« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Dumbing Down Of Barack Obama
I think what is clear is that the way the program operated broke the law that was existing at the time,” Obama said Monday at a news conference in Jacksonville, Fla. “On the other hand, what I’ve also seen and learned is the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks.
I was struck by this paragraph while reading a report linked to on the main page about Feingold and Dodd planning to filibuster the FISA bill in the Senate.
I read that paragraph three times. What struck me was the phrase "seen and learned" in the sentence: "On the other hand, what I’ve also seen and learned is the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks.”
Now I remember hearing the idea kicked around that the reason Obama got to the right position on the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq was that he didn't have the "benefit" of those intelligence briefings and reports the Bush administration used to pull the wool over the eyes of the Congress. Since he missed out on the briefings and the inside information, he was able to use his common sense. Anyway, some people figured it that way.
And now we find that Obama has changed his position on telecom immunity and the need for a new FISA, because he has learned something he didn't know when he started running for President.
What? And from whom did he learn it? When?
Here are a few other areas he might learn more about now that he's our nominee.
Progress on the ground in Iraq.
The catastophic consequences of ending the occupation.
The real role of Iran in Iraq and in the Middle East.
Israeli intentions toward Iran.
The date we will all realize the petroleum is gone.
The way the economy really works.
The information we obtained through torture and how valuable it was in preventing terrorist attacks.
The reason excess profits are good.
The reasons universal health insurance just won't work.
Anyway. That's the best list I could come up with. I'm not as up on the real issues facing America and the areas where Obama needs to be dumbed down by inside information as I need to be.
But I'm definitely interested in the subject now.
Comments (144)
But what you are leaving out, Billy, is the fact that we would (and Obama would) not have to worry about the catastrophic consequences of ending the occupation of Iraq had Bush not started it.
I like your new avatar, btw. And I'm sure everyone's going to jump down my throat for arguing against just one of your many bullet points, but that first bullet point left an opening that I couldn't resist.
That said, I still like your new avatar, btw.
June 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh great, another 5 months of "Hillary made me do it" or 4 more years?
And by the way, Obama already said he'd turn around and head back into Iraq if things got "hot" on the ground. Sounds like our exit strategy has a very large hole in it - when has it not been hot on the ground there?
June 25, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did he say that? Source, please?
June 25, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall that also.
June 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's nice. Source, please?
June 25, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some debate or interview - "what happens if Al Qaeda acts up" "Oh, we head back in". google it, you'll find it.
June 25, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and your ilk think the clock can be turned back?
We are where we are and what Bush did to get us here has little relevance for the future.
Your argument is vapid.
June 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to intrude, Lis!
"The information we obtained through torture and how valuable it was in preventing terrorist attacks."
Consider yourself a high level politician in an anti-US part of the world defending your rights to torture captured US military men and women. After all, we don't have a corner on the word "terrorist".
Still agree?
June 25, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Would you be so kind as to flesh out this claim of yours:
"And now we find that Obama has changed his position on telecom immunity and the need for a new FISA, because he has learned something he didn't know when he started running for President."
How has he "changed his position on telecom immunity"? Was he against retroactive immunity before, and is for granting it now?. Please provide any evidence that you have to support that claim. Thanks.
June 24, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, come on.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
June 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling him?
June 25, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good link-
Liam, come on
June 25, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, come on.
June 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Eileen?
June 25, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I came on Eileen. She complained that it stained her dress.
June 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh, all girder rails, not a brain cell in sight.
June 25, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's willing to vote for the whole turd after the farcical Kabuki "attempt" to strip immunity fails. That good (bad) enough for you? Certainly is for me.
June 24, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gratuitous Obama bashing.
Now you are bashing Obama for HYPOTHETICAL flipflops!
June 24, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what that asshole lies for.
June 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
--Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, October 24
If he supports the proposed filibuster, then there won't be any flipflopping.
June 25, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deserved Obama bashing for very REAL flip-flops, and spinelessness on what was supposed to be one of his strongest issues.
June 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I miss the FISA vote in the Senate?
June 24, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No! The Dems are going to filibuster.
June 25, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I'm sixty, I'll retire.
I'll never be divorced.
My kids will never get into trouble.
One day I'll have kids.
One day I'll marry.
One day, I'll live to be sixty.
If I change my mind, or those things just don't happen - will I be flip-flopping? Or lying? Or nieve? Or, or, or...
June 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I remember hearing the idea kicked around that the reason Obama got to the right position on the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq was that he didn't have the "benefit" of those intelligence briefings and reports the Bush administration used to pull the wool over the eyes of the Congress.
ka-CHING! I took a trip for a week to see my family and I get back and find out the Obama supporters lost their virginity in that time. It was bound to happen sometime.
June 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Billy is not an Obama supporter. More like a concern troll.
And btw those people who actually did bother to read the intelligence were just as skeptical. Hillary, of course, famously read only the executive summary. But people who read the whole thing in depth noticed it was sketchy.
June 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL I'm aware Billy is not an Obama supporter. You can go back to sleep now.
June 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You quoted him and made this comment:
"I took a trip for a week to see my family and I get back and find out the Obama supporters lost their virginity in that time."
Miscommunicate much?
June 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to show me where I implied that BG was a Barry supporter.
June 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we're all real excited to vote in McCain now.
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again: Obama's detractors in the primary season painted him as the 'perfect candidate' more often than his supporters did, at least 'round these parts.
I knew he'd disappoint me eventually because I know I'm far left of center on most things in this country. Those who didn't expect a veer towards the center weren't looking at his record or listening to his words a year ago and bought into an idea, not a candidate.
There's still a lot worth supporting in Obama. There's still a lot worth shunning in McCain. So it goes, and goes, and goes.
This is entirely the wrong reading of the issue, because many of the dems who actually bothered to read the information vs. sit in at briefings voted against the AUMF. Many of us on the sidelines who got our information from outside the US felt the same way.As for the list of issues...
Progress is up because ethnic cleansing has occurred under our watch. They're running out of people to kill in Baghdad. The first needs a qualifier for rebuttal. America doesn't get it in general, but what specifically does Obama not get that McCain does? For the second, how should America treat Israel when it bumps up the rhetoric against Iran? I don't think anyone is happy with the answer to that one, but I'm curious where you're coming from, Billy. The past is the past... Also needs more qualification. Needs way more qualification. Way, way, way more. Way more. In what sectors? No candidate is running against profits across the board. Because universal health care won't pass congress presently, and besides that, universal health care isn't worth a toot if it isn't implemented correctly. There are myriad ways of doing it, so why latch on to the first one that's promised during a campaign season and judge all who attempt baby steps as unfit to lead?June 25, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imageshack shat all over my link re. Iraqi ethnic conflict. In lieu of a better hosting option, please cut and paste this URL into your address bar for graphical edification:
http://waffleimages.nwpshost.com/files/b3/b3b4b4186ce21851de448d6f80fb02b8d09067aa.gif
I am all ears for alternatives that allow direct linking with no registry.
June 25, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's (current) FISA position is not a 'veer toward the center.'
Americans don't want warrantless wiretapping, and Americans hate George W. Bush.
Best I can tell, he's using the Democrats' usual strategy: Appeasing the worst of the Republicans so they "can't use the issue against him in November."
AKA 'abject surrender'.
June 25, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indiex, at least you didn't have to watch. I'm not usually squamish, but this was ugly sex.
June 25, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still watching... ;)
June 25, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perv ;-0
June 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Photos?
June 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get back and find out the Obama supporters lost their virginity in that time.
Does this mean ALL Obama supporters? And were they ALL virgins two weeks ago?
Or should I just go fuck myself?
June 25, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy. Your post's flying under the flag of "information," when you're actually saying, "Capt. Obama may be a pirate." i.e. He may, underneath, just be Fast Eddie, man with no principles (other than self-interest.) Ok, fair enough, that's possible.
But your laundry list of issues where O might "learn more" (i.e. sell out) is rather "unsorted." Or perhaps they were lumped together by someone, I donno. But on some issues, I think we can agree it's very unlikely he'll "learn more" through further inside info. e.g. Health care, where he can study Europe, Canada or even Mass. & be able to proceed.
But wire-taps in relation to domestic terrorism... that's a bad-smelling piece of clothing. 1st, It CAN happen. I was in London on 7/7/05, standing at my tube stop waiting... for a train that didn't arrive. Because some homegrown, fish & chip, domestic terrorists killed 56. Same as Madrid. So, the case CAN be made - to a large & receptive pool of voters - that the threat is real.
And 2nd, What if Obama blocks this bill, and a bomb goes off. In Madrid, the bombs went off JUST before the election. Funny that. And there are people, inside US politics, for whom this would be a political godsend - as we heard yesterday. And also, there ARE terrorist groups who want to have McCain.
My question. Under any "normal" set of political circumstances, Obama beats McCain. (Esp. if O plays safe.) He's only really at risk of losing IF there is a foreign policy "event" (in which McCain has the accurate inside dope, while O does not); or IF there's a domestic terrorism event.. and Obama is tagged as having taken away the tools that would've stopped it.
This dirty lil item kindof smears off on the others. Because what would any good, hard-headed political advisor tell Obama? I know what I'd say (& feel dirty for it): "Screw FISA for now, Barack. Fix it later. The Repub's are just nuts enough to do it."
Which leaves us absent the information we need to determine whether he's really Fast Eddie On The Make, or just Barack Obama - smart, idealistic, canny... and very tough. My gut still says 9/10 chances the latter. We'll see I guess.
June 24, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and Billy are both enlightened, in your own right. Two sides of a coin.
Reality? We shall see.
Certainty? Yet to be.
June 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn! I didn't recognize you. But I think that's the best comment I've seen on this topic in days.
June 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey 99! Yeah, got the tubes out. Was feeling distinctly less blue, so I went out for a walk. Whamo. 18 wheeler.
I'm now the Posthumous Possumus (earlier post.)
Doc says I'll be alright though. Once they get some tubes into me.
June 24, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the old avatar better. This one reminds me of 'Free Cat' and I got three stray hoodlums keeping me bleeding heart up in here.
June 25, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep thinking "Posthummus possimus", which sounds like baklava by any other name.
June 25, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
After last night, it's balaclava for me.
June 25, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't even consider this as the reason. Lots of food for thought in this comment. Totally agree on all points.
June 25, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best joke in the entire post is the part where Billy refers to Obama as "our nominee." What a fuckin' comedian.
June 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed this is a case that has been argued vigorously by Billy himself.
June 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, yes, yes! The new democratic party--we can out-"fear" the republicans.
FISA has not been repealed last I checked, by the way. All the necessary tools are currently available to the government.
Pelkyi Dorje, esq.
June 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Dobbs, sir...
I did not mean to imply to you that I am in favor of giving the Executive Branch more "tools that they need," as so many capitulating Asses on Capitol Hill are fond of saying.
I am not. There are way to many fucking tools in DC. Anyone can see that the last thing our government needs is more fucking tools.
I was just tying to point out that Mr. Glad's newfound anxiety is maybe a bit inconsistent.
June 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am no Obama basher. I'm committed to seeing him elected.
But those of us who support him need not and should not kiss his ass. Its fair to ask what he has seen and heard that convinces him that the Constitution should be ignored.
June 24, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What part of the Constitution is it that you think he's advocating ignoring?
I'm not being a wiseass. I'm not taking up for him for indicating he'll support this "compromise" even if he can't get telecom immunity out. I'm not even saying there's not a basis for outrage.
I'm just saying that a lot of the outrage seems to be based upon a serious misunderstanding of what rights we do, and do not, have under the Fourth Amendment and how that works in practice. Some people seem to think the Fourth Amendment gives them rights that they don't really have. Others seem to think that Fourth Amendment rights they actually do have are unconditional and absolute when, in fact, they are conditional and somewhat attenuated by Supreme Court opinions.
I was once one of you. I was pretty shocked by all this when I learned it in law school. Possibly, the shock wore off so long ago that I've come to accept things I should still be outraged by.
And no, I'm not planning on doing any blogs on what your Fourth Amendment rights actually are and how the Fourth Amendment works. Instead, I'm lazily hoping that if I allude to it enough times and get enough arguments started, one of the other three zillion lawyers who blog and comment here will be moved to do it for me.
So hey, any criminal lawyers out there? Any law students who still haven't erased their criminal procedure exam cramming from their heads with alcohol yet? Please?
June 25, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been noting some of your comments on these FISA threads, and I see your point. I think a rough analogy might be a given libertarian's position on right to bear, maybe a position that is informed by common sense, some Ayn Rand, and a cursory reading of both the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. On the left we will often ridicule this libertarian's position as ignorant, and with good reason-- he hasn't done his homework. As you point out, there is a massive amount of scholarship that lies a level above the education I noted- law school, sociological research, policy analysis, etc. In addition, as you also point out, ideological purity is rarely practical politically. All of this I grant.
However. In my rough analogy, wouldn't you grant that my ignorant libertarian has a friend in the educated libertarian? Is there not a class of libertarian humanity that is aware of that higher level of education you cite, that has both mastered its nuances and been humbled by them, that has studied and tested policies that could feasibly implement a mitigated form of its ideals?
And let me finally complete the analogy and point to Glen Greenwald on this issue. (This is my deus ex greenwald card I play, to win any argument). And just to be clear, hear I am not talking about liberatarianism or the right to bear; I'm talking about civil rights, the fourth, and FISA. Greenwald would be analogous to this educated libertarian I have imagined. He's aware of those issues you cite, and addresses them head on. And I find him on the side of this issue that is opposite from you.
June 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
hear = here
June 25, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've seen this plot before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Candidate
June 24, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does that list differ from what GWB or McCain are "teaching"? Are we now pretending that things are just all hunky dory in GOPland?
June 24, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's rather predictable to expect a presidential nominee from either party to run toward the center in preparation for the GE.
but someone please tell sen. obama that running over the 4th Amendment or other sacred civil liberties on the way to the center is simply unacceptable.
June 24, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, if he actually was 'running toward the center', this might be understandable.
The lefty boards are all rife with posts about how Obama just HAS to do the wrong thing now, or he won't get elected.
That is utter crap. It would not be politically damaging in the least for Obama to do the right thing now.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Americans hate George W. Bush, and Americans don't want to be spied on without a warrant. This according to recent polls.
Who is Obama trying to please?
June 25, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are our guys going to stop enacting horrible legislation "so the Republicans don't say mean things about them?"
Seriously, when does it end?
It must be humiliating to constantly let the opposition dictate their actions.
Pathetic. Unacceptable.
June 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Now I remember hearing the idea kicked around that the reason Obama got to the right position on the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq was that he didn't have the "benefit" of those intelligence briefings and reports the Bush administration used to pull the wool over the eyes of the Congress. Since he missed out on the briefings and the inside information, he was able to use his common sense. Anyway, some people figured it that way."
Hearing the idea kicked around...some people figured it that way...
You're better than that, Billy.
June 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes he is, but he couldn't push the buttons he has if didn't take a few liberties.
Trading a bit of leaky logic for some narrative oomph gets Mr. Glad the response he desires, and he obviously considers whatever hit his integrity takes a fair price.
What's a unit of integrity worth in this market of of cyber-strangers?
Anyway, don't blame him. Blame serotonin.
June 25, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Follow-up questions for Barack Obama:
1. What "program"? The one Alberto Gonzales refused to admit existed when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee? The "program" that James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed in a Pulitzer Prize-winning article in the NYT which Bill Keller held from publication until more than a year after the 2004 election so as not to influence it? That program?
2. What does "the way the program operated" mean? Did the "program" operate itself? Did the program break the law or did people break the law?
3. So, you're saying it's clear the law was broken. Why hasn't anything been done about this if it's "clear" the law was broken?
4. The law still exists, so why do you say "the law that was existing at the time" rather than the more common construction "broke existing law"?
Thanks.
June 24, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Can you spell complicit?
2. Program - as in program instituted by the Administration.
3. See answer #1
4a. The bill will pass as is. There is a small chance that the immunity might be stripped, but only if the entire vote holds out until after Obama is President.
4b.Like OMG - he uses weird phrasing. Ewe.
June 25, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
He went to Harvard. He wants to be president.
When did you become a troll?
June 25, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your question was "rather than the more common construction" My non-snark answer is "He's a lawyer"
As for being a troll... not sure when I transmogrified. Have to look into it for you. I certainly have gotten tired of some of the poor logic people are using and touting it as reason and fact.
Concerned indeed.
Turns into bullying.
June 25, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was sometime since you changed your avatar. It's like you're a different person. I remember you as being somewhat light-hearted. Can't give an example, but that's my memory of you.
June 25, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
To reiterate - complicit - as in lots of people are in on the telecom spyinh fiasco including elected Dems. Expecting something to come of it is like hoping for cold fusion... one day.
June 25, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh...
June 25, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beneath you, friend.
June 25, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not this time; I was asking in all seriousness. Lately Elliottness follows me around and shits on my comments in every thread. That's trolling.
In any case, I remember a time (months ago now) when Elliottness was funny and much less surly. Something happened. Maybe it's too personal, but I wanted to stop and ask.
June 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Following you around would be an overstatement - I react to some of your comments as I see them. I am not on this blog enough to actually follow you around. Most of the time I can barely remember where I posted last.
Having identified concern trolling for what it is, I have found some of your bullying distasteful.
And on top of it - there was one thread that I went to war with because the entire premise (as posited by Desi) was a concern troll and posters were being abused by you and Desi as if there was some way to argue you out of your concern.
It is a circular loop that can only result in agreeing with you or settling for your purported superiority. I have watched you, Billy, and Desi slap people around that you do not want on your threads and I am not fond of bullies. Hence my visceral responses.
I am willing to reconsider on a case-by-case basis, but my glasses have been tinted. Forgive me if I over-reacted as I enjoy hard knuckled arguments, but something snapped and I began to shoot back.
June 25, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know the difference between a concern troll and someone with a different point of view from yours (like, someone who supports a different candidate, for example).
Here's the post and thread you considered "concern trolling." You arrived very late to the thread and interrupted an extended debate I was having with two people you decided needed rescuing. Like it or not, you definitely trolled that thread.
One person I was debating, Larry Geater, is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. If he wanted me to fuck off, he wouldn't have continued talking to me. The other person, Wade Blazingame, and I ended up on the same wavelength. It was a consensual debate, no bullying necessary. Frustration and misunderstanding is different.
In fact, I was trying to figure out in that thread (before you came along) why it is that Obama and Clinton supporters so often completely misread one another. I came up with an idea about younger and older siblings, and just then you appeared like a gift! So I started teasing you, which you misread because you were cranky that day.
Why don't you avoid these threads if you don't like me, Desi, or Billy? I try to avoid people that I don't like. Yet you came here deliberately to see what we were saying. Why? You're only going to get pissed off, right? What could we possibly say that you wouldn't read negatively?
June 25, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this post could be more appropriately titled "The Dumbing Down of Billy Glad."
Talk about apeshit speculation based on a single incident! And it's really not even an incident yet!
Geez, Billy, take a deep breath or a valium (your choice) and let's see what the Dude does re: FISA before we start willynilly projection.
June 25, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy - Glad to see you (pun unintentional) as your alter egos - readytoblow and the-ever-changing-desi seem to lack your piercing brutality.
I have a number of thoughts for you and I they do not end up too jumbled.
First: for all your claimed savvy, can you tell me with a straight face that you thought the telecoms would every burn for what was done during a time of war on the behalf of a war president who knew no bounds?
Second: Do you truly think these activities were taking place anyway? This is the era of high-tech. Brought to you by military spending. On a previous thread I was asked if by posing this argument I was claiming the military industry (thereby the spy industry) was untouchable. And if we do not draw a land in the sand now, we never will. Rage angainst the machinge said it better:
I would argue that the time for taking action has long passed. We pay for the industry that is supported by things such as FISA - bought and paid for, and there is no taking it back. When it comes to the media and all forms of communication the military and police has primacy. We might give lip service to the idea of reducing it, but that will never happen. Can we reign it in? Probably not in a meaningful way - the resource wars started (under the current geo-political organization) back in WW2 and will not be going away anytime soon.
As for our political freedoms (at least our perception of said freedoms) can we reign in the control creep? Perhaps. Has anyone read the legislation that we are all up in arms about? I admit, I only have had time to skim but what I found seemed somewhat straight forward.
On to your insinuation: The Learning of Barack Obama
Only the perfectionists and the simple minded (and the hard left) thought that Barack was anything but pragmatic. People like people who do what is needed to get shit done. They do not like to be lied to when they are in the fox hole taking fire, but they understand and appreciate the pragmatic.
This FISA thing is what we (as a country) have bought into - hook line and sinker. We own it and the majority of voters will not take meaningful action to change it. Why? because at the end of the day - most people would rather see a dead man at the end of their driveway than worry about the telecoms handing over data they already collect and analyze to the government. Had you some hot political trials to bring to light what might go askew... that would change things. Til then, FISA Ho! And all your little patriot acts too. I wander...
Meanwhile, the hard-left foams (at times the hard-left seems populated by the hard-right under cover) and the Hillary Hold Outs laugh like every Obamatron got took. (See previous comment) The Obamatron is a construct created under the jurisprudence of the Clinton and Limbaugh/GOP media machines and will serve well in the upcoming GE. Its kin are Elitist and Unpatriotic. Have fun with all that.
Your list of concerns is Hillaryous. If Obama does not take input as he goes on each of those topics (see below) - I will be one independent who feels like his vote was a bet on smoke and mirrors. I want to vote for that man because he can clearly think and can take multiple points of view to create a more sound answer. The hard-left and hard-right keep trying to act like they have the answers - but I find the answer is usually in the middle.
A big fight over (foregone conclusion) retroactive immunity that Barack is a part of personally (which seems to be the big demand) is a waste and a distraction. Immunity was part of the deal to begin with (ie national security contracts). The only criminals we should be hunting is the current administration. We can only hope that happens. It will not happen through civil court and hopefully with immunity in had the telecoms will hand over details as to what they did. It is only with that evidence we can begin to take action. McClellan hopefully can tie it all together (Now talk about Hope)
Now let me here the chorus talking about the coercive powers of the court in obtaining the aforementioned data... did I mention the military industrial complex? Last example of successful litigation against them?
Let me enter my finale with a point by point:
****Progress on the ground in Iraq.
Any thoughts on what he meant by being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in mean?
The catastophic consequences of ending the occupation.
****The real role of Iran in Iraq and in the Middle East.
That little ole taste of reality - a bit of an eye opener for real conservatives as of late - that is what will make it a land slide come November - Obama style.
****Israeli intentions toward Iran.
And?
****The date we will all realize the petroleum is gone.
Non Sequitur
****The way the economy really works.
That is all you got for being insulting? Or do you think all democrats are ignorant?
****The information we obtained through torture and how valuable it was in preventing terrorist attacks.
Weak addition on your part
****The reason excess profits are good.
Weak.
****The reasons universal health insurance just won't work.
Now that is a whole nother story... which might cut too close to home for some you HRC supporters... but assuming that your snark was sincere - why do you think his proposal was a tad to the center to begin with?
Did I meander too much?
June 25, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, Billy has his own style, I have mine.
We complement each other, don't have to mimic.
Obama didn't bill himself as "pragmatic" - it was "hope" and "change" and "reach across the aisles" and not "politics as usual". If you want to scamper 180 degrees back to your cave and say this is where you meant to hide all the time, well I call bullshit.
Now, we've been eating shit sandwiches for a long time. It was 6 years before we finally won back the majority in Congress. And got more shit sandwiches as a result. My, that's better. Now we've got our hope and change candidate coming in, and now that the tough primaries are behind him, what's he telling us this month? "Hmmm, these shit sandwiches ain't half bad - still tastes like shit, but get over it." Is this our "reaching across the aisle"? Because we did that 2002 and got toasted. A toasted shit sammich on rye, but a shit sandwich all the same. As Lowell George said, "Thanks, I'll eat it here."
June 25, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer chicken.
June 25, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, chicken shit it is. Choose your poison.
June 25, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poison is Republican arsnic de jour. Pigs in a blanket for lunch. I'll swallow the chicken shit if it comes in a pic-i-nic basket. Hey, BO BO!!
June 25, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
cooked chikpeas in blender, blend to a smooth paste with lemon juice and jalapenos. Spread on sprout bread with mayo, lettuce, tomato and cucumber.
YUM! ;-)
June 25, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love desidero's contributions as much as any. But the scatological references gross me out the door. Yick.
Ses is correct, however. I know what turned me off the most about the Obama campaign--besides the great swath of self-righteous, Hillary-hating, right or wrong supporters of his--was this notion that all us regulars and old people (some of us as old as he is) just didn't know how to do things right. You know the meme, we blew it. And the 60s? Fuggetaboudit.
It was all about hope and change and I called bull dinkey from the start. Ironically, I also told my star-struck first-time son that, in two years, I would be accepting Obama and he would be trashing the guy; I told him Obama would break his heart. Harsh thing to say to a first-time voter? Perhaps, but some of his contemporaries are going over to Iraq so I think he'll deal. Now other star-gazers? Not so sure.
In any event, just more musings from a guy who was against Senator Obama before he was for him. But my petty "I told you so" gene is all over this FISA deal. And, now that it's just us kids, here's a secret--I'm feeling a slight tickle watching certain folks try to fit Obama's FISA stance into the version of him that has been marketed to the general public. And, again, now that he's more like all the other politicians, it's going to be a helluva lot easier for this crotchety old guy who is about the same age of Obama to vote for him.
I don't want to live in a world where those who inspire me are the people who raise money and run for office. I want to live in a world where all I have to do is vote for such folks and then serve as a skeptical public citizen.
June 25, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That first sentence, second paragraph should read: "Des is correct. . ."
June 25, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but it kinda makes me think of trying to fit 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.
Okay, I'll stop already.
June 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it has to happen that way.
You're doing a great job of living up to your avatar, by the way.
June 25, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bless your heart.
June 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. I missed one:
****The catastophic consequences of ending the occupation.
No wonder I overlooked this point. It is redundant. We like oil, any questions?
This whole pander about leaving Iraq is just that, pander. McCain has been the most honest, but for all the wrong reasons. Obama implies it, but sells us the hope that reason will play more of a role than implied by MkKain and Krew.
June 25, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on. The "combat" troops may come home but dont expect the Iowa National Guard to be available for flood duty. I expect someone will be writing about the $5 trillion war(s) 4 years from now. I see no indication that anyone is going to hold the Democratic Party accountable on war either. War is old news.
June 25, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm constantly astonished by what cynical bastards the Hope-and-Change Club are.
June 25, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony, oh... Oh!
June 25, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink