Don't be so harsh
Atrios and others are taking too hard a line on Barack Obama's FISA stance.
The key issue here is immunity. The Senator said he'd try to persuade the Senate to alter that provision. Furthermore, he said that as President he would make sure there's a way to get to the bottom of what happened here. I don't see what else can be expected under the current circumstances.
The deal here was negotiated by other people. I don't see how Senator Obama or for that matter Senator Clinton could be held responsible for those negotiations, which have gone on behind closed doors for several months. Moreover, the details of the surveillance legislation both require much more study and will be dependent on responsible enforcement by a new Administration. I think we'd all agree that the country would be best off if that were an Obama Administration. As to the immunity portions, the best that can be hoped for at this stage is what Senator Obama has promised.
I agree.
There's a lot of hot headed foolishness, and Republicans are loving it. Every time a pundit on the left starts a circular firing squad, the Naderites, Freepers and Limbots pop up up to pour fuel on the fire.
This reminds me of the foolishness from bloggers like Armando on DKos, talking about how Lamont was a "shoo-in."
It's not liberal or courageous or anything one should aspire to. It's just ignorant and foolish.
June 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heaven forbid we hold our candidate accountable for the positions he takes. Let's all mute our criticisms so that we're never heard at all.
June 20, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Destor. That's really what I was saying. You're not being hyperbolic or reducing issues to a bumper sticker level, as that would be so unlike you.
June 20, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Save us from knee jerk moderates!
June 20, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
he is not a moderate he is your quintessential Obamanoid.
June 20, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with his stance. I think it's very smart. Does that make me an "obamaoid" ?
Funny, it seems that would be a regular right winger talking point. It's funny how the only consistent thread in your posts is to poison the well and reinforce winger talking points.
It's funny how you claimed to be a diehard Hillary supporter, you Destor, Bluebell, Oleeb, and others. And yet you seem to have no problem with all of her far more compromised votes. I don't see you claiming to be concerned about her stance on this issue now. Though you may, now that I've mentioned it. Good troll housekeeping and all.
I'm sure it's just an accident that you guys support the more establishment and triangulated candidate when it suits you to divide the Democratic party, and then claim to be hardcore fighters for justice and "courage" again when it gives you something to complain about the Dem party.
Funny how whatever way there is to poison the well, there you guys are, every single time.
June 20, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
as always kozmik your comments could benefit from a bit of fact-checking.
June 21, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know sometimes it is about doing what is right regardless.
This sort of calculating, craven politicking with the fourth amendment is pure bullshit man and nothing but. It is deplorable! It is unpatriotic and more than anything else it is cowardly.
It's because of this kind of fraidy cat backing down that people don't want to vote for a Democrat for President: they think if he backs down on stuff like this what will he do if we are threatened?
June 20, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally true. It's tempting to blame Democrats when things like this happen, but Obama wouldn't have even been put in this position were it not for Republicans. Insisting on ideological purity is self-destructive, and the Glenn Greenwald-led campaign to punish Hoyer carries the opportunity cost of challenging vulnerable Republicans, who all have much worse voting records than moderate Democrats.
June 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If our Democrats act like Republicans, how does that help us?
June 20, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
June 20, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not asking Obama to stop the thing. I'm demanding that he NOT VOTE FOR THE DAMNED BILL. Is it too much to ask for a chief executive that supports and defends the Constitution?
June 20, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed, whether or not Obama supports immunity doesn't matter if he votes for the bill with immunity in it. Saying he supports the bill is a big mistake.
And yes he can do something. He can filibuster. And he owes us a filibuster.
It's not enough to promise to get to the bottom of things when he's in office. The lawsuits must be allowed to continue and for that to happen this bill must not pass with immunity in it.
June 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key here is the future of American civil liberties. This is about core values. If the gun nuts can vote on the 2nd amendment, I sure won't apologize for voting on the 4th.
A candidate willing to sell out core values before he even gets the nomination isn't worth diddly. As far as I'm concerned, there is no difference whatever between the Democrats and Republicans. They've sold this country to the devil (the war for profit corporations) and there is not one word in the Constitution they wouldn't sell for a campaign contribution.
June 20, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly Bluebell this was one of the prime criticisms of Obama prior to his becoming the annointed one on Super Tuesday. What, I wonder, has the kool aid crowd got to say now that Obama's true colors have been revealed?
June 20, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was always anti-Hillary because I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that she'd take a hard right after she won the nomination because she'd already shown herself on Kyl-Lieberman. I was willing to give Obama the benefit. Sheesh, this just makes me so furious because I thought we'd defeated them in the primaries. I tell you, it's nothing but 1 step forward and 2 steps back.
June 20, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the thing that the Obama supporters were adamant about throughout was that she-who-must-not-be-named was too much of a prevaricator, too much of a triangulator, and so on. If he's against the bill, he should say so, and denounce the House leadership for being so stupid. If he supports it, he should cut the bull. I mean, wasn't that what you said Obama was like?
June 20, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. But dead on.
June 20, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for giving me another opportunity to apologize to the Hillary supporters. If he's going to vote like McCain then so much for all the hooey about change. I hold Obama to the same standard as Hillary and to the same standard I hold my own Senator. I will not vote for anyone who votes for this bill.
June 20, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me neither. And I've always liked Obama.
On the other hand, before I endure a wave of "I told you so's" from Clinton supporters, I wonder how she votes on it too.
June 20, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, she'll vote for it. Then again, she could have a latter day conversion and become the champion of civil liberties. Might be a few delegate votes there.
We might as well elect Lieberman for all the difference it makes. They vote to fund the war. They vote to eviscerate the 4th amendment. What possible difference does it make if they win or lose. We get the same government, a wholely owned subsidiary of big oil, big pharma, big telecom, big banks, big insurance and War Profiteers are US. The National Guard gets another tour in Iraq. Another levee breaks on the Mississippi. Another house gets foreclosed. Another innocent person is detained and tortured without cause. Change, what a joke.
June 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're on fire Bluebell and I like it!
June 20, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you and I also thank the 4 out of 5 House Democrats from my state who voted against this bill.
June 20, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a bullshitter. You never held Obama to the same standards as Hillary. All this about Obama was known before he got the nomination and you ignored it and trashed Hillary. Now that he has clinched the nomination you want to throw him to the wolves. Hmmmmm, mighty peculiar. Who benefits from your flip-flopping? McCain of course.
June 20, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said, in situations like this the Freepers and trolls always pop up, and the regular goofballs and Naderites rush to them.
Look at Swift 63. The guy's avatar is literally a troll, and his posts clearly intend to drive wedges. And there goes Destor jumping on the bandwagon.
What else is new?
:rolleyes:
June 20, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The substance of what was said was dead on, so why shouldn't I?
June 20, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik has consistently shown himself to be, like so many of the obama supporters, a personality cult voter - for him it's all about the person, issues and substance be damned.
June 22, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Swift 63's avatar is clearly an elf. Quite an evil-looking one, it's true. But not a troll.
June 21, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect Mr. Hundt, you are nothing more than a shameless apologist for Obama and have been on any number of issues since February. On this issue, however, your excuses are more than a little offensive.
You know very well the line you are offering as some kind of political cover for Obama's shameless and quite cowardly capitulation on the issue of telecom immunity is nothing more than that: cover. It's typical DC Democratic cowardice and Obama is just another member of the club. To hell with what your constituency thinks just make sure the executives at the telecoms are made happy. BS Mr. Hundt. Pure, shameless, BS.
There is simply no excuse whatsoever for Obama's cave-in or your defense of it. The transparent excuses he offers and that you reiterate on his behalf are pure and utter garbage every bit as worthless as his rhetoric about changing Washington and "hope". This decision on Obama's part puts the lie to all these months of winking and nodding to the fools who drank the kool-aid... "just wait till he gets in, then he'll do the right thing..." Yeah, right.
Obama has disgraced himself and all of his supporters by falling in line with this humiliating capitulation. It is an totally inexcusable circumvention of the Constitution and our laws. You, and he, should be very ashamed.
June 20, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, oleeb.
Josh really needs to do something about surrogates using their blogging positions here to supply cover for their favorite candidates.
Can't wait to see Jonathan Taplin on the Obama/FISA cave. I'm predicting something like: "He needs this power so that he can keep an eye on my arch nemesis, Harvey Weinstein! What do you mean Weinstein doesn't know who I am? I know Bob Dylan! Vote Obama!"
Sorry for the impromptu Taplin parody but it's pretty good. Actually, it's less a parody then it is a prediction. It'll be posted some time this weekend.
June 20, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure Destor and Oleeb. Where's Bluebell an Strat? Maybe Ellen can pitch in some Republican talking points and fabricated stories while we're at it?
Josh really needs you dictating against policy discussion you disagree with.
Especially anybody willing to lay out the reasons why they agree with a policy stance Obama takes.
Sure, Josh should follow your lead in Freeping against Obama at every oppurtunity.
Riiight Destor. How much more desperate and unhinged will you become by November?
June 20, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really surprised by some of the responses I'm reading on hear appearing to absolve Obama from the positions he's taking.
I saw Nancy Pelosi speak today and I could not believe the garbage she was spewing trying to rationalize the indefensible.
Going along with immunity for the TelCos is WRONG by any measure and the situation is no more complicated or nuanced than that.
I realize that it's usually Republicans that speak in such absolutes, but when it comes to the Constitution, you are either for it or against it. The Fourth amendment is clear and what Buch and the TelCos did was in clear, unmistakable violation of ut.
Obama appears to have blown this one, but those defending him are blowing it without a doubt.
June 20, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this were an MJ Rosenberg column, it would be titled: "Obama is Doing Everything Exactly Right with FISA!"
June 20, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish he'd come out against the bill too. But I'm amazed that, with this one statement, some folks are apologizing to Hillary supporters and vowing not to vote for Obama.
Are you really that brittle?
June 20, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's freeping. Never take people at face value online.
A lot of them claimed to be Hillary supporters when it was clear she was losing and there was a danger of the party splitting. They never had a problem with her compromised votes but use every oppurtunity to jump on Obama. nor are they concerned about her stance now. If Hillary was the nominee, they'd be saying the opposite to split the party and bash Hillary.
It's just poisoning the well. They're either Naderites or rt wing freepers. Same difference really.
June 20, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are so utterly full of crap.
always ignoring the substance of any criticism of obama and leveling empty personal attacks (and baseless divinations of motive) against those making the criticism.
June 22, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For my part, I will still vote for him in November, but that doesn't change the very strong disappointment I feel toward him.
I think it's hardest for those who actually believed his rhetoric, and I confess myself to falling for his bullshit in recent weeks.
But the fact is, all along he's been a centrist who has telegraphed that he would capitulate to the Republicans given the chance. He used fancy talk to obfuscate that fact, but it's not like what he did yesterday should really surprise anyone.
It's just depressing because here we are, once again, in a presidential election with a choice between a ho-hum Democrat and and a crazy Republican. I realize this is a naive hope, but for once in my life I'd like a chance to vote for a presidential candidate because of how good they are, not vote against a presidential candidate because of how bad they are.
June 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, FWIW -- the immunity provision is apparently in regard to civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. And Obama, in the past anyway, has said he would investigate the possibility of criminal wrongdoing by the telecoms if elected President.
June 20, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. Though of course we'd prefer no immunity, it's important to get all the facts straight.
June 20, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an irrelevant point...
I'm a civilian who was a Verizon customer during the class period. I have a valid civil complaint against my telecom provider because my provider broke longstanding laws. Why should I be sanguine about congress stepping in after the lawbreaking has happened and saying it's okay?
June 21, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is relevant. It doesn't change the whole picture, but it's part of the picture. And I'm not suggesting sanguininity on your part or anybody else's.
I do think civil suits could be difficult to bring even if permitted. I'm guessing simply being a Verizon customer (for example) wouldn't be sufficient for standing. Betcha ten to one the court would require some further injury beyond simply being a customer. Which is not to say I'm sanguine about that either.
I also don't think immunity is the only concern here. The changes to the FISA law itself are a concern.
And finally, I'm also disappointed Obama didn't take a clearer, more courageous stand against the bill. But I'm not going to bitterly decide at this point that he's just another pol and I'll show him by voting for McCain.
June 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply put, Obama has to vote against this bill. Has Senator Dodd, one of the vigorous opponents of immunity for telecom companies, been co-opted as well? Is this anotehr case of "first I voted against it and then I voted for it."
June 20, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see what else can be expected under the current circumstances.
Why can't we just expect him to vote against the damn bill? If he isn't one of the people who negotiated the bill, then presumably he made no commitments or compromises, and is not one of those invested in it. He is free to do what he wants.
Obama's remarks on his position are ridiculously transparent rationalizations of what is clearly nothing but scared political kowtowing to some very powerful companies. It must be humiliating for him. His overall drift to the bland center in the past several weeks has been depressing. He is in danger of throwing away everything that once made him interesting as a candidate. Does he have any positions left that contain a measure of excitement, individuality or political risk?
The ongoing cave-in is putting me in a down and disinterested "Yes, we can't" mood. While I'm certainly as committed as ever to throwing the Republicans out, it's getting harder and harder to care about Obama himself. He is turning into a run-of-the-mill, featureless Democratic milquetoast. I think he needs to start listening to some new and more challenging voices.
As someone who has supported Obama for months, I do have to say I'm getting a bit tired of Reed and MJ, who have abandoned all dignity and turned themselves into obsequious Obama butt boys. Their posts are shameless and embarrassing campaign copy, and insult to the intelligence of TPM Cafe readers. They show no trace of independent thinking, moral integrity or even insight. This kind of sycophancy is very bad for Obama's candidacy. If the people who truly support him never offer any constructive criticism, he is going to end up suffocated in a clueless cocoon of yes-men.
June 21, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what a surprise, Reed jumps up to defend the good "centrist" Democrat position.
Well, Mr. Hundt, once again you prove that when you opine on anything beyond your area of "expertise," you are clueless. Really, man, unless it's about telecommunications, you should just STFU because you embarrass yourself with your stupidity.
What more can we expect? Christ. Obama can vote against the bill. He can publicly denounce it and urge his fellow Dems to vote against it. He can filibuster it...remember those? Or do only Republicans get to do that?
June 21, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem criticizing Hillary. Obamanoids such as you are the groupie type that can't admit that Obama is just another politician claiming to be "different". At least Hillary was not so brazen in her claims.
June 21, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Senator said he'd try to persuade the Senate to alter that provision."
excuse me but i will be 'so harsh' on him.
trying to get a provision removed is a milque toast gesture. committing to voting against the bill if the provision isn't removed is EXACTLY what we should be asking of the candidate. anything less is accepting defeat from the word go.
June 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if we shoots the entire bill down, over this aspect then what happens?
What laws(that are illegal by the way) stay in effect if this version of FISA does not go into play immediately?
How long would it take to get a new version up to vote?
If it does take a minor or large amount of time for a new version to be created, drafted, and sent through the senate and or house, what will be occuring during that time?
THESE are the questions you need answers to before you scathe Obama or any politician backing or not backing this version of FISA.
And if you dont know the answer to these questions, I dont think you should be demanding anything from anyone, because you dont know what your talking about, nor what this whole picture and bill is about.
Now I havent read EVERY comment on here about this, but from what I have read between here and Huff Post, MOST(95%, including myself) havent answered ANY of these questions.
Most are just bickering for the sake of it, and havent done really anything to explain why we should be demanding Obama shoot this down, or back away from it, or whatever your major complaint is that you think we should all agree with you on.
Just my 2 cents.
P.S. I would like it someone wrote it up explaining the questions I put up by the way, their are a few points I am unclear of and before I make any real decision I think I need to know those facts.
June 21, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if HE, not WE.
June 21, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were he to successfully lead an effort to shoot down the bill:
1) The current extensions of the FISA law would expire in August. The government would then be required to operate under the very loose FISA regime set up in the 1970s. All electronic surveillance within the US would require FISA court approval, which can be granted retroactively. So, basically, we'd have the same security and crime fighting regime that we've had for a long time. We'd be perfectly safe.
2) When could a revision come up for a vote? Well, if we really need a revision (I don't think we do) it could easily be a matter that could be handled after the elections, hopefully with Obama as president and a larger Democratic majority in both houses.
3) If I'm for some reason wrong and it takes for freaking ever to redraft the bill, well... who cares? The lawsuits against the telecoms will go on, which is a good thing. We'll have the original FISA, which gives our intelligence agencies a lot of leeway already (a questionable amount of leeway, really) and the bill will come when the bill comes. There is no urgency here, at all. If the bill never comes, it really doesn't matter.
Given all that, why not criticize Obama? He's denying people a day in court for no reason at all.
June 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA is currently and will continue to be in effect. it has simply reverted to its original (adequate) form before it was perverted by the 'protect america act'.
June 22, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
(not withstanding extensions that will expire in august)
June 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking of harsh,btw,take a gander at this:
"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."
that's called, i think,projection. but also please note the dated references: country club, martini, snide. Also, as stated,the date is holding the martini, and the cigarette is standing. now that's a snide comment!
June 23, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink