The House and Senate know damn well that a pardon awaits every legal action

There's nothing to stop Bush from issuing pardons before any legal action is taken.

and that legal matters before the election would shut much of Congress down.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Posted at July 4, 2008 10:16 PM in response to Rove Refuses House Judiciary Subpoena

Do we really need another post entitled "Why I'm Angry at Barack Obama Over His FISA Cave"?

Probably as much as we need another "You Guys Shut Up and Quit Criticizing Obama".

Posted at July 4, 2008 9:24 PM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

Remember, folks - it's about taking the gains when and where we get them and then consolidating in order to move forward from that point. Did Eisenhower call a halt on June 7th, 1944 because all of Nazi-held Europe did not surrender when the first troops hit the beach? I think not.

No, but he didn't shoot any of his troops in the back, either.

Some on the left remind me of the old saw about perfect being the enemy of good. The only consolation, as I've said, is that the right is far, far worse.

The perfect is also the enemy of the mediocre, the lesser of two evils, and the bad. So what?

Posted at July 4, 2008 9:19 PM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

But now he's staked out a position, can't back down, and is vested in raising the ante and becoming a standard-bearer, reveling in his own newfound 'power' and the adoring posts of his own acolytes. Instead of talking people off of ledges, he's keeping them up there and essentially encouraging others to join.

Are you talking about Greenwald or Obama? Because it could apply equally to both.

Posted at July 4, 2008 9:15 PM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

* Intolerant attitude towards healthy criticism (Kos' recent remark that if you don't like his refusal to contribute money than [sic] "fuck you")

Wasn't Kos' reaction in response to the criticism he got for criticizing Obama? Seems that he's not the only one who is intolerant towards "healthy criticism" ,whatever that means (probably "criticism I happen to agree with").

Posted at July 4, 2008 9:06 PM in response to Top signs of Netroots overreach

What many of us don't understand about this issue, is why are you determined that Obama should throw himself on the sword over this bill? He has no chance to override it in the Senate, and those who argue he does are just not realistic. The Democrats from conservative states are going to vote to get reelected no matter how much pressure Reid and Obama put on them.

What many of us don't understand is why you think this is a winning strategy for him. Democrats won in 2006 because people thought they might not cave in and give Bush everything he wants.

He's not just the junior Senator from Illinois. He's also the presumptive Democratic nominee for President. As such, he should have some influence with his party. Even if he can't stop the bill from passing, he could vote against it or at least make it clear why he thinks the bill is needed.

And then there's the question of strategy. The bloggers have made it impossible now for Obama to cave because he would look weak and controlled by the left. Why use a strategy that is counterproductive to your purpose? These two questions are what bother me the most about all of this.

Better to look weak and controlled by the left than weak and controlled by the right, which is where he is now. His mistake was reversing himself on this in the first place.

What strategy would you suggest? Just shut up and not point out that he has reversed his position and is now supporting a pernicious bill? Either we're part of the movement or not, and I'm not joining any movement that demands I shut up when I see the leader doing something clearly wrong and possibly harmful to himself. I think what he's done could be far more harmful than sticking to his original position (which I think was the correct and honorable one).

Posted at July 3, 2008 3:22 PM in response to Group Urging Obama To Oppose FISA Cave Now Biggest On His Web Site

My fellow progressive friends ought to wait until we get Barack Obama in the white house and then hold his feet-to-the-fire.

What make you think that Obama would be any more responsive after he gets elected? He'll have the next election to worry about.

My problem is that Obama hasn't given a coherent explanation from as to why he thinks this bill is necessary. The old FISA bill doesn't expire and is still in place.

My understanding of the major changes in the new FISA bill are: (1) civil immunity for the telecom companies, which Obama says he is against, and (2) making permanent the allowing the government to spy with no individual warrants as previously authorized in the "Protect America Act", which Obama voted against.

Rights enumerated in the Constitution are not chips to be bargained away by candidates to win elections. Either the 4th Amendment means something and surveillance requires warrants with probable cause, or the Constitution should be amended. But it shouldn't be pissed away in an effort to win an election.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:47 AM in response to Group Urging Obama To Oppose FISA Cave Now Biggest On His Web Site

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for Kos and others to refuse to give any money to the campaign, yet want to have equal say to the people who have enthusiastically been supporting his candidacy the whole time?

What other influence can we have? My understanding is that Kos gave previously, but has decided against giving at the present time based on Obama's position on FISA.

I'm in the same position. Obama may have my vote, by default, but he's not getting my money if he's going to take the same position as Bush on the 4th amendment.

Posted at July 3, 2008 11:36 AM in response to Group Urging Obama To Oppose FISA Cave Now Biggest On His Web Site

There's something two faced about claiming you were "disappointed" while refusing to support the campaign (like Kos). How can you say you are not giving any more money when you never gave any?

Real supporters should have more clout.

So, candidates should pay most attention to the people who give them the most money?

Isn't that a lot like bribery?

Posted at July 3, 2008 10:59 AM in response to Group Urging Obama To Oppose FISA Cave Now Biggest On His Web Site

Wonder how many of the people on myBO that joined the anti-FISA group are new users.

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.

Posted at July 2, 2008 4:29 PM in response to Story Of Anti-FISA Group On Obama's Web Site Goes National