"The core issue is simple: are we working to return the country to the rule of law or not?"

[Breeze54]

Obama, FISA and the Netroots

Bob Ostertag

July 7, 2008

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/obama-fisa-and-the-netroo_b_111116.html

Original post:

The current dust-up in the Obama camp over this week's FISA vote may have real consequences for the rest of this campaign. As you may know, the largest "group" on the Obama campaign's social networking site, MyBarackObama.com, is now a group assembled to protest Senator Obama's reversal of his promise to filibuster against the FISA legislation up next week. Reading through the blogoshpere, many commenters appear baffled at the intensity of the passions involved, and criticize the protestors for making such a fuss over "just one issue." But there are good reasons why core activists have taken a strong stand, and why the campaign may look different after this is over.

For many Obama activists, a key issue that propelled them into campaign activism is dismantling the unconstitutional legal measures the Bush administration put in place in the aftermath of 9/11. The prison at Guantánamo, the secret CIA prisons scattered around the globe, the torture of prisoners, and the kangaroo courts set up to process them are the foreign pieces of this puzzle. Warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is the domestic piece. While understanding all the ins and outs of the FISA legislation requires a specialist's knowledge, the core issue is simple: are we working to return the country to the rule of constitutional law or not? http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html">(Click here for an excellent analysis of Obama's FISA statement by a specialist.)

snip-->

Here is another level on which this whole thing stinks. It is one thing for a presumptive nominee to adjust policy positions to reach out to constituencies he wants to bring in to his coalition which were not part of his primary victory. We have seen Obama do that with evangelicals, for example. Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency. There is no sector of the American population that just might jump off the fence and get behind Obama if he only agrees to give telecommunications corporations retroactive immunity for illegally collaborating with the Bush administration's spying. He is not courting votes here. Either he is caving in to pressure from the giant telecom corporations, or he has really bought into the idea that American actually needs warrantless wiretapping. Either option is equally unpalatable to many activists.

Finally, here is yet another angle. Throughout the primaries, one of the big criticisms of Obama was that when it came to votes, he backed off. Thus all those "present" votes in Illinois. But the campaign came up with what seemed like a plausible explanation for all that, and many Obama supporters decided he deserved a pass on that. Well, here we are, the first big vote Obama faces on the national and international stage, and guess what? He is backing off. Not good.

more...

[MrCoffee]

1. K&R

[Breeze54]

6. Thank You...

;)

[MrCoffee]

10. I honestly don't understand why this is such a source of vitriol here

Personally, I think the very least we should expect of any Democratic candidate for president is respect for the Constitution.

I certainly expect it of current Democratic Congresspeople.

[readmoreoften]

17. Frankly, I don't even understand why we tolerate it from Republicans.

Without a constitution, all we are is a group of people living in a bordered territory that has a short, fragmented, and volatile history and 60 years of prolific cultural production.

[slipslidingaway]

18. And if another issue arises who will want to speak up? Those that

did voice concern over FISA and the way in which it was handled have been labeled whiners, 'hystericals' and trools.

Some of the posts may even constitute the 'mini-version' of...

"9. Dissent equals treason"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment



"...It isn't that difficult to keep the following two thoughts in one's head at the same time -- though it seems to be for many people:

(1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;

(2) I support Barack Obama for President because he's a better choice than John McCain...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html

[Breeze54]

20. I don't get it either and I suspect those that use the vitriol don't either.

;)

[Bob Dobbs]

2. Very disappointing, but not surprising.

I'm still a Kucinich Democrat.

[Breeze54]

4. Well; I was and am surprised at this turn of event but at least

he did vote for No Retroactive Immunity... but seeing ANY D in
a list of names that voted WITH bush makes me sick to my stomach. :puke:

I'm am also still a Kucinich Dem... he defends the constitution and makes no bones about doing it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. "Not good", indeed. But, hardly surprising from a centrist.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

[Breeze54]

5. He played a lot of people, that's for sure. n/t

[readmoreoften]

19. Never had me for a second. I found the whole "progressive" act to be craven and depraved.

I expect little. The change this country needs is going to come from the ground up or it is not going to come, period. That's my sense anyway.

[Breeze54]

22. I didn't say he had me and I've said all along I didn't see any difference

between him and Senator Clinton. But then the primaries were over
and I started looking more at Obama, as the choice had been made
for me and I was willing to give him a chance, I was starting to
try to gain some energy to start being more active to get a Dem
in the WH but this vote floored me and I'm back where I started.

[readmoreoften]

23. Yeah, me too.

I saw no difference between Obama and Clinton. Actually, the difference for me was that I saw Clinton as a slimy, but more straight-forward center right candidate and Obama as a center-right candidate hiding behind a mask of progressive rhetoric. The Obama/Clinton arguments made me insane because my sense was that Clinton was openly a triangulator and a schemer, while my sense was that the Obama campaign was out-and-out confabulation. I was horrified at the vitriol against Clinton for being a "liar" because that often meant that people believed Obama was some kind of 'truth-teller'. Good god.

I have to admit that I am surprised at how quickly the mask came off. That in itself has me frightened. He immediately changed his position on NAFTA. Pushed through an expansion of faith-based funding. And now FISA. Constitutional protection was the one issue I actually *almost* trusted Obama on. The system is thoroughly broken and I'm putting my hope in the masses now. People always laugh at the idea of "revolution", but I'm coming around to the idea that as slim as the possibility of revolt is, revolt will happen before reform does.

[mmonk]

7. NOT.

Certainly not when influence pays. If deep money pocketed people want immunity, they can buy it here. In fact, any sector of government can be bought. This is one of history's more corrupt governments.

[Selatius]

8. I believe it's why so many DUers broke for Edwards of the Big Three in the early primaries.

If it wasn't Edwards, then it was Kucinich. Edwards' voting record was never as liberal as Hillary's, but what many found appealing was his old-style FDR/Truman populist rhetoric, the kind of stuff your grandfather's Democrat used to cut his bread and butter upon back in the 1930s/1940s. Kucinich had both that kind of rhetoric and the voting record to back him up, but he was largely ignored by the media, which is pretty much what happened to Edwards as well.

Obama was my second alternate, and I'm glad he was. Edwards and Kucinich were my top two, with Edwards being the 1st alternate and Kucinich being the primary pick.

But they both dropped out before my state voted, so I was left with two candidates I didn't really care too much for.

[Breeze54]

16. I think so too.... many didn't want anymore corporate backed candidates!

I took that quiz about finding my candidate and Kucincih was my #1 (I didn't need a quiz for that ;) )

and Dodd and Edwards tied second, as I recall. ;)

[leftofthedial]

9. who is "we?"

Obviously, the "we" is in no way related to any repuke entity. If "we" is the Congress, Barack Obama, or the Democratic Party as currently configured, the answer is "NOT."

[Breeze54]

12. In the context of the article, I think he's talking about progressive voters who want change.

That's my take on it.

[leftofthedial]

24. why on earth would a progressive vote?

except on state or local referenda or perhaps if you are in Kucinich's district or maybe Feingold's (this week). There is no one for a progressive to vote for.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Some have made this exact point, they have either been

ignored or called names.

"...Here is another level on which this whole thing stinks. It is one thing for a presumptive nominee to adjust policy positions to reach out to constituencies he wants to bring in to his coalition which were not part of his primary victory. We have seen Obama do that with evangelicals, for example.

Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency. There is no sector of the American population that just might jump off the fence and get behind Obama if he only agrees to give telecommunications corporations retroactive immunity for illegally collaborating with the Bush administration's spying.

He is not courting votes here. Either he is caving in to pressure from the giant telecom corporations, or he has really bought into the idea that American actually needs warrantless wiretapping. Either option is equally unpalatable to many activists..."

[Breeze54]

14. It's a very good point, imho!

I hadn't seen anyone make that point here at DU. Wish I had.

[slipslidingaway]

21. Usually they were ignored or nobody could list the citizens or

groups that supported this bill.

[Joe Fields]

13. Thanks, Breeze. All good and important points. I would add...

that the two issues which must be resolved, if we are to return to the rule of law would be campaign finance and lobbying. It is the latter which now insulates Bush and the telecoms from prosecution.

[Breeze54]

15. I agree... they both have and are corrupting... absolutely!

Thanks to you! Keep fighting back. You're doing a great job! :D

[slipslidingaway]

25. kick n/t

[eppur_se_muova]

26. "Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency."

It has a very small, but rich, powerful, and entrenched constituency, which is not commited to fairness or even democracy, and could dump enough money into a campaign of attack ads (at best) to throw Obama's election into doubt.

I think at this point I'll leave it to the candidate to test the wind and make his own decision. From where I sit, I don't agree with his vote. If I were in his seat, I might very well see it differently. It's his campaign. Let him choose.