TPM: Why Obama's Support For FISA Cave-In Is Such A Downer

[chimpymustgo]

(And it's important to call it a cave-in NOT a compromise - as Russ Feingold reminds - and anyone without scales on their eyes can see).

*******
By Greg Sargent - June 20, 2008, 4:32PM
Here's what's so dispiriting about it. One of the riveting things about Barack Obama's candidacy is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country.

Time and again, in his debates with Hillary, and now with John McCain, his whole debate posture on national security issues was centered on the idea that he could challenge and change what it means to talk "tough." His candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong.

Obama has done this already in this general election -- repeatedly. And no doubt he will do it again and again and again in the months ahead.

To be clear, I'm not even talking about whether opposing this would or wouldn't have carried political peril. It really doesn't matter. Because if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.

And this time, he abandoned that premise.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/why_obamas_support_for_fisa_ca.php

[GarbagemanLB]

1. I agree. I will not be donating to him anymore if he caves in on this. When you call yourself the

'change' candidate, the Washington-outsider who will challenge the special interests, and then vote for a bullshit bill like this that grants immunity for blatantly violating the constitution....


We'll see what he does. If he votes for it..


he will get my vote in November, and nothing more.

[ccharles000]

50. I agree.

[JoFerret]

73. Time to grow up

(again).
This will not be the first or last disappointment in life or with Obama. But they ALL pale compared to another four years. Now THAT in insupportable.

[LVjinx]

77. Fortunately, Bush can't run again.

[JoFerret]

78. But his political heirs and cohorts can

and will.(and do)

[MasonJar]

2. Too many are making excuses for him, but it would have behooved

Obama to stand with his values on this issue and he did NOT.

[GarbagemanLB]

4. To be fair, he hasn't voted yet. I will withhold a full judgement until I see how he actually votes.

[MrCoffee]

6. He's already said how he'll vote.

If he changes his position now, how much weaker will he look?

[GarbagemanLB]

9. He has said that he will work to get the immunity part of the bill changed. WHEN that fails,

then I will see how he votes. He has not voted yet.

[MrCoffee]

11. Keep hope alive, man.

Best of luck to you.

[27inCali]

58. yeah and pessimists never get what they want

they're too busy being pissy because they didn't get exactly what they want.

I'm worried about the Fourth Amendment too, but its just not realistic to try and save it this way, we'll lose the fight because there are too many bluedog sell outs in House and Senate and Obama is powerless as one Senator to change that, so why give the Repugs a vote to attack him with when he can wait a few months, win the election and have way more leverage to make the needed change, he's already spelled out how he feels about the Bush signing statements and what he plans to do about, you don't think that goes for every other move Bush made to expand presidential powers?

so why should he expend so much political capital on this battle and give the Repugs a rhetorical weapon to attack him with in one battle that has to do with checking presidential authority, when he can win the whole shebang and have almost total carte blanche to reshape the issue as pres?

Oh, but he didn't handle it the way you wanted so now you're not going to contribute, now you're not going to work to get him in office and in doing so, give aid and comfort to that piece of shit, McGrumpy, who will not review Bush's signing statements, who will not give up the expanded powers of the presidency.

you radicals are all the same, all you know is what you want, but not how to ACTUALLY GET IT.

Try supporting Obama and giving him the benefit of the doubt on this -and some of these house members too, and once we get to January with a Dem WH and Congress, THEN scream bloody fucking murder over this, because then, they will actually have the power to do something about this.

[Barack_America]

19. Yep. Why isn't anybody else seeing this?

He's given himself plenty of room not to vote for it.

Obama is solid on constitutional freedoms, let's let the politics play out.

Honestly, I'm still waiting to hear what Carl Levin has to say about this.

[MrCoffee]

27. Leahy and Dodd announced that they cannot support the bill

Why couldn't Obama do the same? Just come out and say it's a POS bill and that he doesn't support it. It's not that hard, plenty of others are doing exactly that.

So why didn't Obama?

[Catherina]

41. There's enough wiggle room in that parsed statement

He can still pull it off without looking weak and emphasizing that the American people spoke and as a public servant he responded. He's a master at that type of stuff and can turn it around to satisfy.

[MrCoffee]

44. Wiggle room?

That's your answer, wiggle room?

He's the nominee, but he's also a sitting US Senator. It doesn't bother you a teensy little bit that a sitting US Senator announced his support for a bill which violates the 4th Amendment? Not even a little?

[Catherina]

49. It bothers me immensely

I'm just saying he can still change his course of action based on the uproar and massage it enough to come out smelling like a rose. It deflates things for me but I'm a big cynic. Most people will buy it and so will the history books. I strenuously disagree that it would make him look weak. It would make him look like a leader who listens.

[chimpymustgo]

8. I can't believe the EXCUSES, the notions of a SECRET PLAN - the sad naivete.

[Cha]

68. You don't believe shit from Obama so

just fucking admit it. YOu can't wait to pounce on the least little thing concerning Obama so you're like the chimp who cried wolf.

You're so fucking obvious.

[chimpymustgo]

69. You're so fucking obtuse.

[Cha]

71. Quit it with your fucking hypocritical

concern about Obama..you're just a little chimp who cried fucking wolf too often, chimpy.

[flyarm]

31. what values? the values he showed for women in this country? ahahahahaha

spare me!

[anonymous171]

3. ITT: Why the democratic party never wins elections

[GarbagemanLB]

7. Because we dare stand up for our values instead of falling into lockstep? Because we hold our

politicians to actual standards? We actually EXPECT that they live up to what they say?

[MrCoffee]

5. A golden opportunity wasted

Color me shocked.

[chimpymustgo]

16. This is not Change I Can Believe In: our presumptive nominee won't fight for the Constitution.

Drink up.

[MrCoffee]

17. I'm not going near the kool-aid, thanks.

Hope for change in 2012.

[Barack_America]

10. So what was the final Senate vote? What did Obama say about it on the floor?

Considering we're talking about his position strictly in the past tense, I assumed this was already done.

[GarbagemanLB]

13. On that point I agree. He hasn't voted yet. I will wait to see what he does when the amendment to

remove retroactive immunity fails.

[MrCoffee]

14. He's stated his position...you'd have him flip-flop?

[cliffordu]

28. Maybe you should re-read his comment...uh, 'position'

We'll see what happens this week.

[MrCoffee]

30. He stated "I support the compromise" - That's not a position?

He supports the bill. What more do you need?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/201032.php

[cliffordu]

38. Why not read the part where he says he'll work to strip out the

retroactive immunity??

What does he mean by that?

[MrCoffee]

42. Why are you ignoring the CLEAR SUPPORT part of the statement?

By referring to the retroactive immunity, he means that he'll offer up an amendment (or maybe cosponsor one) that he knows with absolute certainty is doomed to fail. The bill as written has wide support in the Senate, and is expected to pass easily. He knows this. He's not stupid (I hope).

He's pandering to us by throwing the left a pretend bone. Everything about that statement says that he'll vote yes.

Why are you ignoring the CLEAR INTENT of the statement, which is that he'll vote yes on the bill?

He's a sitting US Senator who has indicated his support of a bill which violates the 4th amendment. Sorry if I find that a tad upsetting.

[NorthCarolina]

18. I think we need to make it clear to him that a vote in favor will carry a price

rather than to simply make excuses for him thereby giving him a false sense of security that he "pulled it off". If he votes in favor of this legislation with telco immunity I can almost guarantee he will lose a huge segment of the Democratic base who believed in him because they so desperately desire REAL change.

[GarbagemanLB]

20. Frankly, I think his gamble is that the left has nowhere to go and will vote AGAINST McCain.

He may be right. I will vote for him regardless, but I will definitely stop donating.

[NorthCarolina]

21. Perhaps you have hit on something. Afterall, Money Talks & Bullshit Walks

so if he perceives a major dent in his fund raising ability over this, it may cause him to "rethink" his position.

[closeupready]

26. Well, if you march in lockstep, fine by me. For myself, I have a brain, and I will decide when the

time comes.

[PassingFair]

35. Don't suggest it here...

you will get your thread locked.

:crazy:

[Catherina]

47. I don't think it needs suggesting. People are passionate and earnest enough

to reach that conclusion on their own. Everyone's going to do whatever they feel is right. Locking thread is just going to make it worse because it shuts out an important pro/con discussion but who asked me.

[Catherina]

45. I think we're making it very clear and he's smart enough to get the message

He's in a catch-22 now needing to pacify us, whose votes, work and money he really needs as well as all those corrupt, craven politicians he needs to work with. They need to go. What I fear is that Obama could end up with a Republican Congress because the Democrats aren't doing their job and people will lash out during the next Congressional elections. I want them gone and replaced with better people but they have our balls in a vise. Do we break free and risk losing Congress or put up with spinelessness, complicity and capitulation?

[NorthCarolina]

55. Not much of a choice there

but I do think that in Obama opting out of public financing does give the voters greater leverage to get their point across. I have seen many many posters on DU who say they will suspend donations to the campaign as a consequence of his stated position on the FISA bill. Perhaps that will be just the leverage needed to bring about "change" in his position? Maybe not, but it's a thought.

[Catherina]

56. That's a great point about opting out of public financing

He really made himself our servant with that one. It's not just DU, it's all over. I think the Obama campaign has already taken notice because it's already showing up on his blogs.

I hate to use the word faith but I have faith he'll respond and massage this one enough to come out smelling like a rose. This was a good reminder from him that WE need to take charge and be the change we want to see, etc, etc...

I've already made my opinion clearly and sternly known to his campaign and asked them to check my donation record before brushing me off as a disruptor. There is one thing I'll say for Obama, it's always easy to get through to live people and they always seem genuinely interested in taking your message and passing it on. I called his Senate office too.

The good news is he listens and they don't dismiss you the way many offices dismissed us on the war vote. Have you called?

[NorthCarolina]

62. No, I haven't called but I have donated to the campaign

I think I'll wait to see which side he ultimately falls on regarding the FISA legislation before I make any further donations to the campaign though. His statement in support of the legislation was, for me, very disappointing and put a serious dent in the mantle of "change". There is time before the vote in the Senate though, and if the campaign sees a measurable hit in the donation stream it could be enough to bring him around. For me, let me maintain my Constitutional rights fully intact, and I'll take my chances with the "terrorists".

[Catherina]

65. I strongly encourage you to call. How can he represent us if we don't voice our opinion?

Trust me, the calls are painless. And the suggestion is straight from his mouth "If We Want Change, We Need To Contribute To It"




Washington D.C. Office
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
[phone]
[phone] fax
(202 228-1404 TDD
Email our office

Chicago Office
John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building
230 South Dearborn St.
Suite 3900 (39th floor)
Chicago, Illinois 60604
[phone]
[phone] fax
Toll free: [phone]
(for IL residents only)

Springfield Office
607 East Adams Street
Springfield, Illinois 62701
[phone]
[phone] fax

Marion Office
701 North Court Street
Marion, Illinois 62959
[phone]
[phone] fax

Moline Office
1911 52nd Avenue
Moline, Illinois 61265
[phone]
[phone] fax

http://obama.senate.gov/contact/index.php

[27inCali]

59. HE'S TRYING TO WIN A PRESIDENTIAL RACE

You think that's easy? You think he can say, "Fuck it, we don't need to spy on potential terrorists and whackjobs here in America" and not get bludgeoned over the head with it.

The Fisa courts are necessary, we've been using them for decades, the only part that is a problem is the immunity, which he intends to fight. What else can he do? can he magically count as 30 votes in the Senate or something?

Do you dumbshits want Gramps to win in NOV, because that's that cause YOU are helping right now.

[MrCoffee]

63. And if the 4th Amendment gets in the way, so be it?

[thoughtcrime1984]

72. I wish I could recommend this post.

He is facing the one dynamic that no other Senators or Representatives are facing, he is running for President. He needs to appeal to a broad range of thinkers in all 50 states to get into the WH, which is where he can make the bigger difference on our way of life. I trust his judgment still, I think he knows what he has to do to get into the power seat. Seven months people, and he can be there. He needs our support to do it, and I, for one, will not turn my back on him over the FISA bill, when I know that just a few months later, he can be a huge advocate to repairing much of BushCo's damage to our country. Big picture.

[global1]

12. Just A Thought - Could This Be A Bluff On His Part?.......

Will the Repug Senators wonder why he's supporting it and get worried knowing that he will be a beneficiary of this? Will they want to put such power in his hands or will they back down and not support it?

[flyarm]

37. no he is catering to libertarians..wake up! it is what he has done all along. eom

[lapfog_1]

15. Remember all those uncommitted super delegates

including the House leadership?

Obama needed those to secure the nomination.

And here is likely the result of whatever deal was struck.

Obama agrees to support this crappy FISA bill, the supers call up Hillary and tell her it's over.

This isn't about protecting Bush and his cronies... it's about protecting the Democrats who are
in power. And I suspect that Bush's spying ops picked up some dirt on a number of Dems in congress
and the repukes are playing hardball with the info.

Everyone was blackmailed.

[27inCali]

61. SOUNDS LIKE FREEPER TALK TO ME

just sayin.......

[lapfog_1]

66. 133 posts and you can't find the caps lock key...

probably can't spell "moron" either.

[Tippy]

22. Do all you folks listen to sound bytes.....

If you had been really listening you would have heard Obama...say he will filler buster the bill in the Senate......He said this in FL I believe while on the campaign trail...But imedately do called supporters doubt him...check your facts! Please you are doing untold harm to our candidate when you jump the gun...Republicans will use it against us/him

[chimpymustgo]

23. Maybe our candidate should stop doing "untold harm" to US! He says he's supporting the cave-in.

It's simple. There's no secret plan or strategy. It's collaboration.

[tyne]

24. I guess supporting a

filibuster isn't enough for some people.

Um...what, exactly, would you have him do besides support the filibuster?

I'm not getting the negs against Obama on this.

[MrCoffee]

43. Not supporting the bill would be a start

Giving Harry Reid a call and saying "I'm the nominee, you shitbag, so get your act together on this" would be another.

[cliffordu]

33. Well, I guess you were right all along. He is a collaborator.

I thought he was with the Free French, but he finally has outed himself as NAZI swine.

Ah, well....Viva la France.

[MrCoffee]

25. I think you're referring to the last time FISA came up

October 2007.

He has not said that he would filibuster this one.

[flyarm]

29. anyone who didn't know he was going to cave is a damn fool! and didn't pay attention

to his damn record!

[chimpymustgo]

32. Swear to God! Just look at the record (or lack there-of)!

[cliffordu]

34. Bitter, much??

[chimpymustgo]

39. Drink Koolaid much?

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

46. Nope. He hasn't voted yet. If the hysterics just go and read ALL of

his comment, they might just see that he gave a nice statesman like answer.....and alluded to removing the retroactive immunity section....

He has to play a very subtle hand here. If it looks like he'll vote against it outright the Repubs have a week's worth of news cycles to hammer his ass over it....right now not so much.

I'll bet that bill has a real hard time next week.

If I'm wrong? I don't give a shit. You have no freedom as the founders saw it anymore, anyway.

I'll give you an example:

My real fathers name was john smith. I had never met him and for 56 years had no idea where he was. I knew what his middle name was and what year he was born.

I got a hair up my ass to meet him and found him in a whole two hours. He has no internet accounts, no email or other electronic trail. Except a telephone and utility bills. Taxes.

Go to peoplefinder dot com and locate yourself. Everything anyone wants to know is out there already, has been for years.

I believe privacy is the foundation of true freedom, and we have none of that left.

I ultimately don't give a shit how he votes on the bill. Won't matter in the slightest.

The spin, however, could be fatal to his campaign.

[MrCoffee]

48. Anything to win, huh?

What's going to be left to actually, you know, win?

[cliffordu]

53. Please clarify - I'm not getting what you mean.

[chimpymustgo]

60. I'd rather fight than cave in.

No he hasn't voted, but he gave his mealy-mouthed statement that he will support the bill. What has he ever stood up for - WHEN IT COUNTED?

[cliffordu]

64. I guess he could have screamed "Screw this bill. I'll never vote for it

in any way shape or form.."

But I don't know what difference that would make. I'd like it if he did that.

We'd all feel better, I suppose, and you could say that he finally stood up for something.....

So I guess we're all disappointed.

You are disappointed in him, I'm disappointed in people I thought understood the way THIS game is played.

Grantcart came up with an excellent analysis of this whole thing the other day but I cannot find it right now.


And Obama?

We'll see.

[flyarm]

40. no i am a liberal...not a progressive who is really a libertarian in sheeps clothing!

and i paid attention to who he really was and is!

[Catherina]

52. Unfortunately his damn record was better than the others by a mile

I'm very unhappy about this BUT I blame Obama less than I blame the corrupt, craven Congress we didn't have the will-power and foresight to repudiate a long time ago. Talk about having a millstone around his neck.

[PurityOfEssence]

79. His greatest achievements for the people are ahead of him

and always will be.

He's an ultramoderate, and he's going to get caught: you can only avoid tough choices and be on both sides of difficult issues for so long, and now he's in the big leagues.

Wait 'til he's asked point-blank about domestic oil drilling.

I hope he stops thinking he can have things both ways before the record piles up too much; I want him to win.

The level of faith-based cheery optimism is all very reassuring, but the record simply refutes claims of progressivism. His tactical maneuvering is much akin to Hillary Clinton's: studied, calculated and evasive, while claiming steadfastness.

[Straight Shooter]

36. Obama "owes" Claire McCaskill for her support, I presume.

Check her record, as I recall she is strongly in favor of telecom immunity, but in the meantime a blast from the past, January 2008:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/005133.php

Senate Votes Down Anti-Immunity Bill
By Paul Kiel - January 24, 2008, 2:30PM

Well, one down. The Senate just voted to kill (table) the Senate Judiciary Committee's surveillance bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity for the telecoms. The vote was 60-36 to table, with a number of Dems crossing over. As we said earlier, a number of other amendments will also go up for votes this afternoon.

Among the Democrats voting to kill the SJC bill were Sens. Mark Pryor (AK), Daniel Inouye (HI), Claire McCaskill (MO), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ken Salazar (CO) and Tim Johnson (SD).

Update: The final tally was actually 60-36, not 60-34, and the full list of Dems voting to kill were: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).

There was a great deal of brouhaha over Obama's endorsement of "blue dog Democrat" Barrow instead of the progressive Regina Jackson. I suppose it's all quid pro quo, but quid pro quo is a reminder of the status quo, and there's not much change going on when you do that.

[MarjorieG]

51. Naive to think GOP would give Obama election advantage by agreeing.

Obama said compromise on FISA okay, just not the immunity. As president he will address and many other issues. As he's a constitutional lawyer/teacher, I believe him.

[ProSense]

54. Sargent's post is silly, especially throwing Hillary is the mix

Obama's statement was on point regarding the issue that everyone considers caving: retroactive immunity. Obama is against it.

He previously supported Dodd's position, and was there, unlike Hillary, when the motion to invoke cloture was voted on.

Dodd opposes the current bill because of the immunity provision.

No one can say with 100% certainty how Obama will vote, but it's likely he will oppose the bill.

[babylonsister]

57. ProSense, don't let them there facts get in the way, heavens no!

The OP could care less; that would ruin the intent of this post.

[chimpymustgo]

67. He SAID he's voting YES - even with immunity. I guess you can HOPE he'll CHANGE his mind.

[bunnies]

70. huh. I thought we werent allowed to bash Obama anymore.

This thread proves me wrong! Bash on bashers!

[Maven]

76. Criticizing a decision he's made isn't bashing.

Supporting the Democratic candidate for president doesn't mean goose-stepping and censorship.

[populistdriven]

74. McCain didn't love America, until he was tortured into it. There are no atheists in foxholes either

Its the general election stupid, lets save these battles for after he is in the WH

[Maven]

75. Why are you spamming every thread with this? It doesn't even make sense. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

80. Pat Tillman: atheist in a foxhole

He altruistically gave up a very lucrative job and went to war for his country, probably with a desire to fight religious crazies.

There's a point to questioning the actions of our current champion: so he'll stop doing stupid things and not leave himself open to endless criticism as an opportunist and appeaser.

Blind faith in this man is not constructive; not only do we have leverage to influence his actions, we have a responsibility to do so. Many of us feel that he's been shoved down our throats by zealots, but that doesn't mean we don't want him to win. The point here is to influence things so he doesn't screw it up.