FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Gilly on July 09, 2008, 07:18:42 PM
-
Does anyone get why he voted for FISA? He's got some explaining to do to some ticked off Dems.
-
He also ticked off a lot of people by expanding faith-based initiatives. He's just reaching towards the center to be elected, but he certainly seems to be disappointing a lot of his base.
I don't get why he voted for FISA, especially since I don't think the average voter feels that telecom industry deserves immunity.
-
He also ticked off a lot of people by expanding faith-based initiatives. He's just reaching towards the center to be elected, but he certainly seems to be disappointing a lot of his base.
I don't get why he voted for FISA, especially since I don't think the average voter feels that telecom industry deserves immunity.
Because Motorola is headquartered in Schaumburg.
-
He also ticked off a lot of people by expanding faith-based initiatives. He's just reaching towards the center to be elected, but he certainly seems to be disappointing a lot of his base.
I understand what you are saying but anything that can be done to uncover the sham that the Republican party is the Christian party is a great move in my opinion.
-
Shouldn't that be "Why, Obama?"
That comma speaks volumes.
-
Absolutely, Fixed!
-
Seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me, Gilly. I imagine FISA and Faith-based initiatives are very low priorities for nearly all voters.
As for his vote on FISA, he said:
"My view on FISA has always been that the issue with phone companies per se is not one that overrides security interests of the American people," Obama told reporters on June 25. "It is a close call for me but I think the current legislation with exclusivity provision that says that a president -- whether George Bush, myself or John McCain -- can’t make up rationales for getting around FISA court, can’t suggest that somehow that there is some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps."
Obama also said the FISA compromise was an improvement since it would put an "inspector general in place to investigate what happened previously gives us insight what has happened retrospectively. So, you know, that in my mind met my basic concerns and given that all the information I received is the underlying program itself actually is important and useful to American security as long as it has these constraints on them. I thought it was more important for me to go ahead and support this compromise."
Of course, his critics call that a flip-flop or a "move to the center to get elected", but it seems like a reasonable explanation to me.
The bill was amended in such a way that he thought the good outweighed the bad, so now he supports it, or rather, no longer supports a filibuster except in the case that the telecom companies be given retroactive immunity.
That's not compromising his principles, that's just compromising on a bill to get shit done.
-
I dunno, Dorvid. I appreciate that he's at least addressing the arguments of his base (unlike Clinton, who only seemed to respond to the right), but it totally seems like a "strong on security" type of move. I also appreciate that he can handle this sort of thing better than Hillary, Kerry, or Gore could. But just because I'm planning on voting for him and I really want him to win doesn't mean he's infallible or above criticism - as of January 21, 2009, I'll celebrate along with everyone else I know, but I'll be as critical of him as I was of Clinton or Bush.
-
Sure, criticism is fine. I'm against faith-based initiatives, for example.
I'm just saying that the idea that he's in trouble with the left is exaggerated and that it's largely invented by the media and the opposition.
It's not like I know shit-all about FISA or anything. :)
-
I think the telecom immunity is really the worst part of it - but as excited as I get by Obama, I've never forgotten who really runs things in this country...
-
I didn't realize that Obama always stood for invasion of privacy.
I think a ton of Americans are alarmed at how strong/powerful our government is now when it comes to what they can do with our liberties at will. I also think a lot of Christians are reaching out to to the Democrats to make it worth it for them to vote that way. Maybe the circles you are in doesn't make that evident but the Christian Left is huge and it's growing every day. Obama can't ignore that and he shouldn't either.
-
I'm with you re. the Christian Left, Gilly - I was a pretty, um, active activist in the 1990s and religious groups were always some of the most helpful and active allies we had, often more so than unions, nonprofits, and definitely more than politicians. I'm more worried about the corporations.
Not that I think Obama "selling out" is really the issue here - any good thing any politician has done, including Lincoln and FDR, has usually been a combination of responding to a crisis and pressure from constituents. We've already got the crisis, so it's pretty important to hold Obama's feet to the fire.
-
The word "fisa" means "(to) fart" in Swedish.
That's all I got.
-
Yeah, actually, it's a bill regulating Swedish farting. As you might have guessed, it's been written by the corporations.
-
Disappointed here too, really disappointed. I'm not necessarily opposed to Obama's much-criticized move to the right/center, since I think it can't hurt his electability, but FISA? Faith-based initiatives? I'd prefer that he expressed this shift on other issues, like fiscal realism and responsible government spending, for example (but I don't mean a more regressive position on the tax code). Making it clear that the U.S. will continue to exercise its power (RESPONSIBLY!) abroad. But why these issues? It just reminds me of how Democrats for years have ceded ground to the right in order to try to prove that they're not a party of weak-kneed, reckless liberals, when standing their ground and asserting their principles might have been the right way to proceed in the first place.
This FISA business just makes me think that it'll be sooner rather than later that I'll be forced to withdraw to rural New Mexico or North Dakota and live off of the grid, communicating only by telegram.
-
Does anyone get why he voted for FISA? He's got some explaining to do to some ticked off Dems.
orders came from the top down. apparently the fisa bill does not grant CRIMINAL IMMUNITY to telecoms or the administration.
let's be clear, obama did oppose the civil immunity, and voted to get that out, but that did not work.
obama's stance on this is very smart and principled. This version of the bill requires that any wiretapping requests MUST go through the FISA court. NO MORE LOOPHOLES. this means you WILL NOT BE SPIED ON without a court approving it. this upholds the 4th amendment in a serious way, and that is why it passed with obama supporting it.
if only democrats would get more informed rather than repeating what they hear on the news without doing research for themselves...
-
I'm just saying that the idea that he's in trouble with the left is exaggerated
Lots of commentary by Obama supporters on Obama's own site seem to indicate he's in some trouble, at least temporarily -
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/
-
Wouldn't it be constitutionally tricky to prosecute the telecom companies after the fact, anyway?
They did find the loophole, after all.
That the current version of the bill is forward-looking, seeking to ensure no abuse of the FISA court by the White House, shouldn't that be enough for civil libertarians?
Even if the government has enough credible evidence to legally or illegeally tap your phone-line, it is only as a means of gaining evidence. It all still has to hold up in a different court than FISA. I guess I just don't see the possibility for anything really invasive upon civil liberties, provided the FISA folks have total authority over the decision and the President can't change that.
Please correct me if I'm simplifying or not properly seeing both sides of this thing.
I have no intention of defending everything Obama says or does, but this seems like a reasonable stance for him to take.
I'm just trying to get a better handle on this Swedish Fart Bill.
-
I'm just saying that the idea that he's in trouble with the left is exaggerated
Lots of commentary by Obama supporters on Obama's own site seem to indicate he's in some trouble, at least temporarily -
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA/
or it indicated they don't think too deeply about it.
mccain can't criticize him on it. if he voted against it he would have had something to criticize him on...obama's reasoning is completely sensible. see the forest from the treeees.
the left is not going to vote against obama because he voted to uphold the 4th amendment, surrendering only civil liability to telecoms, who were no doubt bullied by the bushies anyway. the problem is that a few top democrats who were informed about the wiretapping could be implicated. don't fault obama, fault the democrats who were briefed and did nothing to stop it.
intelligence (ha) committee members:
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia
Chairman Christopher S. Bond, Missouri
Vice Chairman
Dianne Feinstein, California John Warner, Virginia
Ron Wyden, Oregon Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Evan Bayh, Indiana Saxby Chambliss, Georgia
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Orrin Hatch, Utah
Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin Olympia J. Snowe, Maine
Bill Nelson, Florida Richard Burr, North Carolina
Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
Harry Reid, Nevada, Ex Officio
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, Ex Officio
Carl Levin, Michigan, Ex Officio
John McCain, Arizona, Ex Officio
-
Wouldn't it be constitutionally tricky to prosecute the telecom companies after the fact, anyway?
They did find the loophole, after all.
That the current version of the bill is forward-looking, seeking to ensure no abuse of the FISA court by the White House, shouldn't that be enough for civil libertarians?
Even if the government has enough credible evidence to legally or illegeally tap your phone-line, it is only as a means of gaining evidence. It all still has to hold up in a different court than FISA. I guess I just don't see the possibility for anything really invasive upon civil liberties, provided the FISA folks have total authority over the decision and the President can't change that.
Please correct me if I'm simplifying or not properly seeing both sides of this thing.
I have no intention of defending everything Obama says or does, but this seems like a reasonable stance for him to take.
I'm just trying to get a better handle on this Swedish Fart Bill.
you are exactly right. the future is what is really important and that is where this bill is actually good.
prosecution against anything this administration has done is unfortunately a tough thing to pull off. they shred, delete, and hide evidence like it's no one's business.
-
Not to get off-topic, but this man has just threatened to cut Obama's nuts off (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/09/jesse.jackson.comment/?iref=mpstoryview).
(http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3812/artjacksonwlsri9.jpg)
-
Not to get off-topic, but this man has just threatened to cut Obama's nuts off (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/09/jesse.jackson.comment/?iref=mpstoryview).
(http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3812/artjacksonwlsri9.jpg)
and weezy has beef with mr. sharpton http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.7108/title.lil-wayne-vs-al-sharpton (http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.7108/title.lil-wayne-vs-al-sharpton)
what is the world comin to?
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fb2mxFZzhuw[/youtube]
-
See, I gotta admit that there is something Marxist going on here: we are out of land. Maybe Obama represents a fundamental transformation of the American myth of the infinite frontier.
-
I just don't understand people's overreactions to this vote. I can understand the rationale for voting for the bill (even though I didn't personally agree with it), but even if I couldn't see the other side of the issue I can't imagine jumping to the conclusion that this one decision means we should completely give up on Obama. It's not exactly like he suddenly turned into a McCain clone.
-
Wow, this is a good thread. The FOT are smart.
-
Wow, this is a good thread. The FOT are smart.
Totally agree. I know a lot of you don't like discussing politics on a comedy board but from what I've experience the most rational and well thought out discussion I'm involved with occurs with you guys.
-
I think the people who are most disappointed at Obama are the ones who see him as the ultimate Democratic Ideal. As much I wish he was the best of Kennedy, FDR, Carter, and Clinton, without any flaws, he's not. He's a politician.
As other people have pointed out, when you look at the details it's not a poor decision. It's not ideal, but you can't expect it to be, especially with a Republican president and a large Republican minority in Congress. The trouble is that most people aren't looking at the details and just see Obama as the physical manifestation of hope.
-
It just reminds me of how Democrats for years have ceded ground to the right in order to try to prove that they're not a party of weak-kneed, reckless liberals, when standing their ground and asserting their principles might have been the right way to proceed in the first place.
This has been driving me nuts for years, Fido.
This FISA business just makes me think that it'll be sooner rather than later that I'll be forced to withdraw to rural New Mexico or North Dakota and live off of the grid, communicating only by telegram.
Why not Lubec?
-
He won't fuck us over, he's Mr. November (http://www.merchco-online.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=506_518&products_id=3104&zenid=71ed714c925897640f45bdb041416886).
-
Why?
Because he's a douchey politician like any other.
October 24, 2007
Obama's campaign manager:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa_vote/index.html
There's no hope from Obama. Just another dick head.
-
This is what I said/say to anyone who expresses reservations about Obama or Clinton because of evidence of two-facedness and what-not. I mean, of course they're bastards. You can't get far in politics otherwise. Feeling betrayed by Obama because he's not pure perfection is just plain silly.
-
This is what I said/say to anyone who expresses reservations about Obama or Clinton because of evidence of two-facedness and what-not. I mean, of course they're bastards. You can't get far in politics otherwise. Feeling betrayed by Obama because he's not pure perfection is just plain silly.
And this is exactly what I've said to numerous friends/colleagues over the past few months. Liberals who looked into Obama's eyes and saw love really need to ratchet down their expectations several notches. It's just the nature of our political system that a president will take positions and, if elected, actions that will create tremendous disillusionment among their "base." What's more, that's probably for the best. Our current president, who shall remain nameless, has really governed from a pretty stridently ideological place, and look at the ideological conflict that he has sown. A lot of conservatives and liberals who won't talk to each other. And still, the most ideologically devoted conservatives are disappointed (e.g., taxes, the fact that Medicare and Medicaid haven't been dismantled, Social Security, the list goes on).
A great lesson for me was how "sold out" I felt by Bill Clinton, again and again, on issues like DOMA or welfare reform. What I discovered is that Clinton was also shrewdly co-opting Republican issues this way and that, which turned out not to be a bad way to govern from the standpoint of his political survival (which was ultimately threatened by his more prurient pursuits, not so much by his policy positions). And it beat the hell out of having, say, Newt Gingrich running the country.
Just wait until these poor liberal folks get a nice, big taste of disillusionment. You can't always get what you want. And if you could, our political system would be terribly unstable.
(Mokin, I thought your comments were right on too)
-
It just reminds me of how Democrats for years have ceded ground to the right in order to try to prove that they're not a party of weak-kneed, reckless liberals, when standing their ground and asserting their principles might have been the right way to proceed in the first place.
This has been driving me nuts for years, Fido.
This FISA business just makes me think that it'll be sooner rather than later that I'll be forced to withdraw to rural New Mexico or North Dakota and live off of the grid, communicating only by telegram.
Why not Lubec?
It's so nicely tucked into the edge of our country and nestled into New Brunswick, surely no one would notice me. Right? And you get to see the sun rise before everyone else in America. Actually, that's practically meaningless to me, since as a night owl and anti-morning person, I would never be awake at that hour.
-
This is what I said/say to anyone who expresses reservations about Obama or Clinton because of evidence of two-facedness and what-not. I mean, of course they're bastards. You can't get far in politics otherwise. Feeling betrayed by Obama because he's not pure perfection is just plain silly.
Sarah's spot on... politicians don't win elections by being politically orthodox according to their most strident supporters. They compromise, make deals and play ball. Obama's doing this because he knows that he can securely make a mad dash to the middle with lots of decisions unpopular with his base. Consider this as him cashing in just a little political capital from the true believers. McCain has to strike a much more delicate balance with his base vs. the middle because the folks far to the right don't trust him much more than liberals do.
I'm not as smitten with Obama as other Democrats are, and I know this sounds cynical, but I've come to respect him a little more for his last week of going back on public financing, supporting faith based initiatives and his politically expedient fisa vote. Integrity and shrewdness aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and the fact that he's a little flexible makes me less worried that he'll rely more on idealism and less on pragmatism when he's President.
I fear for those not yet disillusioned that he's going to have a few more disappointments for them in the future (e.g. Iraq withdrawals, energy policy, Vice President pick).
-
McCain, if anything, has been drifting to the right since the nomination.
-
I realize that so much of this phenomenon has been made in the media that's it's old news now, but I have this friend who supported Hillary in the primaries, and declared at one point that he couldn't support Obama.
It sounded to me like, "I'm taking my toys and going home." hahaha
-
Actually, that's practically meaningless to me, since as a night owl and anti-morning person, I would never be awake at that hour.
One takes care of that by staying up all night.
Back to politicians: I have a soft spot for Lyndon Johnson because he was such a clever practitioner of the political system, and he connived, manipulated, and cheated to get a lot done. Yeah, yeah, I know, Vietnam was not jewel in his crown, but as far as domestic social programs went, he did some good work.
And I couldn't believe those short-sighted fools who said they were going to vote for McCain if Clinton didn't get the nomination. Bunch of dumb babies.
-
I realize that so much of this phenomenon has been made in the media that's it's old news now, but I have this friend who supported Hillary in the primaries, and declared at one point that he couldn't support Obama.
It sounded to me like, "I'm taking my toys and going home." hahaha
I was really confused by that whole PUMA thing, too. A couple of weeks ago, Salon had a piece that summarized a dozen or so points that the PUMA-ettes felt aggrieved by. When I started reading it, I thought to myself, "At last I'll be able to understand this phenomenon!"
By the time I finished it I saw that it was no more nuanced than (as you say), "I'm taking my toys and going home." Come on, guys!