Story Of Anti-FISA Group On Obama's Web Site Goes National
The networking group set up on MyBarackObama.com to oppose Obama's support for the FISA cave-in started as a mere trickle last week. But the group has grown and grown, and now it's gone national with a story about it in this morning's New York Times:
Senator Barack Obama's decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama's own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision...
Today's New York Post also has a story today on this that generously quotes yours truly. I hear another reporter for a major national daily is working on a story on it for tomorrow.
Ahh, the daily fisa story. I was wondering when it would pop-up. Venting posts to start in 4, 3, 2 . . . . .
July 2, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
can't obama's position on fisa be seen as actually being tougher on the telecoms and the lawbreakers than those who are against this bill are?
i mean, obama wants to hold them criminally accountable. the "netroots" and the anti-fisa people just want to make sure they can be sued in court.
ask a criminal which is worse, paying a fine, or doing time. i think they'll tell you money can be replaced(especially if you're a telecom giant that rakes in billions of dollars a year) but the time they spend in prison cannot be.
So my question is: why are these people being soft on telecoms and other lawbreakers?
July 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
also that story misrepresents want this fisa bill does. It doesn't grant them "legal" immunity, only civil immunity.
hopefully they'll issue a correction, because thats just blatantly wrong.
July 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
just some immunity, not all. so it's really not thaaaat bad. c'mon.
it's a pass for corporations to do whatever they want because hey, we'll just get congress to clear us later. a horrible precedent.
facism is corporate ownership of the state.
if this bill passes we're just a little bit closer to that scenario. chew on that.
July 2, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow.
obama is a fascist now because he doesn't think civil immunity is such a bad thing when you can still hold them criminally liable.
i think people are missing the forrest from the trees on this issue, i really do.
you want accountability? you think suing a multi-billion dollar telecom giant will get you that? any decision the plaintiffs would get would be chump change to that industry. walking around money that will probably be replaced in a matter of weeks or months.
that doesn't sound like accountability to me. it sounds like a slap on the wrist.
July 2, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, wasn't referring to Obama, merely how the nation is quickly becoming controlled by corporations. it's not all about obama. jeez.
July 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a crock of s%&t!
"Of course Spain could still indict the chairman of AT&T and have him extradited to the European Union for a criminal trial so Saint Obama is really protecting our rights for us."
If you insist on parroting the "criminal charges are still possible" canard at least educate yourself on the fallacy of it.
July 2, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
When has O said he wants to hold them criminally liable?
John Dean said something about it, but not Obama.
July 2, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, back at ya.
When did Obama say he wouldn't?
In fact, Obama has already said he would immediately pursue potential crimes in the Bush White House.
If you don't trust him, don't vote for him, it's as simple as that.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html
July 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. If you think that it's wise not to vote for him because I take issue with him on some counts and believe him to be a POLITICIAN, I question your line of "thinking."
July 2, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Saint Obambi also said he would never vote for the civil immunity FISA bill last Spring and look how he conveniently has changed his position on that.
No past quote from Saint Obambi can be believed in light of his numerous and insistent flip-flopping
July 2, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an objective observer...NOT.
Begone Satan!
...go back wanking off with the McBush campaign.
July 2, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 2, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have a point, he has said neither he would nor would not. And as far as signatures on this mentioned site, I personally would point out that when I signed, it was like number 200. And NO one had mentioned that the criminal aspect was an option. I suspect many of these signatures are people who are not fully aware, my self included last week, that this was possible.
In the big picture, this whole bill is a joke. Bottom line, I think people are very concerned about net neutrality, and if this flies and nothing is ever done to the corporations involved, then they will hit the net next. After all, who will stop them, Congress?
Righttttttt.
July 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to hold them both criminally and civilly liable. This bill (at most, maybe) allows for only criminal liability. That means that my position is tougher, not weaker, than the provisions of this bill. In other words, your argument here is logically bankrupt.
July 2, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok. but this bill doesn't allow for both.
so, in the event that you have to choose one(which is the situation we currently face because if they scrap this bill completely you think they're really going to leave out criminal immunity of the next one?), you're choosing the weaker of the two, in my opinion.
July 2, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. Sounds like our party on this issue. (not to be snarky).
July 2, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
i dont think contrary opinions stink.
I just think they're wrong. And, I'm not going to back down because I think i'm right and i think my argument is better. (of course, i'm sure everyone says that about their own ideas and opinions anyway but...)
I really do think Obama is right on this.
Also, people misunderstand Obama's position. Telecom Immuity was never his major hang-up.
Yes, he's against it. But his concern was more about oversight and restoring the FISA court to the standards we've had for it for 30+ years (or however long its been around).
July 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real story is our group is doubling in size every couple of days. You guys can hang out and argue about it on TPM. We're talking about it where it counts.
July 2, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how exactly does it count? The answer is, not only does it bolster the inflated ego of the person who decided to embed the group on Obama's Web site as a demonstration of power and influence.
It counts as an embarrassment to the Democratic nominee and it provides fodder for Obama's political opponents and for fence-sitting voters to reject his candidacy in November.
The group's existence on MyBarackObama.com changes NOTHING. It is no more than a display bluster and political naiveté. It does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to transform the political landscape or eliminate the Bill.
It counts against winning the GE in November.
July 2, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick, tell us how many more people have signed up in the past 24 hours! I'm jonesin' for my Obama anti-FISA group update fix!
July 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Buck Smith was in charge of those numbers...
July 2, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
At 9:35 a.m. PDT, membership was at 10,705. During the next five minutes, 20 new members joined.
July 2, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, I hope it does go national. I'm tired of hearing pundits say Obama has never bucked his party, this should shut them up.
July 2, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. 'Obama Fails to Cave to Netroots' isn't exactly going to drive away independents or Reagan Democrats or...
July 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a fun beach ball for the media to toss around: "Obama the Maverick." ;)
July 2, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key to losing the "Never bucked the party" tag is you have to vote with the other side in opposition to the leaders of your party. Even though Nancy Pelosi voted for it...more house Dems voted against it. This could actually be his first real chance to show bipartisanship...of course the majority of you are pissed off at him for it.
July 2, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not. I actually couldn't care less.
Say a class action suit is brought against the telecoms, what would happen? Well, if they won in the lower courts, which is NOT a foregone conclusion, it would then bounce around between the appellate court and the lower court for about 14 years. Eventually, after say 20 years, it would end up at the Supreme Court who would reduce it or even more likely throw it out.
Take it from a plaintiff in Exxon Vs. Baker, it isn't worth the effort. If all you are looking for is the discovery phase just go with criminal proceedings.
July 2, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
When these stories run in the national press, it guarantees that Obama isn't going to change his position on the FISA vote.
Whatever the merits of the argument (and I do see some merit on both sides of it), he can't appear to give in to arm-twisting from the base while he's in the middle of a national campaign.
July 2, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
no democrat ever lost an election by being attacked from the left...
July 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm...Jimmy Carter, 1980?
July 2, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
carter had other problems besides teddy. i think carter was doomed, challenger or no.
July 2, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carter barely lost in 1980. Electoral landslide yes, popular landslide: no. Had Teddy not challenged Carter, chances are he would have served a second term.
Also, what about Nader in 2000? He may not have been the deciding factor, but his candidacy sure didn't help Gore.
Then there's also Humphrey in 1968 who was relentlessly challenged from the left by McCarthy and RFK and then after being nominated he was hounded by protesters everywhere he went. They were criticizing from the left.
July 2, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha. Good one.
I think the real story is how few have signed up. Going around the internets I was beginning to think this was a major rebellion among his supporters, but... 7000?
July 2, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
3000+ have joined since this story was put out there today.
July 2, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually 3000 joined in about 24 hours, not 24 minutes, as your post implied. While the sroy posted today and said 7000+, this number was reached yeasterday midday. This is still impressive growth. If this is going viral (an overused term I admit), then the growth will be geometric, and we could see huge (50,000+) in a few days.
July 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the story broke...
July 2, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In a four-way matchup that includes independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, Obama's lead over McCain dwindles to 3 percentage points, 46 percent to 43 percent. (Nader registers 6 percent, and Barr gets 3 percent.)" Nader should keep pulling from the FISAnistas!
July 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. All the public objections have guaranteed exactly the opposite of what the netroots want.
July 2, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He deserves this, though Obamabots will rail and howl. For the rest of us who chafe at Obama's poor judgment here, we'll still help to put him the WH because we know there is no other choice.
July 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm... Obamabot Rail/Howl Count: 0
I just checked the campaign site to see whether there were any groups organized in support of Obama's decision. There aren't. That sort of surprised me.
July 2, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The day is young (out west).
July 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to Freaktown (above):
Holding the telecoms "criminally liable" sounds great, but don't you think Bushco is going to issue a lot of wide-ranging pardons before he leaves office? If this FISA law passes, then that's all he has to do to prevent further investigation and prosecution. If the civil suits go forward, then there is at least a chance we'll find out what went on in the Bush administration with regard to this surveillance (among other things). Telecoms don't want to pay big $$ for this so they'll probably tell what assurances they were given by whom in the Bush administration.
Even in the unlikey event that Bush didn't issue pre-emptive pardons, I'm not sure I believe Obama and the feeble Dems will follow up. Knowing them, they'll say "the past is past, let's let bygones be bygones" and then they also can spy on the people if they want.
Any accountability or even the possibility of learning the truth about how corrupt this administration is will depend on the people. And taking away civil suits closes off an avenue for the people. It's wrong. Obama knows it's wrong.
July 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
aha!
in order to accept a pardon, you have to admit there was a crime.
if bush issues a pardon, then he admits his administration and the telecoms broke the law. he will basically be saying, my administrations anti-terror strategy was in blatant violation of the law.
do you think he'll do that? and even if he does, i'd be happy because they would have admitted they are criminals and history will forever remember them as such.
July 2, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
so admission is enough for you? prosecution means nothing?
July 2, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you going to prosecute, and how?
where is the evidence going to come from? Who wants to make a bet with me - the telecoms are sued and the evidence is sealed because it's a matter of national security- that's what I'm betting would happen.
Patrick Fitzgerald ran into this same problem and couldn't get anywhere.
I'll say this: this damages Obama's ability to turn out the progessive vote and I'll never forgive anyone who made this into this kind of situation.
And fuck Glenn Greenwald.
July 2, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
July 2, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Put Nancy Pelosi and Hoyer on that list. If you want someone to be mad at, there's your target. No reason this had to put back on the table before the election.
July 2, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No reason this had to put back on the table before the election." Other than the fact that it was going to expire and every Democrat would've been labled for preventing us from investigating terrorists...that would've helped the ROMP at least.
July 2, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta give ya that one.
July 2, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, actually FISA is still going right now, as we speak. It's just doesn't have all the horrible things included from this bill. It does however include several other tasty bits, that come damn close to infringing our privacy already, as is.
From Sen. Dodd's statement:
"As originally written in 1978, and as amended many times since, FISA has accomplished its mission; it has been a valuable tool for conducting surveillance of terrorists and those who would harm America.
And every time presidents have come to Congress openly to ask for more leeway under FISA, Congress has worked with them; Congress has negotiated; and together, Congress and the president have struck a balance that safeguards America while doing its utmost to protect privacy.
Last summer, Congress made a technical correction to FISA, enabling the president to wiretap, without a warrant, conversations between two foreign targets, even if those conversations are routed through American computers. For other reasons, I felt that this past summer’s legislation went too far, and I opposed it. But the point is that Congress once again proved its willingness to work with the president on FISA.
Isn’t that enough?
Just this past October and November, the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees worked with the president to further refine FISA and ensure that, in a true emergency, the FISA court would do nothing to slow down intelligence gathering.
Isn’t that enough?
And as for the FISA court? Between 1978 and 2004, according to the Washington Post, the FISA court approved 18,748 warrants—and rejected five.
The FISA court has sided with the executive ninety nine point nine percent of the time.
Isn’t that enough?
Is anything lacking? Have we forgotten something? Isn’t all of this enough to keep us safe?"
July 2, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As reported in Monday’s New York Post, Specialist Alex Jimenez and two of his fellow soldierswere captured by Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq last May. However, a rescue effort to find these soldiers wasn’t launched until 10 hours after the event because lawyers for the National Security Agency needed to find a legal basis to cite “probable cause” in obtaining a warrant to conduct surveillance on terrorists linked to the kidnapping."...apparently so.
July 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
god, you'll swallow anything.
July 2, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're probably scared of jose padilla and the miami "sleeper cell."
July 2, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It would be nice to think had there not been a delay that Jimenez and his colleagues would have been located and rescued, but that is assuming an awful lot since the ambush and abduction occurred in a hotbed of insurgent activity where the lay of the land made a search very difficult and the locals were extremely uncooperative, two salient factors that The Post of course does not take into consideration in its rush to judgment."
http://themoderatevoice.com/media/msm/15634/alex-jimenez-as-fisa-poster-boy/
Yeah, wouldn't be the incompetence of the Bush Admn. to blame there, would it?
July 2, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologists for Senator Obama are using a lot of Republican talking points to confuse the issues in the debate about the pending FISA legislation. Supporters of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and apologists for Senator Obama have no shame about manufacturing horror stories to convince the public that deficiencies in FISA endanger our national security. This truth-challenged fabrication was mentioned by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) during the debate on the floor of the House of Representatives on March 14, 2008, as Mr. Smith urged his colleague's to vote against the FISA amendments that were approved by the House of Representatives directly after this debate. The fable repeated by Rep. Smith consists of an allegation that deficiencies in the FISA were to blame for a 10-hour delay by U.S. intelligence personnel seeking to monitor enemy combatants in Iraq after three U.S. soldiers were kidnapped on May 12, 2007 (and were later murdered). This stink bomb was dropped on the House Judiciary Committee by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell on September 20, 2007, and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) seduced Attorney General Michael Mukasey with this same story during Mr. Mukasey's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 30, 2008. However, here is a timeline of the actual events that was released by The Director of National Intelligence on September 27, 2007:
[*On May 12, 2007, after a coordinated attack on their position south of Baghdad, three U.S. soldiers were reported missing and believed to have been captured by Iraqi insurgents. Immediately upon learning of the attack, theater-based and national SIGINT assets responded by dedicating all available resources to obtaining intelligence concerning the attack.
*On May 13 and 14, 2007, the Intelligence Community began to develop additional leads concerning the communications of insurgents claiming responsibility for the attack, including approaching the FISA Court on May 14 for an amendment to a then-current order with some bearing on the hostage situation. The amendment was granted that day. As soon as specific leads had been identified, analysts began to compile all the necessary information to establish the factual basis for issuance of a FISA court order as required by the emergency authorization provision of the statute.
*On May 15, 2007:
At 10:00 a.m., key U.S. agencies met to discuss and develop various options for collecting additional intelligence relating to the kidnapping by accessing certain communications
At 10:52 a.m., the NSA notified the Department of Justice (DOJ) of its desire to collect some communications that require a FISA order. It was determined that some FISA coverage already existed.
At 12:53 p.m., the NSA General Counsel agreed that all of the requirements for an emergency FISA authorization had been met for the remaining collection of the communications inside the U.S.
From 12:53 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Administration lawyers and intelligence officials discussed various legal and operational issues associated with the surveillance.
At 5:15 p.m., the DOJ's FISA office - the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) - received a call formally requesting emergency authority to conduct surveillance.
At 5:30 p.m., the OIPR attorney on duty attempted to reach the Solicitor General who was the Acting Attorney General while Attorney General Gonzales was addressing a United States Attorney's Conference in Texas. However, the Solicitor General had left for the day and the decision was made to attempt to reach Attorney General in Texas.
(The law allows four officials to grant authority to conduct emergency surveillance: the AG, the Acting AG, the Deputy AG, and the Assistant AG.
The AG was out of town. The Acting AG had left the building. The Deputy AG (Paul McNulty) had resigned the day before. As for the Assistant AG, Congress had authorized the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the National Security Division to grant authorizations - but the Justice Department had not yet altered its own internal regulations to allow him to do so. DOJ did not alter its internal guidelines until June 12 - a month later. After striking out with all four DOJ officials, the decision was made to try to call AG Gonzales in Texas.)
The OIPR attorney then contacted the Justice Department Command Center and requested that the Command Center locate the Attorney General in Texas. After several telephone calls with the staff accompanying the Attorney General, the OIPR lawyers were able to speak directly with the Attorney General and brief him on the facts of the emergency request.
At 7:18 p.m., the Attorney General authorized the requested surveillance. The Justice Department attorneys immediately notified the FBI.
At 7:28 p.m., the FBI noticed (sic) key intelligence agencies and personnel of the approval.
At 7:38 p.m., surveillance began.]
Because FISA did not and does not apply to "foreign-to-foreign" communications, we can only speculate why it was necessary to obtain a FISA warrant for electronic surveillance in Iraq. The storytellers indicate that the reason a FISA warrant was necessary is that the electronic communications were being intercepted within the United States, but this contradicts the nonspefific information that was furnished by Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein on March 3, 2008. Assuming that a FISA warrant was necessary, the facts establish that government officials waited until 10:00 A.M. (probably after they went to the International House of Pancakes for breakfast) on May 15, 2007 to discuss information that had been developing for three days, and then waited three more hours to decide that they had enough information to initiate electronic surveillance via an emergency request to the Attorney General. Then, rather than requesting the Attorney General to initiate electronic surveillance for this emergency, the government officials discussed the case for more than four hours before initiating the request to the Attorney General. Then, even though the Attorney General must have been aware of the drama that was unfolding in his own department, it took two additional hours to locate the Attorney General and obtain approval of the request to initiate electronic surveillance in this emergency. Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 2702(b)(8), states: "A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a communication to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency." If the episode in question had domestic legal implications due to the location in which the electronic communications were intercepted, this statute would seem to be a classic fit for the Republican fairy tale, but no mention is made about any attempt to utilize this provision or to explain the reason this provision was not applicable to this situation. This entire ordeal reads like an episode from the Keystone Cops, and it is clear that the delay in surveilling the enemy combatants was not due to any deficiency in FISA, but instead was caused by gross incompetence and ineptitude among officials in the Department of Justice. As he engaged in diplomacy with Congress last year, it appears that Mike McConnell thought that he could play both good cop and bad cop by himself, but he now has lost most of his credibility with the Democrats, and it does not matter to the Republicans whether Mike McConnell is or is not credible.
July 3, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you Tena, except I really don't think this flap will damage much of anything. Here's the thing: Most of us on the left are old enough to remember the 2000 election.
We heard all the ranting about pragmatic Democrats being just as bad as Republicans. We saw Gore lose. We saw Bush invade Iraq. We saw Gore win a Nobel prize. We no longer believe that pragmatic Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. Progressives may have healthy arguments about policy on the internet, but we're still going to vote, and when we vote, we're going to pull (D).
July 2, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
word. i don't know why discussion of this issue has everyone saying the sky is falling.
July 2, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU don't know why? That's too funny.
July 2, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey. i find corporations involvement in our politics very unsettling. is the sky falling? not yet. but this bill sets a horrible precedent. as far as obama and the party is concerned- I don't think this will hurt him one bit and the sky is most certainly not falling.
However, it seems apparent that many on here think this is hurting Obama greatly (sky is falling) and seek to discredit anyone who thinks this bill is a bad idea.
I've yet to see a really valid argument as to why this bill is good.
July 2, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say that the opposition to Obama's position has taken a bit of a "sky is falling" tone to it. That's what I was referring to.
And I think it (the opposition) has probably completely backfired, because, as others above pointed out, Obama isn't going to change his position now, and that's a given.
July 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
fair enough. extremes on both sides, which i should've stated above. i think most of us are in the grey area and should be treated as such. we're not all Obama-nuts or triangulators or dead-end Constitutionalists but somewhere in between.
back to outtie status. My weekend just started early!!!
July 2, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
have you not been reading my posts?!
July 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry. like i said....
July 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here.
July 2, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, I told you that yesterday would not be your last word on the FISA "compromise." I guess that if this really hurts progressive turnout for Obama then you will be right to be angry with those of us making a stink on this issue, but I will believe that outcome when I see it. For my part, I think that this pressure group is doing more good than harm.
July 2, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"doing more good". Good for whom, Greg?
If you want Obama to change his position on FISA, the stories now appearing the national press would, it seems to me, reduce to zero the chances that he's going to change his position.
So, the pressure probably isn't doing anything wrt FISA. What is the good that the public pressure is going?
And this isn't a snarky sarcastic a-holey question. It's a genuine question. If you think that the pressure is going to be good for Obama, make him aware that he's taken a stance that some of his supporters are fundamentally opposed to, ok, but who cares, unless he actually acts on that pressure?
July 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case I have not been sufficiently clear in the past, dear CT Voter, I am not some sort of moral purist here. My main concern is not to see Obama adopt my position; my main concern is to see this "compromise" bill defeated. If Obama maintains his public posture in the face of this story, but is moved nonetheless by the pressure to work behind the scenes to see the bill fail, that will be quite enough for me. Publicity about the size of the group, as such, is all to the good as far as I am concerned (at least so far).
July 2, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your answer.
This
wasn't as clear to me, but mostly because your comments have been in the context of comments from others whose main concern appears to be to get Obama to adopt their position.
July 2, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am presuming that you will never forgive Senator Obama because he is to blame for this situation.
July 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm saying, i think BUSH, not Obama is the one who's boxed in here.
If he passes this bill, he can still be held criminally liable. if he passes the bill and grants pardons, he will admit his administration has engaged in criminal acts in blatant violation of the law.
I see this as a win-win. if it passes and no pardons are issues, great! lets prosecute.
if bush grants pardons, he will admit his crimes and his legacy (whatever shambles are left of it anyway) will be cemented as nothing more than a petty criminal who trampled on the rights of americans and broke his oath to defend and protet the constitution.
July 2, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you put waaay to much stock in pardons and their symbolism. forest for the trees, indeed.
July 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're confused. If these guys have shown anything it's that they have no problem contorting their reading of the laws to achieve whatever goal they set.
Bush will just say something like: There was no law broken here, and these people helped protect us from a future terrorist attack. However, on the off chance that an activist judge might determine wrongly that there was a law broken, I hereby grant a full pardon to every telecom company and their officers who assisted us in tracking down the terrorists.
No admission of guilt, and no chance for future prosecution.
July 2, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
except thats not how pardons work.
you cant' accept a pardon without admitting to a crime. you just can't.
A pardoned man must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
To do this, the pardoned man must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.
A pardon carries an 'imputation of guilt', and accepting a pardon is 'an admission of guilt'
July 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you look at Burdick, that's the holding; the language about "imputation of guilt" is just speculative dicta. I dare say the telecom personnel would not need to have a pardon forced upon them.
July 2, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so. He'll just say that the Democrats are trying to criminalize political differences (remember Scooter Libby?) and that he's issuing pardons to avoid that. The people or corporations will accept the pardon and there will be no long-lasting stigma.
Bush's father pardoned a bunch of guys involved in the Iran-Conta affair to protect himself. No one suffered any major ill effects from accepting the pardons.
It would be nice if people accepting pardons had to make a full confession of what they did that they are accepting the pardon for, but that's not the way it works.
The pardon power is an extremely pernicious tool in the hand of a corrupt president, which is why Congress is supposed to remove him before he can use it. Our congress has failed to do their duty and I fear that we are going to pay the price with mass pardons just before Bush leaves office.
July 2, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
seeing as how this president had trouble naming one mistake he's made, getting him to admit he broke the law would be a coup!
July 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bzzzt! Wrong answer!
Pardons don't have to be accepted. Richard Nixon never "accepted" his or ever admitted anything.
George Steinbrenner was convicted of felony extortion for squeezing Republican campaign contributions out of his employees. Ronald Reagan pardoned him on his last day in office. Steinbrenner never admitted anything.
Wanna bet Dubya is gonna throw that pardon blanket as far and wide as he can on his last day? It sucks, I know, but that's the way it is.
July 2, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that one on the pardon.
However, I really don't care about the pardon issue. It's probably better anyway so that there is no excuse for the telecoms and anyone else to cooperate with congressional investigations of wtf has been going on for the past 7 1/2 years. I want to know what has been going on, not collect dollars from the telecoms.
July 2, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're wrong.
See Burdick v United States
July 2, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fundamental law school rule, frequently breached: Read the case before citing it.
July 2, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or at least skim the Cliff Notes version on Wikipedia:
This article summarizes the 1974 Schick v. Reed decision:
Of course, the Burdick argument just seems silly to observers of semi-recent history who note that Nixon's pardon involved no admission of guilt, and who note numerous other cases where a person's good name was considered to have been restored by executive pardon.
July 4, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"in order to accept a pardon, you have to admit there was a crime."
Not true. Case in point, Nixon.
July 2, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
burdick v united states.
July 2, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
236 U.S. 79 (1915)
July 2, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not so much that you have to admit guilt to be pardoned--it is that you must have been found guilty of something before you can be pardoned.
July 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burdick really doesn't say that. Burdick was a newspaper reporter and the government was seeking Burdick's testimony prosecuting a matter about which he had testified -- he refused to testify on the basis of his 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination. President Wilson granted him a pardon "for all offenses against the United States which he, the said George Burdick, has committed or may have committed, or taken part in, in connection with the securing, writing about, or assisting in the publication of the information so incorporated in the aforementioned article."
S. Court, quite possibly as a method of protecting the freedom of the press, held that a pardon is not effective until it is accepted by its grantee, thus allowing Burdick to remain silent about his sources. The S.Ct. expressly declined to rule on Burdick's challenge "that the pardon is void as being outside of the power of the President under the Constitution of the United States, because it was issued before accusation, or conviction or admission of an offense."
July 2, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for being independent Greg and TPM EC. I appreciate it.
July 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Indie Pro, when I read the post, I had a very different reaction to Greg's 'independence'.
I read Greg's line, "Today's New York Post also has a story today on this that generously quotes yours truly". I suddenly thought,especially seeing Greg trade back pats with the Post[!], that Greg had become the opposite of an fair or impartial blogger delivering news. The Post actually quotes Greg's opinion of 'Obama as disappointing' to build its case about division among Democrats. Greg, calling that 'generous' must consider his moment of fame more importance that allowing that premature conclusion to go unchallenged.
In fact, my thought was that Greg, playing footsie in an MSM game, has now done what he accuses Obama of doing, i.e., compromising himself.
July 2, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
more important than.....
July 2, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the press is jumping at a story about Democratic disunity ?
You don't say. I could never have guessed this is where it would have ended up. Nope. Noone could have seen this one coming.
July 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Breaking News: The sky is blue, water is wet and gravity sucks.
More news at 11:00!
July 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
No, never could have seen that the NY Times would print someting about disunity among Democrats.
The fact that it did is interpreted, apparently, as evidence that this "movement against Obama" really has strength and legitimacy, and not as typical mainstream reporting about "the Democrats in disarray".
July 2, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Greg's fault.
July 2, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not necessarily Greg's fault, but it is relevant that Greg has not once posted about this story without working in his chosen judgmental adjective: 'cave-in' .....as in his phrase 'the FISA cave-in'.
July 2, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
And there was none of Greg's critical analysis of the piece in the NY Times or in the Post. Perhaps because Greg was mentioned by name?
July 2, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible that since the vote has been delayed in the Senate and there's such a huge backlash in what is not only Obama's, but the Democratic Party's base, that some votes could shift around in the Senate and we could actually get the telecom immunity stripped. People are acting like the legislation is a done deal. It's not, it can still be changed, even if Obama doesn't do any grandstanding. An eventuality which is, as y'all have pointed out politically impossible at this point.
July 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is how stupid this has gotten - Keith Olbermann made a big ass deal out of John Dean's assessment that in order to be pardoned, someone has to be charged with something and admit guilt.
I could have told Keith that at any point in the last 25 years because that is not a big deal - that's the way it is and always was. John Dean didn't come up with this and Keith looks stupid on this issue because he's parroting what he's been told.
a good 3/4s of the people who signed on do not know what they are signing on to.
Because this issue is not simple - the reductivists out there have tried to make it into a simple issue of our constitutional rights and it's not.
How many of you plan to sue telecoms?
Goddamn the Democrats for this - it's ours to lose and we're working on it.
July 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know T, this whole issue seams like so much inside baseball. I don't see those not addicted to politics, whether on the right or left, really caring about this issue, much less understanding it.
Those of us on this blog are politics junkies. Both sides have them, but we are a small percentage of the population as a whole.
I don't think this will hurt Obama much. Sure, some on the left are miffed, but are they miffed enough to throw their votes to McCain? I doubt it.
July 2, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, mainly because it's McCain who wil soon find out he cannot dodge the question, "how did Vietnam prepare you to be president?" That makes MUCH more sense to non-political types than who gets to sue whom. McCain's candidacy is a complete joke.
A President Obama's DoJ is going to be busier than one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.
July 2, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please see advice upthread from Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation to me.
(Much as this Solomon wants me to, I'm not going to take it.)
July 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
To echo the good nislied, I am hard pressed to believe that Obama will lose many (any?) votes because of this anti-FISA pressure group (although, by the same token I am equally unpersuaded that he will actually gain any votes by taking the position that he has adopted). For better or worse, FISA renewal just is not an issue for most of the electorate. Turn on the radio and you will not hear many calls about it. Open your daily paper and you will not see many letters to the editor. Read the cross-tabs in the Gallup tracking polls and it will not come up as a major issue. The idea that enough voters are paying attention to this story to either cost or benefit Obama has little evidence to support it.
July 2, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably right, but I was thinking about campaign contributions.
BigO's FISA reversal could lead to a noticeable slowing of contributions to his campaign from the netroots. Feelings about this issue run a lot higher among his contributors than among the general electorate.
Hmmm. Could it be that by joining this group, his contributors are getting to blow off a little bit of steam? Might that lead to them resuming their campaign contributions sooner? Dunno.
From another perspective, a lot of people support Obama because of their weariness with Democratic triangulators. Just because he's locked up the nomination is no reason for them to start embracing (what they see as) this Mark Penn style of panderation. When it appears that Obama is doing just that, how could anyone expect them to do anything but howl?
July 2, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument from me. I agree entirely.
July 2, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen HusseinTenaX.
July 2, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, are you going to report on the second McCain campaign shake-up instead of on the traditional "Dems in Disarray" story that the media loves?
July 2, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ct Voter said it is better to email these things.
Just passing on the friendly advice.
July 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for forwarding that, Indie Pro.
July 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm unhappy about FISA too but it's time to give this one a rest.
There's no way Obama can come out to the left of "San Francisco Values" Pelosi and the House leadership, especially under public pressure from the Netroots.
You want to be pissed? Be pissed at the House people who put together the latest compromise.
July 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
102 of them voted for it...just the Dems.
July 2, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
OhioGuy, you got that right. The rush to blame Obama primarily for the whole bill when only he came out for the Pelosi-Hoyer bill under pressure for delaying his statement, even accusing him of complicity or even masterminding the whole deal, was like out of 9-11 Truth crazy world. It was one or more of four possibilities only: (1)he was sincerely in favor of the underlying reforms, (2) he thought the underlying reforms went too far but didn't want to show up Pelosi and/or thought Pelosi's stance would give him cover on the left, and also new a better deal had been tried for and failed and his opposition couldn't change that, (3) it was pure political positioning on his weakest issue, or (4) he was trying to ditch a political constituency that is not even in theory satisfiable by any possible real-world political developments early (namely the netroots), since the fall-out was inevitable sooner or later in any case.
All those converging motivations led to the decision, but without evidence to allege that he conspired to get the issue off the table by backing down in all respects is unfair. You gotta have some evidence.
July 2, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG we might disagree!
July 2, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No more pooping on the thread for me. I'm outtie. I hope we can all be respectful of each other's opinions on this issue. Play nice (I sure didn't yesterday).
July 2, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admire that Obama hasn't taken the posts off his website. And after Cornyn's Buck Smith and the person who started PUMA being outed as a John McCain donator in 2000, I really doubt that all 7,000 are Obama supporters. No doubt, the GOP are gleefully stirring the pot, trying to instill discord within the party.
It's the Republicans only chance--for our enthusiasm to dwindle. And it must be working, because I'm losing my hope. Cynicism and apathy are rapidly returning--not because of Obama but because of his supporters who seem bent on destroying our spirit. I wasn't just inspired by Obama, although I believe he is a very intelligent candidate and the most capable to deal with the serious problems we are facing.
I was most inspired by the people in this country actually coming together to win this election. But with all this FISA dissension in the national press now, I definitely am not feeling inspired or have enough hope to go out in the Texas heat and sign up voters anymore. Eeh!
And after my family's financial sacrifice and hours volunteering for Obama, I am feeling completely conned by these people.
July 2, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I submit that emotional manipulation, in order to be successful, needs to be a bit more subtle than this. The above merits little more than a "cry me a river..."
July 2, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
That's just wishful thinking. Senator Obama has given no indication that he wants to hold them criminally accountable. If he's willing to let them off the hook for civil liability, what makes you think that he would take the much harder task of prosecuting them criminally?
Besides, even if this were his thinking, all it would take is a pardon by Bush before he leaves office to kill this strategy.
Civil suits are probably the only chance we have to find out to what extent the Bush administration broke the law. I'm not particularly interested in punishing the telecom companies, I just think it's wrong to give them immunity before finding out what it is they actually did.
I suggest you find columns such as this one by Glenn Greenwald at Salon (you may have to watch an ad to get access). He's covered the extensively, and in my opionion has made more sense than anyone else on this issue.
Also, see Digby's comments at Hullabaloo.
July 2, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was supposed to be a reply to freaktown way up at the top, but I haven't mastered this software yet.
July 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
you should read all of my posts. because i adressed the pardon issue above.
July 2, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPMReaderHG
I am not adroit with any software anywhere. I may as well be wearing a blindfold, mittens and earmuffs whilst at the computer.
This is easy though. Hit the red Reply button in the bottom of the original commenter's box and your response should dangle from it somewhere.
July 2, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I may as well be wearing a blindfold, mittens and earmuffs whilst at the computer.
I think I just ID'd John McCain posting under a false name...
July 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That doesn't always work if the software thinks I'm not logged in (even though it knows who I am). After signing in, the "In reply to" box is no longer there. You have to go back to the original comment that you are replying to and click on the "Reply" link again. In this case, I thought I had done this, but apparently not.
July 2, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud Sen Obama's willingness to let his supporters enagage in organized dissent using his own resources. It manifests the core right to speech, and allows the debate to unfold.
We're at the point now, with 7 months left in this federal nightmare where everthing ought to be viewed as temporary. Many of today's players will be gone next year, esp. on the GOP side.
Today looks nothing like the future. I urge thoughtful, wary patience.
July 2, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree. People forget that this is how democracy is supposed to work. Organized dissent = accountability. At this point Obama and/or the Democratic Party have to address this concern. That doesn't mean Obama will filibuster the bill, but it does mean that Democrats may now have the leverage to get telecom immunity stripped form the bill that is passed by the Senate.
July 2, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem with your assessment. Obama has not been elected President. At this point he is one of 100 U.S. Senators. He does not have the power as a first term, Jr. Senator - as a legislator -not a national executive to change the FISA Bill.
What this group does is provide fodder for Obama's supporters and lessen the possibility that he will be elected. Therefore, the accountability issue becomes moot because of his leadership status.
July 2, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are all the PUMA Republican Trolls signing up?
Why have so many people signed up more than once on the list?
Why did Lanny Davis get far more sign ups for his Hillary for VP petition in less than half the time?
Hell; you could get ten times that many to vote for a baseball player from your home team to be on the all star team, in just one day.
All in all, this looks like the nation, as a whole, is not buying into this petition.
July 2, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I scrolled down and was going post a comment reflecting your sentiments and voila, I found yours.
Basic questions need to be asked about how large this group actually is and if they truly support Obama.
I was going through some of the community blogs this morning and I noticed a few urging Obama to reject FISA. I clicked on the people who posted these blogs, to see what else they have written, etc. For most of them, the FISA post was the only thing they had written.
Obviously, my investigation was limited and not conclusive. That being said, the media should do some investigating before reporting how large this anti-FISA group is.
July 2, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does the fact that a person has written only one post on one subject make his loyalty suspect? This makes no sense.
July 2, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point. It could be that a whole number of Obama supporters who have never posted before were motivated enough to come to the website for the first time and lodge their concerns.
Also, please note the caveat I stated in my last paragraph.
July 2, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marioth - I agree. The statement that attracted me first to Obama was, "we have to change the mindset of this country that took us into Iraq." I just don't expect Obama to change that mindset and erase the Rovian fear that has been instilled in this country over the past seven years in the first month of becoming the candidate. But I very much hope he will be able to do it in eight years, because that's the change we most need.
And Missouri voter - I was expressing my honest feelings of hope diminishing. Sorry you cannot process that honesty.
Save any further attacks for the next Obama supporter you disagree with. I'm out.
July 2, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not the honesty with which I take issue. To say that your post was honest does not in the least diminish the force of my critique. It is still a hamfisted attempt to browbeat your critics with your own "diminish[ment of] hope." The "cry me a river" seems still an apt response.
July 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, crass politics time. (I actually give Obama more credit for semi-sincerity -- albeit wrongheaded semi-sincerity--on the FISA flipflop than the Greenwalds of the world do, but no one else seems to so lets just go there.)
The fact that the resistance from the left on this is being played up in the MSM is PRECISELY the story the Obama campaign was seeking to gin up with this cold-blooded, cynical betrayal of his conscience, word, and base. Obama gets no points as a for bucking the left if the left's vocal oppostion is not clearly perceived in the mainstream. The fact that the opposition exists among his own supporters and is hosted on his own web platform just goes to show what an inclusive, tolerant, cynical manipulator he really is.
I really don't know what the mix of considerations were that led to his position on FISA. But if we're gonna go with the most cynical viewpoint, we should at least try to describe the politics of how it's actually playing out accurately.
July 2, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone who is a member of this group answer a question for me? This is not meant to be snarky at all:
What do you expect to accomplish with this group? Do you hope that Obama will back off and agree to support the filibuster or vote against the bill? or are you just trying to get your voices heard?
Aren't you all putting Obama in a position where now he CAN'T change his mind because after all the teeth gnashing he will be seen as caving in to the netroots which will be eaten up and exploited by the right and the MSM?
I'm not looking for a fight on this issue as I understand people's frustrations. I myself am torn about this issue: I was disappointed in his stand, but I also understand why he's doing what he's doing. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of where this movement is headed.
July 2, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
One possibility is that this is, in part, a pretext to exert some pressure on Obama for a longer list of reversals and equivocations since the primary. So, it's not about FISA alone.
July 2, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Organized dissent = accountability. I would say Sen Obama supports this view or he would have not permitted groups to freely associate using his resources.
There is nothing to be gained by shutting down debate. It is difficult to imagine this actually costing Sen Obama votes.
I realize we've all been jaded for 16 years of no feceral governance, but this is the way it's supposed to work: dissent, debate, listen, compromise.
July 2, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feceral? Is this some sort of Freudian scatology?
I care not a fart-hing.
July 2, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own reply to CT Voter up-thread touches on your question. I think that JustinH's response is also apt, however.
We all want Obama to win, which means that we all want Obama to do what is necessary to win. If that means (from time to time) selling out the netroots when it is strategically necessary to do so, I dare say that we even want him to do that (albeit we may grumble while it is happening). We want him to do this only as much as is absolutely necessary, however. If he can win by 5% by selling us out on issue A, but win by 15% by selling us out on issues A & B, we want him to take that 5% win and be happy with it. Forceful pushback in these sorts of circumstances can help to counteract the pressures that might otherwise lead to more selling-out (for lack of a better term) than is strictly necessary. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
July 2, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, Missouri voter.
This thread seems to be pretty long, probably far too long to allow me to change the frame by pointing out that while everyone gets agitated on both sides over telecom immunity and the various facets of that corner of the problem, the FISA bill contains (as far I understand) a SECOND sellout that actually endangers our former Constitutional rights FAR MORE DIRECTLY FOR EVERY CITIZEN (and residents and illegal aliens and every other category too).
Basically the second sellout is that the administration can now easily ask for and get (from the rubber-stamp court that never refuses a warrant) BLANKET warrants, going after a class of persons rather than named individuals.
And the way the Bush crew plays fast and loose with the loose rules, can you really doubt that "Democratic campaign team staffers," "Democrats," and "anybody who might be thinking of voting Democratic" will not be the actual categories which get these blanket warrants IN A FEW WEEKS, no matter what the ostensible categories named in the secret warrant request to the secret court?
Please stress these points in your phone calls and faxes to Congress-critters in the next 6 days, we are already a long long way from either Constitutional government as our grandparents understood it, or any notion of the "land of the free and the home of the brave."
July 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
absolutely.
July 2, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people genuinely care about FISA. And if you don't make an effort to change your representative's position, then, your representative is most definitely not going to change his/her position. Obama is the most public, and I think the reasons behind why people join are as varied as the people themselves.
Meanwhile, MSNBC was discussing some of the comments on the site, along with how John McCain might be able to benefit from this fight among the Democrats.
July 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder how many of the people on myBO that joined the anti-FISA group are new users.
July 2, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it relevant? I've support Obama (including financially) since early on in the primaries, but I've never joins myBO. I am tempted to join now to voice my opposition to his support of the FISA bill.
July 2, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am also an obama supporter from the getgo. until this fisa group formed, the only group on myBO i was a member of was TPM-aholics. (still having fundraisers 7/19!)
July 2, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe its not a "sellout" and he's, you know, acting like a leader and doing what he thinks is the best thing at this time.
Political reality is always hard to accept but ,as they say, politics is the art of the possible. The leadership of both houses and Obama decided that this is the possible.
My guess is that is the netroots position was more in line with the overall national opinion that's what they'd do. But this is a democracy and politicians respond to their constituents. To many Democrats believed that this was right and/or that they would get slammed by their voters for it.
So what was Obama supposed to do? Start off by pissing off the house leaders and hurting the ticket downstream?
In these sorts of cases harassing the politicians is generally not going to work. You have to convince other Americans first. Politicians will not fear you as much as they will fear majorities and we don't have one. And right the rhetoric is going so hysterically over the top that the netroots are looking like adolescents throwing a temper tantrum rather than serious people with a valid constitutional agenda.
As such we are again seeing why Democrats have lost most presidential elections since the sixties.
July 2, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Politicians will not fear you as much as they will fear majorities and we don't have one"
Well, if we never believe we have a majority we aren't ever going to have a majority because all we do is preemptively surrender to the other side. What's he doing to my congressman who voted against the bill? By siding with the Republicans he makes it more difficult for other Democrats to oppose them. Sheesh, if there ever was a year when you ought to be able to get some points for simply not siding with the Republican Party this ought to be the year. But, hey, the Republicans must be right, they must be, since we're following them.
July 2, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feeling very strongly re BO's changing his position on telecom immunity, I joined the myBO group yesterday:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA
A few quick calculations yesterday showed a sign-up rate varying around 2-3/min. Today the rate has increased to about 6/min. At this rate, in a couple of hours, this group will become the largest group on the site.
I expect he will take notice. I hope he will change his position and vote for the anticipated amendment to strip telecom immunity from the pending FISA bill.
