I do tend to credit Pelosi with orchestrating this. I thought her speech was strange if she had really intended the thing to pass on the first try. I'm pretty certain she knew the republicans were trying to make this look like a "democrats" bailout (especially since Boehner complained that Pelosi could have gotten 12 more democrats, ignoring the counterpoint that he was too weak to get the 12 republicans he was supposed to bring in). She did what was necessary to ensure this was as bipartisan as possible, and as it needs to be. It makes me think more of someone bargaining, and she was willing to walk away rather than buy that pig-in-a-poke.

As someone else mentioned here, if only she would have used those skills for something just as valuable (if not moreso), like killing FISA.

--Ron

Posted at September 30, 2008 8:43 PM in response to The Speaker Outfoxes The Maverick?

CVille Dem, I sure hope you're right.

HusseinTenaX: I'd noticed the same thing, lately. Still, with Cheney/Bush, I have to remind myself they're still quite capable of creating more disasters.

Lamont, it's true, there is far too much coverage concerning perceptions of what is going through the candidate's heads, rather than the substance of what they're doing and promoting. All this garbage about McCain not looking Obama in the eye is a good example. Who f'g cares? WHAT did they each say and how does that comport with what they've been saying and doing? REAL investigation (and yes, some does happen here at TPM, important work at that, to their everlasting credit) of the issues is what's important. I still can't quite believe how many people are fascinated by body language and sighing and the lot, to the expense of something more useful.

--Ron

Posted at September 30, 2008 8:28 PM in response to Yes we are fast becoming a banana republic, incapable of competence much less leadership

I don't know people here well enough to say who is a troll, but when I contemplated the terms "troll" and "concern troll" one person's name popped into my head: Camille Paglia (probably not a poster here). She supposedly is a democrat, but she seems to always hate whoever the democrat is, she's also gay, but hates gays. Actually, I've heard her best described as a "professional offensivist" and is of-a-troll-piece with Maureen Dowd.

So, I guess all this to say if you're the type of person to agree with Camille Paglia or Maureen Dowd, then on these threads you're likely to be a troll, too.

Back in the thick of the democratic primary, I got very turned off by the boards here with their extreme anti-Hillary/Clinton slants. Most of it was extremely irrational. Now that the primaries are over, I hope that's mostly over as well. Still, I did not think the democratic cause was very well served by that period.

Oh well, I'm reasonably happy that Obama is the nominee now, or at least made peace with it. I was always going to vote for whoever the democratic nominee was, pretty much no matter what (if somehow Joe Lieberman had been the nominee, then all bets would have been off).

I do think the term troll is bandied about with too little justification. That tends to weaken its effectiveness against the true trolls. I like the definition for a concern troll above that made it be someone who wants to make you afraid to take the right action.

--Ron

Posted at September 30, 2008 8:21 PM in response to Who is a troll here? Yes, I'm talking to you!

You undermine your own case for being able to change your mind when you apply it to his FISA vote. This was one case where if he had NOT changed his mind, he would be in a better state.

And for all the people that think FISA is "no big deal." Try to claim you're not a hypocrite if you'd said the same thing if we were talking about McCain, or, horror of horros, Clinton. I'm certain there'd be all this yammering about principles, the rule of law, etc.

Here's a simplification for those who don't get it: either you're for the rule of law, or you're not.

I'm for the rule of law, and that's why I condemn Obama for his FISA capitulation. It will NOT give him more votes, it will NOT protect him from attacks from the GOP. It gives him no benefit at all, and yet he capitulated against his own stated previous position. Just because McCain is far worse (and no way I'd vote for him, or some 3rd party which amounts to the same thing), I'm not going to pretend Obama didn't totally screw up, and screw us, the citizens. And, he was arrogant about it besides with his platitudinal response to the outrage. So, now instead of being pretty happy with him as the nominee, I'm just going to hold my nose, and put my money elsewhere, like the ACLU and ActBLUE, who, unlike both Obama and McCain, fight for their core principles.

--Ron

Posted at July 12, 2008 2:55 PM in response to Poll: National Race Tightens; Majority Says Obama Flip-Flopped On Key Issues

Dmitry, it's a shame more are not listening to your points about the principles involved. It is true, most Americans take their rights for granted, and don't even seem to care much when their rights are taken away. Part of that is the sense of helplessness of "what can one person do."

Still, that's no excuse for supporting someone in doing the wrong thing. And, as you've said, Obama did not have to do this. Likely Obama will vote for the FISA amendment, even with no protections whatsoever, and claim it as some kind of victory, when it's not, it's the opposite.

Most people did not/do not care enough about FISA to vote for or against a presidential candidate no matter which way he voted, so Obama could have STUCK WITH his previous principled stand to support a filibuster, or spoken out firmly against this FISA amendment, and it would likely have died, rather than giving tacit approval of the tactics Reid and Pelosi have made in smoothing the way for this amendment.

--Ron

Posted at July 9, 2008 12:46 PM in response to McCain Hits Obama On FISA -- Vote Set For This Morning

You still didn't answer my point. There is no constituency demanding this legislation. Sure, there could be some that don't see anything wrong with it. That doesn't mean they'd change their vote either way about it. I don't think these people were SEEKING this legislation, and had it been dropped, and left for the current FISA bill to sit, no one would have a problem with that, EXCEPT the people who broke the law. There aren't that many of them, but they have a lot of money and political connections. That is the constituency that Obama caved in to serve. It speaks poorly for him, and no amount of lip gloss will make it pretty.

--Ron

Johnnyba: That's the constituency of which you ask. And Obama would have to be suicidal to cross them right now.

This may not be right. This may not be fair. This may even be the outrage to end all outrages. But this is reality.

Posted at July 6, 2008 12:40 PM in response to Obama Responds To FISA Group On His Web Site

This is a pretty pathetic (and wrong) description of pandering. It totally ignores what actually happened, which is that Obama is PANDERING to the right. Those "less than 20 thousand" are right to expect Obama not to cave in on a core constitutional issue.

Again, no one seems able to answer the question: Who is this constituency demanding this FISA compromise? No one! Only corporations and their political cheerleaders trying to get away with laws they knew they were breaking, because they wanted something from the Bush administration. This is the noble cause Obama is pandering to. It's disgusting. Despite that, I will vote for him, as there's no way I'd vote for McCain, nor will I throw my vote away on some impossible 3rd party candidate. But I won't pretend that what Obama is doing is OK. It's not. He did not need to do this, he could EASILY have fought it, even quietly by insisting that Pelosi and/or Reid quash these bills as they could easily do. FISA was fine as it is, in fact, it's already too invasive.

--Ron

Liam: Changing your decision because less than twenty thousand names,(many multiple signs up by people included) demand that you do so, and you know that changing would not stop the bill from being passed, would be PANDERING. Thank you Senator Obama for not engaging in pointless micro pandering.

Posted at July 5, 2008 1:05 PM in response to Absolutism, The Far Left, and the Abandonment of Reason

I agree, though I think it's a shame we have to fight like dogs for it when we're paying people to do that (the politicians). It's annoying that so many people are ignorant about how bad this FISA cave is, and are willing to make excuses for it. Every movement has its sycophants, like the ones who just can't believe the 14,000+ people who signed up to get Obama not to cave in on FISA can't be real. They're real. They're real democrats. They're voting for Obama, but they want him to do the right thing.

Let's turn this around a bit. Who is calling their senators and asking for Telecom immunity? Who is pressuring their senators FOR this bill? No constituency whatsoever, just some likely criminals who'd like to get away with criminal behavior, and they happen to have enough money that politicians are willing to do their bidding. Anyone who doesn't see what's wrong with that has no business lecturing those of us who criticize his stance.

The most ridiculous of all are the ones who are calling US the concern trolls, I think the ones who worry that we're holding Obama's feet to the fire are the true concern trolls.

--Ron

tank: Genuine progressive change will only occur if we fight like dogs for it. To the nervous nellies out there, I say you're either on the bus or off the bus. Grow some teeth already.

Posted at July 4, 2008 1:00 PM in response to Group Urging Obama To Oppose FISA Cave Now Biggest On His Web Site

Show me the constituency pushing for Telecom immunity? Show me the constituency pushing for less privacy rights? Show me the constituency for eviscerating the 4th amendment? None of them exist except in the mind of out-of-touch pundits and lieberman-democrats. That's why he could easily win this issue if he'd taken a principled stand. Instead, his stand is "I'll quickly cave on anything, go back on my word, and try to talk my way out of it with noble-sounding words that do not address any underlying issue." His one best argument was that it makes it clearer that the law of the land says the president must get authorization for wiretaps through FISA (and FISA is not set to expire, ever). 3 courts have held forth on this issue, and all three (including one today, appointed by Bush 41), reiterated that Bush can only get wiretap approval through FISA. Why are you making excuses for his caving in? There simply is NO EXCUSE, it's a capitulation for no valid reason whatsoever. It makes him look bad, because it is a bad thing to do.

--Ron

Me: "This whole issue is one that Obama could easily have won"

Johnnyba:
That I don't buy at all. Perhaps in the pure sense of an arguement in the Presidential campaign. But the problem is that he as of yet he has not won any office but a Senate seat. He may be the nominee but until he has the office he cannot command policy as though he did. Nancy Pelosi however holds the third most powerful office in the country. The congress and then the Senate were the leaders here. He can't push them around that much, there has to be cooperation and even if he was president it would be their job to try and push back at him.

So right now, that is who your real argument lies with.

Posted at July 3, 2008 9:54 PM in response to Obama Responds To FISA Group On His Web Site

Yes, when it's too late. The lawsuits will be dismissed, and nothing can be done.

This whole issue is one that Obama could easily have won, but he chose to throw the 4th amendment under the bus. It was a cynical, pathetic, weaselly move on his part, all noble words notwithstanding. I'm sure most people understand about the supreme court (I do, and that's why I'm still voting for the democrat on the ballot), but I'm not going to pretend there's even the slightest good thing about his capitulation. There's not.

--Ron

Johnnyba >

Posted at July 3, 2008 8:31 PM in response to Obama Responds To FISA Group On His Web Site