Getting Rolled By Obama Is A Wake-Up Call for the Uprising
One of the topics I discussed with Diane Rehm yesterday on her nationwide NPR show was the FISA fight, which Nathan Newman just referenced. I suggested that the effort by Netroots activists to use Obama's own website as a tool to pressure Obama to back off his endorsement of a right-wing FISA proposal is valiant, worthwhile and a smart way to use the Establishment's rules against the Establishment (to paraphrase the great uprising organizer Saul Alinsky). In this case, uprising activists used the latitude granted by a presidential nominee's website to pressure that presidential nominee to do the opposite of what that presidential nominee is doing - and this offers some hope for today's uprising.
Then again, Obama threw the progressive movement under the bus, voting for warrantless wiretapping and for immunity for telecom companies.
He did this not because believes in the substantive arguments - in fact, we have no idea what he believes in on this issue considering he promised "unequivocally" not to vote this way just a few months ago. No, he did this because he decided that it was politically safer for him to cast the anti-progressive vote for the status quo, rather than the progressive vote for change. And ultimately, that's a commentary on our weakness.
As OpenLeft's Matt Stoller has written, Obama has quickly taken control of the Democratic Party apparatus - which is what he should be able to do as the titular head of the party now. However, what Obama has also done is taken over key pieces of outside progressive infrastructure and ignored other pieces. Moveon.org, for instance, spends much of its time echoing Obama's message and attacking John McCain rather than using the election as an instrument of leverage to exert pressure on both Obama and McCain on major issues. In other words, Obama has effectively taken over Moveon - or at least its strategic focus. As evidenced by his FISA vote, Obama is also ignoring the Netroots.
This is not what Obama should be able to do - and his ability to do so should be a wake-up call that we still only really have a weak progressive uprising, and not a full-fledged progressive movement. A full-fledged progressive movement would have institutions that could not be categorically taken over or ignored by a presidential candidate of either party. Those institutions would be truly independent, issue-first, party-second institutions with enough grassroots strength to demand attention. Instead,
Of course, we have some of these institutions at the state and local level. For instance, New York's Working Families Party is issue-first, Democratic Party-second with a huge grassroots base that makes it fairly impervious to being fully co-opted or ignored by Democratic Party candidates, whether in the Empire State or nationally. The labor movement is another such institution.
But a lot of the much-vaunted new progressive infrastructure is so partisan focused that a presidential candidate who has been on the national stage for less than four years is able to take it over in a matter of months. That, of course, threatens to relegate this new infrastructure to total obsolescence if Obama wins the White House (if the only organizing issue of this infrastructure is winning the White House, then by definition, the infrastructure ceases to be important once the White House is won). Worse, there isn't - and won't be - as strong a pressure system as we need if we are going to get real change.
So why did I start by saying the FISA fight - and the use of MyBO to wage that fight - offers hope? Because it signals a recognition that what we've done in the past to organize for power hasn't been enough. It tells us that we are getting comfortable with a more confrontational approach toward both Republicans AND Democrats if we expect to wield power - and not just whine about being rolled. In short, we are starting to realize that to take this uprising moment and turn it into a functional progressive movement, we have to adopt a movement psychology, rather than a partisan one.
The "Uprising" is "Getting Rolled By Obama..."?!?
Try not to pander too much to hock your book and your loose idea about an "Uprising". Start training your fire on John McCain and his economic advisor Phil Gramm. These are the people "rolling" America.
[My apologies to TPMCafe; I try not to be so blunt. But this is a garbage, garbage headline.]
July 10, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment is Exhibit A in what I am talking about. This commenter says we should focus our energy on a rhetorical comment - albeit a sickening one - from a Republican who isn't even in office, while ignoring a critical major vote by a Democratic U.S. Senator. This is Partisan War Syndrome at its worst, telling us to just keep our head down, ignore the votes where the rubber hits the road, and focus on GOP hot air. This is, in short, exactly the kind of blindness that has led us to lose key votes.
July 10, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sirota: You can call me Wade, not "this commenter". You don't have to talk about me like I'm not here.
What I'm talking about is called winning an election. I like winning. When Democrats win, it makes me happy. Especially when the future of America and the World is at stake. You can talk all you want about "infrastructure changes", but you just sound like a suped-up, grad-student who worships Ralph Nader.
If supposed progressive-Democrats "kept their heads down" and worked hard by canvassing (the single-most democratic and populist thing possible) to get AL GORE elected at all costs, we wouldn't have:
1) Endless war in Iraq,
2) the Roberts/Alito led court
3) an insurmountable national debt (to name some of the most egregious assaults on Democratic values.)
Don't call "this commenter" blind just because you insist on milking FISA anger when there are more important things to be done to win this election.
Let's open our eyes. We weren't "rolled." We nominated the most electable and most progessive Presidential candidate in George W. Bush's America, which Nader and his sanctimonious dittoheads helped create.
July 10, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wade,
Once again, nice stuff.
I have nothing to add....
Except: Who chooses the top-billing posts for TPM?
FB
July 10, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Bernanke! This is how mad I was earlier... Doing better now. :)
July 11, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wade,
To Sirota (and to me), electing Democrats is not an end in itself... it is a means to an end. What really matters is change that affects people's lives. Who holds an elective office only matters if they are creating positive change with the power that they have. If Obama is voting the wrong way on a crucial constitutional issue, we need to push him to do the right thing.
July 11, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
MaximusNYC: Thanks for the reasoned and polite response. I agree. But I don't like to see libs kneecapping the Presidential nominee.
Bush was far, far worse for the Constitution these last 8 years than even the most incorrigible Democrat (Jesus, now that I think about it, Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller would have been better than Bush for 8 years).
In the meantime, it's
gonna be a long walk home back to our former national identity after this Bush fiasco.
July 11, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
David
You are right on this.
If you think Wade is bad, just pop over at election central it is a virtual lunatic asylum for Obama Worship.
Wade is confused, as many are. He says he likes to win. He wants Democrats to win. I suppose he thinks that our only job is to ensure that Obama wins.
Wade: I want Obama to win too. At least at this point. But I'm not a blind zombie. I'm a citizen who wants to exercise maximum influence on government as possible for the purpose of promoting a Progressive agenda. Obama to me is only an instrument of change. He is an instrument to achieve the change that I and the rest of the emerging Progressive Movement want to see implemented.
One way to influence Obama's thinking is to not let him take us and our agenda for granted. We need him to wake up and smell the coffee as to who is running this show.
The Change we want is the same as the change that we wanted in the Sixties: Power to the People to make America a better place for us and not just a cozy garden of delights for elites.
You want Power to Obama. That's lame
I understand that in order to get elected and implement the People's Agenda he will have to compromise: to capture independents and moderate Republicans. But voting for FISA does neither.
What it does do is piss me off and my Progressive friends.
You imply that if he had not voted for the FISA bill it would hurt his chances in November. Ok. give me your analysis of that. I'd like to hear it.
Perhaps you would say that McCain would use a NO vote as a campaign tool to paint Obama weak on defense. I don't think so. If McCain wants to play that card, Obama should and could make the case that retroactive immunity and other provisions of the bill as passed have nothing to do with national security. What is he afraid of? Is he afraid he might not be able to win that battle? I don’t think so. I think he is actually in favor of the bill period.
As I said in another post Obama needs to feel the pain for casting that vote. I get calls from Obama people asking me for contributions to the campaign and I say: "sorry but right now I will not contribute because Obama is not moving in the direction that I and the Grass Roots want him to move.
Real change is going to come when people like you wake up to what the responsibilities of a citizen are in a true vibrant democracy.
July 10, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A good plan executed immediatly, is better than the PERFECT plan executed 30 seconds too late."
Fellow Democrats: Don't show up too late to this moment in history because it's not perfect.
Andrew Strat:
INFLUENCE - How did "exercising maximum influence on government . . . for the purpose of promoting a Progressive agenda" work out for you over the last 8 years? Good? Let me know... I'm dying to find out. Did you take to the streets when we first learned the NSA was tapping our phone calls? Did you make Bush pay? (like you want to make Obama "pay")?
LEADERSHIP - "Who is running this show?" Barack Obama. "Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way." John Kerry, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton all ran the show before Barack, and I supported them with EXACTLY the same zeal despite their imperfections. Was I upset with Bill when he presided over the Arkansas execution of a "seriously mentally impaired" Rickey Ray Rector in Jan. '92? Yes. Did he win and give the country 8 years of peace and prosperity? Yes. Will Barack support the Death Penalty when asked? Yes.
Suck it up. Get over yourself. Go canvass the streets in Florida where you live; make calls, take names, get donations like I do.
GOP = RUINOUS - I don't want "power to Obama. that's lame", as you snarked... I want power in the hands of sane, responsible Democrats. No they're not perfect, but they're not Republicans. Have you seen what they've done? Are you not outraged?
GORE - If Gore won, there would never have been a $3+ trillion Iraq War. And maybe there'd be a middle-class left. And maybe Gore even would have killed Osama. And maybe gas prices would be under $2.00 still.
THE 1960's?!?! - You aren't seriously claiming that the 60's were a successful "Power to the People" movement are you? Last I checked, Reagan drank-your-milkshake (working class Catholics, suburban moderates, young Alex P. Keatons), and obliterated the middle class while the citizens wedded to that "movement" slept. [I danced in the mud of Woodstock '94, and traveled with Phish for years (32+ shows!), so I'm no stranger to this lifestyle/movement. The problem is that it's not politics.]
TACTICS - The second to last paragraph was right on 'til the last sentence (I agree, Obama shouldn't have given an inch. He's had a very tough 2-3 weeks. He may have made a tactical error is misjudging the FISA-Faction's firm commitment to the Democrats, but probably not. There's too much at stake. The conventions and the debates will heal this wound (unless they keep picking at it with a rusty poker).
CLOSING - The US President's job is 80-90% foreign affairs as the leader of the only remaining global superpower (for the time being).
I was on Wall Street on 9/11, and I walked through the WTC dust after they fell. I know we're fighting a hot war in Iraq, but we are NOT winning the so-called GWOT. Remember the "hearts and minds?" Our foreign policy breeds terrorists and instability the world over.
Are your exacting "standards" worth another 4,118+ US soldiers dead? How about another 100,000-500,000 Iraqi and/or Iranian war dead? Is that worth it?
My priority: BRING 'EM HOME!
Your priority: "Obama needs to feel the pain for casting that vote."
July 11, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was I upset with Bill when he presided over the Arkansas execution of a "seriously mentally impaired" Rickey Ray Rector in Jan. '92? Yes. Did he win and give the country 8 years of peace and prosperity?
LOL. His achievement was not sucking as much as GHWB. He gave us blather about Saddam that contributed to the present situation.
He arrested the Federal budget hemorrhage but most of the prosperity was from the stock market bubble.
Vote for Obama but stop the drama.
July 11, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rotwang: You don't think TPMCafe could use a little drama? Anyway, I thought it was a good discussion. Thank you all. :)
July 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did "exercising maximum influence on government . . . for the purpose of promoting a Progressive agenda" work out for you over the last 8 years? Good? Let me know... I'm dying to find out. Did you take to the streets when we first learned the NSA was tapping our phone calls? Did you make Bush pay? (like you want to make Obama "pay")?
Well I don't know if you have noticed but Bush is at 24% approval rating today, and Democrats stand to win supermajorities in both houses.
Your characterization of the 60's is a little silly. We brought down Nixon and we ended the War in Vietnam. We passed civil rights legislation, voting rights, and a host of other liberal legislation.
Walking through the rubble of WTC AFTER it collapsed sounds a little like mythmaking to me, but who knows.
Last I heard Ronald Reagan was the 80's, not the 60's.
Equating Clinton's allowing a heinous murderer to be executed even though he was mildly retarded is a totally different thing than voting to eviscerate the 4th Amendment. If you can't see that we have a serious problem.
You want power in the hands of "sane responsible people". Well so do I.
But your approach is the approach of the "follower" of a politician while OUR approach is to steer politicians in the right direction and if they don't modulate their objectionable actions vote them out. That is OUR fundamental duty as citizens.
"Power to the People" means exactly what it says. We the people will not abrogate OUR responsibility in governing by "following" a leader blindly because we have--what--some intuition that he is a bloessed "leader" that somewhere down the road will lead us to the promised land?
(lead follow or get out of the way is pretty lame 60’s bullshit of which there is tons of it)
Obama did not have to vote for the FISA bill. Hillary voted against it and the masses are not breathing down her back for it. So I don't know what you are talking about? Is it that Obama is such a fragile entity that he has to be supported no matter what blunder or intentional outrage he commits?
Count me out from you type of political calculations.
July 11, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you and Sirota and others say that Obama did not have to vote for the FISA bill, that is where we will have to agree to disagree. In my opinion he did (because we know something will happen before the election, whether it be another proclamation from Bin Laden plastered all over the news for an entire cycle or an actual bombing either here or in the country of one of our allies) because if he didn't, it would bury him in the general with terror moms and other stupid swing voters. You seem to think that because the Rethugs will accuse him of being soft on terror anyway, he had nothing to lose by voting no. I disagree. We are guessing, just like everyone else. Elections are half smarts and half attempted clairvoyance.
July 11, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does that have to do with voting for that piece-o-crap bill?
It surely didn't keep Feingold and Dodd from voting against it, and Feingold knows more about the illegal surveillance programs than Obama.
July 11, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew: I clearly said dust, not rubble. I was in a building on the far east end of Wall Street the whole time. No mythmaking. Kind of ridiculous of you to try to call me out on it. I was only underscoring that I was there, and terrorism and the Iraq War is on my mind a lot. (I also really did dance in the mud at Woodstock '94. I have pictures. So please don't accuse me of mythmaking there either.)
You said:
I'm exercising my right and organizing to vote out Republicans. This is our fundamental duty, as you say. So that's why I still give money to Obama when I can spare it. (Unlike you, who refuses to give money because your fine feathers are so ruffled...)
A poll? Congress? That's worth a warm bucket of spit. Congress does jack$hit, and they have a lower approval rating than Bush. The last 8 years of hell was not worth it. But at least you and Ralph Nader have a crystal clear conscience.
And don't worry, I do count you out.
July 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
when Obama and my Congressman, freshman Patrick Murphy, voted for FISA, a large portion of my enthusiam for them disappeared.
Ive written numerous Guest Opinions to the Newspaper in support of, and in defense of Murphy, and contributed money a few times to his campaign since he came on the political scene 2 years ago. I was expecting to start doing the same for Obama, but since their FISA vote, I just don't have that drive for either one.
A loss of enthusiasm of support is what Democratic candidates risk when they act like Republicans or seem to stand for little.
July 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
when Obama and my Congressman, freshman Patrick Murphy, voted for FISA, a large portion of my enthusiam for them disappeared.
Ive written numerous Guest Opinions to the Newspaper in support of, and in defense of Murphy, and contributed money a few times to his campaign since he came on the political scene 2 years ago. I was expecting to start doing the same for Obama, but since their FISA vote, I just don't have that drive for either one.
A loss of enthusiasm of support is what Democratic candidates risk when they act like Republicans or seem to stand for little more than getting elected.
I firmly believe Hillary's 'cover your political ass' war vote cost her the nomination.
July 13, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I hear the line "under the bus" one more time, I'm going to jump in front of a moving one.
July 11, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is good, powerful stuff, Mr. Sirota. But what should we do to make it happen? What made MoveOn.org so weak in this regard? Do we start new organizations? Do we build upon old ones? I'm listening to the Rehm episode on podcast as I type this (maybe you answer my question there), but I thought I'd ask, at least. I'm young (not 30) with a career path nowhere near politics, but damn it, I know we have to do something.
By the way, one nitpicky thing (thanks for opening the door, Wade!): why must we keep saying that Obama is throwing people and things under buses? Can't we just leave it at Grandma? Politicians and pundits numb our minds with clichés like this; we should expect better from one another! ;)
July 10, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure, worthlesscitizen. :)
July 10, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the partisan thing is the fundamental problem. This netroots stuff has been mostly about process and tactics. In that, it's not as different as it would like to believe it is from the triangulators. It's not enough about philosophy and building a movement that actually has something to say. Democrats are still oceans away from the capacity to have a simple conversation (fireside chat?) with the American people. They want to have a focus group instead and then react with a frame around a sound bite.
July 10, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, the frames, the frames. Remember that big article the NY Times Magazine did about Pelosi, Lakoff, and framing? It's bad enough that they do it; then they had to go and talk about it.
July 10, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
They aren't much good at it! Where would we be if we didn't have a President who has stuck us into two wars without end and the Great Depression II? If Democrats win this year it will be because Americans are mad as hell. It won't be because they've offered Americans anything more than a placard with CHANGE in red, white and blue.
Anyway, I agree we need a movement psychology. I do think FISA showed we can slow them down. They wanted that issue out of the way months ago. But slowing them down is not enough. It's not even an incremental gain. It's just incrementally slowing down the losses. Could we start holding ground and not allowing one more inch on a few core issues?
And the internet is just a tool, a means, not an end. I've said many times that moveon put 8 people in my precinct, i.e., got 8 of my neighbors to volunteer in 2004. But where are they now? I'm not volunteering this year because I'm fed up with being trashed as a member of the "activist base". Guess I've joined the in-activist base. But if there was a movement for me to hook up with, I'd be there! And no, worship of Obama, is not a movement.
July 10, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the Frames. Glen Hansard is a genius. And their videos are really stunning.
Wait. Oh. Never mind.
July 10, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
WNCBlue: Good one!
July 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats are still oceans away from the capacity to have a simple conversation (fireside chat?) with the American people.
Congratulations on your prodigious talent for understatement. Democrates are still oceans away from the capacity to have a simple converstaion with progressives.
July 10, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. So true.
July 10, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Bell, I luv ya. But please don't do LOL, even in agreement. It's the right-wing troll theme song.
July 10, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate you two more and more, Bluebell and Tankard, everytime I come to this site.
July 11, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, the focus needs to be Sen McCain and his 3rd term, should he be elected. The ACLU are already challenging it in the courts, if makes you feel any better... but let's face the reality on FISA and the other high profile issues being played out between McCain and Obama; it's about winning the White House; so you may want to ask yourself who would you rather have setting the agenda and policies on January 20, 2009? And for "refining" Obama's Iraq policy; it may take 18 to 22 months to pull out the combat brigades instead of the political speech of 16 months; a lot may depend on after his trip this summer...
July 10, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
...or it may take decades to pull out our combat brigades.
"Better than McCain" may be reason enough to vote for Obama, but it's certainly no reason to keep the pressure off of him to do the right thing.
Remember how electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 was supposed to get us on the road out of Iraq? Instead we got impeachment taken off the table, enthusiastic support for Bush's escalation, and a further expansion of executive power, all with the help of the likely next Democratic President.
July 11, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, your avatar gives me a warm fuzzy. Second, I completely agree. All this talk by Sirota about issues over party. That's all well and good, if your issue(s) have a chance of being given a seat at the table no matter who is elected. Of course, that's not the case. The issues that I suspect matter to Sirota will be pissed on and thrown in the round file if McCain is elected. Not only will we lose the executive branch for the next four or eight years, we will lose the Supreme Court for the next forty. Seriously, is this a college seminar or the real world?
July 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it's about winning the White House"
for whom??
winning the white house for obama??
winning the white house for the Democratic party??
or winning the white house for progressives??
if 'we' win the white house for obama, but don't get progressive policy in return, what will 'we' have won? unless 'we' means barack obama or 'we' means Democrats, 'we' will have won nothing.
if 'we' are progressives, 'we' should be loyal to progressive policy. putting loyalty to a person and/or loyalty to party before loyalty to policy is the problem, not the solution. (and loyalty to a person and loyalty to party is not a very progressive idea to begin with.)
July 13, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself frequently frustrated with the partisan trench warfare for its own sake. But, I'm not convinced that hardline principle always works in elections, either--especially presidential elections, where the candidate has to make themself palatable to a large, diverse group of people. It seems sort of rational for groups like MoveOn to help the candidate most palatable *to them* to win the election and then go back, after they win, and try to hold their feet to the fire. The negative thing is when people start to fully believe their own campaign rhetoric too much and become mindless Party creatures. It's a hazard of the job.
I do think it's true that Obama per se is a bit slippery, and he's not going to make it easy for people to do that. His supporters are also going to have to be willing to get over the fact that they personally like the guy and want him to succeed for the sake of his own personal story, as opposed to the agendas they "hope" he'll have. That's the part I think could really get in the way in this particular case.
July 10, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardline principles worked quite well for Reagan and movement conservatism. We're still making their arguments and have yet to have enough confidence to make our own. If the 2nd amendment was worth fighting for, why isn't the 4th? And why can't we find someone who can weave a narrative that includes them both?
July 10, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
FISA is a back-back burner issue to:
(1) Why does Obama hate pets?
(2) Why does Michelle hate America?
(3) Which hair style will be best for Cindy as First Lady?
July 10, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
David, David-- what it takes to win a presidential election is not what it takes to build a movement. This is not a left-wing country! Think about every powerful "uprising" in American history: abolitionism, labor, civil rights, woman suffrage, gay rights, environmentalism, etc., etc. They all needed powerful friends in high office to gain legitimacy and make legislative gains. So stop this talk about Obama "throwing the movement under the bus." Get him elected -- and then put the pressure on. But if he's perceived as a black liberal with a radical background, he loses.
July 10, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
and barack's support for warrantless wiretapping shows he will not be a friend in a high place. certainly not without any pressure. that's kinda the whole point.
July 13, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
For some unknown reason me and bluebell seem to agree on most issues...and this time is no different.
The D's main problem is they refuse to make principled stands on issues. Instead of saying "this is what we stand for" and giving a clear explanation why it is the best policy for America they put their fingers in the wind, equivocate, then triangulate, and recalculate until the American people have no idea what they stand for.
The FISA Bill/Telecom immunity is another great example of this losing strategy. Instead of standing up and saying "We will not support this bill because the US government spying on the American people without cause is unacceptable. We take the safety of the American people very seriously and will pass legislation which keep us safe AND does not violate the constitution of the United States", they just cave in, afraid of being tarred as 'un-patriotic' and beaten over the head with the flag by their opponents. The Republicans seized power not because Americans prefer their policies to the democrat's policies. They put the republicans in power because the GOP stated what they were for and against and refused to compromise on those positions.
The Democrats won back the congress in 2006 because the American people have had enough of the Republicans. The true phoniness of their positions finally was exposed. But instead of seizing the moment, even when given a mandate by the people, the Democrats backed down from the Republicans...on FISA, on the war, on every issue they had a chance to make a stand on.
Remember when Bush tried his blitz to privatize social security? I vividly remember because of Josh's yeoman work to debunk every GOP lie. The Democrats stood up to Bush, when they were actually still in the minority, and privatization went down in flames. That should have been one of those "Hmmmmmmm...we can take him on and win" moments of realization. Instead the Democrats have backed down almost every time since. And I am sure the American people who vote have been paying attention.
The FISA Bill sucks, the American people know it. Instead of seizing the opportunity to show the American people that they can/will make a principled stand the Democrats went back to cowering in the corner, afraid of what their opponents might say. They are turning what should be a slam dunk landslide election into a nail biter. Bravo, good show!!!!
July 10, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
And just for clarification I was making a 'funny' with 'unknown reasons' comment about me and bluebell agreeing. I am pretty sure I know why we agree and imo the reasons why are all good. It wasn't intended to be a swipe at her.
July 11, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Libertine! I find it so hard to understand the reluctance of Democrats to defend the Constitution, considering that every federal office holder has sworn to do just that. FISA, in any form, treads very close to violating the 4th amendment, if it doesn't violate it outright. The so called compromise bill that Bush just signed makes it unquestionably a violation of the 4th amendment. But, the hard line Obama supporters seem to think electing a candidate with the poorly defined positions that Obama has is better than insisting that Obama defend the Constitution, as he will have to swear to do if elected.
As I always say, I will vote for Obama in November - that is certain. Equally certain is that I will no longer donate money to his campaign. Political donations are a real hardship for retirees, like me, who have to downsize our living arrangements regularly just to have sufficient funds to live on. I only make that sacrifice for candidates I totally agree with, as I thought I did with Obama back in March of 2007.
Is the problem we seem to have one of poor education? Do those saying "get over it" actually not understand what the Constitution means to our lives? That is depressing.
July 11, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Hoppy.
It reminds me of the old cliche...It is like an enigma wrapped in a riddle.
If we the people can't count on them to protect the constitution can we count on them to really govern on our behalf? In reality, unless you are a die hard liberal like we are here, that would require a 'leap of faith' to be made. Many voters don't like having to make those leaps and will opt for the 'devil they know' rather than taking the chance on the alternative...no matter how bad the devil is. They want to see action taken, not just hear reassuring words.
I can't understand for the life of me the people who try to downplay the significance of the constitution. 'Get over it' we're told? My God, what kind of country are we becoming? No, I will not 'get over it'. I love my country, and what it should stand for, too much to do that.
July 11, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you libertine and hoppy.
July 11, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
hoppycalif2:
As I say above: Bush was far, far worse for the Constitution these last 8 years than even the most incorrigible Democrat ever would have been (Jesus, now that I think about it, Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller would have been better than Bush for 8 years).
No one's saying "get over it." They're saying fight Republicans, not Democrats. And to all those who weep uncontrollably for FISA: Where were you on Habeus Corpus, Voter Suppression and Rendition and all the other things that happened here for 8 years that NEVER should have happened here.
NOTE: The f#cking Republicans (because they know how to suck it up and fight for their politicians at almost all costs) have a HUGE anti-voter fraud network of goons. What have Dems done? Nothing. FLA (definitely) and OH (most likely) were stolen, and we've done nothing.
The only thing I know how to do to fight uncontitutional behavior by the GOP is to help run them out of town and "put them in fucking jail" (as Sean Penn loves to say). :) I also give Democrats money and canvass and fight for votes for them.
July 11, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of us have been beating on Congress about those things for quite a while.
Just because it doesn't make the news doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
July 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
PJEvans: Here, here, and thanks for speaking up all these years. Congress needs a continued "ear beatin'", but it's been ineffective so far. So let's also win the Presidency and continue to fight tooth and nail for progressive positions.
July 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
'we' will have to wait at least another four years to 'win the presidency' since either mccain or obama will win it this time around.
in the mean time let's fight tooth and nail for progressive policies and keep holding obama's feet to the fire instead of carrying him into the white house on our shoulders while he works hand in hand with republicans like bush, cheney, and mccain to trash OUR bill of rights.
July 13, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, I feel like I got 'rolled' by Obama.
One of the main reasons I supported him was because of his statement that he would 'filibuster any bill that contained immunity for the telecoms'. I am not saying that 'if I knew then what I know now' would have changed my mind and I would have supported Senator Clinton, but the choice wouldn't have been as clear cut for me.
July 10, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be an especially "long walk home" if the Democrat who replaces Bush in the White House--like the Democrats who replaced the Republicans in Congress in 2007--shows no interest in walking there.
And so far the only "kneecapping" I see is, yet again, of progressive voters (and our constitutional system) by Obama and the House and Senate Democratic leadership.
July 11, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
This was intended as a reply to this comment by Wade.
July 11, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
1 - Remember to hit the Reply button next time. :)
2 - Stop using my metaphors against me... Just kidding...
But seriously, I recognize this sucks, and I don't see this FISA position helping him in the short or long run, but I'm sick of the threats of "no more money" and "McCain not Obama." We've just endured the most bitter, damaging and miserable 8 years ever. How can Anti-Obamans want it to continue?
July 11, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree that "McCain not Obama" is an idiotic response to Obama's FISA position, though I honestly haven't seen anyone arguing that.
But classifying progressive critics of Obama as "anti-Obamans" misses the point.
Obama's FISA flip flop and his positions (which have stayed consistent) on such things as health care, Iran, and Iraq withdrawal should tell us that merely electing him will not be enough to move in a new direction.
One of the reasons that Obama is a lesser evil than McCain is that he would likely be somewhat more responsive to pressure from his left. But to make that work, we've got to be ready and willing to apply such pressure.
July 11, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
obama agrees with bush on warrantless wiretapping. electing obama president is in that respect letting it continue.
July 13, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did this not because believes in the substantive arguments - in fact, we have no idea what he believes in on this issue considering he promised "unequivocally" not to vote this way just a few months ago.
This is the one thing that I disagree on in this post, David.
If we have no idea what he believes on this issue, how can you conclude that he did not do this because he believes in the substantive arguments?
I agree that we, in fact, don't actually know what Obama believes.
But given his very different attitude during the primary campaign and today (FISA is the area in which he actually flip flopped), I think we can conclude that he was either pandering then or now.
To me a primary pander to progressive Democratic voters makes more sense than a July pander to the Washington establishment.
My best guess is that, like most other leading Democrats, Obama is something of an authoritarian who believes in FISA "reform" but needs to soften his views on occasion for the Democratic electorate.
July 11, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that we, in fact, don't actually know what Obama believes
That's a bingo for me.
July 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
For all I know the Party elders took Obama to the side and counseled him to vote for the FISA legislation telling him that it is the right thing to do both politically and substantively.
And he took their advice.
It does not matter to me.
It is not my role to "understand" politicians and what they do.
It is my job as a citizen to make them understand what I and likeminded people EXPECT of them to do. . And if they do not comply make them suffer some consequence for it.
We are an autonomous entity in the democratic process
That is the citizen's job in a democracy. You can't do much more but you should do no less.
Organizing people to become members of the "likeminded" group is also a legitimate task.
Sure, if a politician is in the ballpark with the agenda of the likeminded, we show outward support and give her kudos. That is a roundabout way to organize more support for her so she will be more willing to go along our path.
Finally, we must inform ourselves as to what is possible and what is not; what is just and what is unjust. And that's not always easy.
Perhaps Hillary is wrong and this legislation had to be passed for some reason we cannot discern. But as best as I can discern she was right to vote no and I respect her for that.
Ours is not to give anyone the benefit of doubt, but to be a force to be reckoned with in the democratic political process such as it is.
July 11, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Testing. TPM will not let me comment, even though it is showing my screen name, because it is says I am not logged in and won't let me log in.
July 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. Now testing reply function.
July 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wade and Andrew Strat: you both are smart, passionate advocates for the kind of America I want to live in. Thanks to you both.
I actually believe both of your voices are necessary and critical to getting something done to fix this country. Wade, we need you and your ilk to get Obama elected, and Andrew, you and yours to make sure Power does NOT tend to corrupt!
Great discussion.
July 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dorn76: Thanks! Yeah, Andrew and the others I argued with today are pretty cool, despite the blustery things I said. I even liked Sirota on Colbert (just didn't like the term "roll" in the headline...).
This was a good time.
PS - I see on your bio that you're from Madison, CT. I went to Lenny & Joe's Fish Tale a few years ago. Loved it!!
July 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason we are all upset over FISA is that we did make an impact. Obama was forced to respond to us.
The problem is that his response did nothing to justify his policy reversal. He basically said only that he voted for FISA, so get over it.
It might be interesting to note how many other Democratic Senators rolled over.
Several comments above noted that we didn't know Obama's positions. That may be true on some issues but he was quite clear on his opposition to FISA and immunity.
The grassroots have funded his campaign. To slap them in the face as he has done with FISA and to still expect the grassroots to shell out their hard earned $100 dollar donations is hubris at its worst.
Will we work to get Obama elected? Of course.
We should also hold back those donations for a couple of months and post regularly on why we are doing so. That just might get his attention.
Anyway, that's my plan.
As Bush said, "Fool me once and...fool me twice" sums up what the Obama campaign needs to learn; hubris loses.
Doesn't it strike anyone else that moving the nomination acceptance speech to the stadium is rather pompous?
Has Obama let his grassroots support go to his head to the extent that he believes he can ignore the progressive movement and still get $50 million a month?
July 11, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Lenny's is tasty. But if you are ever back in these parts, you must go across the street to the much dirtier and more authentic Clam Castle....order fried clams, whole bellies. Delicious and cheaper than Lenny's, who still does a good job, but has become a bit of a tourist trap.
As a lifelong denizen of the CT shore, my knowlege of fried seafood is extensive, but at political discourse I am a mere novice!
Would have liked to see Obama vote against FISA, even if just to keep his pledge....but I am not going to make a huge issue of it, but I will next year if I see a President Obama not paying ample attention to our Constitutional rights. But at this point, making a stand on FISA seems to risk damaging him in this campaign against McCain. It is hard to have sympathy, as he did this to himself with the vote, so I see exactly where Andrew and others are coming from. But I am thinking selfishly, and right now I desperately need to get Obama elected to start fixing this broken country.
July 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant in reply to Wade, above, obviously.
Although Florida Democrat, you could certainly weigh in on your favorite seafood shack as well...
July 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clam Castle is dirtier than Lenny & Joe's? Count me in!!
July 11, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself in the company of those who are deeply disappointed by the events of this week. I have no idea of how to measure this and lack any assurance or confidence of where we are headed.
It is this uncertainty that causes me to mistrust, not something I was really ready for, more than ever our elected officials. The feeling that everything this nation stands for having been abandoned is weighing me down.
The citizenry has sustained a horribly lopsided loss that is unprecedented in its one-sidedness. In all my sixty years I am quite sure we have never been visited with a perversion of our laws and the constitution the equal of what occurred in the senate this week.
Stating this as a compromise rather than the complete abrogation it really is leaves me with little hope for resurrecting this once proud nation. We have easily surpassed any ability to fix the extensive damage reigned down by the Bush administration.
I've been around long enough to recognize when something is irreparably damaged. It is a blessing that a lot of people much younger than myself are working like crazy to fix this up. Fortunately for them, they are absent the intimate knowledge of what we once had. For myself though, I am unable to accept less.
Right now it would be preferable to fight and die to preserve what we had. The nation though isn’t ready for that. But it will come in time. It's inevitable. I have been critical for a long time of why people continuously fight and kill each other. I am now beginning to understand that individually and collectively we have only so much tolerance and at some point that tolerance becomes intolerance.
The intolerance is derived of authority that promotes a favorable circumstance for a unique constituency. And the greater the authority the greater the risk. Benefits that accrue to the wealthy and to the christian right in the U.S. are driving an all too apparent societal backlash. The tone of the public discourse is becoming more harsh as time passes. The indicators are unmistakable. But rather than informing us we are being increasingly divided into warring camps unable to resolve their differences. I suspect the terrorism that has us all so concerned is similarly derived. I suspect it has occurred very much as a byproduct of U.S. imperialism and government policy. The clearly narrow purposes of the Bush administration have very much made the divisions deeper and far less able to be reconciled than anyone may think. Obama having flipped on such a fundamental issue in so short a time is an expression of a very scary reality. I have grown very hateful of how we have been lied to. I find myself hoping Obama has lied about this to gain an advantage but at the same time I cringe at the thought it was a necessary tactic.
July 12, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
I haven't yet read your book, but I am a firm believer in what you've written here.
I believe the underlying question for some who are having trouble with this concept is this:
Are you loyal to principle, or are you loyal to a party (or politician)?
I've always considered myself loyal to principle first and foremost, and thus have always registered myself as an Independent.
Yes, there is a practicality to consider - that being "Do you risk damaging the politician/party that is closer to you in principles by calling them out when they do grave damage to the very principles you hold dear?"
Well, I believe that all depends how important those particular principles are to you. I'm against Faith-Based initiatives, but I'd likely remain silent if my chosen candidate disagreed with me, assuming he shared my other core principles. You have to choose your battles in life.
However, his vote on the FISA Bill was very hurtful to me, because it goes to the heart of my beef with the Democratic Party (Their complicit behavior in enabling the neo-cons, covering up for them, not holding them accountable, etc..)
I believe this is why Americans have become apathetic in the electoral process. They don't believe their politicians represent their interests. They consistently pass legislation and execute policies that go completely against the interest of the American people and the public feels helpless in the matter.
Congress hasn't investigated all the many crimes committed by this administration, but in this two party system what can the people do? Do you vote against Reid or Pelosi in their next Congressional elections to replace them with pure evil incarnates? They realize this dilemma, and that's why they feel emboldened to vote against the interests of Americans - because they understand our only recourse would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
That's why your call to arms here resonates with me. Americans need to find creative ways of holding their politicians accountable for their actions - to ensure that Democratic candidates vote in OUR interest rather in their OWN interest.
July 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink