WOW, sure is a lot of Defeatism over the Fisa bill

[27inCali]

Maybe Obama has this in mind: If he can avoid giving the Repugs anything strong to attack him with, he's president in January. He can start undoing a lot of the damage that's been to the Constitution on myriad of levels, or he can blow the election standing on principle over just one those issues and McGrumpy and can spend the next 4 years moving this country towards dictatorship.

Which one are you hoping for? because, in reality, those are the two choices. Sorry, most reasonable people agree that our feds should have some modicum of ability to spy on criminals and wingnuts and would-be terrorists both foreign and domestic and you can do that without trampling the Constitution. But you're not going to get the sensible balance until there is a DEM in the WH and your not getting a Dem in the WH if the candidate casts votes that give the Repugs a weapon to call him weak on defense with in GE.

Reality is ugly. The people who get what they want in life are the people who deal with reality and work with it and know how to pick the right battles that will actually win the bigger war. Stop losing the forrest for the trees.

THE BIGGER WAR RIGHT NOW IS GETTING A DEM WH AND CONGRESS. AFTER THAT WE WILL GET THE VERSION OF THE FISA BILL WE WANT, NOT TO MENTION THE VERSION OF A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS WE WANT.

Obama's up 15 points right now, He's ahead in Virginia and Colorado for fucks sake. PULL IT TOGETHER PEOPLE, GET YOUR EYES ON THE BIG PICTURE. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A RESTORATION OF THE CONSTITUTION UNLESS WE WIN BIG THIS YEAR.

WE"RE NOT GOING TO WIN BIG CRITICIZING THE SHIT OUT OF OUR OWN CANDIDATE FOR NOT BEING PERFECT.

[chimpymustgo]

1. He's got a SECRET PLAN to bring hope and change!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[DevonRex]

12. Don't you have something ELSE to do besides trash Obama?

How about cleaning your house? Or going for a drive? Or take a nice walk in the fresh air?

[TwilightGardener]

25. You've gone beyond criticizing him on this issue to mocking him in general--

keep it up, and you're not long for this particular world.

[corkhead]

90. maybe Chimpymustgo mustgo?

:shrug:

if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

[cliffordu]

2. I find it very interesting the number of hysterics and newly -formed

haters we got here over this.....

Makes me wonder what's going to happen if he votes against this, and for something people don't like down the road.

The haters are toads.

[DevonRex]

3. Some of them want him to lose. Plain and simple. nt

[cliffordu]

4. I think you are correct. On another thread someone actually said

"Oh, well, we can have hope and change in 2012"

Haters are toads.

[MrCoffee]

6. I said that, and I was referring to a campaign slogan, and I think you know that.

But, by all means, continue to call me names.

[cliffordu]

9. Actually - I wasn't referring to your post -

and I wasn't referring to you.

Unless you're a hater.

If you're a hater, then you're a toad.

If the warts fit, wear 'em.

[DevonRex]

7. Yep. And another thread actually called for witholding...

donations. Yep. Haters are toads.

[thewiseguy]

10. I have seen alot of opportunists coming out to bash him

People who disagreed and did not like him in the first place.

[DevonRex]

13. Yep. Way too many have crawled out of the woodwork again. nt

[cliffordu]

Yep. Haters are Toads.

[Two Americas]

84. this stuff is destroying the party

I wish you would stop with this highly destructive behavior.

You are tearing the party down under the guise of defending it from being torn down. That is doing incalculable damage. You make it difficult to defend the party from your relentless insinuations about its weakness - that it can tolerate no dissent or criticism - and by your haranguing and smearing of other Democrats and re-framing of the party into some sort of lockstep mind meld, because you keep claiming to be defending the party, and are continually targeting people with veiled threats of being banished. It is a clever sabotage of the party, but I think more and more people are seeing through it.

You claim that there are those, a significant number, who criticize Obama on any little pretext - that is a lie - and that they are motivated by a desire to help the Republicans - another lie. I have to wonder if this is not projection, and if you are not in fact giving us clues as to your own motivation. Criticism of the nominee is not hurting his chances, there is no evidence for that. You, on the other hand, do use any little excuse to tear down fellow Democrats and sow hard feelings and dissension, and that DOES hurt us because it is distracting us from more in depth discussions that will help us in canvassing and campaigning, making everything be about some sort of adolescent for-us-or-against-us fan club with loyalty to the personality of the candidate, and that does directly help the Republicans. I think the very thing you continually accuse others of doing is in fact what you yourself are doing.

Your professed true-blue super loyalty to the party, and your determination to see enemies everywhere, reminds me of nothing so much as it does Joe McCarthy's professed true-blue super loyalty to the country and his witch hunts. I can imagine how those who challenged McCarthy felt, because as I challenge you I know that I am making myself open to charges of disloyalty from you. I am sure that there are many people who know exactly what I am talking about, and who are experiencing the same sense of intimidation and fear from bullies such as yourself. That creates a very unhealthy environment, and nothing could possibly jeopardize our strength going into the general as much as that does.

[cliffordu]

85. Nebulous verbosity matched only by hubris.

I support the candidate. I have made no veiled threats of banishment, I don't possess that power.

Barking at idiots and trolls on a message board will hardly hurt the party.

Sorry. You are no challenge to me whatsoever.

Fail.

[Two Americas]

86. I will simplify this for you

One question -

The statements "America, right or wrong" and "America, love it or leave it" - do those strengthen the country or weaken it?

I don't care to be a challenge to you, I am writing for the benefit of the others reading this thread.

I more than adequately explained how "barking at idiots and trolls on a message board" does serious damage to the effort, especially when you define "idiots and trolls" as anyone who dares to disagree with you on anything and tgry to enforce conformity in thought and word.

You are constantly challenging people's loyalty and hinting that their banishment would be desirable. You "don't have the power" you say. That is an interesting defense. And you say "I support the candidate" in defense of yourself and your behavior, which is a revealing defense as well. I would suggest that you are using these claims of "supporting the candidate" as a smokescreen and as an excuse to act in some bullying and anti-social ways. Define "support" - is it merely a claim? You challenge others for their supposed lack of support for the candidate, so I assume you have a pretty well though out definition for what is and what is not "supporting" the candidate. Using the candidate as an excuse to bully others is what it looks like to me, and to sabotage discussions, sow division and spread ill will, and undermine the community and the principles and ideals of the party that brought us together here.

Once again, you resort to projection in lieu of employing any rational counter-argument. What is abundantly clear from this exchange, is that you are no challenge to me, wouldn't you say?

[cliffordu]

87. I have never said 'America love it or leave it'

I think you have me confused with someone else.

If you truly want to 'benefit others' reading this thread, then by all means address them.

Your pedantic hairsplitting isn't designed to elicit a rational counter-argument.

It's more about listening to yourself talk. Pseudo-intellectual grandstanding "for the benefit of others."

Like a boarding school pissing contest.

Your largess in this regard is almost heroic.

You can always put me on ignore.

Buh-bye!!

[Two Americas]

88. of course not

I never claimed you did. It is an analogy.

I never put anyone on ignore, and I think that this exchange has been very important and valuable.

[chimpymustgo]

27. Some just want him to do the right thing. Take a stand - when it counts.

[DevonRex]

33. And what does it count toward? The bill will pass. Obama will

be on record as opposing it. McCain will use it to defeat him.

And Obama will be just another John Kerry.

[MrCoffee]

35. You're not the only one who recognizes this road...

Have we learned nothing in 4 years?

[DevonRex]

40. MrCoffee, thank you. I've been so...

worried over the circular firing squad lately.

And I absolutely hate the immunity thing. But who knows what this will do to us in the GE.

[chimpymustgo]

36. By not fighting it, he's just being another John Kerry.

[DevonRex]

41. That doesn't even make sense.

[Jakes Progress]

52. It does unless winning

is more important than standing for something.

Kerry lost because he wouldn't stand for anything. He was going to out-bush bush. He was the war hero out to win the war.

By letting the republicans box him into this kind of stance, Obama is following in Kerry's footsteps.

You guys know that. You just don't want to see Barack as a man; he has to be a god for you.

I'm voting for Barack Obama, the shrewd politician whose machine beat the second best political machine out there. The Man who can win and remove the republicans from our throats. That Man.

But here he has blundered twice. First in doing the wrong thing even if he thought it was for the right reason. Second, because now he is playing the "terra" game with the republicans. "Oh noes. The terrists, going to get us". He has the oratory power to tell the public what a sham this is. And we do him no honor or benefit to let it pass. He is screwing up and needs to get himself to the Senate floor for one of this speeches. IT is a time for leading the people, not for following the republicans.

[cliffordu]

70. I get the feeling that he IS preparing a speech about this......

His answer the other day was really NOT a position, I think it was to lull the Repub attack machine until he can tear the FISA thingy apart on the floor of the senate.

Much more effective than playing soundbite catch up for a week...


I get the feeling it will be better than the speech on race. He IS a Constitutional lawyer....I cannot see him abandoning he Constitution for something as specious as FISA.

If he does, well, I don't know. He loses the activists.

[Jakes Progress]

74. I'm hoping that someone in his camp

reads these things. I don't think I am the only person to write to his headquarters and suggest the Senate floor standoff.

That would be the right thing for him to do. He would have to reverse himself, but it would be good if a candidate could say "Look, I was tired and I let myself listen to bad advice. I thank my supporters for setting me back on course. I need their help to do this and I hope they always feel that I am listening."

Now that would bring down the house. Just don't spin. Just don't try to say I was against it before I was for it long before I was against it. We have too much of that now. His support statement was a mistake. We all make them. We don't all fix them.

[midnight]

56. Most reasonable people think it is alright to spy on- Sorry not

buying crazy. Also voting against it will make Obama become defeated,,,,,blah blah blah.....Then McCain will win because of this??? Come on. McCain will win because he will steal the vote.

[Smear Talk Express]

76. He's far from perfect...

But since Clinton '12 and McCain '08 are both much more deplorable outcomes, I wouldn't cry about an Obama victory.

[tabatha]

5. Well said.

Bush's address spells this out loudly and clearly. Blaming the gas prices on the Democrats when it is not their fault.

And Obama will be a lot more perfect when in the WH.

[GarbagemanLB]

11. Hillary voted for the IWR because it was the 'politically safe' thing to do. How did you feel about

that?

Sometimes it is required of people to take a stand for what is right, and I'd say this issue is definitely not as dangerous for Democrats as some of you make it out to be.

[thewiseguy]

16. and Kucinich voted against the IWR

Some former Hillary supporters never suggested that Hillary does not have a spine or does not have integrity or does not have leadership.

Some opportunistic hit jobs are taking place for the moment.
;-)

[tabatha]

47. Sending people to an unnecessary war is

hugely different from backing something that protects the country.

There is a large difference in the "badness" of the two cases.

Obama said he would fight the telecom immunity portion.

[Jakes Progress]

57. How can you see straight

with all that spinning. Are you actually defending the FISA bill because it "protects the country"? Is that what you said? God help us.

So this is still all about Hillary. Her vote for the war was wrong. I told that to her people here during the primary campaign. I've already written to her office condemning the thought that she might vote for FISA. I've also written to the Obama office telling him he is wrong.

Your idea of levels of "badness" shows an appalling lack of understanding of what our country is about. The stupid Iraq war is wrong. Soldier shouldn't be there. But for 200 years American soldiers have been dying in real wars to protect the part of the Constitution that you think is just a little thing. This bill gut the fourth amendment to the Constitution.

So you love Obama. That's just fine. But you need to know more about what these bills do, more about how it will affect the country beyond November.

[tabatha]

66. If you read the Time article about Pelosi's decision

you will see that this is about winning as many seats as possible so that the government WILL be reformed beyond November for the better.

(See I stated my case without being personally insulting - which is the hallmark of right-wingers when they argue.)

[Jakes Progress]

71. Okay, we will be nice.

But you have to stop quoting the republican line that unlimited eavesdropping and the end of the 4th amendment is necessary because we must protect the country.

I read the Time article. We gave the Democrats in congress a majority so they could change things. She is using the same argument that she and her group have been giving for two years for "cooperating' and "compromising" with george and his friends. Still at war. Still funding it with your grandchildren's money. Still killing people needlessly. Still ignoring the rights of Americans.

You wanted me to read Time. I have a link for you. Glenn Greenwald's article on Salon lays out a persuasive argument as to why this tactic is not a good one. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/

My argument is that Obama did not have to cave on this. He was outfoxed by the republicans and put in a corner. He could have risen to the occasion and gone to the floor of the Senate. There, speaking as a Constitutional Law Professor and the titular head of the Democratic party, he could use his powers of oration to condemn the politics that would make this an issue. He could tell the world that our Constitution is what makes us what we are. He could demand that the bill be written in line with Constitutional rights and to uphold the accountability of public office holders. He would get complete coverage on all the news networks and you tube would be filled with the speech. He would win in a landslide.

What he did is go along with Pelosi, Reid, and the scaredy cats that won't do the job we gave them the mandate to do. He listened to political advisors. My fervent hope is that this was not his idea. I would rather that he had a weak moment and followed bad advice than that he is simply so much less than those who support him think he can be. My argument is that in playing the republican's game, he is giving up both a chance to win and his political soul.

(I notice that you didn't insult me directly but only implied that I was a right-winger. I have been personally insulted by dozens of DU'ers who would claim to be left-wingers. I myself have been winging left for probably more than twice as long as you have lived. Just guessing.)

[Blue_Roses]

14. well said!

welcome:hi:

[Demit]

15. 'if the candidate casts votes that give the Repugs a weapon to call him weak on defense'

Now that right there is the Democrats in Congress' problem. Ooooooh! They're going to call us names, can't have that! So we'll cave in on our principles and then they won't call us names! Because name-calling is such a powerful weapon and we don't know how to counter it!!!

NEVER MIND that over 60% of the country is against Bush; never mind that voters swept a passel of Democrats in in 2006 to change things. Oh noes, gotta keep giving the Republicans everything they want, gotta run away from all the battles, because that way voters will think we are STRONG.

Yeah, that's the way to do it.

[GarbagemanLB]

17. THANK YOU. It's time to fucking STAND UP for our principles and not let the GOP threaten us with

the 'national security' issue.

[thewiseguy]

18. You sure dont believe that the rest of the county shares the concerns of left wing demcorats?

Freepers were dead against McCain for his amnesty bill. Look who is their nominee.

[CakeGrrl]

23. It's not name-calling in a vacuum. The Right has the media on its side

and the Democrats have to counter THAT weapon as well.

When the corporate-owned media has a stake in keeping "low-information voters" just that so they can get the tax breaks that Republicans provide, then those noisemaking Congressional Republicans have a built-in megaphone to amplify their accusations against Democrats.

A better informed public could have prevented a second Bush term in 2004. He had no business being re-elected, but there it was.

Democrats have a balancing act on two major fronts.

[PearliePoo2]

31. good post ,nt

[Demit]

37. What good is a strategy of Democrats becoming just like Republicans so they won't get called names?

Tell me that, please. That's not balancing, that's capitulating.

I'd like to posit to you that if the Democratic leaders in Congress got together and started pushing back, issuing news releases & scheduling press conferences with a message that started to sound DIFFERENT from 'we're scared of being called weak on defense' (everything Republicans want they just frame in terms of national defense!)—the media would damn well see that as news. God, I've been waiting for the part of the movie where the skinny frail kid turns on the bully and says "No more'. He maybe gets beat up again, but he starts to earn respect for standing up for himself. He takes away the bully's power to intimidate him.

[Oak2004]

43. Haven't you noticed? They make shit up

Obama is a Muslim who was educated in a radical Wahabist madrassa? The "most liberal" member of the Senate? A coke-using bi guy? And how about that "terrorist fist bump"?

There's absolutely nothing a Democratic candidate can do to avoid the GOP/media smear campaign. If they don't have a voting record to distort (and precious little in the way of a voting record can't be distorted), they'll just make shit up out of thin air.

If you cannot avoid a smear campaign by compromising one's principles, one may as well stand on principle.

[Jakes Progress]

58. I thought the Obama

campaign was about stopping the balancing act. Stopping the Democratic spinelessness. It was supposed to be about being straight and upright. Now he is getting praise for agreeing with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. What next? Should he begin to agree with Joe Liebermann?

[KAZ]

72. Excellent post CakeGrrl. Wish I could REC you reply.

[CakeGrrl]

81. Thanks. I wish people could remember that Obama has to *GET* to the WH first

and that he didn't get as far as he has without a good plan. It's discouraging to see such a lack of trust in his abilities from his own "support" base - from the ones who still don't truly want him to succeed personally after besting Hillary in the primaries to those who are now threatening to withhold monetary support to keep his campaign competitive against McCain.

:grr:

[GoldieAZ49]

24. if the dems in congress go along with the repubs, for whatever reason, what is the difference?

both parties are the same. What are the indies, who will decide the race suppose to choose between?

What the hell is the difference?

[texastoast]

19. I'd like to see every "Dem" representatiive

Who voted to enable Bush DEFEATED in their next primary.

Anybody got a list of them handy?


There were avenues in place for the goddamned government to spy on legitimate suspects.

Just gotta wonder what is in it for them.

[JohnnyLib2]

21. Might want to wait on the Senate vote for that.....

some often-heard names will have to declare themselves.

[elocs]

20. I think there are many here who expect lockstep approval of their purist, Liberal ideals.

In exchange for this short term perfection they are willing to sacrifice the election and give the next 4 years to President McCain. Then they will really have something about which to complain.

[Demit]

22. I expect Democrats to stand up for the Constitution. That's what I expect.

Not to make the president a king or a dictator. Which is what the FISA bill does—put the president above the law.

Upholding the Constitution is not seeking perfection. It's seeking upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.

[DevonRex]

34. And are you just as furious at the "other" dems who are for it?

[Demit]

38. Why, yes, Jennifer, I am.

[DevonRex]

42. In General Discussion?

[Demit]

48. Do your own homework, Jennifer. Do a search on my posts.

[MrCoffee]

26. If you're referring to the 4th Amendment as a "purist, Liberal ideal"

then yes, I think some lockstep approval of the 4th Amendment is reasonable to expect.

[TwilightGardener]

28. DU has a high percentage of Kucinich supporters. The folks who

believe that politics is all about tilting at windmills, and their candidates never win.

[Forkboy]

80. DU also has a lot of people who try to stand for what's right when they can.

And don't bounce between parties when it suits them.

It has nothing to do with "tilting at windmills". People against this aren't "tilting at windmills", or doing so out of some sense of purity. That charge is a cop out for those who don't give a shit about WHY we need to win.

[The River]

32. You're Spot On

the concern threads are earnest but misguided.
They are, however, "Useful Idiots".
Obama needs to be criticized by the far left so he
can prove that he himself is not that far left or
is listening to their demands for ideological "purity".

[Demit]

46. Try understanding what this FISA bill does before you make up reasons for the criticism.

Right now you are calling not wanting the president to be able to break laws a far-left ideology. I don't think you mean that.

[The River]

63. I Didn't Say That At All

I don't like it either but I understand why he had to
go along...for now.
What I said stands.
The hue and cry from the farther left part of the party
is useful. Obama can say "See, compared to them I'm
not that Liberal. They don't dictate my policy".

It's politics....

[Demit]

69. If you think that supporting this FISA bill is no biggie, just politics, then you miss the point of

having the Constitution as the basis of our form of government. The rule of law is not a far left concept. The principle of checks and balances is not liberal policy. Your attempt to wave it away as merely politics betrays a profound misunderstanding of what's at stake here. The founders thought long and hard about how to avoid having a king as head of the government. You should think a little harder about why they did that and why it's worth preserving.

[johnlal]

61. We nominated John Kerry for his military service

We thought that he would appeal to conservatives more because he was a military hero. That didn't work out. It only led the Republicans to attack Kerry on his military credentials. The Democrats have to stop nominating candidates who they think the Republicans will vote for, because that doesn't work. They need to nominate people who Democrats can be proud of. And once they get the nomination, they need to hold his feet to the fire to keep him on message.

[texastoast]

39. So the Constitution is a "purist liberal" idea?

Since when?

[The River]

64. I Didn't Say That At All

I said the hue and cry from the the far left purists is useful.
Carry on.

[texastoast]

78. ...

;)

[johnlal]

51. You're falling for the fear tactic...

If we don't do what the Republicans want us to do, they will criticize us for it and we will lose the election. That's hysterical. How about this one?
If we do the right thing, people will respect us for it, and we will win the election. It's just as possible. Leave it to the spin doctors.

[PearliePoo2]

29. I agree he has to be very careful here

Look, as sad as it is, the average person DOESN'T know shit about FISA. Nothing.
(60% can't find Iraq on the fucking map and 40% can't name the three branches of government)
What we do know is the RePukes will do anything to win.
Expect them to play again the fucking fear card and "weak on terror" meme because it works.
It works very well and the RePukes know it.
Look at the hysteria over a flag pin.If People are frenzied and lathered up over a flag pin, imagine what the game plan will be when Obama is accused of being soft on terrorists.
It will come and it will work..I'm getting the stupid e-mails already.
I believe most people don't even know that the Telecom wire-tapping is illegal. They are told over and over that it is a "tool" that is needed to protect our country. What is not being told effectively is that there is already a system in place to get a legal wire-tapping court order.
Expect the thugs to pounce the very second should Obama vote no on this bill. The evil fucks are ready and waiting.
The endless looping of a sound bite will begin and not stop.

[BeatleBoot]

30. What I find Ironic in the entire debate is not with Obama

It's with the DU'ers who trashed Hill for doing the politically expedient thing and voting to give Bush authorization via IWR once the inspectors did their thing.

Now Obama does the politically expedient thing (and I don't blame him at all) and, all of a sudden, with some here, its now "the right thing to do".

And some of you guys blame Dems for no spine?

I'd say if the Dem members of Congress are, on the whole, invertebrates, then based on the logic I've read here lately, they are a representative sample of their constituency.

For what its worth.

[Catherina]

49. For what it's worth some of us are against excusing political expediency

be it Hillary, Obama or anyone else. I'm not very happy with Obama right now and think he's on very shaky ground with activists but I'm counting on him to heed the outcry and change his course of action.

For what it's worth

[dana_b]

77. the best cartoon of the week

I'll bet we all know one of those asses (I mean, donkeys).

I'm with you Catherina. I really hope Obama fights this one. It's too damn important and he doesn't get a free pass on this. Of course winning in November is important, but so is holding people and companies accountable.

[Frank Lemadeer]

50. The greater irony

Is the tossing principles off the bus every time a leader slouches on one.

But that's not the greater irony I'm talking about. The greater irony is that conservatives did this before. You may not remember ten years ago, but I do. Conservatives were apoplectic over perceived threats to the precious Constitution by Clinton and Gore.

But then Bush got elected and started dismantling it himself. The outrage suddenly quelled. Partisanship and tribalism kicked in, and suddenly it was not only okay to gut the Constitution, you were a traitor if you didn't support it.

Now I'm seeing the same thing happening here. Obama says he supports the bill, and suddenly--practically overnight-- people on the progressive side of the political spectrum are running around saying it's okay.

That's irony on an epic scale.

Glenn Greenwald says a lot more about it here.

[GoldieAZ49]

79. Excellent Article

He makes to many good points about what this bill and its support means to post here, but the last quote says it all.

In 1799, Thomas Jefferson echoed that: "Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence . . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions."
Between (a) relying on the limitations imposed by the Constitution or (b) placing faith in the promises of a political leader not to abuse his unchecked power, it isn't really a difficult choice -- at least it ought not to be, no matter who the political leader in question happens to be.

[TheDonkey]

55. So voting for this FISA bill is equivalent to the IWR? The most disastrous foreign policy dec ever?

very interesting. BTW what is Hillary's opinion on this issue???

[BeatleBoot]

60. They are very similar when looking at it

from the point of view of "a principled stand" which oft was the argument against HRC on the IWR vote, was it not?

And now FISA and warrantless wiretaps, spying on anyone they want without a warrant is a huge deal, too. I mean it's only the U.S. Constitution and individual rights, correct?

Like I said, it's funny that political expediency is not okay for some, but others get a pass.

Not arguing that he or she should vote one way or the other. That's not my point.

My point is the double standard.

It is. To laugh.

[karynnj]

75. She may still be on vacation from the Senate and not vote

I hope I am wrong

[Hippo_Tron]

44. I'm pissed at Reid and Pelosi for not using their power to help Obama

If they couldn't strip telecom immunity then they should have just sent Bush another temporary bill to avoid the issue altogether. Not forcing Obama to go on the record would be the smartest political thing that could have been done. We control both Houses of Congress and this is one of the political benefits that should come with that if Pelosi and Reid weren't inept.

[johnlal]

45. Your strategy has failed time and time again.

This is the same old DLC type of thinking: "If I act like a republican, more people will vote for me". "If we nominate a person who's more likeable to the republicans, he's more likely to be elected". It's bullshit and it doesn't work. The Republicans just attack you on it and the liberals are alienated.
No. The better course of action is to hammer OUR candidate until he falls into line with our agenda. If he can't do that, he's useless to us.

[GreenPartyVoter]

53. Gotta keep the powder dry, because someday they'll want to.... keep the powder dry some more.

[CrispyQ]

65. Spot on.

I wish I could recommend your post. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The largest voting sector of our population are the non-voters. Some are apathetic & wouldn't vote anyway, but a huge number of them feel there is so little difference between the two parties that there isn't anyone who represents them, so why vote?

We are approaching a one party system where your only choice is the party of money.

[cascadiance]

54. I judge people on ACTIONS NOW, not promises or hints of what may happen later!

The Democrats should have stood up to the Korporatists! If the Korporatists threaten them too much, then say they'll bring both Houses down until impeachment is on the table, and then EXPOSE the Korporatist Democrats for what they are! SELLOUTS!

[retread]

59. A vote against FISA would mean a defeat in the election? Sounds a lot like

the advice Paul Wellstone was given on the "war" in Iraq.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

62. Yeah no shit. How about we actually at least wait and see what he says and does...

FFS, how are Clinton and Kerry and Webb and Boxer and Feinstein all going to vote? Perhaps there will be a filibuster that Obama will join. Lets just see what happens before we all get out panties in a bunch.

[FourPieRun]

67. if he actually becomes president he will have to *stay* in the center if he wants to get re-elected,

which he will. that's the way politics and the real world works.

[madfloridian]

68. Glenn Greenwald was just talking about posts like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6395467#6395657

[PassingFair]

73. They already HAVE a "modicum of ability to spy" on "criminals".

The people will understand this if it is explained
to them.

The existing FISA statute ALREADY ALLOWS them to
carry out surveillance WITHOUT WARRANTS.

They only have to go to the ALREADY SECRET FISA
courts to get them AFTER THE FACT.

This is not a small thing.

These are our protections against illegal search and
seizure we are talking about here.

[ToeBot]

82. When the Dem's flush one of their only victories, I'd call that a defeat.

And to do it for absolutely no good reason, that's just stupid. Unless it was their intention to force Obama into a situation that will cost him regardless of the out come. What is so important about this legislation that they have to do this and do it now? The whole thing stinks.

[Two Americas]

83. say what?

Please stop tearing the nominee down and hurting our chances in the general election. That is what you are doing.

"A Dem in the WH" is the product of telling the truth, not the other way around. Seeing the two as being in opposition to one another, and asking us all to see things that way, is to betray extreme weakness, and is destroying the party. Your reasoning is the greatest threat to the future of the party imaginable.

First we tell the truth, then we win. You have this backward, and are promoting defeat before we even get started, and then asking us to call that "winning."

If we cannot tell the truth because that would mean we won't "win" then winning is not worth pursuing the way you are defining it, nor would we deserve to win, nor would it be a good thing for the country. Why do you have such a negative view of the Democratic party and your fellow Democrats, and why would you want us to be weak and risk losing?

[democrattotheend]

89. For the next 5 months, his job is to do whatever it takes to get elected

And if he had to support the FISA "compromise" to avoid ruffling feathers in an already fractured party, it's a compromise I am willing to accept, especially since I don't believe he had the power to kill it even if he tried.