This is a core issue for me: whether or not I can trust his word is at stake. I hope he is responsive to this remarkable outpouring of dismay from supporters. Can BO recognize his error and demonstrate change?
July 2, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Can BO recognize his error and demonstrate change?"
Actually all you are doing is boxing him in now. If he moves on this to the majority of voters he looks like he is caving to the loud radicals in his base. That kind of thing is far more likely to lose him the election that pissing off Kos.
If you want to change something like this you have to start by educating voters. The details of Fisa are very arcane and complicated and understood by nobody but the small percentage of political obsessives who pay attention to these things. As such its the sort of thing that is easy for knaves on the right to demagogue on.
A critical mass of representatives saw this as a loosing proposition for them and something that was simply not possible. To many voters disagree with the left on this or simply don't understand it. You can't expect them to move unless the people move. Its a democracy after all.
July 2, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I've admired about BO is his ability to admit mistakes. Furthermore, I sense that the enthusiasm of his supporters rests in no small part in his willingness to stand up to what apparently otherwise cowers many fellow Democrats.
The Dems first big mistake was to take impeachment "off the table." After all, impeachment is simply the duty to investigate evidence of possible lawbreaking by the executive. Even after the 2006 shift in Congressional power back toward the Dems, and our nation's plummeting opinion of the Bush administration, they still seemed fearful of being attacked by Republicans: "soft on terror" "not supporting the troops", the litany is now familiar. They acted afraid, very afraid, just as Bush intended.
BO's stand last October on the telecom immunity issue--a provision pushed strongly by Repubs since last summers's Protect America Act-- illustrated a refreshing approach: a principled position on an issue--not one based on popularity or triangulation. He was, notably with Senators Dodd and Feingold, inspiring. They delayed things and threatened to filibuster and eventually managed to hold off passage of telecom immunity. Signs of courage, long unseen around Democrats, flickered briefly in the halls of Congress. And note that BO took this position before it was clear to many citizens just what was at stake.
Obama is a student of the constitution and I believe his considerable talent in explaining arcane issues like telecom immunity and the vital importance of not sacrificing our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, especially when faced with "terrorists who hate us for our freedoms" will inspire and make sense to Americans. I think he can do it. In any case, the ball is in his court. If he choses to demonstrate a new profile in courage and take leadership of the Democratic Party next week he just might rekindle hope for our failing experiment in democracy.
July 2, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone likes checks and balances until it's their power being checked or balanced. Obama is already behaving like an incumbent. Real change? Not this time, not this year.
July 2, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, then they can get along fine without me. And Obama can raise $2,300 from all those who don't give a shit instead of from me.
July 2, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Props to you, Greg Sargent, on getting the big shout out from the New York Post.
Mr. Murdoch is loving him some Gregger!
July 2, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama caves to the net roots he will be on his way to setting a record for a politician caving to the most groups on single issue We're picking up steam, propelled by one request: Tell me again why you didn't vote for Hillary.
July 2, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now that this opposition group is getting national press... If Obama doesn't change his mind, what then! Will all the member of the group then actively oppose Obama, maybe hold a protest outside of his campaign HQ...
I would just like to know how far this opposition plans to go if Obama doesn't meet their demands.
July 2, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would just like to know how far this opposition plans to go if Obama doesn't meet their demands.
dear sheep, well, for this dissident it means i will probably only hold one or two obama fundraisers this year. it means i will probably only make one trip to a battleground state to knock on doors, etc.
July 2, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sheep" ?
Whatevah...
July 2, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am neither "netroots" (whatever that is) or the "opposition", but I do admire the Constitution. So for me Obama's capitulation means he will get my vote but not my money or active support. And the yard sign is coming down.
July 2, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will vote for him and I will probably do voter registration in my free time, if he votes for this bill after opposing. He will probably get no money from me, though I could possibly be won over again. If he actively opposes it and votes against- I will volunteer and do whatever is asked of me, possibly quitting my job in the fall to do so. I will give money.
I am somewhat netroots, not trying to be opposition, not an activist, not Harriet Christian, and not a pirate.
If the bill goes down, I will rejoice. If it passes, I will STFU until after election day.
July 2, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respect that.
You seem to be on a more reasonable plane than some people.
As someone new to the netroots/political addiction, I still have many family and friends on "the outside" who have no idea that this is going on. They just wanna know when and where they go to vote.
But on some sites (not so much this one, I'll admit) many of the anti-FISA people have voiced their "oppsition" in the form of an ultimatum. I can understand the no donations, no support, or even no more "enthusiastic" endorsement, but the whole vote NO or else I won't vote, IMHO, is borderine blackmail.
July 2, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm taking my ball and going home because this Obama guy doesn't do exactly what I say 100% of the time no matter how much I threaten him.
To hell with health care, S-CHIP, global warming, or Iraq war.
I'll let up on McCain just because I really really want to punish the telecoms (although not so far as cancelling my iPhone contract with AT&T!)
Signed, the One-Issue Voter
July 2, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand how people feel about this. I'm certainly not happy about it either.
But then somebody up thread asked why didn't you vote for Hillary then?"
Well, the answer is that in this of situation the Clintonesque, A.K.A. "typical politician", thing to do would be to either obfuscate their position and find a way to avoid the vote altogether (in fact Hillary did skip the cloture vote and I don't think has released a statement) or grab the most popular position that pandered to whomever needed to be pandered to and pretend that they never had a different opinion.
What Obama did do was detail what he liked about the bill, what he didn't like about the bill, what he thought he could change as president and why he believed that it was the right thing to do even if it meant breaking with something he did believe in.
Now I didn't agree with him but at the same time I felt like my intelligence was being respected here. He didn't just shove it down the memory hole and walk away. I believed that he believes he is making the best possible choice given the options at this time.
I don't like it but I voted for a leader not a guy who's always going to say what I want to hear. And like I said before politics is the art of the possible and I voted for him because I think he's the best artist of the possible available. If he says he can't get it done and has to cut his losses then ok, that's where I think we have to go.
If that makes me a sheep then:
BAAAAH!
An don't forget to pass the Kool Aide.
July 2, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I wish they'd let you edit your posts here. I always make typos that I don't notice until its up there.
At any rate I meant to say that I didn't feel like he was insulting my intelligence here. I felt like he was respecting it but taking a different direction than I thought best.
July 2, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink