« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Re Fisa: Obama articulated his reasoning in a 2005 Kos Diary.
A short post. Bulldog Manifesto has posted a diary that Obama wrote back in 2005 for Kos. It's interesting as Obama articulates his reasons for not filibustering the Robert's appointment to the Supreme Court.
Should he have filibustered? Perhaps. Perhaps if he had done so we would not be in the mess we are in. However, I have to credit Obama for at least having the courage to write to the progressive community about his stance, and to articulate his reasoning.
Today, what he writes seems to apply to his stance in regards to the FISA fiasco, a stance that has made me cringe repetedly for days.
The diary helped me to understand Obama a bit better. It is worth reading.
You may hate it; you may like it; you may not think it applies to this situation. However, I pretty much guarantee you'll learn a bit more about our nominee's rationale.
Comments (23)
I agree.
"Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great...
I think the rule of law equal to all, and the 4th amendment are part of those core values.
Otherwise, I agree with it all. I'm not even saying I'm not voting for Obama.
But I'm sick of seeing others attacked for wanting to see more of the Obama from the Primaries when he talked about supporting a filibuster for the exact same issue, and disappointed otherwise.
I'm sick of the apologists who just wish some of us believed in my party or my candidate right or wrong. That kind of crap is reactionary and stamps down criticism, thought, and creativity.
I may not be the kinda supporter you want, but then it is not up to you.
Most the people who are upset about FISA have been watching and particapating in this fight for a long time.
I have to credit Obama for at least having the courage to write to the progressive community about his stance, and to articulate his reasoning.
I agree with you here as well. Well done on Obama's part. Afterall, I'm still voting for him.
June 24, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And where did he stick to his guns? Where was the bold move? Where was the filibuster on Alito or the early support for Dodd's work on FISA? Where was the line in the sand on Iraq, the support for Feingold sticking his neck out?
If not granting blind retroactive immunity for breaking the law on a mass national scale *WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHICH LAWS WERE BROKEN* isn't a core value, what the fuck is?
And we know these guys started this effort in early 2001, months before 9/11, long before the war in Iraq. It was a coarse, large-scale premeditated attack on the Constitution, oh Mr. Constitutional Scholar, and guess what? It's not just about these companies - I don't give a shit about AT&T. But without some legal way to get AT&T to testify, with teeth, we will never get any evidence on how far this Administration took us down the river, just more endless speculation denied nightly on Fox News.
June 25, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like him, reads like him. Yet my somewhat suspicious nature questions - are we sure it is?
If so, interesting.
June 24, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's absolutely him! I am amazed at people just learning of it now, must be relatively new to the liberal blogosphere? That's a classic.
It caused a big fuss at Daily Kos at the time, there were tons of threads on it there. There was a couple of threads on it here as well as at many other blogs, it was seen as dissing the "netroots." Daily Kos once had a very vocal anti-Senator-Obama contingent, and in that context he CLEARLY meant that post as a lecture to them about their attitude being all wrong. Right after it, he did this intereview and dissed them:
Obama that in Sept. 2006 to New York Magazine:
BTW, lots of netroots people there and here and at other liberal blogs also exploded negatively earlier over his speech on religion in June 2006 to an evangelical group, there were tons of negative comments on many threads on that one here at TPMCafe, here's one example of many. At Firedoglake, there was a also a lot of hate towards him for a long time over what he did in the Lamont/Lieberman situation.
Watching much of the "netroots" slowly go pro-Obama has been very interesting to watch, it didn't used to be the case at all before there were only two in the primary. Dislike for Hillary turned them all pro-Obama and they forget everything they disliked about him. I've found myself posting a link to it quite a few times to remind a lot of people. I just posted a link to it the other day. I think it is the real him, it really lays out what he believes; there's a lot in "Audacity of Hope" that reflects similarly. He very much dislikes the method of single-issue interest groups pushing against the majority (i.e., "the American people",) or dissing the majority public, that's very clear to me.
June 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the direct link to Obama's full Kos diary:
Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party
by Barack Obama
Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 07:38:41 AM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/30/102745/165
June 24, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's also cross-posted on Obama's Senate site:
http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party
LBS, nice application of this article to the FISA issue.
June 25, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, see, I think he's very proud of that essay aand I suspect he spent a good amount of time on it and it really encapsulates what he thinks and how he wants to practice governing.
This is partly why I think many on the left who are explaining away certain things as "moving to the middle for the general election" have got it wrong. In a way he seems to have a core belief that "moving to the middle" is the right thing to do, is what he wants to do. Of course, his definition of middle is different than others, but it is definitely that he thinks the American majority sees things through a "non-ideological lens." His 2004 convention speech was all about breaking down the red v. blue thing.
Especially note the statements there about misreading the American people, that most Americans do not find Bush mean-spirted or prejudiced, and do not think corporations inherently evil or that America an imperialist brute.
That makes it very clear that he was reading the blogosphere way before they started attacking him on Kos about the Roberts confirmation and didn't like what he was seeing. (He even refers to seeing smears of Dick Durbin about his votes on the war.) See, at the time at places like Kos, there was the ton of Bush bashing and also the very strong theme of Dems gotta get a spine and fight back against the evil GOP. He's telling them there that their Manichean view is not going to work. And that the Manichean red vs. blue fight theme is a false reading of the U.S.
That he made that statement to New York magazine about Kos also shows that the essay was not just a fluke written without a lot of thought.
I get the impression from it that he believes not all conservative judges are a bad thing. But what is most clear is that he is very strongly against litmus tests:
When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
I recall that he also speaks in "Audacity of Hope" about as a Senator having to fill out questionnaires from special interest groups, basically a yes or no answers of whether he supports their cause, and how much he dislikes that.
June 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. You have soothed my suspiciously savage breast.
June 24, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the background/history lesson, artappraiser. I'm relatively new to this arena -- got sucked in by election madness -- so the picture you paint of the past is fascinating.
June 25, 2008 3:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is worth a read. I particularly like the mention of a "quixotic fight" because that basically what the fisa fight would be. It's going to get passed, and standing up against it would hurt Obama's chances of getting elected this November. Dodd and Feingold are vowing to filibuster and will table a motion to strip the retroactive immunity - that will put the onus back on Bush and the Republicans - Why are they so hard up on granting this immunity and why would Bush veto any agreement if it contained no immunity?
The rest of his diary can be summed up as warning against making the perfect the enemy of the good. I see some of that going on here and elsewhere right now.
June 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worth noting that Dodd was on Obama's VP shortlist and has been fighting this fight for awhile now, so I believe it shows you where Obama stands "reading between the lines".
June 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? That shortlist also has Jim Webb, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Jack Reed and Sam Nunn. What do you read between the lines there? John Edwards and Kathleen Sebelius, Tom Daschle and Bill Nelson? Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine?
I can get more out of a Ouija Board than trying to find a coherent string through all these names or guess specifically why they're all there.
June 25, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos Jonze. If I haven't said it before, I dig your avatar, and play that speech in my head every time I see it. Breakfast Club was a classic of my youth...
Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I commend Dodd and Feingold. That is all I have asked this whole time: That OTHER Democrats stand up to this not just because it's right, but to prevent Obama from having to cast a vote on this before the election because his vote, unlike everyone else's, has to be "yes." He is the only one who has to please an entire nation of voters, not just a state or a district. Despite Pelosi's hysterical ravings from the House floor, it IS an option to go without a bill. This did not need to happen. This could have waited, and the Reps who keep saying otherwise are, in my view, lying.
As for those lamenting the loss of the "primary" Obama, I am sad too but I fully expected it. 18 million of us cast votes for him in the primaries/caucuses. Not enough to shake a stick at, much less win a national election that is determined by the electoral college (i.e. a system in which lots of extra liberal votes in CA, WA, and NY simply do not cancel out the loss of whole states like PA and OH). Believe it or not, there are people in our midst who actually could vote in primaries...but don't!! I would no sooner forego an opportunity to vote as I would cut off my own arm, but that's me... These casual, general-election-only voters need to be brought into the fold or we won't win the election--period. This just isn't rocket surgery (quick, name that movie!).
June 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard Vernon: What did you wanna be when you were young?
Carl: When I was a kid, I wanted to be John Lennon.
Richard Vernon: Carl, don't be a goof. I'm making a serious point here.
June 24, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the comments. Indie Pro -- for what it's worth, I think your attitude a healthy one. My own sense is that we need to remember that our politicians -- even the Democrats -- need our leadership. Even Obama himself states that in his rhetoric. We have to hold all of our politicians accountable.
Zinn states this most emphatically, and Zinn knows from politics.
I also know that Obama (in the case of FISA) promised a fillubuster of any retroactive immunity. And if Feingold and Dodd fillibuster, Obama owes them (and us) full support.
However, if this diary were written by Obama(and barefooted does well to question if it was) then I have to give him credit for posting to progressives on an issue -- and on Kos no less -- back in 2005 when it was not quite as accepted as it is and isn't now in the mainstream.
His words don't take away the sting of his statement last week. (Yuck. I'm not sure he could have worded it more poorly -- he'll "monitor" the situation? What in heck does that mean?)
However, as Colbert would say, his diary does seem to indicate he has balls.
I don't mean to be vulgar, but the question is, which way are they swinging . . . I just wish I could be more certain.
June 24, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's a big difference here. Back in 2005 he explained why he didn't filibuster Roberts even though some of his supporters wanted him to. That's fine, it's a simple disagreement with his supporters and he at least thought it was important to explain himself.
This time Obama's disagreement with his supporters stems from promises that Obama made -- he said he would stick with Chris Dodd and filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity. Well this is a bill with telecom immunity and Dodd is still standing against it. So this isn't a case of Obama simply disagreeing with his supporters. In this case, Obama is going back on a promise that he made to his supporters.
June 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama ever promise to support a filibuster on Robert's nomination?
And his diary was just mush. Let's stick to our guns, not trim any sails, but be sure to take the right tone and everything will work out. If you replaced the entire diary entry with nothing, it would have been as meaningful.
June 25, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it: the artful dismissive paraphrase. May I add a few more?
Old Testament: Do what God says
New Testament: Love Jesus. Don't be an asshole.
Declaration of Independence: Fuck off British wankers
Hamlet (spoiler alert): Conflicted prince is paralyzed with indecision. Everyone dies.
Moby Dick (spoiler alert): Crazy ship captain obsessed with killing big whale. Almost everyone dies.
Constantinople's blog posts: Obama sucks
June 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for ruining Hamlet.
Sincerely,
Fortinbras
June 25, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
O nicely done, Genghis.
Gee a reasonable, thoughtful politician with actual beliefs. Will wonders never cease.
I agree with Obama in part, and disagree in part. But then, I don't expect to agree 100% with anyone. Mainly I'm impressed with the fact that he's thought about this and has actually formulated a line of reasoning about it.
My god - he can actually think.
June 25, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man I hope McCain doesn't stumble upon your Hamlet spoiler, he's been wanting to see that ever since it came out.
June 25, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain, if you read this thread, I apologize for ruining Hamlet for you. But I encourage you to see it anyway. In particular, please pay attention to these lines:
I also recommend Henry V:
June 25, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this. I think we can consider this fair warning. Obama pretty clearly laid out his attitude about the "brook no compromise" "take no prisoners" attitude of many on the left. Pragmatism earns you the right to appoint Supreme Court justices. Inflexible idealism earns you the right to vote up or down on Republican nominees.
Barack Obama is truly the guy he claims to be. Like him or not, he's the real deal.
June 26, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment