Only Obama Can Filibuster FISA

[tritsofme]

Dodd can't do it nor can Feingold.

In the same vane as "only Nixon can go to China" it is only Obama that can lead a successful filibuster of the FISA bill, if he so chooses.

If Obama went before a crowd of cameras and declared that he would filibuster the bill, and challenge his colleagues to either stand with him or bend over for the telecoms and George Bush,(I'm sure Mr. Obama would be much more graceful in his words) would these Democratic senators deny him this request?

Would they publicly go against their nominee for President in order to accommodate George Bush?

Obama needs to realize that with leading this party comes responsibilities. He is no longer one vote in one hundred, he is the man who will likely occupy the Oval Office in six months time, and he needs to start acting like it.

[Thrill]

1. Too many weak Democrats in the Senate.

They would cross over and make Obama look bad. We see it all the time.

[rodeodance]

34. perhaps Obama is weak to give in to the telecoms.

[Thrill]

57. I've yet to see Obama vote yes for Telecom immunity

[JamesA1102]

39. Not enough Dems in the Senate.

Remember there are only 49 Dems in the Senate. They only hold the majority because the two independents caucus with the Dems. Lieberman obviously can't be counted on and votes more often with the GOP then with the Dems and Tim Johnson of South Dakota has been on sick leave for most of this session.

[Yukari Yakumo]

60. Correction: Too many DLC Democrats in the Senate. {nt}

uguu

[thewiseguy]

2. If he did such a thing the party would be divided

And yes there will be Dem senators who would not join his effort. He will be publicly embarrassed and the GOP will point out how Obama is careless when it comes to the security of America and the fact that some democratic senators dont even agree with him.

How about having some strategy? Instead of getting all emotional?

When you play poker, you dont go all in on every hand as the chip leader.

[tritsofme]

4. We're talking about the Fourth Amendment, not petty politics.

I've heard a lot about change, and the end of business of usual in Washington.

The ball is in Mr. Obama's court now.

[Occam Bandage]

7. If we were talking about the Fourth Amendment, and not petty politics,

you'd be directing your attention to Harry Reid, who is the Senator most able to direct the votes of the Senate Democratic Caucus. You are instead talking about Barack Obama, who is a high-profile figure to be sure, but who simply lacks the Senate leverage required (in addition to being in the middle of a general election in which message control is absolutely everything.)

[tritsofme]

13. Why does George Bush have more leverage on Democratic senators than Obama?

That is absurd on its face.

Harry Reid is obviously satisfied with this grotesque bill becoming law, or it would never be this far.

Obama has lots of arrows in his quiver, should he choose to use them.

One that comes to mind immediately is that his longtime friend and fellow Illinois senator, Dick Durbin, is the Whip of the Democratic Caucus.

As nominee and likely next president, I can't think of a person who should have more leverage in the Senate Democratic Caucus than Barack Obama.

If he was determined to do so, I see no reason why he could not find 41 senators to not vote for cloture.

[Occam Bandage]

16. He doesn't. Most Dems usually vote against him. Only a small number need defect for a bill to pass.

I'm glad you mentioned Dick Durbin. Dick Durbin, too, might well have the power to do this--as well as the safe seat and lack of media scrutiny required. Why aren't you pushing for Dick Durbin to launch a filibuster?

You claim Obama "should have" the power. Yeah, great. Should have. However, all the power he has with his nominee status is entirely indirect--that is to say, he suggests something, and to avoid embarrassing the party, Reid and Durbin knock Senators in line.

If you gave a shit about the Fourth Amendment--and weren't just using it as cover for political posturing--you'd be pushing the guys with their hands on the levers, instead of a freshman Senator with little backroom power in the Senate.

[tritsofme]

25. That bit about him being merely a freshman senator might have worked a few months ago.

But he is no longer just some freshman senator, he is the Democratic nominee for president.

Durbin simply doesn't have the star power to launch a filibuster on a bill like this. Business as usual politics calls for impassioned pleas by a few senators to stop the bill, but at least 60 senators come together in the end to screw the country over.

Obama has the star power to make this a front page headline, to redefine the terms on which this horrible bill is being debated on.

Durbin has a lot of power in the Senate, and he is probably one of Obama's greatest backers.

However to the press, Durbin is one of 100, Obama is the man that will be president.

Senators should be worried about how President Obama will feel towards those who did not stand with him when he requested their help, not whether Mr. 20% gets his horribly unconstitutional bill as law.

[Occam Bandage]

40. "Durbin simply doesn't have the star power"

Launching and maintaining a filibuster isn't at all about star power or press backing. It's about setting the press entirely aside and taking control of the Senate. You have to have the backroom power to arm-twist 41 Senators into giving you their vote. Star power only enters the equation if you're looking to make a show to the media instead of looking to preserve the Constitution.

Which are you really looking to do, trits?

[Blue_Roses]

49. wow...that was awesome clarity!

:applause:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

37. Well said.

[thewiseguy]

8. Did you even read what I wrote?

[John Q. Citizen]

31. So you want change or do you want the 200 year old constitution? I don't think you want change

in this case, I know I don't.

The ball is, like always, in your court. If you think Mr Obama is going to save your ass, think again.

You still have to save your own ass.

Did you call your Senators?

[tritsofme]

32. Obama and Durbin are my senators.

And they know how I feel.

[cui bono]

42. And we're talking about a senate of 50 people.

No reason it has to be Obama.

Strategy and tactics. Long term goals. Keep that in mind.

[tritsofme]

43. No one else with any clout seems determined to do anything about it.

Besides make minimal protests so they can go back and tell the base that "they tried"

But then again, that might just be the Obama strategy.

[cui bono]

55. What do you mean by clout?

Any one of the fifty senators has equal opportunity to filibuster the bill.

Hell, Reid doesn't even have to bring it up to a vote. So why isn't he the one person who can stop this? He's the one with the senatorial clout!

[Terry_M]

10. So you're saying

not having a spine is a good thing? Cause that's what not having a spine is, only choosing the fights that are easy.

[thewiseguy]

12. No I said having a brain is a good thing.

Winning the GE is easier than filibustering a bill in the Senate? Yea ok....:rofl:

[PM7nj]

3. It's too risky.

I don't think it is worth it.

:shrug:

[gateley]

5. Too bad Dodd didn't know that. He's on the floor NOW arguing. CSpan 2. nt

[tritsofme]

9. As long as there are 60 votes for cloture, it is all for naught.

Cloture can be invoked in three days, no matter how long he talks tonight.

Only Obama has the power to force the issue.

[gateley]

17. It shouldn't be totally up to Obama -

although I'd love to see him come out strongly on this (but his statement about supporting the bill makes me unsure).

[gateley]

6. There may be more than bending over for Bush.... $$$ -

Check this out about the House:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3366625&mesg_id=3366625

[AllentownJake]

11. Disagree, only Clinton can

She has a problem with the left flank of the party and can become a hero over night.

It's the politcally smart move to make.

[tritsofme]

14. However we just went through a year long excercise that proved there are no consequences

in defying the Clintons.

There are much more serious consequences in defying the man that will likely be your president.

[AllentownJake]

18. I'm a freaking Volunteer

for the man who would likely be President and a coordinator of volunteers at that for two townships in PA. So don't question my Obama supporter creds. I've put more hours in for this man in the 6 weeks of Primary battle and since than most people on this board and since I'm in a "battleground" state will likely put in more than I did in those very active time frame. I was working 40 hours at work than 40-60 hours for Obama in March-April and used up a week of vacation in April working all day and night for him.

I'm hosting a BBQ for former Clinton supporters at my own expense this weekend.

[tritsofme]

20. I don't see where I questioned any of your credentials.

Or mentioned anything about you personally at all.

[AllentownJake]

23. "Defying the man who would be President"

I support him and understand the mine field for him here. I'm not defying him. I'm thinking of someone who has low political risk who is high profile to attack this disaster of a bill.

[tritsofme]

27. I was trying to define that the consequences were for the senators

who would defy him.

Not you.

[AllentownJake]

29. He's not Darth Vader

He's a politian who understands the game.

[ProSense]

26. Obama is a Senator running for President,

not Dictator. People will defy him as President too. He's going to have his work cut out for him, and will have to work with Congress to build support for his policies.

[woolldog]

15. I guess he should stop campaigning and filibuster this bill

for the next 153 days or so? Is that your suggestion?

[tritsofme]

19. All it would take is one high profile news conference.

And it then becomes the policy of his campaign and his party.

He has surrogates, such as party whip Dick Durbin, who can do the leg work for him.

[woolldog]

21. political suicide.

[PM7nj]

22. You do realize he is trying to win, right?

He has to appeal to the center. He just has too.

[thewiseguy]

24. Some people think he has already won

They have forgotten that we are in the middle of GE.

[tritsofme]

30. The center wants telecom immunity and to be spied on by George Bush's government?

I haven't seen any polls that show this program is some wildly popular thing with moderates, if anything they suggest just the opposite.

[Occam Bandage]

45. The center doesn't really give a shit either way.

The center would much rather we talk about gas prices, health care, and the economy. Talking about whether there will or will not be retributory lawsuits against telecommunications companies that surrendered calling data to a government information-gathering program that was expanded under Bush? Not exactly the most efficient use of campaign capital. Shutting down the Senate over what could easily be cast as a partisan attempt at political retribution? Not exactly consistent with the message of "change."

[dailykoff]

46. Wait til ABC, Fox and CNN get done with them.

They will.

[Occam Bandage]

47. Oh, sure. They'll think that this is a political charade designed to appease rabid left-wingers

with no regard to the actual problems facing America, from terrorism to domestic 'wallet' issues. And they'll look at Obama, leading this Washington-insider's game, and wonder what happened to 'change.'

[dailykoff]

48. No, they'll call him a flipflopper who wants to bug your phone without a warrant.

And they'll be right, if he votes for this turkey.

[Occam Bandage]

50. No. No, they won't really. FISA is about as high on the 'issues' list as campaign financing is.

It's something for the politically-connected to talk about, signifying nothing, as the world turns and the electorate wonders how much longer it'll be before they have to decide between gas or food.

[dailykoff]

51. Now it is. Wait til they roll out the swiftboats.

This is political dynamite and it's not going to play well in Peoria.

[Occam Bandage]

52. If the Republicans start attacking Obama from the left for supporting a FISA compromise bill

that leans rightwards, then I'm going to crack open my celebratory bottle of champagne, because it will mean that John McCain's campaign has finally ceased to have any degree of coherence, and therefore is about as potent as Bob Dole without Viagra.

[dailykoff]

53. No, it means McCain wins on national security, his strong suit.

If Obama caves on this it means he was wrong all along. Game over.

[dailykoff]

54. Another thing, it doesn't matter if it makes sense, or if McCain also votes for it.

If Obama reverses himself and votes for this they'll say he's amassing spy power for himself. McCain they simply won't mention, just like they didn't mention Bush's AWOL. :shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

56. Again, that would not even begin to fit within McCain's attempts to frame this race.

If John McCain wants to go tinfoil about Barack Obama voting for a bipartisan compromise bill designed to keep America safe,* and start rambling like Ron Paul, then all so much the better. It will mean that his campaign is so amusingly incompetent that 1984 will look like a squeaker.

*no personal opinion as regards the merits of this bill expressed or implied.

[dailykoff]

58. McCain doesn't have to say a word!

The talking heads, political analysts, debate moderators, NYT columnists etc will do all the heavy lifting, just like they did for Junior.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. That would be Obama vs Reid and Reid will win

Reid has the 60 votes already. The bill wouldn't be considered if he didn't.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Totally agree, it did not have to come this, but it has. The

Dems could have used this against the Republicans during their campaign stops, interviews etc. and they did not.

So we'll get the excuse that there were not enough votes etc. etc. and the bill will pass.

Obama is covered in the news every day, he could give a great speech and it would be shown on the networks.

But I'm not holding my breath as he has remained fairly silent on the issue.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25283004


"OLBERMANN: And, also hidden in here behind this headline - if you immunize the telecoms, are you not also immunizing the president, the Bush administration and, to some degree, the Congress that went along with all of these crimes in the last seven years?

TURLEY: Well, there‘s no question in my mind that there is an obvious level of collusion here. We now know that Democratic leadership knew about the illegal surveillance program almost from its inception. Even when they were campaigning about fighting for civil liberties, they were aware of an unlawful surveillance program as well as a torture program. And ever since that came out, the Democrats have been silently trying to kill any effort to hold anyone accountable because that list could very well include some of their own members..."

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. If he did it and failed he'd be finished

Don't be foolish.

[tritsofme]

36. Either he is the real deal or its all a bunch of campaign rhetoric.

If this was the direction he wanted to go, and he told Reid he was doing it, they have no choice but to accommodate him. Their futures are intertwined.

[ProSense]

38. Two things:

First, are you saying that he should give the appearance that he is the"real deal" even if it means losing? Here's a story about that.

Second, Reid supported the last filibuster and said he will support the latest one.
If Obama had the time to lead a filibuster, it would not make or break his campaign.

[alcibiades_mystery]

59. You haved no choice now

This is what it is. Grow up.

[cui bono]

41. What are you talking about?

You can't put this whole thing on his shoulders.

And if he did as you suggested and it still managed to get through somehow he will look weak. If hardly anyone backed him up he would look weak. There are a lot of Dems that won't back him up on it too.

I think the best strategy is for others to filibuster it. Then he doesn't look like the one holding things up - regardless if it's a good thing to do - since you know the spin would come out full force. We have to keep our eyes on the prize in November. There are things that are best for Obama to do, and things that are best for him to let others do, and I think this is the latter. Same end result on the filibuster and yet Obama can keep from looking too "extreme" to the moderates we want to have vote for him in November, and the Republicans won't have fodder to spin away as you know they would. Never mind that he would be doing the right thing, the media circus about it and the spin that would get put on it would not be good and just puts him on defense.

Strategy and tactics are needed here, not emotional and idealistic responses. And I have a feeling they've already talked about how to handle this.

[dailykoff]

44. All he has to do is vote no.

Nobody's asking him to stop it, just not to support it. He's going to get clobbered by the media later if he votes yes.

[TheKentuckian]

61. I hope Obama votes no on this but

it's pretty wacky to put the onus on him on this bill, leadership shouldn't allow it to see the floor.

Clearly, this should have been tabled until after the election when it could be more properly dealt with.

[dailykoff]

62. Cheney and Hoyer want it.

They want it to help cover up 911 is my frank assessment. Pelosi and the rest are putty in their hands. I can only guess what pitch they made to Obama but he was playing the terra card when he came out for it on Friday and that's a very bad sign.