FISA: At least when the "October Surprise terrorist attack" happens, it won't "all be Obama's fault"

[99th_Monkey]

At this point in time, I'm sticking with Obama despite his apparently "misguided and disgraceful" FISA vote.

Look, it's a long time until November folks. Lots can and will happen between now and then. This is NO time
to abandon and demean our presumptive nominee.

Obama knows this nation's being now ruled by Thugs with Big Guns who have no conscience whatsoever, who will
do any damn crazy treasonous thing to hold onto and further expand their fascist strangleholds on liberty
and democracy in the USA .. like ... ooopsie ... another 911 in October.

That is the kind of forward-looking strategic thinking that just might get this man elected President, IF
indeed we still have ANYthing like fair elections, and IF Dems can just for once not start forming up their
proverbial "circular firing squads" just yet ... which is yet another big IF.

Fiengold does not seem bothered by Obama's vote, so I'm not too bothered either.

GObama!!! Here's one supporter at least who's not bailing on you just yet.

[Lilith Velkor]

1. I will most likely die in that attack

but knowing how wisely Senator Obama will politicize my death is a great comfort. :eyes:

[BlueStater]

2. I'm confused about this talking point.

Wouldn't another terrorist attack prove that the spying HASN'T helped?!?

[Posteritatis]

7. Keep your logic out of my FUD! (nt)

[zbdent]

9. Bush and company were spying on the US citizens prior to 9/11/2001

and it didn't prevent the attacks then ...

[paparush]

14. Thank you for reminding everyone here of this. I tell people this all the time.

And I get the deer in the headlights stare in return.

Huh? Really?

Yep, they were spying before 9/11.

Huh? Really?

YES!

Huh...

[zbdent]

18. and, instead of torturing Osama bin Laden's family members to find him,

they flew them out of the country, under U.S. protection, while the rest of the country was in FAA lockdown ...

[paparush]

21. Yet another Inconvenient Truth

[99th_Monkey]

10. It's not Obama's talking point, it's the GOP's

Another "terrahist" attack and all bets are off as to whether we'll even have an election (See NSPD #51); much
less being able to elect a junior senator who "voted to protect the terrahists" ...

This kind of mindless GOP blather (i.e. the talking point) is what passes for "news" on M$M these daze.

I'm sure you must have noticed.

[Hieronymus]

11. Yes

[Enrique]

3. I agree, and it goes for Pelosi as well

as I'm sure it does you. :toast:

[O.M.B.inOhio]

4. Good Point

FISA was a damned if you do / damned if you don't situation. It would not be beneath the GOP/MSM lie factory to invent something to cast Obama as soft on terrorists, even something that causes real harm to people. Maybe it should not have come up for a vote at all, and Obama personally would not be to blame.
Ready to move on.

[AndyTiedye]

5. All of Which They Can Still Do Anyway

[izzie]

8. I do like the way Obama started better

I guess one gets the illness of wanting to be in the WH and it sort of moves one to watch what one will say. Bush did a lot of this also, one wondered if he was not a Dem. once Nov. came around. My bet is Obama will sound the same as Clinton did. It is almost like they are counting each vote before they say a thing. I end up thinking they are in one field and once in office will go back to being Dem. or in the GOP just as Clinton, RR or Bush did. In other words we will go progressive with Obama and stay in the pocket of big money with McCain. I also would not want to watch my hot dogs being made as that would also make me ill I am sure.

[Selatius]

6. If there is a terrorist attack, McCain wins. Period.

[comtec]

13. How?

Obama can easily say "See, we GAVE him what he SAID he needed , and they STILL hit US, and Mc-Same would be no different!?
THEIR way of bullying and pissing on the world hasn't worked, >I< will work towards making things ACTUALLY better!"

[paparush]

16. Because Obama will never get to say those words and they will never be heard.

The M$M will be in full blood and splatter coverage mode and any voice of dissent will be drowned out by info-babes and 24 hour repeating clip loops of collapsing buildings.

[mwb970]

15. This view is very hard for me to understand.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't understand for the life of me why this would be true.

The Republicans have been in charge of our security since before 9/11 and have made a big deal out of how they are "making us safer" with their Iraq War, illegal spying, etc., despite having ignored warnings of that earlier attack and having essentially allowed it to happen. All we hear from the right is "we haven't been attacked again, therefore Republicans are successfully protecting us".

Your view (shared by others, including all Republicans) is that if we are attacked again, the public will paradoxically rally around the very same party that has been "protecting us" all this time, but evidently without "making us safer" after all. But why?

Wouldn't an attack this summer or fall make it look as if our all-powerful Republican leaders failed, again, to prevent an attack from occurring on their watch, despite their tough talk and threats to our freedom? Do you feel that the public would instead blame the attack on Congressional Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? Or would they blame former president Bill Clinton? Senator Obama? FDR?

I don't get it. Please explain to me why I'm wrong about this.

[zbdent]

22. you have excellent points, but remember this ... the MSM loves to give the Repukes all the time

they want to paint anything that goes wrong as the Dems' fault.

Notice, after years of dominance by the Repukes in every aspect of the government, and the current situation where Dems cannot get a bill passed in the Senate (Repuke filibuster, 60 votes needed to kill it), and when one is passed, Bush vetoes it and you need more votes to override it ...

the talking point is now that all the economic woes are because the Dems have had control since 1/3/2007 ... despite all the groundwork laid by the Repukes setting it up ...

[xchrom]

12. i wish dems would spend less time being afraid of the gop lying machine and

move with muscular enthusiasm on their own ideas.

[vaberella]

20. Why? The GOP lying machines stole our vote in 2000 and 2004. Don't underestimate!!!

That's the kind of mentality that got us 7.5 years of building anger, frustration, and problems and we still have 6 months to go.

[xchrom]

23. it wasn't the lying machine that stole the votes -- it was the machine

the gop with ken blackwell, jeb bush and others that did that.

the lying machine is just what they use to beat dems about the head and shoulders since reagan -- and the dems role over for it -- like they don't have worthy ideas re: defence, national security etc on their own.

they need to spend more time promoting themselves and less time rolling over for the repuke party.

[Marrah_G]

17. .......................sigh

[vaberella]

19. Apparently there was private information that was passed we're not

privy too and hence the reason some people who were against the FISA weren't upset when Obama voted "yay". Secondly thank you for your post because we have to be pragmatic and realistic here...shit could really hit the fan between now and November, the only weak spot for Obama was NS and he basically covered his arse with the vote yesterday. Politically it's a sound move. Now all the GOP really complain about is his kids. The social move is that it would divide his base and outrage some of us, unreasonably though, but it doesn't really eliminate a lot of his core votes. It wouldn't eliminate any if anyone really read the bill.