« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Let me see if I have this straight
A bunch of former Hillbots who questioned Obama's character right up until Hillary quit and beyond are now telling me that I should question Obama's character because of FISA?
A bunch of resentful Hillbots and Nader 2000 types who would like nothing better than to be able to say "See? You picked the wrong candidate!" now want me to assist them in their reckless charge to cut off our candidate's donations?
Glen Greenwald, whose Constitutional rights are so important to him that he allegedly can't even be bothered to show up in a voting booth, is spearheading this effort?
Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.
Who do you trust to defeat McCain in November, thee man who took down the Clinton machine, or the people who can't get over it?
I urge everyone who reads this who does not want to wake up on 1/20/09 to the first day of Bush's third term to not only ignore the FISA handwringers and concern trolls, but to give TWICE to Obama's campaign in the next month.
Comments (161)
The irony, of course, is that these theatrics are what lead politicians to ignore these irrelevant gasbags.
June 29, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What on earth are you talking about? Much of the criticism of Obama on FISA has been from firm Obama supporters.
June 29, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beware of the Grouching PUMA Hidden Drag-on The Primary, Actors. They are voicing their well memorized script.
June 29, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. I apologize for venting in your direction the other day.
2. I am moving forward.
June 29, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
June 29, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to leave several long and articulate responses to one of their posts. They repaid my intellectual challenge by moderating them all out of existence.
June 30, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm dude - there is no moderation of the posts on TPM except by the blog master gods and only then if you do something EXTRAORDINARILLY offensive. Try your "several long and articulate responses" post again - likely technical difficulties. On which post was it that you experienced said difficulty?
June 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the way they do it. The same swine who squeal the loudest about being stifled are the first ones running to the mods to have opposing voices shut down.
June 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only time I have asked to have anything removed is stalker posts who choose to post my personal information out there and even some of those still exist like:
"....You haven't returned by emails. I think we should unify the party by giving all the kkklintonistas a good fuck. I volunteer to fuck dijAMo. Each one teach one. Won't u fuck a kkklintonista today?"
If you have proof otherwise, I'd recommned actually stating when you experienced so-called "moderation" of your posts.
June 30, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coach, if your attention was to turn the fire to the Republicans, perhaps the best way to do that was not to continue to stoke the fires. Take a lesson you are wont to give Hillary supporters: Get over it.
June 30, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is truth in what Leroy said and what dijamo said (God, I hate it when that happens!).
June 29, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is, dijamo, and that's what has me confused. There is GREAT consternation about Obama's abandoning the fight against the immunity provisions of FISA ----- but, although I keep asking, no one has been able to tell me why fighting those provisions is important. I've been staring at them and asking questions and reading whereever I can -- just because so many Obama supporters seem upset -- and I cannot figure out what there is to be so upset about.
It seems to me (and it's not an uninformed opinion) that either the telecoms are IMMUNE (by the current bill) or they don't have immunity but are found NOT LIABLE because they were following apparently lawful government orders. There isn't really much difference -- just some papers filed and a motion to dismiss.
It's not the telecoms that violated the law and the Constitution, it's the government. Suing the telecoms will get folks a bit fat zero and does a fine job diverting attention from the real wrong-doer.
So why are so many Obama supporters turning against him on this? I honestly cannot figure it out.
June 29, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why are so many Obama supporters turning against him on this?
I don't know a single one except for on pockets of the web. Not one in person, and I've been supporting him since last fall.
Disgruntled about it? Sure.
Turning on him? Not one.
June 29, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you define as "turning on him?" Voicing criticism? Being angry? Trying to express your opinion publicly to hopefully have him change his mind?
I don't think people are "turning on him." They are angry and they have reason to be. They are putting pressure on him to vote against the bill if it includes immunity. I have seen moybe one or two people here who said they will no longer support him because of FISA.
June 29, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo: "What do you define as 'turning on him?'"
Elizabeth2: "So why are so many Obama supporters turning against him on this?"
Talk amongst yourselves, ladies...
June 29, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
E2 is the one ho said that. Talk to her about it.
June 30, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like tournament fishing, Leroy!
June 29, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean LAMONT!
June 29, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the disruption to the echo chamber! Please continue with your dittos.
