FISA so they can say they were against the bill. However this was the real vote, and the rest is almost certainly nothing but kabuki for the rubes.
Obama and McCain were both absent, as was Clinton."
http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/25/the-real-fisa-vote-passes-80-to-15-with-the-presidential-nominees-passing/
Pathetic. Try again, Junior.
July 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turn on your television, luddite.
The FISA bill is passing regardless of whether Obama, Hillary and McCain do a public cluster-fuck in favor of removing telecom immunity.
Keep tilting at your fantasyland windmills, asshole.
July 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but he didn't withdraw from the presidential election, and concede to John McCain, so he really has not gone far enough to prove his liberal purity to the Jones Town Fringe Legion.
July 9, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, you got to give him that. He's proven he's no liberal.
July 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
While you've proven yourself to be just another flaming troll who adds nothing but feces to the discussion.
July 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And in not withdrawing from the race, he is fornicating and wiping his ass with the Constitution....at the same time!
July 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smells like coward shit to me.
July 9, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smells like troll-shit to me.
Have you ever posted anything here resembling anything intelligent?
))))))))))-crickets-((((((((((
July 9, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh. good one. Where do I get the Kool-Aid?
July 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
==liberal purity to the Jones Town Fringe Legion.==
I am really at a loss for words. Why is NOT voting for eviscerating the 4th Amendment considered to be a super-liberal thing to do?
What have we really come to, when supposedly liberal Americans are ENCOURAGING their candidate take away their rights, and be quick about it!
This is just too weird.
July 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Waiting for the response from the flock who claim "he's wiping his ass with the Constitution."==
If and when (I am still hoping for a "miracle") he votes to pass the new law, he will be eviscerating the 4th Amendment ot the US Constitution. He wil be backing essentially lawless surveilance of American citizens 24/7, with no probable cause whatsoever.
I think we may be watching a large, unforced error by the winning candidate and his campaign, that may well cost him the election. It is really too bad he decided to do this.
July 9, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't worry, dimitry, FISA is not going to cost him the election. Just the deep faith lots of progressives invested in him, along with their (collective) deep pockets.
July 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we may be watching a large, unforced error by the winning candidate and his campaign, that may well cost him the election. It is really too bad he decided to do this.
yep
July 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
==Just the deep faith lots of progressives invested in him, along with their (collective) deep pockets.==
That would be all the young people that we were hoping he will bring to the election as well. Add to that severe loss of enthusiasm from the Left, and strongly diminished financial resources. And lets not forget the large bandwidth his campaign has just lost to the continuous explanation of his change of heart.
So, this is a very bad day for liberty and a very bad day for Obama. Completely self-inflicted, as well. He just lost 5-7% of the top, with more to follow.
July 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terrific! Then we can celebrate the McCain Administration, and say to ourselves "Well, at least we were true to the Constitution!"
July 9, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why he took this DEEPLY UNPOPULAR position and chose to hurt his campaign, but he did. You do know that American people, by strong majorities DO NOT SUPPORT the position Obama took, don't you?
Your laments should be addressed to Obama's bad judgment or to the bad advice from his campaign he chose to follow.
July 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And again, when we talk about President McCain, you can be serene in knowing that you stuck up for the Constitution. Enjoy the memories.
July 9, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, blame Obama. It was his mistake and his miscalculation.
July 9, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if you choose to sit out this election rather than voting for Obama, you will help to install President McCain.
July 9, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I read that right?
The McCain campaign is blasting Obama for not filibustering the FISA bill?!?
Where are we, Bizzaro world?
July 9, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both the Feingold-Dodd and Specter amendments failed by 60-something to 30-something. Specter got a few more votes than Feingold & Dodd. I was in error about Barack's vote: he voted aye on the Feingold-Dodd, not the Bingaman amendment.
Because the Bingaman amendment is up now, third in order.
July 9, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... McCain's right on this one.
Hey, if a Republican comes out against cancer, I'm not going to come out for it, know what I mean?
July 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain supports the new FISA bill, and he support granting civil immunity to the Telecoms, so he is bashing Senator Obama for not doing all he can to stop what he, McCain, is supporting.
Are you saying that you support McCain passing the immunity, and you also object to Obama not defeating that same measure. No wonder McCain can baffle you with a blizzard of illogical bullshit.
July 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama never said he'd filibuster. This is classic GOP tactic - tell a lie that looks like the truth, create chaos, and then leave everyone else to sort it out.
July 9, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dmitry, it's a shame more are not listening to your points about the principles involved. It is true, most Americans take their rights for granted, and don't even seem to care much when their rights are taken away. Part of that is the sense of helplessness of "what can one person do."
Still, that's no excuse for supporting someone in doing the wrong thing. And, as you've said, Obama did not have to do this. Likely Obama will vote for the FISA amendment, even with no protections whatsoever, and claim it as some kind of victory, when it's not, it's the opposite.
Most people did not/do not care enough about FISA to vote for or against a presidential candidate no matter which way he voted, so Obama could have STUCK WITH his previous principled stand to support a filibuster, or spoken out firmly against this FISA amendment, and it would likely have died, rather than giving tacit approval of the tactics Reid and Pelosi have made in smoothing the way for this amendment.
--Ron
July 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely right.
July 9, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We really need to admit that the entire Democratic caucus in the Senate is responsible for this cave-in on FISA, especially Majority Leader Harry Reid. Barack screwed up in a major way, but the whole caucus must be held accountable.
And, no, that doesn't mean we vote them all out of office, it means we give them constant reminders that we are always watching, that there will be payback down the road when they least expect it, and that we are not going to be their slaves.
July 9, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
that doesn't mean we vote them all out of office
though I am all for challenging them in primaries with better candidates.
July 9, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we don't vote them all out of office at our first reasonable opportunity and replace them with people who have a spine and are willing to use it--particularly the leadership, then shame on us!
July 9, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a chance in November. You can vote McCain, Bob Barr, write in Nader if he's not on the ballot. Stick to your principles. A candidate must not merely be good, he must be perfect, and if not, off with his head. Whoever gets elected as a result is of no consequence -- the point is, TAKE A STAND!
July 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a refreshingly balanced assessment of this clusterfuck.
July 9, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we vote them all out of office!
What other kind of 'payback down the road' is there? Sternly-worded letters?
July 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one time McCain is correct.
There is no, I mean absolutely no, disputing the fact that Obama folder like a cowardly compliannt little cabin slave to the telcos and military industrial complex. Obama now has a lifetime pass to Unlce Tom telco's cabin, as does all that voted for this embarrassment. On FISA Obama is a full blown complicit coward that should make Michelle ashamed.
July 9, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In search of a clue?
Yes, you are!
Congratulations!
July 9, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question about FISA and the Fourth Amendment. Forgive me if it's a stupid or obvious question, but I'm still trying to catch up with all of this information.
Fourth Amendment:
"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."
According to Wikipedia (I know, not always the best of sources):
The 2008 FISA Amendments Act:
"* Requires FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
* Prohibits targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.
* Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
* Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
* Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future."
Therefore, is he disregarding the 4th, or is he trying to protect it? Three of those bullets amend the current FISA so that the 4th is MORE protected than before by requiring the executive to get court approval before wiretapping. You could argue, though, that the post-warrants are a violation, though most people would probably agree that protecting against the types of attacks possible today require a little more flexibility in terms of time than the types of attacks that could be launched in the 1790s.
It is true that Obama flip flopped on this issue of telecom immunity - but not on the 4th amendment. Obama's flip flop on telecom immunity disappoints me. But, if I understand the FISA provisions correctly, he isn't neglecting the Constitution.
I don't think Obama handled this situation very well, but I also don't think he's the Constitution killer that others now believe he is. Am I misunderstanding the issue? I really don't know, so any thoughtful criticism is welcome. Thanks!
July 9, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Wikipedia article is remarkably shallow, probably not vetted yet, and simply repeats the bipartisan National Surveillance State talking points.
For real analysis, you might start here.
July 10, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's actually the fault of the Liberal Blogs for bringing this up at all. If they hadn't, the McCain camp would never have noticed.
/snark
July 9, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink