Obama's trying to innoculate himelf from Oct. surprise w/ FISA vote.

[carpe diem]

In 2004, a few days before the election, Osama bin Laden released a videotape in which he basically endorsed John Kerry. Now, obviously, those of us paying attention realized that GWB was the best thing that ever happened to Al Queda, and that they knew by saying they wanted Kerry to win, a certain number of uninformed voters would be influenced to vote for the candidate NOT endorsed by the perpertrators of 9-11.

Who knows how many thousands of votes that well-timed 'surprise' cost Kerry? Perhaps enough to have made the difference in a couple of swing states? Throw in the BlackBox voting and it's entirely possible.


Now just imagine it's October 30/31, 2008. The election is next Tuesday and we get ANOTHER video tape. It's Osama or some other individual that the newscasters tell us is the number 2, 3 whatever in Al Queda. THIS time, the endorsement is for 'our Muslim brother', Barack HUSSEIN Obama. Maybe just before or just after this, Homeland Security conveniently raises the terror alert for the first time since, oh...I don't know, the LAST presidential election, claiming some kind of 'chatter' on the wires and for us to be 'vigilant' and 'on the lookout' and all that good fear-mongering, alarmist stuff. Even if he still has a 10-15 pt. lead in key state & national polls, if this sequence of events occurs, which is not at all out of the realm of possibility, that lead can drop to within the margin error OVER freaking NIGHT. And that is without any ACTUAL terrorist attack taking place. God forbid something actually does occur. And there will be NO TIME for Obama recover.

Now, the only area where McCain consistently beats Obama in polling is on war/terrorism/national security. Obama does not want to leave ANY opening for the 'he's a secret manchurian Muslim who really wants to hand the country over to the terrrorists' meme. When the soundbites start flying, Obama wants HIS to be 'I'm protecting America, national security trumps everything, yada yada yada'. If he leaves an opening on national security, the Republican will wear him out with 'you can't trust him to do what's necessary to keep America safe.'

After a few months sowing of these doubts, when the 'surprise' comes, Obama will be way more vulnerable, perhaps, than if he appears MORE hawkish than the bluest of blue dog dems. I don't think he likes it or wants it to be this way, but, as the nominee, he doesn't have the luxury of counting on the American people to not be duped, THIS TIME, into voting from fear like they have so many times before. And, if he can keep McCain from sowing these doubts too deeply, maybe he can ride out the hit when/if it comes.

[Kdillard]

1. I completely agree

FISA is a trap that Obama has to skirt very, very carefully.

[msongs]

2. yes expedience first by all means nt

[elocs]

3. I don't think many here get that.

I think they actually prefer to be doctrinally pure and perfect to winning an election. That way they can bitch for four years about how President McCain is destroying our Constitution. The trouble is that he will actually be doing it and appointing Supreme Court justices who will aid him in that end.

[dflprincess]

5. So true

I can't believe there are people here who are so politically naive that they expect a candidate to respect the Constitution. :sarcasm:

Is it too late to nominate Feingold?

[Hippo_Tron]

12. I wish Feingold had run, but he didn't

Obama is what we have. And Presidents have been pissing on the constitution since John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts. So while I expect candidates to respect the constitution I also realize that we're basically up against 200 years of precedent.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

14. But he would have been painted as a loony leftist and lost

Just like Kucinich, *my* dream candidate. Over the last 20 or so years, the country has moved further and further to the right. My husband (British) is shocked at what passes for "liberal" here.

[charlyvi]

15. Doctrinally pure? You're kidding, right?

Since when did the fouth amendment to the Constitution become an expendable doctrine? It's supposed to be the law of the land. This isn't about a difference of policy. This isn't about being "perfect". This is about gutting the fourth amendment, and he's going to vote for it. The repurcussions will be long lasting and severe. But, so what, as long as he wins, right? Never mind that he would probably win without doing this. After all, if he thinks it's the right thing to do, it must be, right? Thomas Jefferson is turning in his grave.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. The constitution has been expendable since John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts

Ever hear of the Palmer Raids under Woodrow Wilson? Did you know that Lincoln illegally suspended Habeas Corpus? How about that Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court that he wouldn't enforce their decisions.

Presidents have been making the constitution expendable for about 200 years now. This is something people have to realize.

[charlyvi]

30. Despite your condescending tone, I will tell you what I realize.

Lincoln was within his right to suspend The Great Writ....The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.....The Civil War was, in fact, s rebellion in his eyes. Or didn't you realize that? The Palmer Raids have been condemned by history, Andrew Jackson was the subject to two impeachment attempts. The arguement that the Constitution should be expendable because prior presidents have ignored it's provisions is a weak one. Does that mean it's okay for any President to ignore it at will, for political expediency? I thought that's why we're in the mess we are in today. But maybe I'm not "realizing" the truth of the matter.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. I'm just saying that people on this board...

Watch Democrats cave on FISA and act like it's completely unprecedented and that George W Bush is the first President to take liberties with the constitution and that if we don't stop the FISA bill, we're going to wake up tomorrow and we will be a fascist dictatorship.

I'm saying that we have had Presidents take liberties with the constitution before, Congresses have caved just like this one is, and yet somehow we aren't a dictatorship. So I don't agree with the notion that this is somehow a super special issue where the sky will come crashing down. I want as little compromise for political expedience on all important issues, but I also realize that it will happen and that we will still survive if it does.

I apologize for being condescending. I just think that some of the harsher Obama critics are lacking any sort of perspective whatsoever on this.

[charlyvi]

79. I accept your apology.

I also apologize if my reply was more sarcastic than it needed to be. I know you sincerely mean what you say.

I am not saying this is unprecedented; however, I am saying that he does not have to vote for this bill. We won't be a dictatorship if this passes, but we will be just a tiny bit closer to it. And he should take a stand.

I am not an idealist. I have lived through the assasinations of JFK, RFK and MLK. One thing I have learned is a person must take a stand against the erosion of our civil rights. It is so easy to rationalize them away. And I feel that is what Obama is doing here. And he is so much better than that, or at least I thought he was. This is not a winning strategy for him, no matter what most on this thread seem to think. This will come back to bite him, and all of us, in the ass. This is fundamental.

[Catherina]

97. We didn't have the technology or prison system then that we have now

but your point is totally correct.

[shadowknows69]

117. Maybe the executive branch itself was a bad idea?

It seems to be where most of the sludge seeps from, historically speaking.

[elocs]

23. Well, god knows that DU is the only place where you can go to find

people who care about the Constitution. The only way to see things is their way, theirs is the only opinion that counts. Didn't I hear Obama say at his press conference that in reality he does hate the Constitution and that all the people at DU are right? Probably not.

[charlyvi]

31. The Fourth Amendment is not an opinion.

It's the law of the land.

[Catherina]

99. If you think it's just DU, you need to get around more

It's all over the blogosphere, including Obama's blog, and out in real life among people who don't spend much time online.

[Evergreen Emerald]

116. Well said

[Runcible Spoon]

118. this "doctrinal purity" bullshit is so insulting and wrong.

ironic that people who call out others for "purity" want their OWN brand of purity, in the form of "shut the fuck up and don't question Obama on anything" or "take FISA/NAFTA up your ass because we will let him do/say anything to win". Ignoring the FACT that domestic spy bills and neoliberal pacts with the devil are HUGELY UNPOPULAR with voters.

Obama is doing nothing but engaging in the same brown nosing with corporate lobbies. Yeah, sure he's better than McSame, but anyone swallowing this "hope" crap is just buying a campaign slogan.

But hey, here's to "hope" that I'm wrong!

[Skip Intro]

4. The sworn duty to uphold the constutution and protect the rights of the people should be paramount.

Not political posturing.

These are our rights and freedoms we are talking about here. What is best for Obama politically is really irrelevant.

[Benhurst]

6. Amen!

[hokies4ever]

10. Obama believes this DOES restore the Constitution

It restores the 4th amendment because it brings the FISA court back into this process. Obama is upholding the Constitution. Which amendment are you referring to where he has to support a bill to prosecute telecom companies when he can just reserve that right for when he's President?

[charlyvi]

21. Um. not really.

http://www.slate.com/id/2194254/


Myth No. 1: This bill is a compromise.

The House bill "is the result of a compromise," one of its architects, Steny Hoyer, D-Md., maintained the other day. But in truth, Hoyer and his colleagues gave the White House most of what it asked for, dramatically expanding the government's surveillance capabilities without demanding any serious concessions in exchange. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., calls the deal "a capitulation," and he's right. Why else would the White House express its approval so quickly, after a full year in which President Bush petulantly vowed not to sign any legislation that obliged him to concede too much? Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., offered an honest appraisal: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped."

Myth No. 2: We need the bill to intercept our enemies abroad.

One frequent refrain in favor of the new legislation is that without it, America's intelligence capabilities will dry up, leaving the country vulnerable to attack. The National Security Agency wants to intercept communications that pass through routers in the United States, even when both parties to the communication are abroad. The administration has argued that the NSA should not have to obtain a court order to intercept those communications. Seems reasonable, right?

Of course it's reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that House Democrats proposed to fix the problem a year ago. They were rebuffed. Why? Because their plan contained too much judicial oversight. (They ended up folding, just as they have this time around.) So when people say that this legislation is all about exempting foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to pass through the United States from the warrant requirement, don't buy it.

You see, the new law goes a lot further, basically doing away with warrants altogether in the domestic-to-international context. Under the proposal, the NSA can engage in what David Kris calls "vacuum cleaner surveillance" of phone calls and e-mails entering and leaving the United States through our nation's telecom switches. Provided that the "target" of the surveillance is reasonably believed to be abroad, the NSA can intercept a massive volume of communications, which might, however incidentally, include yours. When authorities want to target purely domestic communications, they still have to apply for a warrant from the FISA court (albeit only after a weeklong grace period of warrantless surveillance). But where communications between the United States and another country are concerned, the secret court is relegated to a vestigial role, consulted on the soundness of the "targeting procedures," but not on the legitimacy of the targets themselves.

This is a huge departure from FISA. As Glenn Greenwald argues in Salon, the underlying suggestion of the new proposal is "not that the FISA law is obsolete, but rather, that the key instrument imposed by the Founders to preserve basic liberty—warrants—is something that we must now abolish."

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Perhaps most controversially, the bill effectively pardons the telecom giants that assisted the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program. They will now be shielded from dozens of civil lawsuits brought against them after their involvement was exposed. House Democrats insist that the telecoms are not automatically getting off the hook. Instead, the companies must go before a federal judge. But here's the catch: For the suits against them to be "promptly dismissed," they must demonstrate to the judge not that what they did was legal but only that the White House told them to do it.



If Obama votes for this, so be it, but don't delude yourself into thinking he is protecting the Constitution. He is not. He is a politician doing what he thinks will garner the most votes with the least fallout.

[hokies4ever]

91. Truth #1: 4th amendment restored

This seems to always get overlooked by too many people. Restoring the Constitution may not be a big deal to you, but it is to other people. Your myths aren't Constitution violations. The 4th amendment is restored by this bill by getting the FISA courts back involved. Fighting against the bill is a war of attrition that will keep the FISA courts out of the loop. You have competing interests of telecom immunity (which the next President doesn't have to abide by) and restoring the 4th amendment ASAP for the American people. Obama chose the American people.

[dailykoff]

95. You have got to be kidding.

Seriously, what have you been watching?

[charlyvi]

96. Wow. Just wow.

So up is down? Unbelievable.

[Catherina]

100. The telecom lobbyists wrote the bill with Republicans and conservative Dems

I'm sorry hokies4ever but what you wrote is some of the lamest spin I've ever heard.

[hokies4ever]

101. Are the FISA courts involved now?

Just wondering...

If you pay close attention to your gripes, they have nothing to do with the Constitution going forward and everything to do with past violations of the Constitution. You people focus on the apparent immunity for past actions without realizing that Obama can just reserve the right to revisit this issue if he becomes President.

Are the FISA courts involved now? Yes or no?

[Zodiak]

127. Yes, they are

And if the FISA court rules against the application, the wiretap still goes into effect during the entire apellate process.

Effectively, the FISA court gets to look at it, but has no power to stop it. That is not restoring checks and balances.

Oh, and the Justice Department gets to investigate the Excutive branch. Effectively, the executive branch gets to investigate itself....conflict of interest.

And might I remind you that the FISA court derived from the 1978 law is NOT considered to be Constitutional by many Constitutional scholars. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of FISA, so you saying that the fourth amendment is restored is not supported by Constitutional experts at all.

[Runcible Spoon]

119. hahahaha. you're cute.

don't tell me you actually believe what you just wrote :rofl:

[kiva]

133. Yes, thank you!!!!! NT

[Labors of Hercules]

19. He's got to win before he can be sworn in.

And does that mean you think McCain will do a better job protecting the rights of the people?

cuz thems the options, no matter who's banner you're still flying.

[charlyvi]

35. Do you think a "no" on FISA means he can't win?

I don't.

[Runcible Spoon]

120. agreed. How many times must we shout to the Heavens that AMERICANS HATE SPYING BILLS!

Not just lefties, but every single one of us. At least, everyone but the 5 or 6 whack jobs peeking out from their bomb shelters every once in a while.

FREEDOM, whether or not is a myth in practice, is pretty much the quintessential aspect of being American. It is pounded into us from childhood and I'd be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who wouldn't put it as the number one priority in life: the freedom to choose to live how one wants.

There is something wrong with our society....1 closed circuit security camera for every 14 citizens....

[Catherina]

102. So we're back to Anyone but Bush?

I was expecting so much more. If a Presidential campaign that enthused so many of us and can't count on the support of racists who stormed out over the color of his skin has to rely on ABB, we're in trouble, especially now that the activist base is asking questions and not getting any answer from a crack team that never wasted a moment before in communicating with supporters.

[emilyg]

65. Cheers!

[Democrats_win]

7. Keating 5. Can we trust another crook in the White House?

McCain will keep us safe, just as bush did on 9/11 and in Katrina New Orleans.

Count on an October Surprise: Willie Horton is still alive!

The past 28 years proves Americans like GOP BS. Mmmmm Tasty. They love higher oil prices, low wages, long hours and nada benefits. They love watching corporate crooks steal their pensions and then refuse to pay taxes by opening facades in the Caribbean.

Bend over, America, for a third helping of compassionate conservatism. This time, make room for our Chinese creditors and the Saudi princes. (Oh, yeah, the Saudi princes already had us on 9/11. They're still alive! Hey, why not hang THESE willie horton's around the necks of the GOP? Americans are the only ones paying for 9/11.)

[Catherina]

103. No. We can't.

But that's not the most encouraging sell especially from a candidate who aroused so much support for issues people cared about so strongly.

[hokies4ever]

8. He's also cutting into McCain's maverick brand

since a favorite Republican talking point involves asking when if ever Obama has gone against the grain of his party.

[polichick]

9. Very well could be.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. I personally am not willing to give up my personal liberties and expectation of privacy

just so Obama will have an easier October.

He has 4 months to build an insurmountable lead.

We have had 4th Amendment protections since 1791.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

13. If Obama loses, McCain will continue down the Bush path of destruction.

I don't like the FISA vote, but I also recognize the sleaziness of the Republicans. Some of them probably are dying for another attack because they have absolutely nothing else to run on.

[PBS Poll-435]

16. If Obama can't win with superior "grass-roots" support

Tons of cash,

Bush fatigue,

An economy in ruins,

While defending our constitution from irreperable harm,

:shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. He doesn't have the media behind him, has a funny sounding name and is labelled "exotic" *winkwink*

It's a racist country and a right leaning country and a country that elected an incompetent moron TWICE. Also, no matter how much cash he has, there are going to be ridiculous numbers of 527 ads against him.

I thought Gore would win hands down. I thought Kerry would squeak out a win. But no. Here we are with Bush for EIGHT YEARS because the American people have a short term memory and are willing to trade away freedom for hollow reassurances of safety

[PBS Poll-435]

25. I wholly disagree with everything you just said

This is not a racist country.

There is a small percentage of people that live in this country that have racist tendencies.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. Would so many people believe he was a muslim terrorist if he weren't a dark skinned man named Obama?

[PBS Poll-435]

28. What? Like the ten percent who worship Hannity?

Jaysus.

"so many" believed that because Obama was an unknown.

The more he is out there, the less people are going to believe those crazy lies.

It is called a campaign.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. Even people who have sincerely good intentions can be biased.

My aunt (an Obama supporter) remarked that Obama was well spoken "for a black man". Racism is institutionalized and it will be a long long long time before it's gone.


Problem is, that as Obama is campaigning to become more well known, the Republicans will be campaigning to paint him as this or that. They certainly can't run on McCain's record.

[dflprincess]

33. Gore won the popular vote in 2000

and both the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen. Bush wasn't elected even once. As George Carlin said "I call him Governor Bush because that's the last office he was legally elected to."

[PBS Poll-435]

37. Yep

:thumbsup:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

38. That's true.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. And Presidents have been ignoring those protections since John Adams

Ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? Presidents ignoring the constitution because it is convenient for them has about 200 years of precedent. I want Obama to respect the constitution but unlike some on this board, I realize that George W Bush isn't the first and won't be the last President to ignore the constitution.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. I expect Obama to start repairing the damage if he gets elected

And I don't believe the "But _____ did it first" is a good excuse. But he is such a far and away superior candidate than McCain that unless he burns down an orphanage between now and then, I am voting for him.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. No it's not a good excuse but perspective is important

I also fully expect Obama to start repairing the damage and I am confident he will. I do not expect Obama to make it so that no President will ever again take liberties with the constitution.

[dflprincess]

27. Gee all the other presidents ignore the Consitution so it must be okay.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Never said it was okay

Just that it's unrealistic to expect one man to completely overturn 200 years of precedent. I expect Obama will do lots of things that I'm not okay with.

[dflprincess]

39. He should stand up for the Constitution

I am not willing to sacrifice my rights for anyone's political ambitions.

Good God, if this attitude had won in Philadelphia in 1776 we'd be singing "God Save the Queen" before baseball games. If there hadn't been people willing to stand up for what was right (even if it wasn't politcally expedient) and contrary to nearly 200 years of precedent, Obama might not be running for president.

And, while we're talking about one man standing up, Paul Wellstone stood up and voted against the IWR - even though he was told it would cost him his election. But, he got a boost in the polls after he did it.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. And if the founding fathers hadn't caved on outlawing slavery

We'd be singing "God Save the Queen" before baseball games. There are times when you take a stand and times when you compromise to live to fight another day.

[dflprincess]

44. By the time the Constitution came along, we were past singing the British anthem

I think you mean the Declaration of Independence.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Yes, just corrected myself

Although if the nation had split into North and South by the time of the constitution we likely would have been vulnerable enough to be conquered again by the British.

[charlyvi]

47. And caving on slavery turned out so well, didn't it?

Obama knows Constitutional law. He knows the ramifications of this bill...and he's voting for it anyway. To trust President Obama, or President McCain, or any President at all to give up this power once he has it is a dangerous path to tread.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. We wouldn't be a country if we hadn't caved on slavery

The southern states would not have signed the Delcaration of Independence and the revolution would not have stood a chance. I think slavery could've been ended much sooner than it was. But 1776 was not the time to do it.

[charlyvi]

56. But the point I'm making is it still ended up horribly.....

you know that. And this bill will lead to power that ends up horribly... Obama knows that. But, then again, he is the one that will have the power, most likely. Think about that. All for a yes vote he doesn't have to make.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. The outcome is going to be the same no matter how he votes

Reid has already cut a deal with the White House and that means he can deliver 51 votes even if most of them come from the GOP side of the aisle. It already went to cloture today and got 80 votes for cloture. Obama could lead the charge against it in the Senate and he still would have no chance to get the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster.

I agree that the bill is bad. But Obama is simply not in any position to stop it. People need to realize that Obama can't stop all of the bad things that our government does.

[charlyvi]

72. I'm not saying he can stop it.

I am saying he can vote against it. I am saying he can tell me he is not a panderer. He can tell me he believes in the rule of law. He can tell me he does not think I'm a coward, willing to sell my privacy rights down the crapper for "security". He can stand up to the bullshit we've been put through for the last seven years.

[Hippo_Tron]

77. Until someone figures out a way that he can do that and win a presidential election

You're going to have to hold your nose while he panders and have some faith that he believes in the rule of law.

[charlyvi]

80. Why do you think he can't win if he votes against this?

[Hippo_Tron]

84. It's not that he can't win, but it's very very risky to vote against it

Mostly for the reasons mentioned in the OP. If god forbid there is a terrorist attack before election day, even if it is a small one, the RNC would have this card to exploit to no end. Remember that most of the Dems in the Senate are on board with this. The McCain and the RNC will talk about how he voted with the 15 "ultra liberal" Senators against the will of the country.

There also simply isn't an adamant enough civil liberties constituency that Obama can woo over by taking a firm stand on this. If the libertarians in the west all voted Democratic for privacy issues or were at least swing voters then I guarantee you that the Democratic Party would be singing a different tune on FISA. But they vote reliably Republican for guns and taxes which pretty much guarantees that there is no united pro-privacy rights front.

We are starting to see this change with the emergence of Democrats like Brian Schweitzer who can unite liberals and libertarians and that is very good for privacy rights. But it's not happening overnight and Obama is looking at an electoral map where the sensible political thing to do is to pander to people who are scared shitless about another possible terrorist attack rather than take a stand and try to appeal to people who value privacy rights.

[charlyvi]

92. Sorry. Not buying it.

He can frame it as amnesty for the telecoms. What constituency does AT&T have? He can frame it as "I cannot give AT&T amnesty for spying on you--it's unfair to you, therefore, I cannot vote for this bill". Another terrorist attack? Then Bush hasn't really kept us safe, has he? Thinking that another terrorist attack benefits McCain is accepting the right wing frame. He is running against a party that is synonymous with corruption, a president that has the lowest approval rating of any in history, an economy in tatters, and a war that has lasted six years when it was supposed to be over in a matter of weeks. Obama is acting from a position of strength. He does not have to cave on FISA. But he does not seem to know this. I think that people don't want to live in fear; they will welcome someone who tells them they have "nothing to fear but fear itself". This goes beyond privacy issues.

[Catherina]

104. How well has holding our noses while our politicians pandered worked out for us so far?

It's been a disaster.

[charlyvi]

42. Voting "no" on FISA is not overturning 200 years of precedent.

It's voting "no" on FISA. You aren't saying it's okay, but you are saying it's understandable. That's pretty weak sauce. He's a constitutional law professor, for Christ's sake. He knows what he is doing. So much for the new politics. He's a politician after all. And this is much worse than pandering on energy policy, abortion or labor issues. This is fundamental--it's the fucking Fourth Amendment. He knows better. He can win this thing without this vote. There is no rationalization that can put lipstick on this pig.

[Hippo_Tron]

93. Never said he was anything more than a politician

And I've never seen the "new politics" as anything more than a marketing tool. Marketing can bring about change, however. If marketing gets more progressive minded people involved in politics then they can push our representatives to the left.

Nothing that Obama says about change or new politics is untrue. He is going to bring about change and he will do things differently. It's just going to be a hell of a lot less dramatic than some of his supporters expect.

[charlyvi]

98. I guarantee you

voting for this bill will not get more progressive people involved. At least not the progressives I know.

[Catherina]

105. I beg to differ on one point, "He can win this thing without this vote"

He may lose this thing by not showing the leadership and fight for change that sold his platform. It's not wise to dampen the enthusiasm of your activist base. He would have won very big if he'd led the charge to fight this rather than settling for a "compromise" that gives Bush more than he'd even asked for. You can't participate in Pelosi's charade and stand for significant change at the same time.

[Two Americas]

94. highly misleading

The Alien and Sedition acts, and Lincoln's suspension of the writ during the Civil War when Washington DC was cut off from the rest of the country by insurgents - as specifically spelled out and permitted in the Constitution - do not make for "200 years of precedent."

[cbc5g]

34. To the OP..many here don't understand at all how presidential politics works

Obama is miles ahead of most of you.

He CANNOT give them talking points that he is weak on terror. Weakness on terror means you lose. Most people don't understand what the fourth amendment means. Doesn't mean Obama is against the constitution, it means he's for our party winning so the constitution can slowly be restored.

[dflprincess]

40. "Trust me - I'll just vote to undo the Constitution today

but I'll restore it later - maybe in the 2nd term because it would be too risky to work on that in a first term."

[charlyvi]

48. Exactly. We have a winner. n/t

[cbc5g]

50. His is just one vote. He's not going to be caught as weak on terror and waste political capital

when others can filibuster.

He's got the progressive vote anyways. See, you're not thinking politically, you're thinking like a purist. Purist's like Dennis Kucinich will never win, centrists do.

Our mission is to get a democrat as President and Obama has to do what he thinks is right to get into office. The differences are MAJOR and I think everyone knows that now.

[dflprincess]

52. I'm thinking like an American

I'm thinking like someone who was taught to revere the Constitution as the document that made the United States what is was and what it could aspire to be.

[cbc5g]

54. And you're thinking like someone who loses elections

Which is why we've only had 1 Dem President, a centrist President, in..what is it.. 4 decades? You make the mistake of thinking that average Americans are as smart as you or me. They don't know the fourth amendment. They know terror.

[dflprincess]

58. If we lose the Constitution it won't matter who wins the election

because we've already lost America.

We've had 2 Democratic presidents in 4 decades (I think you forgot Carter) we would have had more if the last two elections had been honestly run.

Actually, I think the average American cares more about their personal economic situation. The cost of gas and food is going mean way more this year than terra-ists.

[cbc5g]

64. Again, Obama is one vote and it's going to pass anyways

Do we lose more of the Constitution with McCain or slowly heal with Obama? I think we know what the choice is.

[dflprincess]

69. Wellstone was one vote and the IWR passed anyway

Yet, he stood for what was right.

And what makes you so sure we'll heal at all with Obama? I expect he'll just find more "good" reasons to sell us out? It's easier to fight to keep something rather than try and get it back after it's been lost.

[cbc5g]

73. Look at his issues and compare them with McCain...Supreme Court..hello???

One more RW justice and we are screwed, you know that just as much as I.

[dflprincess]

132. Pro death penalty, anti-Fourth Amendment

a plan to for health insurance, but not for health care.

What or who will he throw under the bus next to get elected?

[charlyvi]

53. Game not over.

Voting yes on FISA so as not to be seen as weak on terror is pandering. You can call it "politically thinking" if you wish, but it's still pandering.

[Runcible Spoon]

121. again with the "purity" bullshit.

don't expect anyone to take your argument seriously when you are using ridiculously unfair and inaccurate charged descriptors.

"purity" is just a sneakier way of accusing someone of "if you're not with us (100%, ironically, so you tell ME who the "purists" are!) you're against us"

[Zodiak]

128. Centrists don't get anything done

So what is the point of winning?

And if "purists" never won, you wouldn't have Kucinich to hold up as an example. He's elected, you know.

[Forkboy]

81. Oh, I get it.

Trust me...I get it.

[cbc5g]

83. Good, glad you understand how things work

Fuckin whiners here are pissing me off. It's almost like they want McCain to win so they can whine for 4 more years.

[Forkboy]

89. I know. I hate those losers with ideals and shit.

They piss me off big time. :mad:

[Zodiak]

129. LOL Forkboy

Sarcasm lost on the recipient

[Catherina]

106. Weak on terror? Nobody is buying the terror charade anymore

except a bunch of people who are voting for McCain to begin with. This is pandering against the people's wishes. Obama is following very bad advice from people who have a vested interest in keeping this terror thing going.

[GihrenZabi]

122. "Change"

Nor can Obama campaign in the primaries about "changing the way Washington works" and "having faith in the American people" and then play the game the way it's always been played and show no faith in Americans whatsoever by ostensibly thinking that if he votes "No" on FISA that the whole country will turn on him.

The ends don't justify the means. Sorry.

[Marie26]

36. No, he's trying to piss off the left

And succeeding. Do you think those "uninformed voters" will care about a FISA vote or even know what FISA is?

[GoldieAZ49]

43. good point, middle America doesn't follow all the votes in congress

nor do they care to know. Their political involvement is voting on election day and that is about it.

[Catherina]

107. Which totally supports NOT voting for it.

If middle Amnerica isn't following this, it's a net loss for Obama to piss off the people who are following it. He has nothing to gain by voting for it.

[Marie26]

115. Besides power. nt

[dflprincess]

136. Last summer Amy Klobuchar voted for FISA when it came up

Both she and her staff were overwhelmed by the negative reaction plain old regular Minnesotans had to that vote. The next time it came up, she voted against it (still waiting to hear what she's doing this time).

I think the public may pay more attention than you think.

[dflprincess]

49. And if the left stops writing checks, or making phone calls and doesn't show up on election day

does he think he can win?

I know two people who have called his campaign and asked for their donations back. And that check I was planning to write - not gonna happen (not that the amount I could afford will mean much).

[Marie26]

57. I think he thinks he can.

The left is in the bag, John McCain is hopeless, he doesn't need the extensive ground operation he had in the primaries. All Obama needs is some independents to tip the swing states; so he swings to the right. IMO the anger of the left is actually something Obama wants to prove to independents that he's not a "bleeding-heart liberal." Just IMO.

[dflprincess]

61. I don't know many people on the left who ever thought of him as a bleeding heart liberal

I know the press and the right try to paint him that way but most the progressives I know have never been that impressed with him. He was certainly not their first choice and I don't think he should assume we're in the bag.

[Marie26]

67. I wasn't talking about the left,

but independent voters. "Bleeding-heart" liberal is pretty much a label that Ind/Republicans use to deride progressive politicians. It's a label that Obama wants to avoid - and so today he pisses off the ACLU & stands up for the death penalty. These stances will impress your average Independent voter that Obama isn't one of those pansy bleeding-hearts. And of course the left is in the bag - who are they going to vote for? McCain? Obama knows he can ultimately count on the left to vote for him; it's the moderates & conservatives that he's targeting.

[charlyvi]

59. I will vote for him....

But if he votes yes, no money comes from me.

[cbc5g]

60. Yeah like they will not vote and help McCain win..no progressive will do that

:eyes:

McCain is RW on every issue..this is just one issue.

By the time the election comes around, no one will be thinking of this issue and you will vote Obama. Obama knows that, I know that, DU knows that. What other choice do you have to bring better change to America?

I mean, I guess he could take left wing positions on everything, make you happy, and lose in a landslide. Will that help America? NO.

[Larkspur]

74. This progressive's pocketbook is closed to Obama

Yeah, I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama the Coward in November but he can pay for his Prez ambitions out of his own pocketbook.

[cbc5g]

75. And if the Supreme Court goes RW because McCain is elected

You shouldn't even complain about it.

[Larkspur]

82. Obama has a lot more money than I do

Since he doesn't support our 4th Amendment rights, I don't see a need to fund his Prez ambitions from my pocketbook.

Obama can prostitute himself to those "centrist" voters he is pandering to. Let them fund his campaign.

[cbc5g]

85. You have no idea what you are even talking about

The same thinking that got Dukakis defeated heavily. And you'll never understand, which is why Obama doesn't pander for your vote. Try running for President sometime and see how it works for your purist thinking.

[dailykoff]

86. Why are you humping a RW talking point?

Seriously. This thread is pure propaganda. On second thought, please don't answer, I already know.

[cbc5g]

87. 2 Dem presidents in 4 decades proves

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh NM you are smarter than Obama. Lets bow to this defeatist thinking.

:eyes:

[Larkspur]

113. Spoken like a true Obama-bot

Obama-bots are not much different in their zealotry than the Right wingers are of their ideology. Both are Totalitarians.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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

[dflprincess]

131. Democrats lose because they have ceased to stand for anything

and let the Republicans define the debate.

[GihrenZabi]

124. Getting the donation back

Let us know if that happens.

I want my campaign donation back, as well. Fooled me once, shame on him.

Not gonna fool me twice. And I want my money back. :)

[GoldieAZ49]

46. And if McCain wins, he has all the spying power he wants compliments of the dems

what excuse is there then?

[Catherina]

108. I don't understand that people don't get that point.

And even if Obama wins, what about future Presidents? Way to cement a really bad precedent that if a President says something is legal, then it is.

[GoldieAZ49]

110. They are not thinking. They are in an appeasement or apologist mindset

No POTUS should have this power, none, dem or repub or indie, not now, not ever

Once this is passed it will never be surrendered.

Nixon would love this POS bill...it will make a Nixon out of every future POTUS, it will just be legal for them.

[madfloridian]

55. That's how we got into Iraq. Now we are giving incompetent Bush more power.

By not giving them any talking points.

We are still there. It is bankrupting our country, and we are still afraid of the right wing's wrath.

We are giving the most incompetent president in history more spying power.


Please stop rationalizing this.

[iconicgnom]

62. "In 2004, a few days before the election, Osama bin Laden released a videotape"

Convenient, esp. since Osama bin Laden is dead.

[Carrieyazel]

66. I don't get how the FISA vote innoculates Obama in any way.

They won't be attacking him on FISA. They'll be attacking Obama on "regular civilian trials" for terrorists, wanting to talk unconditionally to our "enemies", having no foreign policy experience and so forth.

Some issues will matter, others will be non-issues. If he focuses too much on the non-issues, it won't make any difference.

[crankychatter]

78. it doesn't... this is just a conspiracy theory - NT

[Larkspur]

68. That's DLC type b.s.

Obama should have reframed the FISA and national security debate as an attack on ALL Americans 4th Amendment rights and protecting lawbreakers and punishing those who upheld the law. Shame on Obama. He's a disgrace to the US Constitution.

[cbc5g]

88. He hasn't even voted yet and you call him a disgrace to the Constitution

You defeatists and your purist ilk make me sick.

[Larkspur]

114. Obama proved my point yesterday with his disgusting remarks

Ben Franklin would have slapped him silly over his "protecting Americans is more important" than upholding the rule of law and Americans civil rights.

Obama is another pirate masquerading as a politician.

[GihrenZabi]

123. Translation:

"You people who thought Obama was really about change but who are angry that he's showing his true colors now make me sick."

[Larkspur]

126. I never believed Obama was about real change

He was the lesser of 2 evils for me in CT's primary. The Clintons and the DLC had to be broken. Obama was just a tool and the most viable candidate by Feb. 5 to do that.

[BeyondGeography]

130. There's always Nader, if taking a shower every time you support Obama becomes too much for you

[Larkspur]

135. Never said I'd vote for Nader

I did say that I'd hold my nose and vote for obama. There's nothing in the Dem Party rule book that says we HAVE to donate to the Dem Prez candidate.

[dailykoff]

70. Oh bullshit. If there's an October surprise it will prove wiretaps don't prevent "terrorism."

Don't believe everything you hear.

[Larkspur]

71. This is a classic case of Obama the Dem cowering before Right wing stereotypes of Dems

Obama is a political coward, just like the other Dem leaders. That's not the kind of change we need.

[seaglass]

125. And pretty much proves that if he was in the Senate for the IWR

vote, he would have voted for it.

[stevietheman]

134. No, it doesn't, because he wouldn't have been running for President at the time.

Extrapolation doesn't equal proof.

[Democratic Lawyer]

90. Agreed

Good insight

[Catherina]

109. If anyone could convince the unbelievers of the bullshit of the terror thing

it's Obama.

[ToeBot]

111. Uh ha, October 2012. nt