Friday, June 20, 2008
Sorry Senator Obama but this isn’t change we can believe in.
According to an email posted on DailyKOS, Barack Obama issued a statement in support of the FISA compromise bill. It reads in part:
“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”
Just as Hillary Clinton enthusisastically threw her support behind Bush’s Iraq war with disasterous results, Sen. Obama appears to be afraid he will be labeled “soft on terrorism” by his rival, John McCain, if he opposes telecom immunity, so he tosses the Constitution and the Bill of Rights under the bus.
Not good, Sen. Obama. Not good at all.
38 Comments
+ at 4:03 pm
I will continue to support him but my enthusiasm is now greatly reduced. Obama is wrong for not taking a tough stand against this bill. He will be doing the soft shoe between now and the general election for not standing up to George Bush.
+ at 4:05 pm
So Obama is no better than Reid and Pelosi? Who’da thunk it?
+ at 4:07 pm
While I completely disagree with Obama, I still believe him to be 100% better than his former rival, Hillary Clinton, and 100% better than his current rival, John McCain. I disagree but he still has my support.
+ at 4:08 pm
Sorry Senator Obama but this isn’t change we can believe in.
I can’t add anything more to this.
Shame on you, Obama.
+ at 4:13 pm
Chris Dodd has promised to filibuster this mess to death. Will Barack Obama join with his friend in opposition to this dreadfully flawed bill? If Obama thinks the American people aren’t paying attention, he is naive. The blogoshere is on fire over this and with tomorrow being a Saturday and people home to read blogs and write their representatives, I promise this matter isn’t going away.
+ at 4:19 pm
When did upholding the Rule of Law become such a scary proposition for politicians?
I guess when the fear of being labeled a “bleeding heart liberal” or a “terrorist enabler” became scarier.
Shame on Obama.
+ at 4:23 pm
H.R. 6304 is NOT a compromise. Let the ACLU break it out for people who are uncertain.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html
The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:
• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.
• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.
• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.
• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.
• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.
• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.
+ at 4:28 pm
Evidently, Susan Rice hasn’t had an opportunity to brief Senator Obama on the language of the bill.
If she had, there would be no question in Obama’s mind just how:
• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.
Further shreds the Constitution.
+ at 4:30 pm
The more things change the more they remain the same.
What a shame.
+ at 4:33 pm
The problem is (as I read it), there is no Sunset provision in H.R.6304.
Once enacted into law, it will take literally an act of Congress to reverse it.
If aficionados of such a draconian piece of sloppy legislation take to the SCOTUS, it could be upheld and become case law and never be reversed.
+ at 4:41 pm
If Barack Obama wants to hand John McCain is ass in November, he can’t risk letting the RNC effectively brand him “weak on national security.”
Just imagine for a moment how much worse things would be if Hillary Clinton had been the nominee? She would’ve said the compromise didn’t go far enough and she would’ve had Jane Harman help rewrite it and shred the Constitution even further.
Let’s take a deep breath and think about this before we pull our commitment to Obama. He hasn’t even been elected yet so let’s get in in office and give the man a chance to deliver on what he said he would do vis a vis FISA.
Please don’t lose sight of these salient facts: we need to end the war: pay down the debt: create national healthcare: and fund stem cell research. All issues Obama supports.
+ at 5:03 pm
I support what Conejo said above..BUT….I am still dissappointed…I hope that it is not a sign of things to come..that it is just a strategic manuver…for now..and that when he is President – that he will handle it differently…..
+ at 5:22 pm
Obama has a sterling record on opposing telecom immunity in the previous FISA bills. What SHOULD have happened is that the Congressional leadership should have followed his lead from his previous votes and statements and sought his counsel so that they could have provided a united Democratic front with Obama as their leader, making this a Constitutional battle that the entire party was ready and willing to fight alongside him.
But given what Hoyer, Reid and Pelosi did, what was Obama supposed to do? Publicly split with and fight the leadership of his already too-fractured party? Give the GOP ammunition to label him soft on terrorism so that if anything happens between now and November, McCain can swoop in and be the one who will protect America and “never surrender?”
We all are going to have to realize that Obama is going to have to do some delicate balancing acts over the next 5 months to get elected. I think enigma is correct – this is a strategic maneuver — and he’s probably going to be forced to do alot more of them to navigate his way to the Presidency.
He’s already walking a tightrope and his own party just shook the wire on him. Wasn’t Steny Hoyer a big Hillary supporter? Don’t you think she still has people in high places who would like nothing better than to cast Obama in a bad light and disenfranchise his strong progressive base?
I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will hold his feet to the fire in January of 2009. Until then, I’ve giving him some slack, taking him at his word, and trusting his consistent record on Constitutional issues.
The McBush alternative is just too frightening to comtemplate.
+ at 5:25 pm
I wished Obama didn’t feel the need to go before AIPAC and suck up to them, but the political reality for politicians dictates a tacit embrace of Israel as our 51st state.
The same can be said when it comes to national security. Blink and the radical rightwing calls you a pussy and a wus. Obama understands this and the need for Democrats to navigate these waters.
+ at 5:29 pm
I hope Ralph Nader wasn’t right all along.
+ at 6:45 pm
The monthly contributions to Obama08 now end.
I won’t fork over another dime to Obama’s campaign. Sorry, but you throw me under the bus and you lose my support. Financial and otherwise.
+ at 7:51 pm
Christopher -
This is the difference between you and the Hilbots. They would have supported her decision to sell out.
I’m really impressed with you.
Obama, not so much.
Best regards,
Tengrain
+ at 8:10 pm
He’s got a week to do the right thing… Let’s hope.
+ at 8:41 pm
I have heard people saying this is to avert Swiftboat attacks. Or to win some more Red votes.
He doesn’t need to do either. All he has to do is pivot and attack, because Swiftboating WILL happen. One at least one, and probably more than one issue. For instance on FISA all he has to do is say:
“Hello? There was Illegal Warrantless Wiretapping on Bush’s watch BEFORE 9/11 and how’d that work out? Not so good , did it?”
That’s a response to a Swiftboat, and not by surrogates either btw. One does it oneself or goes the way of John Kerry.
But to effectively say there are 9 Amenedments in the Bill of Rights instead of 10, from a Constitutional scholar is beyond disappointing.
+ at 8:52 pm
Obama will risk nothing to present a unified party at the convention and then in the fall leading up to the GE. This is a battle he won’t fight and risk handing the GOP the ammunition to elect McCain and give Bush a third term. He’s too smart for that.
+ at 9:08 pm
I’m the pragmatic poli sci person so I’ll say this; he’ll have the power to actually ‘do’ something once he’s President. Now, he has to dance the political dance, even a little and even too much to anyone’s liking. We are all talking amongst ourselves agreeing on a lot of things and so ‘we’ are insulated from people who do not. He WILL need to get the votes of those people. Not everyone even on ‘the left’ is in agreement with everything. I believe you do need to allow for that.
I agree with Randy, it is a smart play. He cannot continue to play the hero with cape and I believe people (his supporters) need to be realistic enough to understand the crap he still will need to go through. He worded himself carefully. Once in office, I have no doubt he’ll be able to do a whole lot more than you want him to do (or say) now.
Think of the big picture and don’t be like the person who fell in love and who figured that the ‘lovey’ is not as perfect as once thought. It’s politics, it’s crap but it’s also the big picture. No offense Christopher, but I’d say, chill and don’t worry.
Ingrid
+ at 9:26 pm
Party unity, my ass.
I appreciate the sentiment expressed here that Obama needs to win the White House first and once ensconced, he will then be positioned to undo the harm to our Constitution from the lawlessness of people like Pelosi and Reid but there is one enormous flaw with this thinking.
Obama will only be president for four and possibly eight years. What happens then? The so-called FISA compromise bill does not expire over time and because it is codified, the language of the bill opens the door to Executive abuse of power.
I don’t necessarily think Obama would use the bill to target his political enemies but what about those who follow? The telecoms should not be allowed to go around the courts just because a power hungry president wants the “goods” on his opponent or members of the party opposite.
Obama keeps referring to the threats our nation faces. I agree with this statement but I think the threats come from within — not from without and Obama is smarter than me and understands the difference. He’s let me down and I must question whether I will support him in November.
+ at 9:30 pm
The bill hasn’t made it through the senate yet.
It sailed through the House and of course Miss Priss Pelosi would stand with her hubby, George Bush, and support it. Fuck Nancy Pelosi.
I’ll hold my tongue until the senate votes. I hope Obama votes against it. I will decide then whether I pull my support or not.
+ at 12:06 am
I agree completely with Conjeo.
Peace to you friend.
+ at 3:24 am
.
Yeah. Politics is a dirty business. That’s why we hire somebody else to do it, like cops, garbagemen and sewer-cleaners. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tell them what to do, or not object when they don’t do it right. We have to do our part of the job, too.
I guess our trash-collectors haven’t seen much concern on this issue outside the “blogosphere,” which is not, after all, a constituency. If people don’t physically show up for meetings of their local Party organizations, nothing is ever going to change. Take over your local Party, then they have to listen to you. Otherwise, your vote is already accounted for, one way or the other.
Blogging is great, but it’s all just talk without taking the next step, and doing the hard work of politics out there in the real world.
.
+ at 4:34 am
You have to chose your battles. I have to believe Obama when he says he will monitor the FISA bill and monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people. He won’t sell the country and the voters short.
+ at 4:48 am
Isn’t Barack Obama a constitutional lawyer?
He, more than anyone else should comprehend the constituional implications of rolling over and giving George Bush what he wants.
I understand his eye is on the prize — the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but, there is something called honor and I believe if he votes for this terrible bill, he will have sold us all out in order to win.
+ at 8:02 am
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) got is perfect when he issued the following statement:
“I cannot support the so-called ‘compromise’ legislation announced today. This bill would not hold the telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program accountable for their actions. Instead, it would simply offer retroactive immunity by another name. As I have said time and time again, the President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecommunications companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I remain strongly opposed to this deeply flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to join me in supporting Americans’ civil liberties by rejecting this measure.”
This is the position I expect to hear from our presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.
Believe you me. I will be watching and waiting to see if Obama joins with Dodd. If he doesn’t, there will be no more donations to Obama’s campaign from me.
+ at 8:24 am
I expected more from Obama. I expected what we got from the House of Pelosi. Maybe someone far smarter than me can explain how codifying Bush’s lawbreaking amounts to a “compromise?” A giveaway, yes. A capitulation, definitely. But a compromise? Sorry, this is some fancy language Obama learned in law school.
+ at 9:07 am
The Magic Negro no more?
+ at 9:59 am
Obama is said to be the most liberal senator in the Congress this side of Ted Kennedy, so I suppose it was only inevitable to see him move to the center in order to grab the independents and the Republicans unhappy with McCain.
+ at 12:46 pm
obama is looking more like a chump everyday. I’m sorry to say it, but its true.
+ at 3:00 pm
Don’t be cutting off your noses to spite your faces. While there are sure to be issues upon which you disagree with Barack Obama, there will be many, many more upon which you disagree with Johnny McCain.
+ at 5:10 pm
I noticed that the Democrats caved in the summer, when people are focused on vacations and partying. That annoys me.
I never idealized Obama, but this is truly disturbing. I can still vote Green in the general election, and I have been given an incredibly valid reason for doing so by the Democrats.
+ at 7:07 pm
What I like about this blog is that everybody is real, logical.Obama fucked up.He’s cool and everything but he has to be reminded that HE WORKS FOR US.Do to him what we would do to anyone. Remind him of who is his boss.E-mail his site and tell him to do his fonkin’ job and be a democrat. This is what cost Hillary her job, trying to outrepublican a republican.
+ at 7:12 pm
Maybe he should pick Keith Obermann for his running mate.
+ at 10:50 pm
This was a bad decision. Hopefully Obama will appoint a proper SCOTUS Justice and we can go that route to end these assaults on the Constitution.
+ at 7:34 am
Let’s be very clear. H.R. 6304 has nothing, zip, nada to do with protecting the American people.
H.R. 6304 gives the Feds the legal right to spy on the American people.
I honestly couldn’t care less who is a Democrat, a Republican, a Green, or an Independent. But what I do care deeply about is the 4th Amendment and the rule of law.
Obama is on shaky ground here and he had better work with Chris Dodd when H.R. 6304 reaches the senate to remove the retroactive immunity language from the bill. If he doesn’t, then he’s no better than Nancy Pelosi.