Democrats gave in to fear and terror in 2002 and 2004. It did not help us win.

[madfloridian]

I have been thinking a lot about that this week. Most of us feel they voted for the FISA bill changes that include retroactive immunity out of fear that something might happen before the election.

And if that something happened to spread fear and terror, we would be okay because Democrats had helped strip freedoms just like the Republicans.

Heck, today there are people here tsk tsking us for being upset because Democrats got political in an election year. Other forums as well. Talking heads as well.

Same thing happened here in 2002 and 2004. Don't worry, they said. Democrats need to look tough to win.

How'd that turn out?

We lost so much integrity and common sense in those years after 9/11.

Why are we doing it again?

Glenn Greenwald has noticed that when Obama announced his support for the FISA bill it suddenly became wrong to be against it.

He has noticed also that there has been an effort to spin the bill as being okay.

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

He has some good points. We are accused of attacking Obama when we question the wisdom of taking away individual rights and letting the telecoms hold sway. We are not attacking him...we are questioning the things our party has done that they did not need to do at all.

Glenn also points out the way suddenly message boards and TV shows are inundated with excuses for the bill....in fact even spreading rumors about it.

Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

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.

The only reason I can think of that they would do this is fear of the right wing and their assaults on reason in the name of fear and terror.

We appear to be doing it again just as we did in 2002 and 2004. In so doing we lost anyway in years we should have been winning.

It did us no good at all to be national security Democrats and look tough and strong. We lost anyway.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Nothing like capitulating progressives.

[KoKo]

2. It's disturbing....especially the Dems who changed their vote "for this" after voting against it

before. Nice work you did in your other post about the Dems who changed their vote, you posted earlier today.

Did you see this Digby Comment about "the strategy?" It is puzzling if Obama is now head of the Party why Pelosi and Reid would ram this terrible bill through NOW...when they could have just let it lapse until Obama is elected. :shrug:

-------


Friday, June 20, 2008


Sistah Soljah'd ?

by digby

There's lots of blogospheric angst today, and for good reason, around this FISA legislation. Senator Obama's commitment to support the "compromise,"(while promising to "work" to remove the offensive telcom immunity) is a big disappointment to many.

I am tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment, wherein Barack makes it clear to the Villagers that he is not one of the DFH's, despite all their ardent support. Nothing is more associated with us than this issue. It may even make sense on some sort of abstract level. He's obviously decided that he has to run to the right pretty hard to counteract that "most liberal Senator" label.

But, I actually have no idea what his motivation is any more than the rest of the Democrats, who seem stuck in some 2004 time warp, fighting the battle of Fallujah with Don Rumsfeld. He may genuinely think the legislation is good or just be afraid that the Republicans will use it against him. (I don't think that's going to help frankly --- he voted against it last time and that's all they need for the scare ads.) He does say that if he wins, he promises not to abuse the power it gives him, so I guess we should feel good about that.

I do know this: they would not have made this "compromise" and then brought this to the floor without his ok, and probably without his direction. He is the leader of the Democratic Party now, in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign. If he didn't come to them and say to get this thing done before the fall, then they came to him and asked his permission. That's just a fact. They aren't going to do anything he doesn't want them to do.

So, it's not really a capitulation. It's a strategy.


Update: Jack Balkin says Obama just wants the power as president. He may be right. That would also be a good reason to keep him from having it.

[madfloridian]

4. It is disappointing.

It is like we have to play by their rules to win....we think.

Most people are not fooled anymore.

This did not have to be.

[DaLittle Kitty]

18. Remember, Elect John Russell To Congress and He WILL NOT DO THIS BULLSHIT! JOHN WILL STAND UP TO...

these SPINELESS DEMOCRATS! www.johnrussellforcongress.com

[flyarm]

6. we were set up..it was all a set up!!! eom

[Catherina]

3. You never get tired do you? Thank you MF for retaining integrity and courage

to educate people here

Rec'd with a big :hug:

[Major Hogwash]

5. It's a stupid idea to support this bill the way it is written.

It's a stupid idea to tell 527's not to make attack ads of McCain.
It's a stupid idea to have a logo that looks like a fake seal of President.

Too many more stupid ideas like this happen, and it ain't going to sell in Poughkeepsie.

Making excuses for these things does NOT translate into votes.
Just ask Senator John F. Kerry.

[KoKo]

8. Senate really needs to "Table This" until after the Election...I can't understand the "rush"

.......well...I guess there are many reasons for the "rush"...but none of them make any sense unless we have to believe our Dems are in collusion with the Repugs. But, no one wants to got there.....

It would be pretty upsetting to find that one out...after all this time.

[ToeBot]

7. It's my understanding that the existing FISA provisions are perfectly adequate,

any effort to change them could only be to provide cover for the Executive or to invent an issue to use against the opposition. Since the Democratically controlled Congress is under no obligation to pass ANY new legislation it makes the excuses given by the Democratic leadership highly questionable. i.e. They're bullshitting us and I want to know why.

[madfloridian]

9. Right. It was unnecessary. It was the choice of the leadership to do it.

[Jakes Progress]

25. They are more than adequate

to the needs. They are almost borderline unconstitutional now. This bill is just a neocon wet dream.

[dailykoff]

10. How Obama got suckered into this nonsense I can only guess.

Whatever his reasons for reversing himself on FISA -- and there's no way this "flip flop" is going to go unnoticed -- they are bad.

I'm guessing Hoyer and Rocky sold him a bill of goods about how handy it would be to keep all the secret superspy powers Bush and Cheney stole for themselves. :puke:

[madfloridian]

11. Guess who advised them to not worry about the immunity clause...ignore "pressure groups"

And they did ignore us. Here is the advice from the "policy shop" website of the DLC. It's from February, but that is when the Senate passed the bill that was passed by the House yesterday. Correct me if I am wrong.

It's Time to Pass the FISA Amendment Act

Much heated rhetoric has blasted forth in the debate over an immunity clause for telecom companies that cooperated with the Bush administration's controversial communications-surveillance policies. It's time to turn down the temperature. The political posturing and heel-dragging in the House distract from the more important issue at hand: Congress should concentrate on removing the Bush administration's flawed Protect American Act (PAA) from the books once and for all. As a substitute, Congress should pass legislation that balances our need to collect information with our constitutional duty to respect the civil liberties of American citizens.

Without the House's approval of the Senate's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendment Act, the excesses of the PAA remain intact even though the measure expired on February 15. (I have written about the PAA's shortcomings here.)

..."House members who are delaying the vote have registered their opposition to granting telecom companies immunity. This stance has been registered, but it might have the ironic result of granting the Bush administration, via the PAA's "one-year" clause, an additional 12 months of unbridled surveillance. Such would be the consequences of letting this opportunity for FISA reform pass us by.

House members shouldn't be intimidated by pressure groups who view the FISA bill's immunity clause as a litmus test on respect for civil liberties. It's not. Rather, it is an over-emphasized aspect of a broad bill that could constructively define the rules of signals intelligence collection in the 21st century. This bill represents an excellent opportunity for House members to strengthen their civil-liberties credentials by supporting a law that improves and clarifies the standards for intelligence collection.

There you go. Those doggone "pressure groups", also known as fringe or activist groups.

Harold Ford said, when he became the chairman of the DLC because the DNC was taken right then....that the DLC will be the "policy shop" for the 08 nominee.

"In a lengthy interview last week with a handful of reporters, Ford outlined his plans for the DLC -- ranging from its involvement in the 2008 presidential race to its work as the policy shop for the eventual Democratic nominee.

"This is the incubator," Ford said of the DLC, which was founded in 1985 in the wake of Ronald Reagan's landslide reelection. "If you look at the last ten great domestic policy ideas in the last 10-15 years ... 75 percent have come out of this organization."

He was right, they are setting the policy. The Democrats are falling in line.

[slipslidingaway]

12. Thanks for the thread n/t

[GoldieAZ49]

13. If dem leaders don't protect our constitution and are constitutional rights

they are no better than republicans

[madfloridian]

20. How they act now shows how they will act in a real majority.

We must assume that.

[madfloridian]

14. I swear to God that Pelosi thinks we are stupid. So does the media.

They talk to us like children. They are all appealing to the 25% who think Bush is God and will never support Democrats no matter what. They ignored their base....the base that has worked their butts off for our candidates and now for out nominee. It is bull hockey.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1816911,00.html?imw=Y

"What motivated Pelosi and the Democrats to incur the wrath of their liberal base and allow one of the Administration's most controversial anti-terror policies to be extended? A mix of politics, pragmatism and some significant concessions.

First of all, Pelosi wanted the issue off the table for the political campaign this fall. Despite anti-GOP sentiment in the country and record low popularity for President George W. Bush, Democrats still trail on national security and that could hurt them in Congress. Stonewalling the Administration and letting the surveillance powers expire could have cost the Democrats swing seats they won in 2006 as well as new ones they have a chance to steal from Republicans this November. "For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue," says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it.

Pelosi realized that conservative freshman Democrats like Nancy Boyda of Kansas and centrist Southern representatives were willing to squeeze the Administration for a compromise as long as she got one in the end. That made it possible for her to let the Protect America Act — which passed last August and granted full approval to the Adminstration's expansive surveillance powers — expire in February, and set up her negotiating position through the spring.

Pelosi's centrist compromise doesn't just help House Democrats in the fall. It also gives the party's presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, a chance to move to the center on national security. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," Obama said in a statement Friday. "So I support the compromise."

[Jakes Progress]

26. Pelosi and the neocons don't just think we're stupid.

They are counting on it. It is their only hope.

[Runcible Spoon]

15. I will scream this point on every thread and so far I have gotten ZERO explanation...

FISA IS A LOSER WITH VOTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO significant sector of voters to pick up by supporting this. Righty and lefty indies alike, most likely Libertarian-sympathetic, are among the LEAST likely to be thrilled about this shit.

Shit like this is how Bush lost support with anyone except the rabid rethug base.

I am SICK SICK SICK of hearing explanations that Obama's capitulation on this issue is for some sort of wise political maneuvering. Fear-mongering no longer fools the American public. WAKE UP OBAMA!

REPEAT AFTER ME: NOBODY LOVES SPYING BILLS!

[dailykoff]

19. This is going to cause problems in the debates too:

"Yes I flipflopped on FISA because you were right all along Senator McCain, terra is issue numero uno!"

Suicidal if you ask me.

[Two Americas]

16. keep giving them hell mf... k and r

Of course what you are doing is telling the truth and they think it is hell, as Truman said. Thanks for everything you do.

[balantz]

17. Just what the HELL is going on?

We are now worse off than before with this bill, and the Dems did it to us!

We are being royally screwed!

It seems that for some time now, and especially lately, there is something going on here to which we are not in the least bit privy.

[samsingh]

21. bush and his pals are a complete fuckup and have caused

hundreds of thousands of deaths.

we are obligated, as good Americans, to stand up against their criminal, treacherous acts.

[uponit7771]

22. EXACTLY!!! WTF do they think they're gaining!?!?!?!

[madfloridian]

23. Reverse engineering....Turley. Change the law to conform to past conduct.

"OLBERMANN: Have the Democrats blinked or Mr. Feingold and Mr. Leahy are going to kill this in the Senate?

TURLEY: Well, this is more like a one-man staring contest. I mean, the Democrats never really were engaged in this. In fact, they repeatedly tried to cave in to the White House, only be stopped by civil libertarians and bloggers. And each time they would put it on the shelf, wait a few months, they did this before, reintroduced it with Jay Rockefeller‘s support, and then there was another great, you know, dustup and they pulled it back.

I think they‘re simply waiting to see if the public‘s interest will wane and we‘ll see that tomorrow, because this bill has, quite literally, no public value for citizens or civil liberties. It is reverse engineering, though the type of thing that the Bush administration is famous for, and now the Democrats are doing—that is to change the law to conform to past conduct.

It‘s what any criminal would love to do. You rob a bank, go to the legislature, and change the law to say that robbing banks is lawful."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/20/223359/674

Good diary by McJoan at Daily Kos

[Vattel]

24. The Congress did the same thing

with the war crimes act. They amended it so that the harsh interrogation techniques that were war crimes under it were no longer war crimes. They made the changes retroactive all the way back to 1997 so that the Bush gang's ases were covered.

[Jakes Progress]

27. So is any of this getting through the filter to Obama?

Is there anyone here who knows if he even cares what the progressive wing thinks? Has he been successfully cocooned by his handlers or was he just fooling us all along? Can't someone like Feingold get him on the phone? Without his express and vocal support, no filibuster or procedural effort to stop this will succeed.

This doesn't have to be a fiasco. The bill can be rewritten. He can use his oratory powers to tell the people that the current FISA plan already allows the government to do anything necessary to protect the country. If he explained how this bill would let the president wiretap the phones of Democrats without oversight, the people would get it. Laying down on this one isn't an option.