What if Obama votes No on FISA?

[thewiseguy]

Are we going to be just as enthusiastic about taking back of the things that we have said about him?

This forum is no stranger to mass hysteria. It happened when Obama's passport files were reportedly breached. It happened when Hillary made that sniper joke on Jay Leno. It also happened when she made the JFK remarks. Unfortunately I had a part in some of that irrational outrage. I admit it that I was wrong.

Today we are seeing the same thing again. Obama has not even voted on the FISA bill. We dont know what exactly he will do. At the very least he has indicated that he will support adding an amendment to remmove immunity for the Telecom companies.

Considering the fact that Obama has not even voted yet, dont you think your reactions towards him are a bit over the top?

And one more thing for the left win of the Democratic party. Pick your battles and wars. You are not going to win every one of them. To win a war sometimes you have to lose a battle. This sucks but thats the way it is.

:hi:

[gateley]

1. I'm guessing he will vote no, but that won't be enough to keep it from being enacted.

The Dems in Congress who supported t his are the ones who deserve our anger. I feel they betrayed us big time.

[chimpymustgo]

9. He SAID he's voting YES. Thus the "hysteria" as some call it. Or "concern", say others. Dammit

I give a shit about the Constitution, and if the standard bearer of our party won't stand up for - okay - call me hysterical.

[gateley]

41. Oh -- somehow I missed that he was going to vote yes --

WTF???

He can vote no and it'll still pass, so again, WTF????

[ananda]

27. Obama should make sure that bill does not get passed..

.. no matter what it takes.

Then I'd reconsider my going Green, but I still
want to see him supporting progressive Dems
in downballot races.. not the bluedogs.

[gateley]

42. Yes he SHOULD - but it's not only incumbent on him.

EVERY Dem in the Senate should do whatever it takes so it doesn't pass.

The fucking Dems in the HOUSE are responsible for it even GETTING to the Senate!

This is a big deal -- and I'm torn between digging in my heels and feeling I'll give him passes to do whatever it takes to get elected (to a point). I do believe he'd rectify it once in office.

But still... what a fucking mess.

[babylonsister]

2. For those that don't like Obama, it's like a spigot opened for them

to spew their hate. Regardless of how Obama votes, they'll be looking for that spigot.

I agree with you; he needs to pick his battles carefully, especially now. I would be disappointed if he votes yes on FISA, but I'm sure he's weighing his options and considering how people will twist whatever he does. He can't be seen as too soft on security. I'm glad I'm not in his shoes.

[PassingFair]

8. I am a staunch Obama supporter!

But I will NOT support his support of
this "compromise".

He would be a total idiot to vote for this bill's passage
if the immunity clause remains in it...

and THAT would make me think twice about my support.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[babylonsister]

17. Then my post wasn't addressed to you. nt

[DevonRex]

34. You know it's gonna pass, don't you? Do you want McCain in charge? nt

[Milo_Bloom]

47. If bills like this are getting through a democratic congress and senate...

Does it really matter who the figurehead "in charge" is?

It becomes pretty obvious who is running the show.

[Demit]

16. babylonsister, this bill says it is all right to break the law if the president says so.

It says that no court is ALLOWED to consider whether someone has broken the law, if they can produce proof that the president says it was okay. That is a HUGE DEAL. Our Weimar Dems have come up with this gift for the Administration—why they did is anybody's guess, with a lame-duck president whose favorables are in the toilet. If Obama thinks this is just hunky-dory, that presidents can be above the law, and have the power to lift others to be above it too—well, that is something you don't have to twist. It makes my stomach sink to think of what it means.

[babylonsister]

19. I 'get' it, really I do.

I also said in my post I don't want him to support it. I'm just saying there are people around who relish situations like this to use to their advantage because they don't like Obama. Now they have a platform.

[Demit]

31. Well, I don't care about them. They're not important. They'd find any excuse, I imagine.

I get what you're saying, but this is a real thing. I am so tired of Democrats supposedly being forced to play defense because of what a nebulous group of detractors might say, ooga booga. It's time to stand up for what's right, and I thought Obama himself was stressing that he's the one who has the stones to do that. We'll see, won't we, if he's just another Dem keeping his powder dry.

[PassingFair]

48. And whose fault IS that?

I will give him the benefit of the doubt, of course.

This is an opportunity to show us who he works for.

[DevonRex]

25. Thanks. I'm afraid I let go with a rant below. But I had to do it. nt

[bunnies]

46. The Obama haters are loving this.

And being very vocal about it. Its primary hate all over again. Lovely. :eyes:

[Cha]

49. Definetly! I've seen it over and over again

..trying to get around the Presidential GE rules in the name of FISA while recently having a thread locked and a sub-thread removed for breaking the rules. The Venom spewed on Obama is palpable and not fooling anyone.

I am not talking about Obama supporters..we criticize fair and square..this is about a supporter of another candidate who won't let go of the poison.

[RazBerryBeret]

3. I'm holding out hope

that he doesn't vote for the fisa bill...the way it stands.

but I would like to say to his democratic detractors...He's stated time and time again that he isn't perfect. If you want a perfect candidate maybe you should put your own name on the ticket.

[chimpymustgo]

11. This isn't about being perfect. It about doing the right thing. It's really not that hard

on an issue like this. If he won't take a stand on this - what's left?

[RazBerryBeret]

20. toruture.

unjust wars.
rigged elections.
no bid military contracts.
inexperienced buddies in the administration.
bogus no fly list.
Secret WH visitor logs.
Private/Secret energy meetings.
rewarding corporations that send jobs overseas.
corporate run media.
Government sponsored propoganda.
30 million acres of public land under oil leases not utilized.
Global Warming.
American dependence on foreign oil.
missing nuclear weaponry.


I could go on.....
there is a HELL of a lot of things "left"
and as I said, I will be disappointed IF he votes Yes.
and I will hold my judgement till then.

[thewiseguy]

21. You tell me. Supreme Court, Abortion, Economy, The Iraq war

:shrug:

As I said we are going to have to pick our battles and wars.

[chimpymustgo]

26. Oh this is about "lesser" rights in your eyes? Yes, we have to pick out battles - and this is a BIG

one. The cave-in is despicable - as we've been saying for the PAST YEAR. Till now, when our new leader, refuses to LEAD.

[thewiseguy]

36. The big prize is the white house

One we have our Barack in the white house then we can go back and revisit bills such as this one.

I can really see those ads coming Barack's way. He is weak on national security. Hussein Obama..Bla Bla Hamas..Muslim...Black...Voted No to keep us safe.

Yes you and I would laugh at such an ad but unfortunately many others wont. Do you really think if we were living in an ideal country where everyone was thinking like you and I did, then we would even have this discussion right now?

[Demit]

24. I think we can stipulate that no one is perfect. People can be imperfect & still be on the side of

the rule of law.

[Solon]

4. Overreaction is quite normal when civil rights are at stake...

Obama fucked up, it would be nice if some people admitted it. It was only a gaffe, but it can be something more. If Obama was serious about being a "hope and change" candidate, now is the time to PROVE it. Otherwise he's been full of shit all along.

I shot both my Senator, McCaskill, and Obama e-mails about this, and so far no response. The burden of proof is on them, not us. Prove you are worth voting for on your own merits, not only in comparison to much worse choices.

[thewiseguy]

5. Obama fucked up?

He has not even voted on FISA yet.

[Solon]

13. I read the bill, even without the immunity provision, its fucking horrible...

and basically give the Attorney General powers to spy on Americans with practically no oversight from Congress. The fact that Obama even said that he supported the compromise, in any form, was a fuckup.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. Agreed!!!...they should have let the fucking thing expire!!!! I am so angry at the Dems right now

[DevonRex]

29. Amazing at how they're acting as if it's a done deal. Read my post below. nt

[blondeatlast]

43. Be aware it's a weekend, though. But I do appreciate that you took the time. nt

[TwilightGardener]

6. The American people, by and large, are not paying attention to this issue--

Obama knows that. They care about health care and gas prices and sending their sons to Iraq and the economy. This is a "pick your battle" kind of thing if ever there was one. I am against telecom immunity, but I'm not going to go nuts or withhold my vote or my donations if Obama feels he can't vote against the bill because McCain will run around telling America that Obama cares more about the ACLU than protecting America. For God's sake, at least a quarter of the people in this country think Obama's a Muslim--the GOP doesn't need any further ammo against him. My goal is to see him elected, not to hold him to Kucinich/Feingold liberal standards.

[Demit]

7. I am reacting to him calling it a compromise. It is no such thing. It is a capitulation.

Even the Republicans are surprised at what they're getting. This bill is a travesty. If Obama is keeping his powder dry for the Senate next week, fine. But he is now, as our presumed candidate for president, the de facto leader of the Democratic party, not just one of 50 anymore. His power is much more than a single No vote. If all he does is vote No, it will still be a disappointment, and it will say something to me.

[AZBlue]

12. Your last paragraph should be every Dem's mantra.

Unfortunately there are many who don't understand the political game and who don't seem to understand the bigger picture, the bigger goal.

[MrCoffee]

14. If he votes no, I will gladly take back what I've said

However, as he currently supports the bill, I would be very surprised to see him vote no.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Merely voting 'no' is only key if one has a 3rd grader's understanding of things.

[NorthCarolina]

18. If he votes NO, then he will have redeemed himself

as far as anything said in response to his publicly stated position AS OF NOW, there would be nothing to take back.

[DevonRex]

22. Can we at LEAST wait until the matter is taken up in the Senate BEFORE

we lambaste the man? He said he would work to get the immunity portion removed from the bill. I take him at his word. Harry Reid said that probably wouldn't happen. But let's see.

Also, I'd like SOME acknowledgment from the hystericals here that this bill coming up for a vote NOW puts Obama in an untenable position as far as the GE. If he votes NO, it is heavy duty cannon fodder for McCain. If he votes YES, it's heavy duty cannon fodder for the NObama folks (who seem to have come crawling out of the woodwork here in the past couple of days).

Yes, there is reason to be concerned. Yes, we should make our opinions known to the Obama campaign. But, can we do it with a modicum of maturity and common sense?

Do we REALLY want this one bill, which Obama did not sponsor or co-sponsor, and which he has said he would fight to amend, to kill his chances of being elected in the GE?

And, for all the people who keep saying that Obama is now the party leader: Just how much influence has John Kerry had since he lost in 2004? Just how much as the party followed HIS lead since then? Has he enjoyed some special place in the Senate? NO. He is just one of 100 Senators, going to work every day, doing his job, having to make compromises, getting made fun of by the media and even by people here.

So, if THAT is what you want Obama to become, keep up the BS nonstop. Keep firing from the circular firing squad. You'll get John McCain.

Thank you for reading my rant. I'm truly sorry if I have offended anyone but I had to say it after reading posts on this issue for the last 2 days and seeing all the anti-Obama folks taking such joy over this.

[thewiseguy]

33. Nice post!

:hi:

Me and you are in complete agreement.

[DevonRex]

35. Yes, we are. Your post was perfect and I'm afraid it unleashed

a wee bit of pent-up frustration in me. Thanks. I needed that. :)

[thewiseguy]

37. Anything for a fellow Coloradoan.

;-)

[cliffordu]

23. DING DING DING We have a winner!!! Exactly right.

Thanks for saying in this OP what I have been beating people with since yesterday.

I wish I had your level headed clarity.

[slipslidingaway]

28. No, my disappointment is that he has not led on this issue. The

Dems could stop this if they bring the issue to the people and explain that we already can spy on people who are suspected terrorists. Obama has the microphone everyday, as did Clinton in January and February before the last vote.

If you are truly for or against something you use the tools available to advocate for that cause.

Would it be OK with everyone if McCain had this program available to him?

Here is good post on this subject.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3496079

"There is something we MUST keep in mind about warrantless spying on Americans

We must all understand something. With warrantless spying we are on a razor's edge. There is only the finest of lines separating us from being targeted, harassed, punished, or retaliated against for thought or speech. And that line is easily crossed because our protection depends only on the will of those in office. There are no remaining checks and balances.

So our only security is the luck of choosing a "nice" person to be in charge. If we are lucky, that person won't abuse the power. And it comes down to pure luck, because seldom is a person what he or she represents themselves to be in a political campaign. And people can and do change. Nice people can become not-so-nice people.

And here is something very important that everyone should be aware of:

The very existence of warrantless spying is itself intimidation.

How many people will give second thoughts to expressing honest opinions, or resistance to encroachments on their liberties (or their wallets) if in the backs of their minds they know anything they say or type is archived permanently can be traced back to them? The numbers of voices that will speak out on any subject, whether it's abuse, human rights violations, torture, exploitation, denial of rights and civil liberties, or any other subject will diminish rapidly.

This is a bad, bad road we're on. It's not something to minimize or compromise on."

[DevonRex]

30. Read my post above, regarding "leading." nt

[slipslidingaway]

39. Not sure which post you are referring to, is it the one that

mentions all the "hystericals", possibly the same people who do not have "a modicum of maturity and common sense?"

Is that the post?

As I see it your post does nothing except to try and drown out legitimate concerns by labeling people "hystericals" etc.


The original vote was in February, prior to that Clinton and Obama both had significant media coverage and gave speeches across the country. They could have gained public support to remove the retroactive immunity, highlighted the crimes of the Bush administration and our Fourth Amendment rights that are being given away.

The public may not be as aware of this issue because the Dems did not educate the people when they had the chance.

If you listened to the calls coming into cspan yesterday, not one person across the political spectrum was for this bill, this is not a partisan issue and Obama may not just lose Dems with this position.

And what if McCain won or the next president was from the other party, would you like them to have access to warrantless wiretapping? This bill has a sunset provision and we have seen how well that has worked in the past few years.

Rights are very hard to attain and so easily given up.

:(

[DevonRex]

32. Oh yeah. K&R. nt

[slipslidingaway]

40. 67 Senators voted against removing the immunity clause in

February

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Why Obama Kinda Likes the FISA Bill (But He Won't Come Out and Say It)

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

"...So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy..."

[TheDonkey]

44. *THROWS BOOKBAG ACROSS ROOM*

I'M OUTRAGED!!!

:sarcasm:

[slipslidingaway]

45. In 1799, Thomas Jefferson echoed...

Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html

"...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."



"...It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts..."