Response from Barack on FISA and Discussion with Policy Staff

[1Hippiechick]

Based on all the negativity being posted here re O's vote on FISA, I have begun to wonder if anyone has visited his website to read what HE has to say about it. I'm not going to

:banghead:

or :rant:

or :eyes:

or :mad:

or :puke:

or :wtf:

I'm for O all the way, and I hope most of you are, too. When all this is over, we will be able to
:toast: and :party:

:think: about it!

Response from Barack on FISA and Discussion with Policy Staff
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF/commentary#comments

[Olney Blue]

1. I read it, but I still don't understand WHY he voted for it.

[babylonsister]

3. So McSame can't say he's soft on protecting Americans. McLame's

strongest suit with people is the perception he'd be better able to protect us. :eyes:

Obama can't afford to fuel that beast. Feingold and Boxer spoke of how temporary this vote might be so I'm hopeful.

[1Hippiechick]

4. Here's another viewpoint you may find interesting.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/obamas-fisa-quandary_b_110799.html

[Olney Blue]

6. That was indeed interesting. Thank you for the link.

[truedelphi]

7. Only problem is, the central thesis of that article is just plain wrong

here is the central thesis of the Huffington article:

The real quandary for Obama is that he has to win the "low-information voters" in November in order to win the election, but he needs the "high-information voters" now in order to field his grassroots operations leading up to November. Low-information voters are never going to understand FISA. It is a subject that takes time and energy to master. Low-information voters look at FISA and only see the ability or inability of the government to investigate potential terrorists.

But that notion of low information voters is not right.

That is what the M$M wants you to believe, and I guess the folks at Huffington have been convinced by the M$M.

It is so nineteen nineties a belief that I an hardly go there. However Rolling Stone was worried enough that some time ago they devoted an entire article to the dangers posed by obsolete consultants spouting yesterday's doctrine. (INcluding the Huffington Post's "Weak information voter notion") Remember, the consultants don't care if the Dem candidate wins or not - they get paid anyway!

As the real factor is this one (MAY I REPEAT?)

Only 28.5 % of All American voters are Repugs

A mere 32 % are Dems

And a kuehl 40.5 % are now Indies.

If the indies stay home, then Barrack is gonna watch the close margin between him and McCain evaporate and that evaporation will let McCain steal it.

[1Hippiechick]

8. So are you saying that the "low-information voters" would be more attracted to O's voting AGAINST

FISA?

Not sure I am following you. Let's say both parties--using your percentages--vote straight ticket. What is your viewpoint on how to attract to the Dem Party the 40.5% undecided voters?

Edited to change "straight party" to "straight ticket." Duhhhhhhh...it's late and I am tired!

[truedelphi]

9. Low informtion voters are usually middle of the road Dems or

Middle of the road Republicans.

Most of them are the people who get their information from the mainstream media.

I assume that low information Dems are probably going to vote for Obama.

And low information Republicans are not gonna vote for Obama in any way shape or form.
They are the exact democgraophic that is targeted with hit pieces on how "Michelle"
hates America or Michelle spends too much on clothing. Or whatever kinda puff hit piece the M$M will come up with.

If Obama slants his arguments towards the low information Republicans, which seems to be what his FISA vote indicates, he is fighting a losing battle.

He won't get additional votes from the Low information Repugs and he will alienate some of the indie crowd. He would do a lot better to NOT alientate the indies. He needs them.

My original response indicates that ALL indie voters would stay home -which as you pointout would still give him the election - perhaps. But how i look at it is this - you must subtract 28.5 (Repugs voter %) from the Dem population of 32 %, then you only have a margin spanning 3 and a half per cent. And that is LESS than the span between the winner in 2004, Kerry, and the loser Bush. The five percent margin that JKeerry had was talked away by the media - they justified the Bush theft by coming up with the notion that the 40 million RW CHristians put Bush in the WH>

When in reality Kerry had it lost because Bush stole it by swapping around the votes and playing Ohio through the leverage ofered by the state of Ohio and Ken Blackwell.

Here's a URL for discussion about the consultants the Dem candidates hire to help them lose or have their election stolen:

http://tinyurl.com/5e2wfe

[babylonsister]

2. Cute! Heck, I'll join you now!

:toast:

[1Hippiechick]

5. Cheers!

:yourock: