« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Powers For Me But Not For Thee - doesn't work that way
Yes, Obama is wrong to vote for the FISA bill. No, that should not result is people refusing to vote for him as he is no Tweedledee to McCain's Tweedledum just as Gore was not a mirror of Bush. Thanks, Ralph!
However, I am disheartened by those who seem perfectly willing to give up our 4th Amendment rights because they trust Obama won't abuse the power and they believe he will win. First, he might not win. Second, what about in 2009 or 2013 or whenever the GOP comes back into power.
The GOP was all for limiting the president's power while Clinton was in office and then threw their libertarianism under the bus under Bush. Are we equally unprincipled? Do we think unconstitutional powers are okay for us?
The Achilles Heel of our constitution and the balance of power that has served us so well is that it requires that we place our trust in the system of government, not the individual. The reason we have gone so far astray is the direct result of the personality cult the Right built around Bush. Let's not do the same around Obama...because even if he does not abuse those powers, they will exist and be passed on to those who may not deserve our trust.
Comments (66)
Seems like MoveOn captured the right balance. Pushing for the filibuster and at the same time holding bake sales after they closed up shop on the 527.
June 22, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could just be a case of holding fire.
There are roughly two options a few months from now. Option A is a Dem president and Lieberman-free Dem majority in Congress. Option B is a Republican president and a slim Dem majority.
Now, is raising a big stink about FISA right now the best way to arrive at Option A? I don't think so. My preferred course of action would be not doing much right now beyond making sure the wiretapping situation doesn't spin totally out of control, and fixing the problem properly next year.
OT - what is your avatar? It seems familiar, but I can't place it. Some video game perhaps?
June 22, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. You speak exactly the way I think. And we can't lose focus of what's at stake in this election. We can't let the GOP get back in power. It's as simple at that.
I speak a lot about that is my latest post.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/this-is-exactly-what-the-gop-w.php
June 22, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Codegen, I respect why you want us to hold our fire.
But, we really can't. Immunity means the lawsuits will be thrown out. This is a zero sum situation and our last chance to get a court to decide whether or not the victims of the telecom and adminstration lawbreaking will get any sort of compensation. Or even a hearing.
So we have to fire now because this is it. Afterwards, even with Obama in the White House and solid majorities in the congress, it's too late. The lawbreakers get off and the victims get nothing. That's where we are now.
June 22, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't retroactive changes of law unconstitutional anyway?
June 23, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bill makes the immunity retroactive.
June 23, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is so far outside the bounds of reality as to be comical.
Immunity for actions that aren't considered criminal by the courts, which at the end of the day, this stuff won't be because of National Security shit and precedent, isn't immunity at all. Further, this is for civil liability only for the companies themselves. It doesn't keep criminal charges from being filed. Nor does it protect individuals. Finally, it doesn't stop Constitutional challenges to the law that could come later, making it null and void.
You guys need to keep your eye on the ball, get Obama elected, give him a 61 vote majority and then hold his feet to the fire for substantial and Constitutionally-required actions from the day he raises his hand.
Holding him accountable for levels of power he doesn't possess is self defeating. Unless, of course, you really are neocon troll. In that case, fuck off.
June 23, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it's the neocons who support telecom immunity.
But here's what your missing with your "keep your eye on the ball" remark -- some of us just disagree with you about where the ball is. Some of us think it's in Barack Obama's best political interests to get on the right side of this issue. We believe it plays favorably into the Obama narrative. We think this issue is a winner.
So can we just disagree about that without you snidely and nonsensically calling me a neocon?
June 23, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't call you a neocon. I said that if you are a neocon fuck off, otherwise, we need to be a little more pragmatic in our stances.
I tried to explain, here and elsewhere, why taking this stance at this moment is a no-win situation and I am sure Obama sees that as well.
I am also saying that this All or Nothing mentality of progressive activists is what has kept us in the political wilderness for at least a generation.
I think that we need to use this moment to win, not to score political points that are immaterial in the grand scheme of things. There is nothing the Congress is doing right now that can't be repealed or amended later. There is also a chance it could be taken to the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
Doesn't it make sense that Obama has a pretty good idea of what it will take to win? Also, he has a much better idea than you or I about how things are done in the Senate. It is a complete clusterfuck in Congress right now and an evil bully has the pulpit.
FDR didn't win by running on the New Deal. Jimmy Carter didn't win by promising to stick solar panels on the White House roof.
Win first, then govern. That is the way the system works right now. Come November I will be right there with you, demanding change and being very wary of any compromise that doesn't move the ball forward on our most pressing issues.
FISA doesn't bother me in the least. I literally don't give a moment's thought. Fucking Equifax is way more hazardous to me on a daily basis than Verizon or Sprint. DC Mayor Adrian Fenty asking Fort Washington residents to sign a waver for their 4th Amendment rights to allow a search of their homes is a much more pressing issue for me than data-mining by the federal government. Local police acting like Gestapo and dressed like SWAT team members pisses me off more than some intelligence analyst at the NSA looking at my emails.
Think of the amounts of data we are talking about here. We can't even search for a post on this website. What makes you think that the NSA is capable of compiling a dossier on millions of people conducting billions of electronic communications each and every day. It's ridiculous. I say more transparency is the antidote to secrecy. I say let them see everything. Give them a data deluge. Let's see how effectively they manage that surveillance program in that atmosphere.
I have exactly nothing to hide and if my angry words gets me arrested in the dead of night and hauled off to GITMO, the FISA bill will be the least of my worries. Which is why I was much more concerned, in the short term, that the Supreme Court upheld habeas corpus than for anything the Congress is doing.
Again, you may or may not be an Agent Provocateur stirring up trouble, but if you are truly a concerned progressive than I would hope that you could at least step back from the tree long enough to see the forest.
June 23, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're basically reasonable. I think I am as well and that we've just come to different conclusions on the importance or not of the FISA bill. That's fine. My stance on it is pretty clear.
We probably differ mostly on what we think a Democrat's responsibility is -- you're all about the presidential election right now and I gather that to you that even means not posting things at TPM that don't further the cause of winning that election.
I'm pretty sure that no reader post at TPM will have an effect one way or the other. I think this is a safe place to express opinions that might be to the left of what Obama is doing and it's a good place to talk to other progressives about how to get Obama to move to the left both now and when he's in the White House. Part of what you're saying is that he knows best how to win this election so attempting to influence him might be counterproductive. But he is trying to win this for us, after all. So I think I'd like a say in how things go down. I don't think I'll cost us the election in the process.
June 23, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope not. We have lost elections in the past though with that same strategy.
I agree that this is perhaps the best place to harsh these things out, but there are certainly enemies among us who will blow things out of proportion or turn us against each other in advance of November.
I am just trying to be pragmatic and acknowledge that as of this moment, we have a lot of work to undo in order to get a working majority to come together and change this country. That work, of necessity, will require a lot of flexibility and re-framing of arguments until we find the one that works. I find that to be a logical approach to our current challenges at this time.
Though I am always up for a good revolution if this doesn't work. I honestly thing those are the only two options left to us at this moment in time - Elect Barack and force him (via Congress and popular opinion) to govern as a true liberal progressive in the FDR model or get ready for our next Civil War.
I am fighting for the Evolution of the Revolution that was won in the 1960s and somehow got derailed for 40 years.
June 23, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It sure as hell does stop criminal charges being filed against them - it makes them immune to investigation, charges, lawsuits both criminal and civil and makes it all retroactive.
June 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does not. The only immunity is with regards to civil suits. If a court finds their actions to be criminal, this "act" won't help a bit.
June 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are getting option C - a Democratic President and Lieberman and his blue dog pals setting the agenda.
June 23, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same reason we should vote on all of Bush's judges, just vote some of them down.
Same reason we shouldn't run candidates as coPresidents when the 22d Amendment says they're not permitted to be Presidents any longer. I don't think we'd have any trouble if the War on Terror were wildly popular figuring out that, under the 22d Amendment, Laura Bush should not succeed George Bush as President so he could be coPresident for eight more years.
As to the FISA mess, we should knock this election out of the park, and then fix it, like codegen says. Win first. Bush barely won, governed with strength. We can win by more, and if Obama can keep progressives even reasonably together, we'll fix this and a lot more in 09.
June 22, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
A voice of reason! At last!
June 23, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a suggestion: you know that $100 [or $50 or $25] you were going to send to the Obama campaign? Send them HALF of it.
Then send the other half to a good progressive House candidate. [I see that Wexler has an ad here. Regina Thomas (http://reginathomas4congress.com/) is another good candidate. Just stay away from Blue Dogs like Sestak, McNerney, Chris Carney, Heath Schuler et al.]
The way to "keep [get] Obama honest" is to put good people in the Congress. It's harder to do from afar.
June 22, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant idea.
June 22, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think that's a brilliant idea, Destor?
I hope you do know that when you've put yourself in a different category and now when you respond people are making contributions to the trollbowl.
So everytime an astroturfer, PUMA, RapidResponder or generic troll advises to hold back contributions it actually adds to the pot.
June 22, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no! Better watch out Destor! Someone might call you a troll on the internet no less!!
Give it a rest dude, and what's so bad about giving money to progressive house Democrats?
June 22, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
just sayin'
June 22, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quasar, that's great. Give money to Democrats, by all means.
Better off giving money to good Democrats, of course, and people should be rewarded for opposing FISA. But if that's not your goal, that's not your goal.
So, whatever. You're contributing to the right side, in general. That's great. You're just on the wrong side of this issue, I guess.
And don't compare me to a Pumoid. I'm voting Obama, just like you. And proudly. Just trying to correct the mistake he's making.
June 22, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey destor, FWIW, quasar has also decided that I'm a troll (an anti-Obama one, no less), so just get a good laugh out of it. That's what I do.
June 23, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'm totally confused now Ben. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me but why do they keep calling me a Republican when I'm clearly advocating against the Republican position?
I mean, they're defending a compromise with the Republicans and that makes me a Republican?
I thought the primaries were supposed to be silly season.
June 23, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't confuse quasar with "people".
June 23, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck you, Ben.
June 23, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize,
That was a little too personal.
I should have said "Fuck you, Ben Hocking".
June 23, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor:
You should be happy you've only been called a Republican during this campaign. When the dust has settled there are going to be many, many self-righteous folks who will not be able to recognize themselves in the mirror, and they will be unable to explain how they could have written certain things about those who are their natural allies.
In the meantime, Oregon, this is an excellent post. I agree that: (a) it is ridiculous and disingenuous for folks to stay silent about this; and (b) criticism from the left about Obama's current "position" will not hurt his chnaces in November, and IMO, can only help him electorally.
Destor and Oregon, you have made me proud for your straight-shooting on this. It's easy for me to say that abou the two of you because I have always valued your opinions. Certain other folks, who I joust with all the time, have also earned my respect on this, including bluebell and Dan K. Other folks like Don Key deserve kudos as well.
There are a great many holier than thou folks making total fools of themselves right now, and don't fret it destor if they just don't realize it at this point. I understand where they are coming from because, in fairness, there is an election around the bend, and I know that most of them honestly believe that they are exercising appropriate judgment on this matter.
June 23, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, you know your opinions mean a lot to me as well so your kudos take the sting off of all the namecalling.
June 23, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind where the namecalling is coming from, that it's not from a place of reason. There's those rational minds who disagree with you because of the politics involved or because they see the issues of the bill differently, and then there's the namecallers:
June 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what is going on with the untouchable John McCain.
June 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes, it goes with my country right or wrong. My McCain hero right or wrong, my Obama hero right or wrong, same thing.
June 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, you're a liar. I have never "said" you were a troll.
You just have the same level of discourse.
June 23, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you could admit error once in a while, you might actually be interesting, plant.
June 23, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other question quasar, and I mean this is an honest question because I disagree with you but respect you as well:
You're all for compromise on FISA. So what's wrong with this compromise? Yes, it involves punishing Obama for taking the wrong stance on this issue, but it still supports him, while rewarding Democrats who opposed the FISA legislation and set an example that Obama should follow.
How can you object to that? Why is it okay for Obama to support a compromise on FISA that many of us think is more a capitulation than compromise but wrong for us to follow a suggestion like this one in which we halve every dollar to Obama and give the remainded to a Democrat who did the right thing?
June 22, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me Destor.
Have you read the bill yourself? Or just gotten your cues from other opinions?
June 22, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
O...and have you contributed to Obama's campaign at any given point?
June 22, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you asked:
There's also:
That last one is classy. You can't sue the government, but if you look like you might, the government can sue you.
But, you know quasar, you can read the rest of it yourself.
June 23, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
And have you contributed to any given candidate, Customer?
Or do you just advise people what to do with their financial judgments?
June 23, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not answering my questions for some reason, but okay. Is it that you've kind of come around to Obama's view on FISA? Do you now think that this compromise is a good thing? Fine if you do, but just trying to see if that's where you're coming from.
June 23, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
All you have to do is click on my screen name to see my previous post on the issue.
I don't have the time to restate all my postings on this issue when you prefer to feign ignorance on this thread.
June 23, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
While this is a commendable approach with most people, destor, I believe it may be the wrong approach in this case. Read this exchange with Ben Hocking for an example.
June 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I support this idea, if Obama votes "yay" or doesn't vote at all on the FISA bill as it stands.
June 22, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
*ka-ching*
June 22, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
A great suggestion!
June 22, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
*ka-ching-aling!
June 22, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please go to Daily Kos and read the most powerful post on all this I've seen, written by an African American grandmother who's actually been through the civil rights wars and on the receiving end of real privacy invasions, traumas and God knows what else.
`I got your back, Barack!`
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/22/13830/4343/811/540243
It's an amazing diary, it's truly humbling and deserves to be read.
June 22, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many times are you going to post links to this?
June 22, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
*plunk!*
June 23, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the story? Can you understand the context of the tale? Do you have an ounce of empathy?
I am really beginning to believe you are a neocon troll, because you don't communicate or take positions like a real democrat, let alone a progressive one.
You really need to read more. I suggest Howard Zinn A People's History of the United States. Great book for context.
June 23, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did read the post, and praised in the first thread I saw it in (LisB's) though I was also a bit critical of its basic message which is not to worry about one violation of rights because other people have endured worse.
But tell me, what are the positions of a real Democrat or of a progressive Democrat and how am I supposed to communicate?
Because I think a truly progressive Democrat would get pretty irked when people try to justify support for the current FISA legislation. I guess you have some sort of "how to be a Democrat" rulebook that they didn't pass out to me when I registered.
Oh and I've read Zinn. Found it illuminating but not Earth shattering.
June 23, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you read Zinn's book and didn't consider it Earth shattering then I am not sure what else we have to talk about.
I think you are missing the basic message (and that of Zinn as well) if all you think she was saying is that the FISA shit is inconsequential because others have endured worse. The point was to have a little perspective when thinking about substantive and systemic change.
We have been dealing with issues like this since the country was founded. To think that a single bill or a single vote or even a single election will make 230 years of heinous shit go away over night is naive. It isn't in keeping with how change happens. It's even less in keeping with how change happens in our current environment.
Most Americans don't read blogs. Most Americans are scared shitless by "terrorists" because that is what the media and the police and our leaders in Washington have been shoving down their throats for the last 8 years. Before that, it was the Soviets. Before that, some other imaginary evil. We have been brainwashed for generations. Just because a few people have woken up to the scam doesn't mean everyone has.
This is going to be a multi-generational effort. We are the newest in a long-line of progressives to take on this challenge. The country wasn't ready for Jimmy Carter to go all Progressive Warrior once he was elected. I submit that the country is ready for Barack Obama to do the same, but only once he is elected and able to manage the national narrative.
It seems unreasonable to me to expect some huge, monumental change in the middle of a general election. That is how the neocons distract voters. That is how they win. I am guessing that Barack sees this way more clearly than most of us. He already warned us that we wouldn't agree with every decision.
Based on his books, his history, his legislative record and his upbringing, I am convinced that Barack has a strategy that is way deeper and broader than we can see right now. He also smart enough to know how to win this race.
How about we hold him accountable for his promises after he is elected and not before?
June 23, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, that's a really great response. Thanks for it.
We actually have a lot to talk about and agree on far more than we disagree. I even agree with your larger premise about who Obama is and why he's the right guy to get what will be a generational project started.
But we also have to be careful about what we let happen in the months leading up to the election or, indeed, to Obama's swearing in because Bush and the Republicans are trying to poison the well. Over the course of the next year they'll be able to pass bills like FISA that will themselves take years or decades to undo. So this is important to me.
Remember who we're dealing with here. Remember what George HW Bush did to Bill Clinton? He sent troops into Somalia after Clinton had already won the election. "Congratulations Mr. Incoming President. Have a nice war!"
These guys are playing in the here and now, Jason. I'm with you on the future. But I'm worried about what's happening at the moment as well.
June 23, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess not calling people stupid assholes is a better way to move the conversation forward. :O) I am going to have to thank my little brother for his recent advice to me on how to be a little less confrontational in my screeds and to take a step back before plowing ahead.
I am with you, my friend. (Ha!) I will man the barricades and storm the Bastille just as soon as we get a change in leadership.
As you said, this needs to be something we add to the list of what MUST be taken care of as soon as possible. I also think that there is a lot of maneuvering going on behind closed doors that we are not privy to. I actually believe that the way the primary carried out, hitting all 50 states, was a back-room deal that included Dean and Hillary and all the dem candidates. I think they agreed to take it all the way to wire and that they would hit Barack with everything the neocons could possibly come up with the diffuse the arguments or prompt voter fatigue with certain issues.
Wouldn't that have been a brilliant plan? Run a 50-state primary to prepare for a 50-state general? I know, wishful thinking, but I always want to believe the best of people in this kind of life-or-death situation.
If there was a list of things to accomplish in his first term, I am guessing that restoring Constitutional checks and balances will be one of them for our constitutional scholar of a presidential candidate. I also think that we shouldn't give an inch on anything we really think is important.
We will need to be loud and uncompromising in our calls for Congressional and DoJ investigations come January 20, 2009 as well. We will need to make the Congress Critters understand that their free-ride is over. That regardless of what Barack does or doesn't do, their jobs are on the line ion 2010 if we don't see substantial progress on things we find important. We can hold Congress accountable on a much more day-to-day basis than President Obama.
I will be loud and abrasive and contentious - once the election is won and I can reasonably expect action from my newly elected leadership.
June 23, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has been elected - to the United States Senate. As a United States Senator, he said he would support a filibuster any revision of FISA that gives the telecoms immunity.
A President can't support a filibuster; only a Senator can do that by starting the filibuster himself or by voting No on a Motion to Cloture.
June 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Senator he is doing his job. He supporting a compromise bill that isn't perfect, but corrects many things. That is how the US Senate works unless you have a super majority or more than 60 votes.
June 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The neocons win exactly the way they are winnning now, by getting the legislation they want through Congress. You folks can keep putting the lipstick on the pig, but I don't know who you are kidding. You aren't kidding the neocons. They just got exactly what they wanted FISA and more war funding delivered to them on a silver platter courtesy of the Democratic majority.
The irony is that the real reason the Democrats have been largely out of power the last few decades is because they finally took a stand on civil rights. They actually made a few hard votes back in the 60s and it cost them plenty. And it's taken decades for those hard votes to work their way through the system and now you see the results. You actually have an African American on ticket.
Unfortunately, the lesson they've learned from this is to stop making the hard votes. So, for all the froth about a progressive agenda, I think you all are whistling Dixie.
June 23, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to support the bill because he is part of the system and dependent on the system to get elected. After gaining the support of those superdelegates in congress, he now must support them and since the telecom industry is a huge contributor to them he has to be on their side.
June 23, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments are short but powerful Totally agree with this statement. Railing against the current system while still being dependent on that system to win is self-defeating at best and stupid as hell at worst. I don't think Barack is either of those things.
June 23, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, don't get me wrong - this bill is one of the most anti-constitutional, corrupting, corrupted and downright anti-American bills ever to emerge from that whirling, sucking eddy of corruption and despair we know as Washington D.C. How many bills have you read that contain a provision that makes the bill's protections for one class in this society retroactive and remove the rights of the people to a redress by government of their petitions? How many bills with one paragraph remove the right of a defendent to confront witnesses, disallow states to investigate the practices of an industry, , make the president of the United States above the law and sole judge of who is entitled to rights provided under the constitution and who is not?
When critics of this bill talk about telecom industry immunity, it's not about civil lawsuits, it's about their immunity from the bill of rights.
June 23, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I see it as one more insult in a string of insults that stretches back to at least Nixon's day. I am willing to lose this battle in hopes of winning the war. If we lose the general election, the FISA bill is the least of our worries.
June 23, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed he isn't. But what he actually is, is a part of that system himself. May as well get used to that. Don't expect him to morph into a bold progressive reformer after the election, or you'll be very disapoointed.
June 23, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually expect just that because that is the race he ran to win the democratic primary. If he fails in this, I will be the first to campaign for a replacement in 2012.
He has been in DC for all of three years, 18-months of that campaigning. He is running as an outsider from within the current system. That requires a bit of faith from his supporters that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term compromises.
I think he is gifted enough to bring the country over to the progressive left, but unless we here on the netroots are pushing for it and talking to our folks in the real world about it, nothing will change.
I fully expect him to govern as a progressive reformer or risk losing his job after a single term.
June 23, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you didn't say the same thing about Bill Clinton...
June 23, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't politically involved during Clinton's presidency. I spent most of it traveling around the globe in the Navy. My thoughts on Bill Clinton are all based on study of the historical record during this campaign.
June 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to be accountable for his vote on this bill. Period.
I am an Obama supporter, but I will not allow this to go unanswered... I don't care how you slice it, it's a cave-in if he votes for it AND if he doesn't filibuster this piece of shit bill.
I'm sick of the pussyfootin'... stand for something you believe in, and stand strong. If you don't have the backbone to stand up for the 4th Amendment, election be damned, all is lost in this pussified party.
What is it with all these pissy-pants Dems??? No wonder we are ridiculed as weak on terror...
June 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment