How I think we can understand the FISA anger and make peace

[GihrenZabi]

This may be a lone voice in the wilderness post, but I think the FISA issue, while almost beating a dead horse, needs to be approached with some different thinking before we can peace about it here.

Admission: I was pissed as hell at Obama over his stance on FISA. I called his campaign office, wrote to them, and removed myself from his mailing lists. Right now, I am not interested in donating to his campaign.

After talking with my father-in-law about this, I realized that he didn't understand why I was so angry, and I see people on these boards having the same problem understanding the anger...and I think I may be able to phrase it in a way which makes it more understandable, or perhaps palatable, to those who don't understand why those of us who are pissed, are pissed:


I believe that Barack Obama is a candidate who has the political cache and personal charisma to be able to take principled stances and not have it stick to him.

Thus, when someone talks about "political realities" explaining why Obama has to take the stance he is taking, I find myself not being able to buy the argument. If he were any other politician, I could see his standing against FISA as being a "Dukakis death penalty" moment that could get him tarred and feathered with the "preposterous Liberal" label and losing to McCain.

He isn't any other politician. He has revolutionized how one funds a political campaign, and ran one of the cleanest campaigns I've ever seen - and look what he did.

HE BEAT THE CLINTON MACHINE.

I am NOT saying that to rub anything in to any Clinton supporters, but to point out the raw power and influence this man has accrued.

After 8 years of The Bush Doctrine of bowing to Executive power, taking the country in the obviously wrong direction, the lies, the secrecy, this country could not be MORE primed for a Democratic President. I do not see any way in hell how Obama is going to lose this election short of putting on a turban, declaring himself Muslim, and shouting "Down with America!" on national television.

Best case scenario, he wins in a landslide. Worst case, he wins with a smaller margin - but McCain doesn't have a chance in hell. I don't believe that is overconfidence - I believe that is the honest truth. The size of the gaffe Obama would have to commit in order to lose this election is simply not within my estimation of his intelligence or caliber.

So, look at this from the point of view of a Progressive:

1) We have a nominee who, generally-speaking, is a fairly Liberal thinker.
2) We have a nominee who is on the cusp of the sort of mandate a Democratic President hasn't had for, what, decades?
3) We have a political climate which is more conducive to some genuine, Progressive change in our government, than it has been also for decades.

Can you now understand why Progressives are upset that Obama has walked away from a major, major opportunity to beat back the civil rights abuses of the Bush Doctrine?

*He has the ability to take that stand without losing anything.*

There's nothing more frustrating than untapped potential and missed opportunities - progressives and liberals have been literally starving to death for some sort of representation in our government outside isolated voices like Kucinich and Feingold.

So, when we have a PRESIDENTIAL candidate who actually has the ability to represent us even just a *little* and he turns his back on us for political expediencies which we do not believe he needs to worry about, it hurts. A lot.

Understand that the anger at Obama is based on being hurt - anger always comes from hurt. It comes from having such tremendous amounts of faith in his potential to bring about the change that he promised.

In the end, every person who is so angry about this for non-partisan reasons (i.e. sniping at the candidate they didn't want to win the primary) is a fervent Obama supporter at heart. So I believe.

Perhaps, with the understanding that it is deep-rooted hope in Obama's potential that drives this anger, and not an inherent desire for "purity" or to have our progressive p.o.v. represented 100% or a desire to be divisive, it might be easier for others to understand and be less critical of that anger?


To be fair, on the other side, those of us who are angry need to try and have some faith that Obama knows what he is doing. It is entirely possible that there are political machinations in play to kill this bill further down the line. Never forget what happened to Kerry when procedural votes were held against him - votes which really spoke nothing of his true positions.

I'm pissed, but I won't bail on Obama entirely yet. My political loyalty is bought and paid for with kept promises. Backing off from ideology is a strike, but not the third strike. Actions speak louder than words...we just need to keep an eye on Obama's actions in the coming months.

While I don't think Machiavellian thought serves the Left in the slightest, there IS the possibility that when Obama takes office he may step a little left of center as that does seem to be at the heart of his political philosophy...

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. I feel like I am the only one here who isn't livid over FISA

I called my congressman and I think I understand why it was approved. His office told me that Ashcroft told the phone companies that what they were being asked to do was perfectly legal.

I am not a phone company but if the Attorney General of the United States told me something was legal, I would be inclined to believe him. :shrug:

The real evil here is in the Bush administration. I honestly understand why Congress wants to give immunity to the phone companies.

[GihrenZabi]

3. The anger isn't about immunity

For those of us who are angry, I think most of us could care less about the immunity - it is FISA itself that we are opposed to.

Progressives tend not to think that the Executive Branch should have the amount of power that Bush and Cheney have endowed it with over eight years. It threatens Separation of Powers.

FISA is blatantly in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and a product of the hysteria following 9/11, hysteria which the Bush Administration did plenty to fuel.

A Progressive wants FISA struck down entirely. :)

[evlbstrd]

4. The CEO of Qwest seemed to understand that it was illegal.

The others must simply be naive?
And at this stage, our reps have to understand that it was illegal. Why do they still support it? Money.

[GihrenZabi]

6. Not Obama

Be fair - I am aware of no financial ties between Obama and any corporate entity which profits by the enactment of FISA.

If you have the evidence, please share links as that would be important information for progressives who are, essentially, continuing the process of vetting the Democratic nominee.

Otherwise, idle speculation doesn't help us all that much.

[evlbstrd]

15. I wasn't clear.

Obama had a chance to lead and didn't.
The comment about money applies to congress in general.

maplight.org has comiled a list of Democrats who changed their voting to support immunity for Telcos:

PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint (January 2005 - March 2008).
http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. I found an interesting post on a conservative blog yesterday

Listing the money each of our area Democrats have received from telecoms. Of course, the blogger failed to mention how much area Republicans have received.

I trust Cleaver. And I can forgive him for this one wrong vote. As for Moore, I am just adding it to the list of reasons I can't stand him anyway. LOL

[evlbstrd]

16. I'm very disappointed in Cleaver.

And he was on that list.
McCaskill just makes me more and more angry.

[ReadTomPaine]

11. You would trust John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales?

Some of these companies did the right thing. They got punished, and now the ones who broke the law go free? Just because someone in authority tells you to do something that doesn't make it a good idea to comply. All these companies have huge legal departments and some of them decided that the AG was full of BS - it's not like these were trustworthy people at some point and then everything changed.

If the stakes were less drastic I might agree with you here, but if there were ever a time to take a firm stand - from the telecoms, to the Dem controlled congress right on up to our candidate.. this was it. This situation will hurt Dems in every way - there was nothing to be gained by caving after all the political capital and grandstanding spent getting here. We lost the 4th doing this. We may never get it back. That's too high a price to pay for virtually nothing in return, and it would still be too high a price even if we got plenty back for this capitulation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Well I have always hated the Bush administration

But back in 2001 and 2002, most Americans were still not aware of how truly evil they are.

[evlbstrd]

2. The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable.

I don't care if you're left, center or right.
If he caves, he doesn't deserve my dollars or my vote.
The downside, of course, is McCain. Once again, we're in a position of choosing between bad and not quite as bad.

[GihrenZabi]

5. That's what I'm saying

He may not have caved...yet.

If you live in a battleground state, not voting for Obama as a result of how things currently stand on FISA is, IMHO, a more emotional reaction than serves us. I agree with those emotions 110%, but seek to inspire temperance based on *some* acceptance of political reality.

Obama voted for cloture, I believe, which is not a "Yes" vote on the bill, but a vote to bring it up for a vote, correct? It is a procedural vote.

I'm pissed he passed up an opportunity to stand against FISA in principle like I would expect him to, but he hasn't voted "Yes" on the bill yet.

And we can see from the voting that a "No" vote on cloture would have been fucking pointless. The bill was going through. Part of being a good leader might be argued as not bucking the public will if it's inevitable unless you're in some sort of emergency situation.

So let's see how he votes on the actual bill IF it comes to a vote. It still may get killed further down the line. The plans may already have been laid.

[evlbstrd]

10. I was never convinced Obama is a progressive.

I wasn't an early supporter and only support him now because he's the nominee. There is no other choice.
He needs to show me (I'm in Missouri, a battleground state). My senator voted for cloture. We elected her to replace Jim Talent (R) and she immediately voted for war funding. We gave the dems a mandate against the war and for impeachment in '06 and they still quake in their booties. I'm completely fed up. I will not money or any other campaign support. They're all lucky I'll vote in November. It may be the last time. And I haven't missed an election since my first one in 1974.

[saracat]

7. And that is the quandary.The presidential oath is to protect and defend the constitution.

FISA is an insult to the constitution. I do not understand, no matter what convoluted explanation is given, why any candidate would support it.It is just wrong.

[SidneyCarton]

9. We are operating a concentration camp at Guantanamo,

Our Current President has used signing statements to such an extent, that technically he has no need for the legislature, nor do they provide an effective check against executive power. (Short of impeachment that is, which the spineless Pelosi has removed from the table.) We engage in torture of enemy combatants, not only through proxy states at black site prisons, but using our own troops as well. Habeas Corpus, a pillar of the common law for over 700 years has been suspended, and only recently reinstated by the Supreme Court, a ruling that is likely to be ignored.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights may not be negotiable, but at present they are not being enforced either. The sad and simple truth is that if those to whom we have entrusted the execution of the law (according to the Constitution this is the executive branch) refuse to execute it, and those entrusted to check the power of the executor (the legislative branch) refuse to perform their duties, then unfortunately these basic foundational documents of American democracy become mere "scraps of paper" In order to restore our rights, we must put a person into power who believes in executing the law. Playing into the RW's hands by participating in their manufactured crisis and outrage will not strengthen our abilities to do so.

[knixphan]

8. He's a centrist.

It's our job to make Congress 65% liberal.

Let's do it.

Especially those of us who sport Republican Senators and Reps.

The Progressive movement begins in our own backyards.

[wurzel]

13. It is the equivalent of wearing the flag pin.

Obama has taken the lesson Howard Dean taught about guns. He is not going to give the M$M a target by tilting at windmills.

[evlbstrd]

17. The constitution is a windmill?

I beg to differ.

[BzaDem]

18. Obama is not nearly as optimistic about his chances as you are.

He realizes that this has the potential to be a close election. You keep giving him so much credit for beating the Clinton machine. You should respect his campaign's view that this might not be a landslide, and he needs to run a strong campaign to win.

The fact that he beat the Clinton machine just meant that he knew what he had to do in a primary. He had to go to the left.

The general election is won in the middle (according to most objective political scientists). It is also won based upon (often unfair) perceptions, and Obama needs to do the best he can to avoid these.

Obama made a decision that voting for this bill was the best political decision he could make to win. It doesn't really affect much in practice, as the filibuster would be defeated anyway. You disagree with him on the merits of his position, and you probably also disagree with him that this is a good political strategy (even just to win over independents).

But the decision is done. Made. Just like that. After due criticism, it is time to move on. Continuing to be angry, not donating, taking yourself off mailing lists, etc. is not productive in preventing McCain from winning. You may be angry that Obama missed such a good opportunity, and in general that Obama isn't the perfect candidate you have envisioned. That's really the same kind of anger that many of us have when our favorite candidate doesn't win the primary. But we move on. We keep our eye on the prize. We realize that in a representative democracy, we are always going to have to pick an imperfect candidate, who doesn't agree with us on all issues (including issues that are very important to us), and who does what is necessary to be competitive. Thousands of years of political science is not going to be made irrelevant by one candidate.