Obama: Telecom Immunity Doesn't Override National Security

[jefferson_dem]

Run time: 02:07 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPljokDWERg   Posted on YouTube: June 25, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 25, 2008 By DU Member: jefferson_dem Views on DU: 1204

 
A response that probably won't please many of my fellow DUers but there it is...

[greiner3]

1. A few months ago;

I decided that I'd give Obama about 10 'Gotchas' before I would demand my money back. This makes 2 already.

[gateley]

3. What was number one? nt

[gateley]

2. I feel better after hearing him address this.

Glad the reporter asked.

Although I think it's REALLY important that the telecoms are held accountable, (especially since I learned they bumped up contributions to Dems who were willing to change their votes), what's MORE important is that this doesn't happen again - that it's put to a stop.

[bertman]

4. Why do you feel better? The telecoms are NOT being held accountable.

They are being let off the hook.

The Senator's interpretation of the New and Improved Immunity Bill must have come from one of Pelosi's or Hoyer's staff members.

Bush= liar-in-chief

McAnus= flip-flopper-in-chief

Obama= waffler-in-chief

[raystorm7]

5. How many lines in the sand do we need to draw before we shove them back for crossing em?

This is a black and white issue as far as I am concerned. There are no Grey areas which it seems Obama is trying his best to look for.

[timzi]

6. What's Wrong With This Picture?

The Congress passes a law (FISA). President asswipe openly violates it with the help of the telcoms. The response? Pass another law, of course....

I call bullshit.

If Barak doesn't show some spine, I am done contributing.

[jefferson_dem]

7. Wow. You sure sound concerned.

Umm...It's Barack.

And Welcome to DU.

[Pastiche423]

8. This fellow DUer is not pleased

Why is he shitting on our Fourth Amendment and his "base"? Does he have that much money that he can forget about our concerns?

Can someone explain it to me like I was a six year old child?

[zalinda]

9. I would but you wouldn't like it. n/t

[Pastiche423]

10. If it makes sense, I would like to hear it

Although I never caught the Obama fever, I did vote for him in my state's primary. After hearing his remarks on NAFTA and now this, I'm wishing I hadn't.

Oh well, it's been thirty six years since there was a presidential candidate that I was very happy voting for. I no longer expect change.

[1Hippiechick]

11. Oh well, it's been thirty six years since there was a presidential candidate that ..."

I was very happy voting for. I no longer expect change."

Don't become cynical! This is the first time I HAVE been happy about our candidate - he is as different as JFK was...do you remember all the hoopla over the fact that JFK was a Catholic?!?

[Andrea]

15. How is that relevant?

I don't vote for candidates based on their gender, religion or race. Being Catholic is not what made JFK different. Can you point to a policy position that makes this candidate different?

[1Hippiechick]

22. Different from JFK?

[1Hippiechick]

23. Oh, Lord, I bungled that response. Here is what I should have said:

Should have left out the reference to Catholicism - made it confusing. Sorry - late at night for me when I wrote it – I was using the religion aspect--although a bad one in retrospect--as one example of many changes from anything we had seen in the past. Religion had not been an issue before. Poor example with an even poorer explanation.

What I should have said:
My excitement that I didn't take the time to explain stems from the fact that I was around in the 60s and saw the activism regarding civil rights, voting rights, etc., and I have not seen that level of activism, excitement, and HOPE since then—until now, and I attribute much of that to Obama’s charisma and appeal – much like Kennedy’s was. And, IMHO, charisma and appeal are important characteristics in getting any job done.

JFK’s election was close and contested (as possibly O’s will be), he was a champion of civil rights (as is O), etc., and get ready to crucify me for this viewpoint: JFK and Jackie brought youth, glamour, and small children back to the White House—and it was exciting! It was the 60’s, the space race was gearing up, (we had not gone to war in VietNam at that point) and the youth had not become jaded against the government then. Here was a young, fresh-faced family with hopes and dreams for a better America, and we LOVED it. It became Camelot for my generation—we will never know what could have been. (Need a tissue here.) After JFK’s assassination, it was downhill from there. Conspiracy theories, mistrust of the government, the continuing war, etc.

What is happening now in the O campaign resonates with the youthful side of me. I identify with all those impassioned Millenials in his campaign, and I LOVE it. For me, it may be Camelot revisited.

Did JFK make mistakes in his presidency? Yes. Will Obama? Yes. And that is as far as I will go concerning the negative aspects of either man.

Hope this provides an acceptable explanation for you.

[saracat]

16. Are you kidding? Is that what 'change is to you? How is he "different"? Change is more than looks

or religion. If a politicians policy is going to be the same, there is no "change". This election should be about policy.And the liberal "change' candidate has decided to drive to the right.If we can't trust him NOW, when he needs our vote, what happens when he "reaches across the aisle?"

[1Hippiechick]

24. "candidate has decided to drive to the right" There CANNOT be a strict, definitive line separating

Right from Left - that is antiquated in our political system - there are shades of gray, IMHO. Obama represents a changed approach which is necessary if he is going to be successful in unifying our country. If we can't come together as a nation, no candidate will succeed, and we will continue in our downward spiral. And unification is what our country needs after the division that the shrub administration has created. So, at this point of the campaign, it can't be about Left versus Right, or leaning Right, or Centrist, or whatever--it has to be about let's see where we can meet in the middle, and I think O is doing a FANTABULOUS job from that aspect!

[Pastiche423]

18. What does that have to do

w/the FISA bill, NAFTA or the Fairness Doctine?

[zalinda]

12. This race has never been about US

it has always been about Obama. He will say ANYTHING to win. Take a look at the US Senate race, he PROMISED the people of Illinois that he wouldn't run for President in his first term, he won on that promise. It took him how long to break that promise.........days? We all understand that politicians make promises and then don't keep them, usually it's because they have to wrangle other politicians over to their side, and sometimes it doesn't work out....you know like, I promise not to raise taxes. But, HE made this decision all by himself, HE had control on whether or not he would break his promise to the people who elected him, and HE decided HE came first.

The pattern is repeating itself, he promises one thing and then when it comes to keeping the promise, he back pedals. Where the hell is the leader he is supposed to be? Where is the Constitutional lawyer he is supposed to be? He COULD show leadership and twist arms in the Senate, he has the power, but he hasn't. Why? Because it's about HIM, not about US. We are disposable. He dismissed white women, old people and hard working dem party members, in favor of young people who may or may not stay with the dem party, and may or may not vote in the coming election. Young people who have no knowledge of what the dem party used to be, only about what is portrayed today. Young people who will forget what promises you made, if you only keep them entertained at political rock concerts. Young people who love the flavor of the month and will move on when the new one comes along.

His whole Presidential race started on a broken promise, did you expect anything better from him? I didn't.

zalinda

[Pastiche423]

19. I din't know what to expect

When the hoopla came down about his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I listened, thought it was a great speech, but din't understand why so many thought it made him special - a future presidential candidate.

Then as the years and sessions in the senate went by, my perplexity did not wane. He did not take risks, which his votes bore out. I thought his 1st senatorial term, under the worse president in my lifetime, was pretty blah. He wasn't great, but wasn't bad either. He was simply moderate.

As his campaign began to heat up and the crowds at his rallies increased, I again listened. His words at 1st sounded too good to be true. That made warning signals go off in my brain. As the saying goes, it it's too good to be true, then it probably is.

I had hoped those warning signals had been wrong. I wanted them to be wrong. Now that his views of the FISA bill, NAFTA and the Fairness Doctrine have come out, I realize those warning signals were right.

WTF is the change we were promised?

[rodeodance]

20. I wish he was the Leader he claims to be.

[JDPriestly]

21. He won't get a cent from me because of this stance.

This shows what a weakling he really is. When Bush violated FISA, he violated a trust. The investigation by the Inspector General is a wet noodle. After all, the Inspector General is appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. Remember Roberts, Alito, Mukasey -- the list goes on and on of extremists appointed by the president with the consent of Congress. Do you trust the review of the telecom companies' role in FISA violations to one of Bush's appointees? I don't.

And what is more the new FISA regulations are a bunch of doublespeak and excuses. The bill reads like a bowl of overcooked rice pudding.

[Two Americas]

13. national security

"National security overrides (fill in the blank)" is a political battle that the Republicans will always win. So, it is not "practical" nor does it contribute to winning to make this compromise. The reason for this is because the Republicans will endlessly up the ante and call the Democrat's bluff. That game is too rich for us to stay in, and sooner or later we have to fold.

The Republicans don't care about "national security." They just use that to advance their agenda, by intimidating the Democrats into supporting the gutting of the Bill of Rights.

[Andrea]

14. The Republicans are banking on people never

coming to realize that THEY threaten national security by destroying the very nature of this country, just as much as anyone external does. And that goes for anyone of any party who acts to undermine the true basis for our existence.

[Two Americas]

17. we are reinforcing it

The strategy we have used as Dems ever since Reagan scared us all half to death promotes and strengthens the very thing the right wingers use against us and against the people. Playing the same game, but "better" - more cleverly, more systematically, more carefully, with more charisma - would be a big mistake. It could actually resuscitate the Republican party if we breath new life into their themes and talking points. It pisses me off that Sean Hannity is smarter at this than we are - smarter if we measure it by real world results rather by "being right." The smarter you are at doing a stupid thing, the less smart you really are.