Something that bothers me...

[CoffeeCat]

When Obama was campaigning in Iowa, before the caucuses--I was undecided about which
candidate I would support. After a great deal of research and many conversations with
field staff and volunteers from many candidate camps--Barack Obama called me.

We discussed my "undecided" status and he wanted to know why I was undecided.

I told him my greatest concern was the Constitution and our civil rights. I told him
that I was afraid, and that I felt that our current leaders were ignoring the basic
tenents that our Founding Fathers laid down.

Obama agreed. He said he didn't like Bush's "Unitary Executive mentality" and that he
would not operate that way as President. Obama also told me that he was a Constitutional
Scholar and we discussed how he taught Constitutional Law for nearly a decade.

I was impressed.

I was jotting down notes as we spoke and I wrote down, "Telco immunity" because I wanted to make
sure to ask him about that. I asked him directly, "Are you for granting the telecommunication companies
immunity?" He said, "No."

I understand he may have a good reason and a political rationale for voting "Yes", if in fact, he does
vote "Yes." I can always listen to a good argument and understand that someone has a well-thought-out
reason for voting in a way with which I would disagree.

However, what bothers me in this case--is that he told me that he wasn't for immunity.

I have been a very big supporter of Barack Obama, and I continue to be. However, this inconsistency
bothers me--especially on this important issue.

[peace13]

1. It is sad and exhausting.

Hope he doesn't sell his soul too early. Don't know how much of this I can take.

[truedelphi]

3. Your comment about him selling his soul

Nails it for me.

AND HE IS SUPPOSEDLY A cONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR. <SIGH>

[gateley]

2. I understand how you feel.

It bothers me, too. A lot. :hug:

[Catherina]

4. You're not alone

:hug: It bothers me immensely. The vote is bad enough but the the pandering statement to both sides of the issue and the silence from a crack team that normally puts out fires of miscomprehension immediately is bothering me just as much.

[The Doctor.]

5. Did you read the bill as is?

The immunity issue is a little more complex than we've been led to think?

[NorthCarolina]

27. Yes, the problem is that there are pending private lawsuits

that if allowed to proceed to trial would likely implicate not only Bush Administration officials, but also many Congressional Leaders as well. There is a reason for the utter desperation to push this through on the Fast Track, and at all costs...including political costs.

Knowing full well how unpopular this Legislation is with their constituents, and that there is the possibility they will pay a hefty political price down the line for supporting this legislation, it can only BE that this is little more than a CYA maneuver. Bet on it.

[Speck Tater]

6. Obviously you have no choice but to vote for McCain. NT

[goldcanyonaz]

7. That is not fari, can no one say anything here?

[Speck Tater]

13. Your right. It wasn't fair. My apologies.

It just seems like no sooner did Obama clinch the nomination than everyone starts running him down. I imagine that once he becomes president we'll REALLY start ripping him to shreds. It's what we Democrats do best, it seems.

(Trivia: Googling the exact phrase "Democrats eat their young" returns 893 hits, while the phrase "Republicans eat their young" only gets 425 hits. Hmmm.)

United we stand. Divided we fall. The Repugs just LOVE watching us beat up on each other. But from a purely pragmatic standpoint, how can we ever hope to get any of our favorite reforms passed if, as has always happened, the Repugs vote as a single block and Dems bicker among themselves? It's sounds like some kind of Zen koan, but "when is a majority not a majority?" When that majority itself is so splintered and divided it can't vote "as a block" on anything. Voting in lockstep is why the Repugs still control congress in spite of the so-called Dem majority that's not a majority. It's why THEY get their way on everything, we WE get our way on nothing.

[JuniperLea]

34. It seems to me that no sooner did Obama clinch the nom...

Than he started flip-flopping.

I really don't give a flying rat's ass what the Republicans think of us. Dems have always bickered between themselves. The heat goes up and down with the times at hand, but it has always been so. All the bickering in the world will not put a new blush on McCain for anyone here.

Lock step is not progressive. Lock step is not a good thing. Don't be fooled.

[demokatgurrl]

40. Hear hear!

:thumbsup:

[GoldieAZ49]

9. If Dems vote the same as Repubs what is the difference? nt

[JuniperLea]

25. Lock step or goose step? You have a choice...

The progessive, liberal, Democratic way is NOT to use terms such as "love it or leave it" which is what you are saying... "support Obama or vote for McCain"... right out of the GOP playbook... are you proud?

[GoldieAZ49]

8. I don't want ANY POTUS to have the power to spy on American citizens.

Why is it even being voted on? It didn't have to be, and now with the cloture vote it is as good as done.

If McCain wins he has the power. Even if Obama wins no POTUS should have that power. It isn't going to go away if a republican is elected in 4 or 8 years.

It will NEVER go away, it will stay on the books for every POTUS.

[kevinmc]

10. Who knows .... if this bill was close enough and his No vote would win it .....

then I would be more concerned right now. But it is so onesided I think it is more of a political move than anything .... and that's just a wild ass guess .... I am gonna wait and see how the final vote turns out and will not like the outcome .... but I am not going to lay the blame on Obama. He isn't incharge of anything yet ..... and is on the road. I still believe he is the best person running right now and that's all I have to go by.

[demokatgurrl]

41. I disagree! He can still take a stand by voting his

conscience AND his stated principles. If he doesn't have the courage to do that now, what will happen when he is President and is faced with a terrible bill that he could veto, but would take a lot of political heat for doing so?????????

[anonymous171]

11. If he told you he wasn't for immunity, then his vote is political maneuvering .

[SwampG8r]

12. i look at the telco provisions as an allowance for fair play

the telcos are being forced to comply by the law
they dont have a choice without mounting a large and costly legal battle against the US government

to open them later to liabilities forced upon them is imo unfair
and i think obama has recognized this unfairness
i find my problem with the support of fisa in any way more distressing than the telco part of the overall bill

[WA98070]

14. QWEST didn't fall for it.

[Catherina]

22. Qwest fought it touth and nail and lost a lot of money (lucrative contracts)

to follow the law. This is how you get rewarded for following the law? By watching the law-breakers get retroactive immunity?

[FrenchieCat]

15. He said he wasn't for telecom immunity on Friday.......

the problem isn't what he's for or isn't for, the problem is that he's for what he can't get passed, even if he wanted to. :(

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want.But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php

[hedgehog]

26. Or, for those to busy beating their breasts because "Obama sold

his soul" that they can't read the full statement:

1. Obama took what he could get to put the FISA court back in charge of George Bush ASAP.

2. He is continuing to fight telecom immunity.

[sandypoo]

16. Do we really want McCain?

Obama could make history. He could be the first African American to sit in the white house. For the last 7 + years we've had pretty much a neocon spree in our government, and the Constitution has suffered as a result. I was a Hillary supporter and was disappointed she didn't win the nod. But we as Democrats and Progressives need to stand united behind Obama and end the madness. If we don't like something he has voted for, let him know in no uncertain terms.

McCain is pretty much McSame to me. He panders to the conservative right a little too much for my taste. :eyes:

[JuniperLea]

32. Welcome to DU, sandypoo!

No one wants McCain. I'm quite sure the vast majority of DUers will vote for Obama. That doesn't mean we have to swallow everything he dishes out. He's still better than McCain... but hell, my dogs droppings are better than McCain:)

:hi:

[miles 2 go]

17. Here's the thing.

He's all we have and I think overall he will be damned good at it. Someone posted here a week or two back that you can expect to see him move to the right during the election to pick up as many undecideds as possible. I think that is the kind of thing going on here. Remember, he said he would look at all the constitution busting laws that * put in and change them when he got into office.

I'm just saying that we need to give him a full chance. There's things he can't say to you because of it getting out in the media. I know it's disappointing and we can expect that he will not follow our every whim. No one could. We all have different ideas.

So, try to hold off your disappointment until after he is in office and then lets see what he does. I know it seems he lied to you but I'm sure he has reasons.

[CrispyQ]

19. I'm sick of the "move to the right to pick up as many undecideds as possible" meme.

What about those of us to the left? What about picking up our votes? My husband has already decided he won't vote for Obama. I'm not there yet, but damned disappointed in the "constitutional scholar." How many others like us are out there? If Obama & other right leaning dems, would defend the Constitution like they swore to, maybe they wouldn't have to move to the right to get more votes -- they could garner enough votes from their own base.

I feel like I'm watching a repeat of "drain the swamp" Pelosi.

:banghead:

[miles 2 go]

37. yeah, vote McCain he's much more to the left

I understand your frustration, We all have it. But not voting or refusing to vote for Obama is foolish. You know you have to do what you can to get the right wing out of power. It's a matter of survival of the US and perhaps the world now. There is not going to be a winnable candidate that is left enough for some of us and that includes me. But take what you can get. It's not *

[CrispyQ]

39. To paraphrase the famous philosopher, Donny Rumsfeld,

"You go with the candidate you've got, not the candidate you wish you had." :eyes:


My husband & I use that phrase all the time. ;)

[miles 2 go]

43. Yep

We will most likely never have an candidate that we agree with all the time. Kucinich (hope I spelled that right) was the candidate who most closely mirrored my feelings. Unfortunately the media wouldn't let the populace hear him and he didn't have a chance. Next I wanted Edwards but alas, the media "kuciniched" him too.

We now have Obama and I am liking him more all the time. He's not my perfect dream candidate but he is the one that won the spot and I support him. I'm betting that almost all of the non republicans will too. (at least the informed ones)

[rug]

18. Obama personally called you?

[nsd]

28. I guess it's good to be from Iowa. (nt)

[Peacetrain]

30. It is

:)

[Thrill]

20. You're not going to agree with Obama on everything. There is nothing wrong with that

.

[avaistheone1]

21. I am very disappointed In Obama. My list is growing.

His position on FISA is totally unacceptable to me. Obama is in AIPAC's pocket as well.

I am very, very disappointed in Obama. He is not the man or the change he campaigned as.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy1dL2p1lJY

[Catherina]

23. Were you an Obama supporter before? n/t

[Straight Shooter]

24. "Change" is a marketing slogan.

Barack Obama is being exactly what he has always been.

[Peacetrain]

29. I am from Iowa also.. I understand you hesitiations .. I have them

too.. But what he did, is so consistent with what he did in Illinois to move legislation forward (tremendous misunderstanding on how those votes are worked in Ill.).. that I think I see the light he is headed for

"Obama came down on the side of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who argued that a provision in the new law reaffirmed that FISA, and that act's courts, gives the final say over government spying. President Bush has argued that a war-time chief executive has powers that trump FISA.

"It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance -- making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law," Obama said today."

I see it as getting enough on board to move this forward.. first step.. get it out of the hands of one person.. that is what the presidency is.. so that who ever (and that includes Obama) cannot go around the law anytime they want to .. even using fear as a hammer

[shimmergal]

45. I hope this reading of it is right.

Certainly GWB is going to continue to spy across the board, on political opponents as well as maybe-terrorists, regardless of any provision of law. But, once he's out of office, it's important that future presidents know it's not lawful to follow his precedent.

[JuniperLea]

31. This really bothers me a lot

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06...


Given the grave threats that we face? Sez who? BushCo is the only drummer of that drum, and we're supposed to believe this? Our national security agencies DO NOW and have ALWAYS HAD the capability to gather intelligence, including wire taps that they can advise the courts of after the fact.


I'm hearing far too much of the same old bull out of Obama. I have no doubt this is political posturing, but it's also a load of bullshit. We're supposed to keep up the hope and change cheer based on same old shit? Please.

[wyldwolf]

33. Quick! Someone start another thread on the Clintons!!

[JuniperLea]

35. LOL! Yes! And be sure it's in the GD: P section!

Even though the Clintons have nothing at all to do with the current elections!

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

36. As if on cue... eom

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6414013

[FlyingSquirrel]

38. He's still in "Senator mode"

Just wait till he wins.

[democrattotheend]

42. He still opposes immunity

He just does not see it as a big enough issue to warrant opposing the entire bill. I am disappointed with his position but I am not sure I'd call it an inconsistency. He still opposes immunity.

[dailykoff]

44. The bill itself is a wretched piece of RW trash.

It retroactively legalizes their criminal domestic spying and makes it that much more difficult to prosecute for it. Read what Dodd had to say about it here:

http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/2008062514041/news/editorial-opinion/sen.-chris-dodd-against-the-fisa-eavesdropping-bill.html

Immunity or not, Obama shouldn't be endorsing unconstitutional domestic surveillance.

[MBS]

46. it bothers me, too.

I supported him strongly in the primaries, and, yes, I will vote for him in the GE. But I just can't figure out what's going on the last couple of weeks. I understand the political strategy required to reach the middle 1/3 of the country. But to me, the FISA issue is a real line in the sand, transcending electoral and partisan politics, and a chance to show real leadership and educate the country as to what's at stake (as the fine statements and speeches by Feingold, Dodd, and Kerry have done). Obama's decision is not only disappointing: it also just doesn't make sense to me.