Stop Nickel and Diming Obama: He Should say Whatever It Takes
I am so not upset by Obama's endorsement of the FISA "compromise." Nor was I upset by what he said to AIPAC, to Miami Cubans or whatever.
I want him to win not to go down in a blaze of glory like my all-time favorite Democratic nominee, George McGovern.
Back then I needed my nominee to be simon-pure and McGovern was. He also won 17 electoral votes.
In the years since, I have supported every Democratic party Presidential nominee and I have not regretted any statements any might have made that won them votes, only the ones that cost them votes. There have been three Democratic nominees in my time who said things that caused me to wince and think "sellout." They were Carter, Clinton, and Gore -- the same three who went on to win the election.
On Election Day, I was glad each had done what he had to do. (In the case of Gore, I wish he had done a little more).
No election in my time has been as remotely significant as this. I don't have to explain why to any liberal or progressive except to say that Obama's election is, literally, a matter of life and death for many Americans, not to mention God knows how many people worldwide.
Accordingly, it is silly to get bent out of shape when he says something he may or may not believe in order to win, or not yo be successfully swift-boated or race-baited. That is precisely what I want him to do, just as I wanted him to opt out of public financing.
I'm not saying we can't criticize. But we need to maintain perspective.
That means always remembering who and what the alternative to Obama is (this would have applied to a Democratic ticket led by any of our primary season candidates). Let Obama say what he wants to right through the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. I assume he has his fingers crossed behind his back anyway. You know, just like FDR when he promised to balance the budget or Lincoln when he said that he did not oppose slavery itself, just its extension.
In 2008, Vince Lombardi's mantra is more apt than ever. "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." That and getting America off its suicidal course.
Hey, I'm with you... nobody should threaten not to vote for Obama over the FISA fiasco. But, nobody should let him off the hook either. As you say, this election is a matter of life and death. It's also a matter of restoring the rights that we've lost to the Bush Administration. Obama has blundered badly and he needs to be made aware of it.
Obama should have been a hero on FISA. At the very worst I thought he'd either quietly vote against the bill or miss the vote. But to actually vote for it? That's lame, MJ. Really lame.
June 21, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, when did Obama start voting in the House of Representatives?
Destor-
You should suggest what scenario you would prefer. I'd like to hear that.
You've already suggested you'd like Pelosi to block this, against bipartisan support, till August when it sunsets, and then to next year. That's not at all realistic. The House would revolt and the fallout would be tremendous for Dems in November.
So really, what *viable* scenario would you suggest?
I don't think you have one.
I think you just like playing at being outraged and provoking people to knee jerk reactions rather than intelligent action.
June 21, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi everyone, please meet my troll Kozmik. It asks me to provide information which I've already provided and he disagrees just, I guess, to be disagreeable.
Be nice to him, please. It's a cute troll.
June 21, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Where have you provided it?
Again, feel free to post a third option other than these below. It should be easy for you, Destor, to post the solution, right here.
Some commonly agreed facts:
Bush has a veto, Bludogs and Republicans support this bill or something worse, and the status quo is worse than the present FISA bill.
Our choices are:
1) Maintain the status quo which is unfettered surveillance, while delaying or otherwise waiting for Republicans and Bluedogs to pass this bill or something worse. Perhaps with Pelosi blocking it for a short term, thereby handing Republicans a political majority and victory in a public battle. There is no way she could block this all the way till Jan 2009, and the longer she blocked it the more Bluedogs would be angered and likly pass something even worse.
2) Take the best compromise and improvement we can get can get now, and then amend it later with a larger majority, after November, with Obama in the WH and with a larger and more progressive majority in Congress.
There's no 3rd option where bellyaching and tantrums makes everything good, changes the power differential, removes Bush's veto, or makes the Bluedogs vanish. The options are take this now, or take something worse very soon.
June 21, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
that is completely FALSE.
the status quo is reverting to the ORIGINAL FISA bill before all the 'protect america act' monkeying.
you have no idea what you are talking about.
June 22, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
:rolleyes: Try and keep up. That's already covered under option #1.
Because: That's not till August. When the filibuster failed, which would be soon, we'd get an even worse bill.
June 23, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure defending the Fourth Amendment is all that unpopular. The problem with Democrats is they now live in terror of the talking heads on FOX news. But the country is moving in a different direction and all of a sudden Keith Olbermann is more popular than Bill O'Reilly. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to stop shaking in their boots and stand up for something. The people are ready to hear a new tune...and personally, I think defending the Fourth Amendment will sound oh so sweet to the vast majority of Americans.
Only people who hate America want to destroy our Bill of Rights. Hannity and Limbaugh and Bush hate America. Let's hope Obama and Pelosi don't hate it too.
June 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. We want to elect Obama in order to bring change but we should also take advantage of the changes that are happening around us.
The FISA compromise is simply the politics of old where we disenfranchise individuals to serve the interests of the elites in government. Yes, if this were 2004 or even 2006, it'd be necessary but the national mood has changed, attitudes have changed and our options have changed.
Obama's reaction to the FISA compromise represents, to use another old term, "a failure of imagination."
June 21, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
More slogans and rhetoric, but still waiting on that scenario for a viable solution, Destor claims to have.
Come on Destor. Where is it?
Since you claim to have one, it seems you could settle this quickly by posting it.
June 21, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's put aside slogans and rhetoric.
What solution would you suggest? Do you have a viable scenario that produces a better result?
If so, I'd sincerely like to hear it. As as a general matter, I think people complaining about the present compromise should suggest a better scenario.
But so far, I don't see anyone suggesting one that isn't just wishful thinking.
June 21, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
please explain how doing NOTHING isn't a viable option.
June 22, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Extend the current bill until next year. If Bush vetoes it, point out that this proves that his issue is really protecting the telecom companies, not the American people.
BTW, the present bill is not a "compromise". Republicans are already bragging that it gives them more than they hoped to get.
June 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear purple state! Well put!
June 21, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I don't agree with you that most Americans want Obama to stand up for the Fourth Amendment. I know that we do, right here in our little echo chamber. But I have the unfortunate pleasure of coming into contact with many people who believe you only need the Fourth Amendment if you're guilty of something, and just don't care because they don't foresee a scenario where they will need its protection. Granted, these people are ignorant fools, but they also vote and have, over the last 8 years, become complacent. They also continue to live in varying degrees of fear about terrorism. Obama talks about change from the bottom up, but I believe we need change from the top down. Will Obama transform this country single-handedly? Probably not. But NOTHING will change if he isn't elected. If he isn't elected, we will have no hope. None. There is more at stake here than sinister immunity for Telecoms. That is one thing I am willing (gulp!) to live with if that's what it takes to get him elected. And here is where I agree with MJ: He does need to support this to get elected. Voting no will be his kiss of death. I believe that wholeheartedly. We all know the terror moms decided the election of 2004,and that they picked George Bush. They are still out there, dumb as ever, and we need their votes. End of story.
June 21, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the political benefit? He’s already voted no on basically the same bill. If McCain is going to hit him with this as a security issue (which would probably come back to hurt McCain), he’ll hit him for flip-flopping in a matter of months. Obama has hurt his campaign more with changing positions (NAFTA, campaign finance, etc.) than with some vague tough on terror bs that scares no one anymore.
June 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you may be missing the point. Obama has not "blundered". He did this on purpose, and he's probably not terribly concerned that you don't like what he said. He said precisely what he needed to say in order to win the election. And he's betting that you're savvy enough to understand that what he's doing is called politics, and that you'll cut him some slack until after the election. Perhaps he's wrong about you. So be it. I want him to win this election, so I'm supporting whatever he says whether I agree with it or not.
As M.J. accurately pointed out, politicians who stick to principled positions during an election season may appear heroic, but they do NOT win elections. I'm sure M.J. remembers the Carter campaign. When Jimmy Carter said that he would invite George Wallace to speak at the statehouse, I about lost it. How could he do that? Well, after he won the election, I understood how he could do that. It's about winning the election. And yes, it's about winning by any means necessary. Get used to being disappointed. But don't get so worked up about it, or by November you're going to be a complete mess.
June 22, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You need more blogs of your own, bunnycat. You say important shit in new and interesting ways. :O)
June 22, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He said precisely what he needed to say in order to win the election."
not buying it.
i just don't see obama losing the election by saying: "NO SWEETHEART DEALS for telecomm giants. congress should not interfere with the judiciary doing the job they OUGHT to do. i will not vote for any bill that quashes LEGITIMATE lawsuits brought by citizens concerned about their constitutional rights."
June 22, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you may be missing the point. Obama has not "blundered". He did this on purpose
Nobody blunders on purpose you silly bunny. The fact that what he did he did on purpose and what he did on purpose is a blunder, does NOT imply that he blundered on purpose. That's logic for you Obama Bunny.
The one enduring quality of the obamanoids is their total lack of a common grasp of logic.
Now I will vote for Obama. I do think he has blundered (once again), but no I’m not an Obamanoid. An Obamanoid has absolutely no sense of objectivity about Obama. Like Rosenberg. If Rosenberg finds any fault with Obama he has not mentioned it to my knowledge. What happened to objectivity? We don’t need to shill each other at the café. We are mature enough to tell it like we see it. We are—thankfully—not running a campaign here but discussing issues as objectively as we can.
June 22, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are simply blowing hot air out your ass. You don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about. It's nice to think you're smart as you obviously do. It is better to actually know something.
June 23, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
TalkLeft on this post by Rosenberg - Hypocrite
Click Here
June 24, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have enough heroes.
June 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a world where my telecom company can break privacy laws that are decades old in the service of a government violating the 4th Amendment and they both get away with it without penalty and with the support of my party's leader, we absolutely do not have enough heroes.
June 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but we also don't have any good alternative but to trust in the judgment of our nominee. I, for one, trust that he didn't take this step lightly, and has good reason for making the decision he did. This decision did nothing to change my view of Obama as the only hope for this nations survival as we know it.
June 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't accept reasoning that I haven't been made privy to. I can't just assume that he knows what he's doing. If he has a plan, he needs to reveal it. It's hard to take him at his words and come to a pleasant conclusion.
June 21, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
You should suggest what scenario you would prefer. I'd like to hear that.
You've already suggested you'd like Pelosi to block this, against bipartisan support, till August when it sunsets, and then to next year. That's not at all realistic. The House would revolt and the fallout would be tremendous for Dems in November.
So really, what *viable* scenario would you suggest?
I don't think you have one.
I think you just like playing at being outraged and provoking people to knee jerk reactions rather than intelligent action.
June 21, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey everyone...
Kozmic is just my personal troll.
Given that I've already had a post on the most recommended list that said what I wanted to see happen (and I wrote it and posted it before Obama made his decision) there's no reason for anyone to think that I haven't answered this.
Given that the Kazmonaut is just my troll, I won't feed him anymore by responding directly to his requests for information which I've already given.
In the future I'll either reply to Kozmic's posts that he is simply my troll or will ignore them.
June 21, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Where is this solution you claim to have? Funny how you claim to have one, and yet you don't repost it or link to it.
Has anyone looked at it or endorsed it? could we get anyone at TPMC to do so? Perhaps Josh, one of the other bloggers, maybe Holt, to endorse your solution? Someone other than your pals?
Afterall, if it's as great as you claim, it seems that should be easy, and progressive bloggers should be cross posting it everywhere. "Destor has the solution!!" they'd say.
Sure.
June 21, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, because anonymous poster Destor23 has said he/she won't accept Barack's tactics unless he/she is fully apprised of the plan ahead of time or at the the moment of execution of said plan, Barack needs to fully reveal all of his secret strategies on his way to the White House?
That is the solution to you? Making public all of Barack's strategies and plans to win the White House from an evil coup that has basically been operating unimpeded for the last 40 years or so because a couple of bloggers can't see the forest for the trees?
Forgive me if I join Koz and LibGirl and MJ and hrebendorf and all the rest in the reality-based, pragmatic America.
As soon as we elect Obama, then we're going to go all Progressive Warrior on Barack. Until that happy day arrives, he can tell me he prefer to kill kittens as a way to ease the national debt and I would have to accept it with a cringe.
See how hyperbole and being unreasnable doesn't really do all that much to extend the debate.
June 22, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the feeling we won't need to. He's still the same guy. Like M.J. said, he's got his fingers crossed behind his back.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879613-1,00.html
History is an excellent teacher:
June 22, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor's argument seems to be against this sort of blind acceptance of anything and everything obama does:
"we (also) don't have any good alternative but to trust in the judgment of our nominee."
we might have to live with his judgment, doesn't mean we have to trust it.
but more than that we still need to separate his political judgment from his POLICY judgment.
June 22, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, have you ever played chess? Football? You always reveal your strategy to your opponents, right? Yeah. Riiiggght...
June 22, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bunnycat. Your faith is admirable. Trouble is, what happens after Obama?
I have to think about my kid. {sigh}
BTW, one of my cats, (that would normally be ROTFL) just had 4 kittens yesterday, (I have her spaying in 10 weeks prepaid--believe me. My kid brought her home pregnant and I kept 2 of her last litter. Oil caught me off guard this winter. I tried to keep her in, but my 16-year old pegged her perfectly when she changed her name from Jasmine to Jezabel )
:(
Poor dear little cat. She's hurting. Hardly wants me out of her sight. Go figure.
Want a cute grey/white kitty? There's one tortoise shell colored one, too. Looking for good homes. I think you have one.
June 22, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Trust me" is a terrible basis upon which to govern, particularly when we know how bad the results of believing in that kind of thing are.
June 21, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's a perfectly valid premise on which to campaign. You're mixed up. Obama is not president yet. And if he doesn't campaign well he never will be.
June 22, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done.
June 22, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No,it most certainly is not unless lying and deception are okay in your book. Nixon won using the "trust me" strategy.
June 23, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Maybe Obama WANTS all these Bush-expanded presidential powers.
June 23, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. We truely don't have enough heroes.
June 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it Destor!
June 21, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the hell are you calling that you're so worried about this? Are you dealing crack or something? Calling the terrorist chat hotline? Jeez--get over this. You really think voting this bill up or down is going to change anything Bush does? BUSH WILL DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO--BILL OR NO BILL. Haven't you figured that out by now?
June 22, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
way to parrot rightwing/republickin' talking points. apparently only criminals should be concerned about their constitutional rights. absolutely sickening.
June 22, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not really interested in payback against the telecoms. I want to keep alive the principle that the congressional and judicial branches have a right to oversight regarding the executive branch, even in security matters. So far, the bill does this.
Anyway, this issue isn't going to be settled until next year, when there is a new administration and a new Congress. What I want is Obama and the Democrats to make the final decision.
June 22, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, you're right about this.
To rehabilitate an old phrase, there's a "silent majority" of Progressive pragmatists out there who aren't freaking out over this because they understand the complexity. I spoke with several Dems and moderates (and one Republican Libertarian) about it last night, and there really isn't the manufactured outrage in the real world one finds with some online trolls.
Posters like Destor and some of the others claiming outrage, initially claimed to be Hillary supporters and had no problems with her well known history of triangulated and questionable votes or that she was losing, or that she was always the more establishment candidate. Yet now they're freaking out and claiming to be outraged Obama hasn;t changed everything already.
Something ain't kosher.
I find their tendencies highly suspect.
June 21, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey MJ... my troll got loose in here. Sorry about the stench.
June 21, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it looks like you were trolling and stinking up MJ's thread pretty good.
And I'm still waiting for that solution you have.
June 21, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
and yet you continue to show that you do not understand the basic issue let alone any 'complexities'. your appeals to authority are not actual arguments.
June 22, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we have too few.
June 21, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
For your information MJ democracy is an interactive process. It is not a cult of the individual. Obama NEEDS TO KNOW we are pissed and the only way he will know we are pissed is if we speak out.
I don't like Obama's position of FISA. I want to INFLUENCE Obama's actions. So I do the only thing I can: speak out against it.
You on the other hand are running a campaign over here and some of us don't appreciate it. This place was named Talking Points Memo ironically not literally. We don't need you and the Obamanoid minions lecturing us what we can say and not at this site. Quashing critical voices and dissent is the essence of fascism.
OBAMA NEEDS TO HEAR WHAT WE THINK ABOUT HIS ACTIONS EVEN NOW DURING THE CAMPAINGN. THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS: A FREE AND HONEST EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. NO SYCOPHANTS, PLEASE.
June 23, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we would like to win the general election, so bashing our candidate before November seems a bit self defeating. Perhaps you might be a little more patient and little more pragmatic.
You'll have four years to make your pleasure known, hopefully, so taking Barack to task for not wielding the power of a president while still a junior senator from Illinois doesn't seem to make sense to me.
June 23, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
He Should say Whatever It Takes
Well, now, that's just embarrassing. And you are in for a rude awakening, MJ, if you think that the excitement over and respect for Obama can possibly survive a growing impression that he is a candidate who "will say whatever it takes." Unless he gets out of the pathetic, risk-averse coccoon he has wrapped himself in since he clinched the nomination, and once again takes at least a few positions that require some element of risk and political courage, he will start to sink like a stone.
But even viewing this question on the purely political plane, there is simply no reason for Obama to cave on the FISA bill. He should point immediately out how much bought influence telecoms have over Washington, denounce the negotiations on this bill as the "old Washington politics as usual", and emphasize that stopping this kind of undemocratic influence is precisely the kind of "change" he has been talking about.
And the fact that you think the FISA bill is just a matter of nickels and dimes shows you have your head completely up your ass. There are some important issues other than Israel, you know.
June 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, you really are right about this. Wasn't the biggest objection to Hillary that she would say or do anything to get elected and we didn't want someone like that as President?
June 21, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that was the argument against her. It was a very good line of attack, in my opinion. But don't be confused--it was only a line of attack. It served to raise doubts about her integrity and trustworthiness, and it really doesn't matter if it was true or not. Obama won, so the desired result was achieved.
Hillary talked during the campaign about how Obama doesn't have the experience to be president. Now that he's the nominee, she'll argue that he does. Do you not understand how a campaign works?
June 22, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
so to be clear, you don't mind if obama says or does anything to get elected?? that's just how campaigns work and we shouldn't worry about obama's integrity or trustworthiness (or policy positions)??
June 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you just stupid?
You miss the point entirely. You shouldn't write when you can't comprehend dumbass.
June 23, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
There’s a little bit of difference between talking tough to AIPAC or Cuban exiles and passing a law allowing illegal spying and immunizing not just the telecom cos. but the whole admin from their crimes. I’m only glad it wasn’t a torture bill that was up as the candidates would probably be calling for even more cruel torture techniques. The main reason to elect a Democrat is to stop this abuse of power. But this is more of an indication of how Obama will "lead" than any speech he could make.
June 21, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all of a piece. He's just shown us that he's been Hillary all along. We just nominated the DLC. On to Iran...
June 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The sky is falling!!"
You and Destor are of one mind aren't you?
June 21, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about my troll, Bluebell. Koz has some weird crush on me.
June 21, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still waiting for that solution you claim to have Destor. So where is it?
Is asking you to post a viable solution or alternative to what you complain about, what you consider "trolling."
June 21, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a clueless soul. There does not need for any SOLUTION because there is no PROBLEM. When Obama or anyone supports a bill that erodes our civil liberties WE WILL SPEAK UP AND CRITICIZE, PERIOD. That is our duty as citizens.
You and the rest of your obamanoid friends seems to think that the only thing that matters is getting Obama elected because you have secret knowledge that once president he will shepherd you into the promised land Well we don't share your view of how American Politics Works. At least not the politics of the left. We will speak out when Obama double crosses us and we will let him know that there is a cost to his actions. That ensures that we keep his feet to the fire.
You would have made a good Nazi my friend.
June 23, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is not immunized in this bill. I challenge you to present a cite showing where, in the bill, Bush is immunized.
But why bother with facts, right?
June 21, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the bill doesn’t grant immunity to Bush for illegal spying, but it protects him in effect. And I wasn’t trying to fool anybody with misinformation, I just assumed that most would infer my meaning as this has been discussed at length over time. Telecom immunity ensures that evidence of illegal spying will never come out (and with impeachment off the table and all congressional investigations stonewalled, this issue is probably the last chance at holding Bush accountable).
Immunity also allows the illegal spying to continue regardless of the constitutionality of the new law. If Bush’s spying program is illegal and violates the Fourth Amendment, then the courts should strike down any law that allows that. But the courts cannot strike down something that will never come before them (at least in any time frmae to stop it) because those being spied on can’t prove they’re being spied on since that information is classified short of a lawsuit that will now be automatically dismissed. It’s the mother of all catch-22s.
June 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I've read contradicts what you claim.
The immunity seems to be for civil lawsuits against telcos. Importantly: NOT criminal immunity. Any suits against the admin would be criminal.
June 21, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DOJ is an extension of the administration. And an investigation into this whole illegal spying program would implicate the DOJ itself whose lawyers and AGs authorized it and whose FBI has been deeply involved. Short of impeachment, which rolled off the table like a rotten apple, Bush (and some in congress?) will be in the clear once this is covered up through the immunity because the run of the mill Congressional investigations get stonewalled with impunity.
June 22, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
and how are those criminal suits coming along?
June 22, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the administration has immunity in this bill. Look it up yourself.
June 21, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
libgirl, here's how Bush's ass is saved:
[snip]
In other words, the president has all the power, while the third branch of government—the courts—have none. If no one can find out how they were spied on, no one can sue the government for illegally spying on them.
This bill should not be happening with a lame duck president.
June 21, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing to think about: our congresscritters (especially their leadership) may have known more about this illegal wiretapping than they've let on. In this case, the bill protects them too along with Bush. Following the advice of folks like MJ and Kozmik, the Democrats have played it safe and gone along with these Republican crimes. Now they are complicit and need immunity as much as their masters, the Republican ringleaders.
MJ's and Kozmik's cowardice has consequences, you see. Win at any cost--and you lose. Liberties, once relinguished, are very hard to reclaim.
June 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bush was also not my telecom provider. Verizon was. And Verizon was bound by the 1984 telecom act, and by subsequent laws, not to turn over my private information to government authorities without cause.
So Bush is an issue, yes.
But there's also the issue of my telecom provider violating both our contract and the law.
June 22, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
He hasn't voted for it yet - it still has to go thru the Senate. Won't that be fun and games!
June 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this precisely the same kind of situational ethics for which Sen. Clinton and all her supporters were so self-righteously criticized by the Obama people? (Answer to the slow: OF COURSE it is - exactly the same. Only the names have changed).
It seems like only yesterday that the Chosen One was at the brink of launching a "new kind of politics". Scales would fall from eyes, and oppressed mankind would arise from its shackles to think and feel anew. (Actually, it WAS only yesterday).
What happened? Are we ALREADY beyond those Arthurian ideals, and back to quoting Vince Lombardi as our patron saint? Are we already accepting crawfishing,backsliding, and straight-out, old-time power and money politics? This is one of those rare times where I was pretty sure I KNEW what was eventually coming, but some vestige of my past younger idealism made me hope against hope that I might be wrong, and that those of you who actually believed in Sen. Obama as someone truly "different" might be proven right, after all. We can already see (What? 3 weeks into the GE?) that it's not to be.
3 weeks in, and it's just a new version of the same old sad, familiar story: Get there any way you can, and Devil take the hindmost. I've always suspected it would end-up there anyhow, but even a Clintonite cynic like me HAS to be suprised (and even a little disillusioned) by the both the speed and the naked blatancy of this transformation. I can only imagine the discomfort welling in the deepest psychic recesses of his true-believer faithful. I truly do feel a little sorry for you.
June 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is true. Hillary would say ANYTHING to get elected. She only cared about winning. Obama will change us.
Now it's "by any means necessary."
And it's okay because he's not a Clinton?
June 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's why you were supporting her, right Destor?
Something is very phony about Destor. He's a slick Freeper. He's always looking to twist the knife and poison the well while ingratiating himself.
June 21, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Kozby show. He's just my troll.
June 21, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Artful dodge much?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is a fact you claimed to be a Hillary supporter.
Yet you're now claiming Obama is as bad as Hillary always was...
One might get the impression your rationales for are rather inconsistent. Unless you were a Freeper, in which case it would be entirely consistent: use whatever argument you can to ingratiate yourself, while trying to tear down the Democratic front runner.
Is there another explanation?
June 21, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
You do look a lot like a stalker...
June 21, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can end this any time by simply posting this alternate solution, leading to a better outcome, as he claims to have.
It's easy. Put it forward, demonstrate how viable it is, and prove his bellyaching justified. He's dodging because he doesn't have anything but bellyaching.
His suggestion so far has been that Pelosi should have blocked this, against a bipartisan majority, till 2009. Which is just delusional, would be a complete disaster, and I would like to see him try and argue that.
Sure, it's easy for destor to complain and poison the well when he's vaguely advocating for a complete fantasy. There's always people like that. Provocateurs, fifth columns, goof balls.
June 21, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Okay. Here it is. Posted before Obama made his decision and rather well liked by TPMers.
If this doesn't end your stalking then you're nothing but the petite psycho troll I know you are.
So this is the end.
Your only friend, the end.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/fisa-round-two-senate-time.php
June 21, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. So that's destor's new, even more delusional, solution.
To be clear, Destor is now suggesting Dems filibuster this, against a bipartisan majority, indefinitely, presumably till January 2009.
So far, nobody has signed up for it.
Previously he was suggesting Pelosi could block this in the House till 2009, against a bipartisan majority.
***
OK, lets consider how that would actually play out in the real world.
The FISA bill has bipartisan support from a signiigant numebr of bludogs and universal Republican support.
A cloture vote would ultimatly result in the present FISA bill being passed anyways. Handing Republicans not only a legislative victory, but also a political victory to claim the majority mandate, with Dems being "obstructing" that majority.
That utterly futile effort would turn off a lot of moderates, Democratic and Indy, in swing states; to hurt Dems in November, and provide a big distraction to the presidential race.
During that attempted filibuster the legislation could even get worse.
***
So, that's Destor's latest plan on how to make a bad situation far worse. Basically, a Republican's wet dream.
Certainly destor's pals will call this courageous and such. That's a given. Bluebell, oleeb, etc will chime in to say how "courageous" it would be.
***
Will Josh endorse this? Any other serious bloggers? Will Rush Holt endorse the notion of Dems filibustering a bipartisan bill indefinitely against a bipartisan majority, on a national security issue no less, in an election season when everything is going Dem's way and they can only lose by this?
June 21, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I also like the way destor posts this link to a rather lame post, buried deep in the thread.
No doubt from his great courageousness and confidence in it.
June 21, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, no, I don't accept that premise.
I would say Destor and Co "stalk" TPMC by posting incessantly often complete garbage which they can't substantiate. Before I got here today, destor was trolling MJ's thread as he trolls every thread.
They seem to think they own TPMC and rebutting them is against the rules.
Again, if Destor and Co can't handle rebuttal, or do more than spout vague rhetoric, that's too bad.
If any of them had a better solution they were willing to stand by, something more than bellyaching, they would have posted it by now.
June 21, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pssst.
Posted it right above your head, darling.
Posted it before you asked for it.
Heck, posted it before Obama caved.
But the link is above your cute little noggin.
June 21, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me get this straight: Anyone who challenges you is a troll?
June 21, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope.
But Kozmik has actively pursued me for awhile now, citing picayune objections, at best. Demanding attention.
June 21, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
People who challenge you aren't trolls. They are correct. You are dumber than the dumbest rock in a bag full of 1st Round picks in the Dumb Rock Draft.
And you were 24 when BushCo pulled off their coup.
June 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. :ahem: no comment.
June 21, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Desters of the world are dangerous children, consigning other souls to death while crafting medals from Starbuck's lids.
June 21, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if he's consigning anyone to death. But stupid, and clueless about politics, yeah, I think his political analysis and knowledge, or utter lack thereof, makes that abundantly clear.
June 21, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"stupid and clueless about politics"
Please Koz, give us your resume so we can see all your experience in politics and why you are the sole possessor of the truth and why your keen vision is so unique that it spits out the common wisdom so well. Please, do this so we can appreciate how you see so clearly when others fail to.
June 23, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My staunch support for whatever civil unions any couple might want will at least allow Lamont and Costco or whatever his name is to enjoy happy lives together.
June 21, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like the making of an award-winning blog post. I, for one, would love to read a post like that and see the comments it would generate.
I am pretty tired of being accused of being a troll for calling people out on trollish behavior. Either justify your opinions with actual facts or common sense or just shut the fuck up.
Keep it up Lamont & Koz!
June 22, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
libgirl,
Yep, that's destor's game. He likes to sling it but can't take it and calls anyone challenging his BS a "troll."
Probably because his ideas are dumber than a bag of hammers, and usually comprise some version of a Republican wetdream of Democratic self immolation which destor and pals call "courage."
June 21, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik has trolled destor ever since he started posting here.
June 22, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I read it and responded to it. Pathetic joke that it is.
And I notice others in your thread also pointed out how totally delusional your theory is.
June 21, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I’ll offer a solution to this grave threat: Do nothing! Call it the Seinfeld Act. The PAA, which gave the admin carte blanch to spy on any communications routed outside the country expires in August. If nothing is done, guess what, nothing happens (I really don't know what you're talking about when you say there will be a riot in congress if something isn't done).
Of course, they could patch the minor FISA hole that impedes foreign surveillance routed through America, but that’s not really the problem, is it? It wasn’t a problem for five years. It wasn’t a problem until the illegal spying program was leaked and telecoms started getting subpoenas. What is passing now was supposed to be the "fix" to the PAA (RESTORE) but has become PAA II.
">Here is an objective critique of it.
There is no justifiable reason to gut Fourth Amendment protections and grant unprecedented post-facto immunity to lawbreakers and enable the continuation of this TIA spying. Also, this is probably the last avenue still open to uncover some of the crimes of Bush and Co. and to hold them accountable. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Clinton and the Congress have a duty both to uphold the constitution and to oversee and check the Executive. They are doing the opposite of that here.
June 21, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant!
June 21, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh again...That was supposed to link to the ACLU breakdown:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html
June 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
he aways has been ever since he first started stinking up this place with his personal attacks and false accusations. he's nothing but an obama sycophant cum apologist and rarely offers anything constructive or insightful.
June 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary never claimed she was going to transform Washington. Hillary's cards were on the table. She is honest, She is a centrist. She is NOT a flip-flopper like Obama. That's why I supported her. I knew all along that Obama was Bullshitting us and I resented it. Anyone who did not know he was a bullshitter knows nothing about American Politics and the tradition of pie-in-the-sky, chicken-in-every-pot bullshit that goes on. Apparently kozmik and his gang are still drinking the koolaid.
They want to lecture us about realpolotik..lol
June 23, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and let me apologize to the Clinton supporters once again.
June 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sentiments exactly
June 22, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that is really off-putting about your reasoning, MJ, is that you seem to think that people like you, with your heightened political shrewdness and perspicacity, can see that Obama is articulating his position "with his fingers crossed behind his back". But apparently you think the rest of the poor rubes out there don't see this, and therefore his positioning is effective politics.
Don't flatter yourself; you're not that smart. If you can see that Obama is prevaricating, then everyone else can see it too.
There is no reason whatsoever to think that if Obama stands by his principles and progressive instincts he will end up like McGovern - for the simple reason that Obama is not McGovern.
You will help Obama far more by helping him stay strong. Persistent counsels of weakness from his supporters will only turn him into a weak candidate.
June 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except for the implication that Senator Obama was lying to AIPAC with Mr. Rosenberg's encouragement, which duplicity I don't think occurred and fervently hope didn't, on this particular post I actually think Mr. Rosenberg makes sense. Most voters do not give a damn that terrorists--as they see them-- are spied on without a warrant, and that companies which did what the President of the Uniited States asked them to do are not forced to pay multi-million dollar damages for doiing just that.
You people who think otherwise are just fucking dumb.
June 21, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peeple stooopid...
How about telecoms spying on millions of innocent Americans without warrants? should they face court because of illegal behavior like that? I'm sure they were given papers assuring legality but they knew that it was and is not (without this retroactive law). Does the grave "terrorist" threat justify anything? Blackwater was hired by DOD and assured that what they were doing was legal. Does the fact that some BW employees have murdered innocent people in cold blood get excused because they are contractors in our WOT? How about the guy they killed in New Orleans? Immunity? What about KBR's fleecing of $millions? Certainly they should get immunity since they were acting under federal contracts in the WOT.Shouldn't those on the front lines of our global terrorist war get immunity first?
June 22, 2008 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's the best chance we've had to reclaim our country in a very long time. His supporters ought to back off and let him get elected. He never said he was perfect, but he's a whole lot closer than Bush or McCain and all this ugly talk only makes it more likely that we'll get McCain. Have you guys ever heard of compromise? We can't run the country without it. Heck, we can't run our homes without it. Have you ever compromised with your spouse? I'm glad they'll need a warrant after this. I'm not willing to lose the presidency over fighting about whether the telecoms deserve to go bankrupt because they did as the president asked in a time of national emergency. Don't any of you guys have relatives who work for those huge companies? Do you want to lose even more jobs in your efforts for revenge? The important thing is to see that it doesn't happen again. And then to make darn sure we have a president who is going to disengage all those execuctive priveleges that Bush enacted. If we don't get that, we might as well have a dictator. We shouldn't be so darn hard headed that we self destruct.
June 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't compromise on the Bill of Rights.
And the telecoms didn't do what the president asked after 9/11. It happened before 9/11. The government approached Qwest, and was rebuffed, before 9/11 happened. So this was on the Bush agenda from day one and the telecoms helped him. But I guess that's okay with you?
June 21, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
More slogans and rhetoric.
Where's that solution, the better alternative you claim to have? Come on, post it. Why hide it since it's so great?
June 21, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dester ain't going to be enlisting in the army anytime soon, I'd bet.
Children like Dester talk fast and loose with other men's blood.
June 21, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why on Earth would I join the army when I disagree with most of the missions they're sent to accomplish?
June 22, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your problem Koz is that you don't know the difference between the Bill of rights and a slogan. You've drunk the kool aid and so believe every deception, every lie is okay because the ends justify the means. You are wrong, flat out wrong.
June 23, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the batch of kool aid you drank from was particularly potent eh karela?
June 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I warned that the Obamamaniacs would be unhappy when they found out that he was an actual politician, but I've changed my mind about how to address this.
There is a time and place for idealism, even unrealistic idealism, and this is the time. Those who are hoping for real change don't just have to settle for the best of the worst, they can pressure the candidates and incumbents into adopting more progressive stances. This can be any combination of blogging, monetary support, lobbying officeholders and punditry.
Pols respond to pressure, especially from an activist electorate. Try it you might like the results.
Obama winning is not a slam dunk and while there is little chance of real supporters going for McCain there is a chance that a lack of contributions could affect the outcome. Even a short term dip in contributions could make him rethink his positions on issues.
And, unlike the elections, you can "vote" multiple times as long as your total contributions are within the statutory limits.
June 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the "Obamaniacs."
Actually, the people crowing loudly are a mixture of freepers and posters who claimed to be Hillary supporters and may also be freepers.
June 21, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with most of your stances on this issue, but what the hell is a Freeper?
June 22, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"freeper" is kozmik's new favorite word. everyone who disagrees with kozmik or criticizes obama is either a clinton supporter, an undercover republican, or a reader of free republic (a 'freeper'). the delusion is that every criticism of obama MUST be coming from the right because obviously he's the savior of the left who rode down from the clouds on a fearless steed.
June 22, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think there is a lot of neocon chicanery going on around the web given how contentious the democratic primary was.
Hillary and Barack supporters are just barely coming together to play in the same sandbox. It would take much subterfuge to get us back at each other's throats over non-existent disagreements.
I agree that not everyone who disagrees with Barack or who takes a more unbending stance on the FISA (or any) is necessarily a troll.
Still, it is not an unreasonable assumption sometimes based on individual communications styles.
June 23, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are too much. You truly are disgusting. My apologies to the blog for the apparent ad hominem but you actually made multiple posts saying that Americans should vote for Obama because of how good they would feel about themselves doing so. That was an obvious racist call with the implication that people who didn't favor Obama should feel bad about themselves. That was the nature of your campaign start here at TPMCafe. Now that Obama is showing his true colors what with his recent support for a "Blue Dog" Democrat over a progressive African-American woman in a Georgia primary, much like his support for Joe Lieberman over a real progressive, Ned Lamont, in Connecticut, you've only slightly changed your disgusting tune.
http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/19/obama-supports-blue-dog-barrow-over-progressive-in-georgia-primary-why/
".. Obama's election is, literally, a matter of life and death for many Americans, not to mention God knows how many people worldwide."
No. Any sense of truth to that is becoming less and less apparent with each passing day of Obama. First he threw his beloved pastor "under the bus." Then he threw his beloved church "under the bus," I guess along with his "awesome God." Now the constitution and "we, the people" are getting thrown "under the bus" and you're still posting as if he's the messiah that must make compromises - with the devil - so he can .. what? .. truly throw us all under the bus.
As the bus tires are rolling over your face you'll be shouting "Support Oba..." At least that silence would be a positive.
When you made that post supporting Obama for "throwing under the bus" a supporter who actually had some talks with Hamas, one of your fundamental admiring points for the moshiach, my thoughts were "have you no shame?" But no, you don't have any shame.
As for McGovern, I too remember that election. It was over when Muskie dropped out of the primaries, a victim of Republican "dirty tricks." Muskie was the only chance for a win against Nixon. McGovern never had a chance and the Republicans knew it and that's why they went after Muskie. "Isn't it special" how during the primaries the Republican mouth pieces were all praising Obama and now that he's the primary winner they've turned on him. That's the similarity to the McGovern candidacy.
And McGovern was also a true progressive. Remember how Hillary Clinton was insulted as being a Clinton and putting self before party? Surprise! That's Obama, before party, people, constitution and country. But you're telling us he's doing that so he can later save us all. It's all a con on the conservatives. Not a con on us. Nosiree Bob. He's the moshiach - with the motive.
We've got the wrong choice to lead us and all we're left with is "hope" that he's doesn't screw us all. Some people would call that dread. Great vote motivation.
June 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for McGovern. He's an honorable man. Some might remember that his opponent illegally wiretapped and broke into DNC headquarters, etc. It's that kind of abuse of power that makes some of us so serious about the FISA bill. Bush has abused his office much more seriously than Nixon and instead of impeaching him we are complicit in legislation that affirms his abuse of Presidential power and encourages its abuse in the future.
June 21, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of the park. If I could recommend blog replies, I'd recommend this one.
June 21, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? That is cogent analysis of the situation? That he can't understand the reasoning behind a certain tactic is somehow Obama's fault or ours?
June 22, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
your blind faith is showing. you might try covering that up with some logic or reason.
June 22, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have explained both my logic and my reason in multiple posts. That people are citing "solutions" to this issue without context or understanding of political reality is naive at best and self-defeating at worst.
I am about winning an election this year. Next year I will be pushing for a massive shift to our politics. I try not to put the cart before the horse sine that makes it difficult to actually get anywhere.
June 23, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have no basis to talk about political reality or anything else. You are so bereft of basic facts it is astounding. Further down in this thread youa assert that Jimmy Carter ran for President as an "old line segregationist". Nobody who was alive at that time and paying attention would have concluded this because it wasn't and isn't true. But you, who seem to want to proclaim your political saavy actually believe this idiotioc lie? Your lack of knowledge is shocking. You clearly don't have a single clue of what you're talking about. Naturally, people with so little knowledge or understanding are always most proud of their most ignorant statements and beliefs so I don't expect that you'll be embarassed by your stunning ignorance.
June 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am uniformed? Really?
From this location: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566991/jimmy_carter.html. I have heard various versions of this story.
And while you obviously missed the hyperbole of my statement, it is not wrong. Carter did not run on the platform that he was going to an aggressive progressive as president. That he governed that way is not in dispute. He ran as a closet progressive at best.
Having said all that, you debate like a 14-year-old whose balls have just dropped. All bluster and fury with nothing to back it up.
June 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In case you didn't know it (which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest) Carter did not run for President in 1970... dimwit.
June 24, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still not got at this 30 pieces of silver stuff. If the Constitution is a dime, what's a quarter?
June 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ I am disappointed in you.
You ought to be more honest about this FISA issue and Obama. Your analogy with McGovern and "purity" is just dead wrong and you know it (and if you don't know it you should). That isn't what is at stake here. The choice isn't between being pure and winning. It is between undermining the Constitution or defending it. Every member of Congress supporting this FISA bill is violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution including and perhaps especially Senator Obama.
The reason, MJ, that this election is so important you may recall is because we have had a criminal tyrant ruling the nation since 2001 and a lilly-livered Congress that has enabled his misrule throughout regardless of which party is in control. The FISA law is illegal and unconstitutional. It is in no way a "compromise". It is a plain and disgraceful capitulation by the Democrats just as we have seen them capitulate on every important issue regarding civil liberty, torture, the war, funding the war, and so on.
Obama was made the nominee in large part because he promised voters he was different and he would work hard to change Washington. This surrender without even fighting on FISA is the worst kind of Washington bullshit and Obama has not only gone along, but he has shamefacedly bent over, grabbed his ankles and smiled while taking it and is telling us all that it's okay, it feels better than it would have otherwise because we call it a compromise instead of a gang bang. It is sickening and it won't do one iota of good toward electing him in November: quite the contrary.
This law that Obama is asking us to believe is a compromise undermines and circumvents the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It isn't just another compromise along the way it is an attack on the Constitution itself. This law, if finallly enacted will allow serious crimes to go unpunished, it will serve as an encouragement to unethical future Presidents and corporate execs to violate the law of the land and disregard the Consitution and it will permit the government to spy illegally on American citizens with impunity.
So clearly, in no way is your analogy with McGovern at all apt MJ. This isn't a question of purity at all. This is a question of patriotism and whether or not we have a nominee for President who has the courage of his convictions. If he follows through on this capitulation, it demonstrates quite clearly that Obama is nothing more than another office seeker willling to do or say anything he thinks will advance his electoral chances, but completley unwilling to defend any principle or position that might mean the mean old right wingers could criticize him. So why be a Democrat at all if that's going to be the approach? He could avoid lots of the bullshit coming his way this fall had he simply run as a Republican! Then at least he wouldn't have to lie to the public in an attempt to convince them that an complete and utter defeat for the Constitution and the position he has previously held on the issue is the best deal we cold get and that we have won greater protections in the future. Nobody who is at all informed believes nonsense like that.
During the past seven years our nation has been pushed, cajoled, frightened and coerced closer and closer to a police state by a would be fascist in the White House and this FISA bill is a large step in the wrong direction, another seriously damaging law that undermines our republic. This is serious business--not just politics. The man who is now the leader of our party is giving his approval to this trampling of the Constitution and the enabling of executive crimes--high crimes. And he is doing this for the worst, most craven political reasons because ostensibly this cave-in will prevent him from being criticized from the right on terrorism, etc... Bah! What a load of doubletalking bullshit that is!
This is precisely the same idiotic logic that led to the war in Iraq MJ. To a tee! It's the logic that Hillary and John Kerry and many other Democrats who knew better thought was the smart strategy to prevent Republican attacks on them back in 2002. Even though some like Hillary will not publicly admit it, they regret that stupid move. They will regret this one too if they commit the same error once again for all the same bad reasons. That is the logic that most likely cost Hillary the nomination and propelled Obama to the top of the heat. It did so because Obama said he wouldnt fall for that crap then and he wouldn't in the future, but we can see that is utterly false now.
You know how foolish a strategy this is, but now it's okay cause Obama's your guy and you'll make any excuse no matter how bad his decision or position? I honestly didn't think you were willing to provide cover for him no matter what but you have obviousy proven me wrong. You are no different on this than Mr. Hundt who would devise excuses for Obama no matter how absurd or ridiculous or indefensible his position might be on any matter. On this issue you, like Hundt, are being a shameless and unprincipled apologist for wrongdoing and the enabling of wrongdoing. You need to rethink this.
Far from protecting himself, Obama's cooperation with evil on the FISA bill weakens him as a candidate in November because it clearly shows him to be a coward and someone just like the rest of the fraidy cat Democrats of Washington: he doesn't have the courage of what he claims are his convictions. It is because of this that the Republicans are filled with glee you now. They understand that every time the pussy Democrats fold it breathes new life into their electoal prospects. When the going gets tough... Obama folds just as fast a the chief Senate chicken Harry Reid and Nancy "the Appeaser" of the House Pelosi.
Obama's actions on the FISA bill are not shrewd political manuevering or practical or street smart, and they most certainly are not politically necessary: they are cowardly capitulation and the actions of an old fashioned yellow belly. You nor anyone else as smart as you are, should try and excuse this indefensible betrayal of the Constitution and the people who put their faith in Obama. If he maintains his cowardly position on FISA it will put the lie to all his rhetoric about "change you can believe in." It only adds insult to injury to see someone like you defend this lame, weak, disgraceful dodging of responsibility.
If Obama is unwilling to stand up and defend the Constitution on this issue MJ, is there anything he will defend? How can someone with so little conviction end the war in Iraq? How can someone so willing to fold before even one shot has been fired have the balls and fortitude to get anything done on global warming or healthcare? And if you think there is any issue Obama would find worthy enough for him to actually stick by and defend, what would that issue be MJ? I'm all ears.
McGovern never had a chance in 72 and we all knew it from day one. McGovern didn't ever lead in any polls in 72 vs Nixon as Obama routinely does today against McCain who is an old man, a known hypocrite and flip-flopper. McGovern's loss had little to do with his positions on anything because the entire Democratic Party was tarred and feathered in advance by the Republicn dirty tricks operation and Nison was at the height of his popularity.
Today Obama runs not against a popular incumbent, but against a weak nominee when the Republican Party is almost universally despised by the elecorate and Bush is the most unpopular President in history! How in any way cold Obama's capitulation be anything like McGovern in 1972? The very notion is absurd MJ. You should be ashamed for even offering that thin veil of an excuse. I'm deeply disapponted in your decision to defend the indefensible.
June 21, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, you have a way with words.
Here's a cool clip:
"The choice isn't between being pure and winning. It is between undermining the Constitution or defending it."
Some feeble folk will call it a slogan but it's really a principle. Our society is supposed to be based on a social contract, after all. Our founders were smart enough to write one up. Subsequent leaders were smart enough to either respect or amend it.
It's up to us to defend it.
And yes, even after the FISA Fiasco, voting Obama is the best way to defend it in 2008. But not criticizing Obama for failing us is base cowardice.
June 21, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Destor.
Personally, I strongly believe that the voices of those criticizing Obama most harshly on this are those that are trying hardest to save him, the Democratic Party and the country from a disasterous abandonment of our core principles as embodied in the Constitution of the United States. Our nation was born quite literally because the founders were willing to risk everything for the ideas in the Declaration of Independence which are given form and substance in our Constitution. The Bill of Rights is the pride of our nation and to disregard and undermine it for any reason is a genuine abmoination. Many good people died in defense of these ideas. It seems to me the least all of us can do in repayment is to stand up and defend those ideas today on behalf of posterity as our predecessors did for us and also to demand that our leaders do the same.
I have never seen the likes of the brazen criminality and corruption that has been metastasizing in Washington DC these past seven years. It is of epic proportion yet hardly anyone bats an eye! There is simply no parrallel in our history to what is underway. It is a danger unlike anything we have ever experienced.
Our government is run by a pack of criminal thugs. They have arrogantly and in plain view of all the world committed endless war crimes, destroyed the good name of the United States around the world, trampled civil liberties at home, damn near bankrupted the nation, destroyed the value of our currency, mortgaged our children's future to the communist dictators of China, jeapordized our economic stability by destabilizig the world oil market for imperialist purposes, routinely violated the Geneva Convention on torture, the list of egregious violations of law and decency really is endless. Even now they openly plan to bomb or invade or otherwise attack the sovereign state of Iran which poses no threat of any kind to the United States of America. When this same band of criminals moves, as they have, to essentially do away with the 4th amendment whenever the government simply makes the claim of national security or fighting terrorism we need to become alarmed and agitated. We need to come to the aid of our country!
This is no small thing friends! We must demand more than politics as usual from our leaders both in the media and in government and politics. Our nation's future hangs in the balance! We must especially demand more of a man who has won the nomination of our party in large part by claiming that he is dedicated to putting an end to precisely the sort of chicanery and deception he is engaged in on the FISA bill "compromise."
Those who clamor for Obama to change course on this matter are, in truth, his best friends and true defenders because we see the folly and wish for him to avoid it. Those who would consent to or excuse cooperation with evil believing it to be good politics for the moment do him and the nation a massive and perhaps irreperable disservice.
It is much easier and wiser to defend the liberty one currently enjoys than it is to try and win it back. To simply capitulate and give away our hard won and long held liberty in return for nothing but more lawlessness, corruption, war and criminality is utterly and completely unacceptable to this American citizen. I do not believe I am alone by any means and that is about the only thing that gives me hope today. I certainly get none from Obama's positon on this matter thus far.
June 21, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
They also wrote that black Americans are only 3/5 of a white American before the ink was dry as well. To hold the Constitution up as some shining example of perfections sounds naive.
It is a good starting place for most decisions but hardly sacrosanct. That's why we can amend it.
We are in serious trouble, and it requires pragmatism as well as principled action. I submit that having the stones to do something that goes against your inherent morals in pursuit of a larger goal is noble and not base.
Keep your eye on the prize. If Barack doesn't deliver once he is elected, then you can hold him accountable. Doing it before hand is self defeating.
June 22, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like Bruce Fein's statement that the Constitution is America's birth certificate.