Do Obama's FISA comments give us a taste of what he meant by "reaching across the aisle"?

[Seabiscuit]

What do you think?

[woolldog]

1. No.

I think a lot of this has to do with not wanting to give the GOP an easy/cheap talking point.

[Seabiscuit]

24. I hope you're right.

[msongs]

2. the guy is not a progressive he's a washington insider nt

[merh]

23. I don't think he is

have you got any proof?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

15. So Sad

:cry:

It wasn't who you supported. It's the trash you post.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

21. I thought I was on Ignore

:rofl:

Saying your posts are trash isn't against the rules.

[Seabiscuit]

22. In time... I'm just waiting to see how many of you are still out there.

Then I'll "disappear" the batch of you.

[AllentownJake]

25. Sure you will

:rofl:

Have a nice time with that.

[Seabiscuit]

32. Done.

4 new entries on a brand new list, who accounted for 14 wasted posts full of wasted words and smilies and enough flatulence to fill a hot-air balloon.

[sniffa]

33. It's about f'n time

:rofl:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlooInBloo]

7. I'll get over it.

[Seabiscuit]

13. The world won't. They'll remember you.

[merh]

26. What is that supposed to mean?

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

27. I wasn't sure either - lol!

[AllentownJake]

29. Megalomania?

I got flamed on the Internet....the World will Remember and Rue this day.

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

31. I was thinking it was bush-like "the world hears you...[blather about knocking down buildings]"

[anonymous171]

12. ah memories.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllentownJake]

17. BTW

Saying alerted is against the rules. You hit alert and let the mods decide.

:rofl:

[sniffa]

20. ...

:rofl:

[Captain Hilts]

4. He's a politician first and foremost. nt

[emilyg]

43. DU doesn't want to hear that.

[rodeodance]

67. Now that is breaking news.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I think that there is a lot of extra concern being expressed......

and considering that I was well aware that I had voted for a politician running in a contest when I voted for Barack Obama, I'm surprised that others didn't realize it.

and I also knew that there was very little that he could do until he became President. The Bill will pass regardless of what Barack Obama does. The bill will pass whether Obama or McCain end up as President. So the issue of doubting Sen. Obama has not much to do with the 4th amendment, but rather that some choose not to accept his tactical pragmatism in getting to the White House (because, I reiterate, the bill will pass and is not dependent on Barack Obama).

I have listened to his speeches, and so I already knew he wasn't perfect, as he kept saying so. He also said that he would disappoint me at times, and that we were bound to disagree at some point.

I guess the person that those "concerned" should contact at this point is Senator Reid if they really care about the 4th Amendment, as he is the one who has the power to bring the measure to the floor, or not to. Last I checked, and in reading the article, Barack hasn't voted yet. Even when he does, I will have to understand, considering that the bill will pass anyway. I have children and I care, but I never saw Barack Obama as the Messiah who would do all exactly as I wanted (although those supporter other candidates were calling him the Messiah). Maybe I'm a pragamatist too. Life does that to most. Again, the bill will still pass.

[Seabiscuit]

10. A thoughtful reply.

[southern_belle]

19. I like the way you think, FrenchieCat

:hi:

[Two Americas]

37. thanks

Thanks for providing more light than heat with your thoughtful reply.

[Imagevision]

39. FrenchieCat> you've pretty much nailed it...!

[SwampG8r]

46. and

if we do our part and feet drag just a little
he could veto the bill as president

[AZBlue]

49. Excellent post!

[HousePainter]

58. Exactly.

The choice , if you can call it that, is Obama or McCain.



The Obama camapign is doing what they need to do to navigate the path to the White House.
I trust his vision and integrity and I also trust his tactical calculations.
You have to pick your battles and if Obama thought that this was the time and the place to draw a firm line he, I believe, would.
The FISA law is not being scrapped, the issue is retro-active immunity. And just as laws can be passed and then ignored, so too they can be repealed or amended. The law is a constantly evolving thing as is the election campaign. However the one ends in November with one of two people being the President-elect. The other will continue to be shaped by those who assume power in January.

[kevsand]

11. Which part?

The part where he promises to try to remove immunity under FISA altogether, or the part where he pledges to pursue criminal investigations against lawbreakers regardless of the civil protections in FISA?

[Seabiscuit]

16. The comments in their entirety.

[kevsand]

44. I don't see how that could be true,

since you've obviously chosen to completely ignore the most important bits.

[Seabiscuit]

51. Considering it in its entirety does not even lead to the possibililty of "(choosing) to ignore

the most important bits".

At least try to make sense.

[kevsand]

62. I'm making perfect sense.

You're the one who has abandoned logic. You can not prove a claim simply by assuming that it was true to begin with. You can not prove that you aren't ignoring the most important bits merely by reasserting that you have taken the remarks in their entirety, because the most important bits clearly contradict your final conclusion.

If you had taken the remarks in their entirety, you would have to acknowledge that (unlike the so-called Dem leadership) Obama still intends to hold both the telecoms and the Bush administration accountable. That is not "reaching across the aisle." Rather, that is standing up to both parties by holding everyone to the same high standards.

[Seabiscuit]

63. See post #57.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6398808&mesg_id=6401690

The only way Obama is going to "hold both the telecoms and the Bush administration accountable" is to attempt to undo all of it (once it becomes the law) IF and ONLY IF he becomes President. By then it may be too late.

That doesn't do anything to help right now. Meanwhile, he is "reaching across the aisle" by allowing Bush to have it his way, and merely giving lip service to opposing the "retroactive immunity" portion of the bill in the Senate.

Other Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen have spoken far more forcefully against this obscene bill.

[Seabiscuit]

64. See, e.g.:

http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/23/feingold-farce-wiretap-deal-could-be-hiding-impeachable-offense/

[kevsand]

65. But that's not "the only way."

The best way to hold them accountable is to oppose the immunity clauses right now, before it passes. Stripping them out kills the bill, since the Repubs have already demonstrated several times over that they won't accept a bill without them. They are the heart of the "compromise," and Obama has clearly, forcefully, repeatedly, and recently indicated his opposition to them. That's what Obama is doing right now, regardless of who becomes president.

[Seabiscuit]

69. Here's the kind of thing Obama could have/should have said:

http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4476

[Catherina]

28. You can't pin this one on Obama. If you're honest you'll realize the blame

lays at the feet of that craven DLC coalition that's still running things. If you want to blame someone for "reaching across the aisle" try Pelosi/Reid and their record of making deals with Bush before telling all the other Democrats to fall in line.

[Seabiscuit]

30. I'm not "pinning this one" on anyone in particular.

I'm just trying to give people an opportunity to express their thoughts about Obama's FISA comments.

[Overseas]

35. Oh of course not. You're just really concerned about Obama's comments.

[Seabiscuit]

38. I found them almost as disturbing as the vote count itself.

[Catherina]

41. An opportunity? Oh Alleluia! Where have you been these last 3 days Seabiscuit?

Under a rock? We've been flogging this horse to death without getting anywhere because Obama hasn't issued any amplifying comments and concerned voters are still working with him on this.

Very honestly, you're cute but Do Obama's FISA comments give us a taste of what he meant by "reaching across the aisle"? sounds more like warmed-over Primaries salt because he didn't reach across the aisle on this one. Pelosi, Reid & co did and then put everyone in one of their craven "fall in line" visegrips. That;s not much of an aisle.

I'm curious. Since you're so concerned. Have you expressed your anger over this aisle-reaching to your representatives? I think they're much more interested in you seizing an opportunity to express your thoughts over FISA. I already know you're not too fond of Obama but they don't so maybe you could throw that in. They'll all appreciate you letting them off the hook ;)

Contact Congress: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

[Seabiscuit]

45. I've been spending most of my time with my 3 y.o. son the past 3 days.

And neither of us has been "under a rock", thank you very much. I just haven't been around here.

But my wife told me a lot of people here were very upset with Obama's comments supporting that bill. I do know that people at Huffpo and Moveon were very upset.

Since I haven't been reading DU much lately I was wondering what people thought, and hoping I'd get some responsive posts.

I guess that's a crime to some people, deserving of forty lashes with a tongue.

This place really hasn't changed much in the past month.

[Catherina]

53. Sorry for jumping on you then. There's just been a lot of fake concern

getting mixed in with real concern and I'm a little touchy, especially since I AM concerned too. Glad you're enjoying your son.

I apologize.

[Seabiscuit]

56. Thank you.

Apology accepted.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

34. Yes.

Next up: Eating children and raping the elderly!

[Two Americas]

36. gutsy

It takes guts these days to stand against the rampant bullying and McCarthyism. I applaud you.

One would think that after decades of hearing the Republicans attempt to suppress dissent because it supposedly "helps our enemies" that no Democrat would ever use the same logic, yet we are seeing it more and more. "Criticism and dissent hurt the party and the nominee." That is the same rationale the right wingers use to suppress dissent about the government. It is the suppression of dissent that hurt the party and the nominee, just as it is suppression of dissent that hurts the country, it is not the dissent that hurts the country.

I say "McCarthyism" not only because of the style and logic people are using, but also because we are seeing critics labeled as leftists more and more - "the left wants Obama to lose." One of the most outspoken people about FISA has been madfloridian, and if I am not mistaken she is a moderate, not a far leftist, and always supported Obama. But that does not stop those who are smearing and insinuating and engaging in character assassination and encouraging a witch hunt atmosphere here. I cannot think of anything that more threatens the prospects for the party and the nominee than this.

[Seabiscuit]

40. Thanks. And well put.

The DU "McCarthyites" don't bother me. Any more than an ass that kicks would bother Socrates. It's their nature to kick. I don't mind being kicked by asses, because I know what they are. I just put 'em on "ignore", as they're not worth listening to. After taking the 1400 "Obamanoids" (DU McCarthyites) I put on ignore during the primary season, this thread actually gave me cause to start a new list.

[golddigger]

42. Yep!

[dionysus]

47. your heartfelt concern is duly noted....

oh noes...

[TexasObserver]

48. No. It gives us a taste of his decision making regarding defining the issues.

Thanks for your concern. We need more heartfelt concern, because there's just not enough concern here.

[Seabiscuit]

52. What's with all the "concern" words around here?

You've got three of them in two brief sentences in the body of your post.

Is that some new secret buzzword like a secret handshake among some of you?

[Forkboy]

50. What do you think? And why?

[Seabiscuit]

57. I think he took some very bad advice.

When you view his comments in their entirety, it appears he's trying to have it both ways, play both sides of the fence, and please everyone. Meanwhile, because the bill is so insideous, and constitutes yet another cannonball hole shot through the Statue of Liberty, another strike against the rule of law, another demolition of the principle of accountabililty, his support of the bill appears to be alienating a significant chunk of his base - MoveOn's very strong reaction against his words is but one sign of that.

And the scary part to me is that it appears to have been motivated by fear of what the GOP might say about him if he simply stood up for the rule of law; that worries about political expediency trumped any urge to just do and say the right thing, which IMHO would have been to roundly condemn the bill.

Of course he didn't author the bill, and not being a member of the House of Representatives, didn't participate in the House vote. So he's not responsible for its creation or passage in the House. But as our presumptive nominee for President, he knew he was going to be asked a lot of questions about his position so he preempted all that by speaking up first . I'm just hoping it doesn't backfire on his candidacy in any way. We can't afford to lose this election.

[Forkboy]

60. Thank you for the response.

We find ourselves in a rare agreement. :thumbsup:

[Seabiscuit]

61. Thank you for your kind remarks.

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

54. No. I find it difficult to believe your concern is genuine.

[Seabiscuit]

55. There's that secret-handshake "concern" word again.

The OP was *not* expressing "concern". It simply posed a question.

I find it difficult to believe that your post is genuine.

[swishyfeet]

66. "I'm just hoping it doesn't backfire on his candidacy in any way"

Well, when you posted your thoughts just 16 minutes later, your "concern" became evident.

It seems a few people understood your point before you did.

[Seabiscuit]

59. Here is someone expressing my feelings about it all in a nutshell:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x150571

[liberalfella]

68. Cut Obama some slack

Once we win an absolute, veto-proof congressional majority, Obama will act accordingly. For now, we have to be pragmatic.