June 29, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, both you and Rush wanted Hillary, so maybe "ditto" wasn't the best word choice here.
Just sayin'.
June 29, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here at TPM, it was the famously even-handed Greg Sargent who gathered up that first FISA snowball and rolled it down the slope.
Just sayin'.
June 29, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to take a look back. Notice how Senator Obama was pressured into telling Netroots crowd what they wanted to hear on FISA way back in Oct. 2007. It appears to me, that he finally said OK just to shut them up. Also, if the immunity issue was so important, then why did Senator Dodd not even get a sniff at a single delegate in Iowa.
Here is a look back at what Greg Sargent reported last Oct. It is very clear that Senator Obama had his arm twisted, and decided to tell the whiners what they wanted to hear, just to keep his primary startup from getting derailed by the netroots crowd. It is amazing how their champions always fail so miserably in the actual contests. Kucinich and Dodd gave them everything they wanted, and both of them ended with almost no voter support in the Iowa primary.
-------------------------------------------------
Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity
By Greg Sargent - October 24, 2007, 1:18PM
It's official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
As we reported here yesterday, MoveOn and a dozen top liberal bloggers were preparing to wage an aggressive campaign today to pressure Obama and Hillary to say that they'll support Chris Dodd's vow to filibuster any Senate FISA bill containing telecom immunity. And late yesterday both Obama and Hillary put out statements saying that they'd back Dodd's threatened filibuster of the current legislation that's just come out of the Senate intel committee.
Those statements, however, lacked the clarity that immunity opponents have been looking for, so today the MoveOn and lib blogger campaign has been in full swing. MoveOn emailed members this morning urging them to call Obama and Hillary and...
Tell him/her the public is counting on him/her to filibuster any bill that gives immunity to phone companies that broke the law.
June 29, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation
Saying that you will back a filibuster -- that is, support someone who starts one -- is quite different from saying you will filibuster.
My hackles are not up on FISA, or gun control because in MHO, worth about 2 cents on the open market, I haven't seen a "flip-flop" of what has always been a very specific and nuanced position from Sen. Obama.
Wouldn't it be far more effective to challenge the telcoms who performed the wiretaps in the first place, go after the Bush administration -- who strung them up over a "damned if you, damned if you don't" barrel in the first place, than get all twisted in knots over Obama's position on FISA? I pretty damn confident his administration would be able to find their way to the special FISA court to secure the necessary subpoenas according to the law. I'm pretty confident they won't be creating new BS excuses for violating the Constitution. But that's just me.
June 30, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
MoveOn Endorsement + 50 cents = 1 cup of coffee
June 29, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
50 cents = 1 cup of coffee? Where? I haven't been able to get coffee for 50 cents in almost 20 years. The moveon endorsement can't be worth anything, can it?
June 29, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
New York City bodegas. But I wouldn't call that "coffee".
June 29, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll accept your language: Why are people so "angry" at Obama? Why are they "putting pressure on him to vote against the bill if it includes immunity"? Why are they saying they "will no longer support him because of FISA"?
I have no problem with Obama being questioned - we should all question our leaders and let them know when we dislike what they are doing? But if you (or one of those angry, pressuring supporters) got to talk face-to-face to him and started out by saying "I strongly disapprove of your voting for a FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for the telecoms because ____________", what would come after "because"? Surely if folks are that angry, so angry they are threatening not to support him, they know why. Don't they?
I'm a lawyer; I'm very familiar with civil and governmental liability; and I can't see how the telecoms would ever be LIABLE ...... so who the heck cares if they do or don't get immunity?? Why should Obama stage a big battle fighting against something that doesn't make a difference?
The more I look at it, the more I probe the issue, the more I read statements from those like Russ Feingold who seem to think it's important, the more it seems like a big, really smelly red herring that got dragged across the trail to keep us from looking at the real culprit (the Gov't) and holding *it* accountable.
So -- other than the fact that an awful lot of people SAY the immunity issue is important -- why is it important? I've been asking this again and again and have not gotten an answer that makes sense.
The only on point answer I've gotten was that by allowing lawsuits against the telecoms, it would be possible to have discovery and find out details about what information was turned over, what was done with the information, etc. But in real life that's very, very unlikely. ---- The telecoms have an absolute defense: they were obeying apparently lawful orders of lawful authority. Feingold himself acknowledges that they had written orders done up all properly -- The government didn't have to give them a warrant because the law provided that a warrant could be obtained afterwards. (That's where the gov't, not the telecoms, broke the law -- they didn't a warrant either before or after the fact.) So .... the only discovery needed would be to produce a copy of those orders. Case dismissed.
Also, no one has been able to explain why a 1983 ("civil rights") action against the US Government for violating the FISA law that was in existence and thereby violating 4th Amendment rights wouldn't be a much more logical course to follow if the goal is to get discovery *and* to stop the government (not the telecoms) from continuing to break the law.
So, until someone can answer those very simple and real-life questions, I'm certainly not going to condemn Obama for declining to take on that (meaningless) battle. And I have to wonder why his supporters would be so ready to become angry, put pressure on him, or threaten not to support his candidacy for something that, I'm coming to believe, they don't even understand.
Note: when I started looking into this, I was assuming along with everyone else that retroactive immunity for the telecoms was a *big deal.* I just wanted to know how it worked so that I could be as justifiably angry as everyone else. I truly do believe in questioning authority and I don't expect Obama to be perfect. (In fact, I NOW wonder why the heck he ever promised to fight it in the first place!!! - Maybe he, also, was assuming that because there was such a big to-do, it must be important.) However, as Moynihan pointed out, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts. I can't find the facts in this issue to support any anger or indignation or loss of faith or disillusionment. If there are some facts, I trust someone on this board will enlighten me.
June 29, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is the problem. Some commentators are screaming bloody murder about constitutional apocalypse, yet very few of the people they're getting worked up understand much of what's going on.
June 29, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
E2, thanks for your comment. It was very enlightening.
June 30, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you're going to believe Elizabeth2 over Russ Feingold? Holy shit!
June 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're a terrible writer.
June 30, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said you were a terrible writer, Lamont. I said this post is badly written.
June 30, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Drat. After finding your comment after an extensive search this evening (the following day), I posted mine too quick saying I hadn't seen anyone answer your question. I now see that it was answered sincerely by a few commenters, intermingled with a lot of very personal, in-your-face back-and-forths that I didn't manage to wade through to see the substantive stuff. Like you say in your last comment, I'll have to mull over the substantial responses now. Anyway, it was still a wonderfully clear statement of the basic question.
July 1, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get angry we're fighting with each other.
This election is not going to be a landslide. It is going to be close.
We need everybody at the polls, pulling that Obama lever.
Vote. Sign up. Drive people to the polls. Get on the phones.
This is WAR, baby! Lay FISA to the side. After Michelle and Barack are in the WH, then we can bring it up again.
June 29, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on!
Besides, I wasn't using my civil liberties this year anyway.
June 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The telecoms have an absolute defense: they were obeying apparently lawful orders of lawful authority. Feingold himself acknowledges that they had written orders done up all properly -- The government didn't have to give them a warrant because the law provided that a warrant could be obtained afterwards. (That's where the gov't, not the telecoms, broke the law -- they didn't a warrant either before or after the fact.) So .... the only discovery needed would be to produce a copy of those orders. Case dismissed."
Exactly. By making them the bad guy, you're putting a white hat on the truly guilty. Sure you want to do that?
June 30, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, Lux!!!
And if you want to talk Constitutional apocalypse, please keep this in mind:
--- Habeas corpus is an ancient limitation on government recognized as such in Article I of the Constitution. It limits the government's power - it is not a right held by some people (citizens) and not by others ('enemy combatants')
---- Habeas corpus is the ultimate avenue open to someone wrongfully imprisoned. It gives them a way to be brought before a judge and have their custodain justify keeping them imprisoned. Without it you have Iraq under Sadaam Hussein
--- The 4 youngest justices on the current US Supreme Court believe that habeas corpus can be rescinded, at least for one group of people, even though there is no active rebellion and the country is not under invasion. (Oh, that they were the 'strict constructionists' they like to claim they are!)
--- The person who is elected President is going to be able to appoint one or more new Justices to replace one or more of the 5 *older* Justices who believe that the Constitution means what it says, who recognize the privilege of habeas corpus means what it has meant for centuries.
--- Barack Obama agrees with the majority 5; John McCain believes that their decision was the "worst in the history of the country" and agrees with the dissenting 4.
Bottom line: I am a LOT more worried about habeas corpus than I am about telecom immunity/non-liability under FISA. We all should be.
I hate to sound like a Guilanni fear-mongerer, but that decision on habeas corpus quite literally has me shaking in my boots. We cannot - cannot - let John McCain be elected. Even if he didn't get his (worst) choices on the Sup. Ct, the battle over their confirmation would be nasty and paralyzing.
Why are we fighting over these other far less important (and maybe utterly UNimportant) things?
June 30, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed on habeas. I also have had horrible Orwellian flashbacks at the direction this government of usurpers has taken and the very convincing job they've done at demonstrating their utter disregard for the basic rights of our citizenry. Their sense of entitlement to power over all of us is antithetical to our American values, which once meant something clean and shiny in the world and now seem grubby and tarnished.
Obama represents a way out of that fearsome path, at least for a while. But the agents of darkness and greed will not give up. This is a battle for the soul of America, and the world, and it's one we'll lose if we don't first change the direction of our government (meaning absolutely not McCain) and then carry out an Apollo mission sized re-education program on America and the world. We live in absolutely dangerous times, and all the dangers are from our fellow humans, even if we have managed to piss off nature along the way, and, as Carlin was fond of saying, she seems to be ready to shake us off like a bad case of fleas. But that is our doing, too.
This fight today is even more relevant than the fight of our forefathers and mothers. The stakes are much higher. Because if the Bush/Cheney soulless corporate greedmongers get their way, the world we know will soon be unrecognizable.
If the developing countries like China and India reach for the brass ring that the U.S. has been hogging all these years, we are in deep shit, yet we have no way of stopping them from compounding our own mistakes.
If radical ideologies continue to divide populations all over the world, placing us all at each others' throats, then we will never know peace.
If we continue to destroy our environment and do next to nothing but talk about energy independence (rather than a radical rethinking of consumption and restructuring of our energy requirements), we will end up without enough water, soil, food and power to sustain anything like our privileged lifestyles, not to mention any notion of the luxury of freedom that we believe is so inherent.
The stakes have never been higher as far as I can see.
I have always hoped to see the human race grow up, but I have my doubts that it's possible. Electing Obama is the only reasonable step in that direction that I know of. Everything else simply leads to more backsliding toward oblivion.
Habeas corpus, FISA... details in a very troubling matrix.
June 30, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, Raider. Yes, yes, and yes. Thanks.
Two things that really speak to me at this point. Re-educating the public about what we need to be focusing on. The Repubs have been deftly pulling the wool over the public's eyes for a long, long time now, with the complicity of the MSM. That needs to stop. Second, we need a reality check on energy - we just cannot continue to live as we have been. Not a choice, it just is. Has to be some straight talking on that point, followed by action. If Obama can make this happen, this era will go into the history books as truly revolutionary.
June 30, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post is a poorly written, tired collage of non sequiturs, which should never have made the Recommended List.
June 30, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's this A. Gasket fellow you're looking for?
June 30, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sometimes wonder if some of us Democrats would rather have something to rail AGAINST than something to hope FOR. I hope I'm wrong. I'm against those tactics :-)
June 30, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Objection--The entire post assumes a fact that is not in evidence. Questioning Senator Obama's disappointing change in position on FISA does not translate into criticism of Senator Obama's character. Senator Obama outshines Senator McCain by dozens if not hundreds of reasons, but he is not immune from criticism or to disucssions about shifting positions.
This is a sham post, and embarassing in that it is apparently the current most recommended post.
The poster sells snake oil on a not so busy day to promote fanflaming, and perhaps to suggest the extraordinarily and intellectually lazy, and frankly politically novice-like and ignorant notion that someone who supported Hillary Clinton can not also be concerned about civil liberties. Silly post and unfortunate that this life-long Democrat cannot say, hey, there was no need for Presdient Bush need to change FISA, and the correct thing for Sentor Obama to do is to oppose this bill and urge that FISA be restored to it's post 9/11 state, where warrantless searches could still be conducted, but with post-hoc and real judicial review required.
These types of posts have the effect of stifling dissent, turn this website into a cheering section for a poltical candidate, and if latched onto by the principal herd of posters, will turn the Cafe into a joke, and the Obama campaign into an unrecognizable mush.
June 30, 2008 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. When we stifle dissent and lose the ability to question our leaders without being demonized, that's when you enter the dangerous zone that is unhealthy for democracy. The arbiters of who is a real democrat must root out any disagreement at all cost. I'm just waiting for the troll witch hunt to begin. Will they use the drown/float test or do the Spanish Inquisition torture chamber?
And he doesn't even realize that Clinton supporters have been arguing to Obama supporters that withholding contributions because of FISA is politically destructive and choosing to not to vote for Obama on one issue is insanity.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/july-is-no-campaign-contributi.php#comment-2919690
But rather than have a serious conversation with the folks who are made about FISA and discuss why they should continue to support Obama, he just demonizes them as the enemy. As GWB as you can get: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Great strategery they have here.
June 30, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who's stifling dissent. You're free to say whatever you want and I'm free to shout you down and call you crazy. That's democracy.
Go ahead and cut off your Obama contributions. I'm giving double.
June 30, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what you get for not paying attention - I told an OBAMA supporter using the threat of cutting off contributions to influence Obama on FISA was dumb and recommended another outlet for financial protest:
FISA is important, but so are a whole host of issues that we need a democratic congress to stand for. Withholding contributions at such a critical time is couterproductive.
If you really want to make a statement with your dollars, how about boycotting thre telecoms that complied? Depending on where you live, you can switch to a VOIP service rather than paying $$$ to Verizon, AT&T when they were complicit in violating our civil liberties with no legal andate to so whatsoever. And write on your bill precisely why you are cancelling your service. Will it make a difference in the long haul? Maybe if enough people express their outrage with their pocketbooks - that's the only thing that matters to the corporations anyway.
On a personal note protesting with your dollars is HARD. I've cancelled Verizon home line in favor of VOIP but still maintain my VZW cellphone because...I can't live without it! But even small changes can have an impact if enough people participate.
Posted by dijamo
June 21, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 30, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, so nobody has actually stifled your dissent.
What was your point again?
June 30, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because I will not be bullied by the likes of you or anyone else. That's not to say I don't think your bullying and demonizing debate tactics are divisive and unhelpful to Obama and the dmeocratic party in general. I am just trying to dissent respectfully on your post and give you feedback on how you are perceived by those who disagree with you. Perhaps you are already aware and just don't care.
June 30, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Says one of the biggest bullies on the block. They call it projection.
I see you workin. And I don't buy your act for a minute.
June 30, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
On TPM I have had more insults thrown at me than you can imagine and I have rarely retaliated in kind. I have been called sell out, housen***a, self loathing black woman, in need of psychological counseling, feminazi, kkklintonista etc etc etc. Lovely race baiting by the folks on your side of the aisle. I have had my personal e-mail inbox filled by someone particularly adept at the google with hateful messages and my personal information posted on this website. So respectfully, I must disagree when you call me a bully. But if you have examples, please let me know.
My "bullying" as you call it has been based on reasons and facts and logic; people who cannot engage on those levels tend to resort to namecalling and personal attacks. If folks wish to engage me on that level, I will attack back. But it is beyond laughable that you have the nerve to call me a bully on this website. I can disagree with folks respectfully and have done so consistently. Last week I may not have been at my best but to be fair you have resorted to name calling with far less reason than I. So who is the real hypocrite?
June 30, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Turn off your monitor and you'll see his/her reflection.
June 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And yet you have no examples to prove this bullying behavior on a website filled with Obama supporters but I as one of the few HRC supporters left am the bully. I could link pages of your bullying, insulting, demeaning and personal attacks on other posters. You are the hypocrite and can't even coem to terms with it. What about Obama's campaign suggests an endorsement of your type of tactics? If you respect the man so much, how do you act against the themes of empathy and respect and honest dialogue that are a huge part of his campaign? But rather than have an honest dialogue, you just hurl one line insults. Have at it. I would caution you that your tactics and disrespect for the views of others may drive away would-be supporters of Obama. If you really care about Obama winning, you would do best to find a respectful manner in which to voice disagreement rather than just insults and telling people to be quiet. But in all honesty, you won't listen anyway.
June 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love how you just take everything I say and parrot it back as if it applies.
You're developing a crush on me and don't even know it. It's kind of creeping me out.
June 30, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's HILARIOUS. My attraction has always been to men that have an abiding respect for other people, ability to empathize, and a core sense of decency - none of which is evident from your posts. What you suspect as a "crush" is actually disgust that you actually believe this is appropriate way to engage in civil dialogue.
June 30, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This would sound much more eloquent and believable if you weren't a hypocrite and a bully.
June 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: "Join our campaign to derail Obama or be slimed and stifled!"
June 30, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That should be "pre 9/ll state".
June 30, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowgasket, bslev, and dijamo ---
I notice that while bemoaning those who "stifle dissent" and demonize anyone who questions our leaders, you've taken a discussion about why folks should (or should not) be angry with Obama over FISA and turned it into your OWN version of "Shut up and go away" and name-calling (snake oil salesmen, poor writing, unhealthy for democracy, etc.)
Only you're saying it to anyone who is bold enough to defend Obama or even, simply, to ask questions about the subject of all that anger (FISA) in an effort to try to figure out if the anger is justified.
I didn't get into this discussion to defend or condeming Obama -- or anyone who wants to condemn or defend him. I want to know what the issue is, so that I CAN figure out who is wrong or right, wise or foolish. I'm simply asking a question. What -- factually, legally -- is so bad about granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms? How does that act - which is the focus of so much of the anger - going to hurt our ability to defend our civil liberties? Why is it important that Obama, and others, make a stand and fight to keep that provision from being enacted into law?
I agree with you that it's a fine and wonderful thing to question our leaders and our candidates. But a question should be paired with an answer.
So, again, I'm asking those who are so angry at Obama over this ..... and those like the three of you who defend so strongly those who are angry ..... If they, or you, start a sentence with "I strongly disapprove of Obama voting for a FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for the telecoms because ____________", what comes after "because"?
June 30, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've had a longer conversation with Tena about this that I can't find, but can summarize in three main points:
1. The gov't had no legal authority to demand telecoms assist them in the NSA program. That is a violation of civil rights by the gov't.
2. The telecom companies that complied (there were ones that did not) violated the laws regarding the privacy of their customers by turning obver information without lawful government authority. Patriotic duty does not absolve the telecom companies complicity in violating the privacy rights of their customers and it is outrageous to me that they get away wholly unpunished. It says to me they will be allowed to violate privacy rights again in the future without any laws or judicial oversight knowing they can get away with it.
3. I have no argument that the FISA laws may have needed updating. The gov't had an obligation to go through the appropriate process and get the consent of the people through our representative in Congress to give them this power if it was necessary. It's called changing the social contract - if we need to give up some of our privacy rights in favor of protection we should have that conversation. To just go around the laws and ask the telecoms to violate the prvacy rights of their customers pretty pretty please in the name of patriotism and don't worry we've got your back if they find out - that is the stuff of tyrranies not democracies. As we move on from the horrors of GWB administration, I should hope we return to rule of law.
So yes I believe telecom immunity is a huge issue and I am disappointed. But I have also said:
I am a Hillary supporter who has chosen to support Obama, but I will defend Obama here. One of the reasons I was so firm in my support of Hillary is that she is a political pragmatist but on principles she's an idealist. Count me in that group as well. Understand Barack is facing a lose-lose situation here. Whichever way he votes, he will lose either some independents/Obamacans or the left-wing of the party. There are high expectations for him because he had the audacity to make people hope that he would not sacrifice principles for political expediency. But one vote does not make a man. Disappointment and disillusionment are acceptable. Disengagement or claiming to not vote for Obama on one issue is insanity - isn't that the message you've been giving to Hillary supporters still pissed over the primary campaign.
He is human. He will make mistakes - we all do. But whatever happens this week, I know he is better than this one vote and I hope after time you will too.
Posted by dijamo
June 21, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
People - especially those for whom protecting civil liberties is their overarching concern - have every right to be pissed about telecom immunity and FISA. What is most imprtant to me as a democrat is not what is most important to you. Obama talked in the Audacity of Hope about the power of empathy and not demonizing those who disagree with you. Is it not possible to think of the issue from their perspective? Yes, encourage them to support Obama and to consider other issues than FISA when making their choice. I don't think posts encouraging folks to shut up if they disagree with Obama about FISA or anything else are helpful to the democratic party. The dmeocrats are a party that values many perspectives and in order to remain that way, we need to allow people an opportunity to have their opinions heard without demonizing them.
June 30, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious to see such concern about "demonizing" people from someone who herself demonized this entire post ("echo chamber" dittos") because "Dijamo" doesn't agree with what it says.
Hypocrite.
June 30, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason I called it an echo chamber was that you did not want to engage in the actual substance of the post presumably because I disagreed with your premise. That is far from a personal attack. These are examples of personal attacks trying to stifle dissent by bullying and demonizing your opponents:
Nice sidestep, but it doesn't work.
No one here, myself included is NOT disappointed about FISA. We all are.
The difference between me and gibbering tools like yourself is that you're telling people to cut off donations to our candidate. You are, by any sane measure, compounding everything that is bad about this FISA mess by lending aid and comfort to Republicans.
The fact that you're trying to spin yourself as anything but a turncoat indicates that beneath all your layers of denial, your conscience is screaming bloody murder.
Posted by Lamont Williams
June 21, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lending aid and comfort to the Republicans by criticizing Obama? Like lending aid and comfort to the terrorists if you criticize Iraq progress or lack thereof? When you start borrowing debate tactics from GWB and his administration, you know you are in trouble. I prefer an open honest and respectful dialogue on both sides and I think this post is emblematic of the exact opposite of that. If you just want an echo chamber where you here people on your side saying ditto and cannot stand disagreement, then perhaps you are on the wrong website. Start your own left-wing Rush Limbaugh website since those debate tactics appeak to you so much.
June 30, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never said that. I said people who cut off Obama's donations and encourage others to do the same. And I stand by that.
Go back and read the quote, liar. Then stop misquoting me.
June 30, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bad. They are lending aid and support to the Republicans by stopping funding to Obama's campaign. Exact analogy to leading aid and support to the terrorists by stopping funding for the Iraq War or implementing timelines. Dude, you are not helping yourself here. GWB black/white with us or ag'in us. You missed your calling. I think they have some openings in the White House press shop as some of the rats are jumping ship over there. You've got a real talent for their type of false debate tactics.
June 30, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there come the insults, right on cue!
Do you even know what "hypocrite" means? Better go look it up.
June 30, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really Lamont - people have access to the Google. They can see your posting history and mine and determine for themselves who tries to shut down debate versus opening it up. Who hurls personal attacks first at those who disagree with them like liar, hypocrite, bully, crazy, worms all insults you've thrown out at me versus my response which is not a critique of you personally but of your debating style?
You may very well be a decent person - I've no idea because I don't know you. But your debating style of dealing with criticism by demonizing the opponent and insulting them is rather childish and immature. Try using actual facts and logic rather than cheap insults. That maight help/
June 30, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they've rec'd it to the top, in spite of your hysterical attempts to shout it down.
My charge of hypocrite applies to you completely. You practice every bad tactic you accuse me of, including bullying and name calling. No one who reads this can doubt that if you had a button to delete this post and end the discussion, it would have been pressed five minutes after this post appears.
I don't buy your act, and those who do are being had.
June 30, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Look Ma! I'm at the top of the charts! YAY!"
If the folks that are recc'ing this post are co-signing on your tactics, that speaks very poorly for Obama supporters. And by the way I recc'ed this post because I think it's an important discussion on how and how not to effectively engage others in a political debate. Don't presume because people rec a post it's because they are applauding you.
Why would I have deleted this post? It exposes everything bad and harmful about your tactics. You are a lost cause, but hopefully some Obama supporter can read and learn how to engage the opposition in a healthy way versus just demonizing them. Why as a Clinton supporter would I even come on to TPM if not to actively engage in dialogue with those I disagree with. Your argument is illogical.
June 30, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coming from a disenfranchised Hillbot, this must be a compliment.
Dij, if this is the best you can do, you could save yourself a whole lot of typing by just going with the classic, "I'm rubber, you're the glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you."
Myself, I'm off to encourage more people to disregard your campaign to take Obama down and donate more.
You can't bully me away, Hillbot. You will not shout me down.
June 30, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are speaking to someone who made her first contribution to Obama last week (twice) and verifiably so. You may continue to demonize others as you wish. I really don't care what your opinion is of me. I would hope that you can at least TRY to engage in actual conversation with HRC supporters and wavering Obama supporters rather than driving them away with your divisive debating style where you attack those who disagree personally and insult them. It is unhelpful to the cause of electing Obama in November.
June 30, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You and others like you are bullies and hypocrites and I refuse to stop pointing that out. And when others do, I'll have their backs.
Shake your fist at me all you want. I don't buy your act, don't believe a word you say, and could not care less what you think of me.
Have a splendid day.
June 30, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation: "WAH! Dijamo is unfair. She bullies people by using FACTS and LOGIC and PROOF to shut down my arguments whereas all I have to offer is petty insults and namecalling and bullying and then I have the nerve to accuse her of being a bully and hypocrite."
June 30, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And MISQUOTES and NAME CALLING and LIES!
June 30, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zzzzzzz.
June 30, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean lies like continuing to suggest I said cut off contributions to Obama over FISA even though I have linked proof that I did exactly the opposite? Take a look through the thread - you're the one calling names. I am criticizing your heavy handed debate tactics. FYI - if you think I back down from bullies I don't so give it up.
And I have not told a single lie - evrything is truth. I misstated your lending aid and comfort quote and corrected it and it proved my point even more direct;y. Dude - give it up you are embarrassing yourself. Let someone else try to redeem your thread.
June 30, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Oh my God... don't do that to me when I've got a mouthful of Mountain Dew. Christ, now I'm gonna need a new monitor.
June 30, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to give an example of a lie?
*whistling patiently*
June 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A big one right here...
You pulled the quote and then misquoted it, and I pointed out that out. Never did I say ANYWHERE that you were saying to cut off contributions. You're trying to construct a strawman. You are a liar.
Pretty stellar... you pull a quote, misquote it a few words later, and then lie about the follow up.
As usual, you're whistling out your ass.
June 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
chirrrrp... chirrrrp... chirrrrp... chirrrrp...
June 30, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay - pay attention to the timing here at 7:52 am I explicitly stated I encourage Obama supporters threatening to withdraw their contribution s because of FISA to reconsider. At 8:36 am you reply to that comment by telling me to go ahead an cutoff my contribution to Obama and you'll give double. I corrected you AGAIN and posted directly where I advocated a boycott directly against teh telecom companies rather than a boycott on Obama contributions.
That's a lie and you still continue to repeat it. Now where pray tell have I lied?
I didn't. Don't need to. Facts are on my side so I can rely on them rather than having to lie about other people's positions. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions and lies rather than trying to peddle your own failures on other people.
June 30, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
***tumbleweeds a passing thorugh***
June 30, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
Swing and a miss!
Go find where I said that you, Dijamo, had said you would "cut off contributions to Obama over FISA."
I never said it, liar. But keep looking.
June 30, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/let-me-see-if-i-have-this-stra.php#comment-2937731
You said go ahead and cut off my contributions. I took that to mean that I had threatened to cutoff contributions. I didn't realize you'd actually lost your mind and were now actually ASKING me (and presumably others) to cut off contributions as a protest action. I thought you were lying. It never occurred to me that you actively wanted to sabotage Obama.
So here then is another bigger lie: "Myself, I'm off to encourage more people to disregard your campaign to take Obama down and donate more."
From the time Obama won the required number of delegates, I have been behind getting him elected. I quite frankly don't give a shit what you or anyone else believes. Even at my most angry, I have said yes to Obama but fuck unity (as in fuck party unity and uniting with folks like yourself that only want to further divide the party). If you have evidence of my so called campaign to bring down Obama, show your proof or just be quiet. You are the one sabotaging his chances by furthering the splits between the party with your ill-advised rants and divisive rhetoric.
June 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply |