Cafe Talk | Talking Points Memo | What Do You Believe about Barack Obama?

What Do You Believe about Barack Obama?

By mighty quinn - June 21, 2008, 10:09PM

I pose this question to Obama supporters who both oppose the FISA bill and think Obama's statement on it was motivated by political expediency. Among this group, I see two general reactions here at TPM: either (1) I'm so mad at Obama for this I'm going to withhold financial support from his campaign or (2) Obama's position does not change the big picture and my support for him remains strong. Now, my question is, do you believe that (a) Obama is a typical politician who will always ignore ordinary people unless they exert constant pressure on him or (b) Obama has a progressive agenda but must deal with political realities, especialy during a presidential campaign? I think if you believe (1), then (a) might be a rational response (though I would still seek to persuade you otherwise). If you believe (b), it seems to me, then (2) is the ONLY reasonable response. What I'd really like to see is people arguing for (1) to not pretend that they believe (b), and people who do believe (b) to think really hard before letting anyone convince them of (1).

Comments (4)

OBVIOUSLY Obama has a progressive agenda but must deal with political realities, especialy during a presidential campaign! SHEESH!!!

Posted by Mandy
June 22, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink

Obama's new "seal of the President already in his own mind" is visible at this idiot thinks he's already the President.

The Democrats have almost nominated a certifiable poop-eating loonie!

Hoo ha! Obamabots are the future... of insanity!

Obama is probably walking around with a crown on his head right now!

Kneel, suckers!

Posted by Jason Early
June 22, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink

As a constitutional law attorney and professor, I beleive Obama is being very careful.

Please note, Keith interviewed John Dean on Friday and John Dean said he read the legislation and found that it was poorly written. Most important is Dean stated the legislation DOES NOT GIVE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION!

I don't care if the companies don't have to pay out damages for their illegal acts, but I do want people brought to justice who broke criminal law. This would be those who agreed to go along with the Bush administration and those in the Bush administration who thought they were above the law. So I am all for passing this legislation if as Dean says the criminals can still be brought up on charges.

Also, Obama is also being versed as to what he could do once he is the President with regard to changes in the bill once passed. An Obama administration could challenge the law and take it to court on Constitutional 4th Amendment violations basis. During the challenge he could suspend the unconstitutional practices in the FISA law passed.

Just because Obama has been silent or even agreeing to vote for the bill as written, does not mean he has abandoned his principles or his support for the constitution.

If Obama is as smart as I think he is he will be laughing all the way into the White House where he will have the power to fully support the constitution and civil rights.

One can only hope.

Posted by Jester
June 22, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink

Most important is Dean stated the legislation DOES NOT GIVE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION!

According to this legislation, all the telecoms need is a permission slip from the King, er, President or AG. Then a judge stamps "Dismissed" on their cases without ever looking past page 1. That's the "immunity" part.

Begin with accountability. Since the enactment of the PAA, the Administration and its allies have pushed for legislative immunity for the telecommunications companies that aided the NSA's illegal spying from 2001 until 2005. (Those companies are the defendants in multiple suits, presently consolidated before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging their complicity in past illegal wiretapping).
They argue that protection is necessary to ensure future cooperation, even though the telecoms were not deterred by the fact their past actions were clearly in violation of federal law.

In fact, immunity is on the White House front burner for wholly different reasons: pending lawsuits against the telecoms are the best opportunity for the American public to learn what kind of illegal surveillance occurred under Bush's watch, and how existing law against warrantless wiretapping was circumvented. As bad as the telecoms will look, the Administration will look worse as more of its cynical and results-oriented reasoning and contempt for constitutional rights is fully aired.

And:

The bill, in short, is worse than granting absolute immunity: it is an effort to suborn the legitimacy of the federal courts by having a judge rubber-stamp the dismissal of cases against the telecoms without looking at the substance of what, in fact, was done. It reduces the separation of powers to a check-the-box exercise.

From The New Surveillance Bill: The Worst of Both Worlds by Aziz Huq.

Posted by readytoblowagasket
June 22, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink

What Do You Believe about Barack Obama?

Comments (4)

Post a Comment