Nomination in hand, Obama stiffs the Dem left on FISA vote

That Barack Obama jog toward the political center now that he's won the Democratic nomination appears to have turned into a full-fledged dash today. And there's a lot of folks on the left side of his party that are unhappy.

But, to be Chicago kind of candid, whatcha gonna do about it?

Today, the freshman senator from Illinois voted in favor of the FISA bill that provides retroactive legal protection to cooperating telecom companies that helped the feds eavesdrop on overseas calls. Up until a few weeks ago -- let's see, that would be shortly after the last primaries settled the Democratic nomination and terminated what's-her-name's once frontrunning campaign -- Obama adamantly opposed the bill. "Unequivocally" was the word his people used.

"Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last fall. In December, as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Obama's office said: â??Sen. Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Sen. Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill."

In February, Obama voted for an amendment to carve the retroactive immunity out of the measure. And he said: "I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd, Sen. Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people."

Let's see, those statements were all made during that endless Democratic primary season.

After June 4, Obama said: "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 -- canâ??t make up rationales for getting around FISA court, canâ??t suggest that somehow that there is some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps."

Never mind that it's confusing. It's supposed to be. Yes, he's usually a real good talker. But he wanted to avoid providing a clear-cut quote for future use against himself. Bottom line, today Obama voted for the measure he has so long opposed. So he was against the bill before he was for the bill.

And guess what? His primary primary opponent, Hillary Clinton from the Empire State, the one who got ditched by much of the Democratic left in favor of this new guy from Illinois who had no visible warts, she voted against the bill. Talk about retroactive regret by some.

"It's ironic so far, I suppose," one commentor wrote on OpenLeft today, "that Clinton is of late a more reliable ally than Obama." Over at Wake up America they provided a detailed accounting of the excoriating of Obama by alleged supporters on the candidate's own website.
Nomination in hand, Obama stiffs the Dem left on FISA vote | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

So did the "hero" from the left cave in? Sell out? Or just blatantly lie his followers?

â??Words may show a man's wit, but actions his meaningâ?�...Benjamin Franklin

Have a good one!:s4:

Once again:
So did the "hero" from the left cave in? Sell out? Or just blatantly lie his followers?

Have a good one!:s4:

Some people in that sector must've gave him a nice contribution.

Obama is useless.

Still nothing from the hard core Obamites........amazing!:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

I'm honestly very pissed off that he caved on this FISA bill, which is a complete reversal of where he stood several months ago. I am an Obama supporter, but now it seems like the 2000 and 2004 elections again where I have to choose between bush and bush light, now i'm choosing between mcsame and the right-leaning "progressive" democrat who told me he was going to be different and is now turning out to be the same. I hate being lied to, and I probably won't vote for him because of this, unless he SOMEHOW makes up for it (very doubtful) but I definetely will not be voting for McBush.

Hah!
I remember saying to all these crazy Obama lovers that he was lying through his teeth about many things, and these would be exposed when closer to the election.
Well what can we expect. Some people thought he was a living Jesus!
He is still a politician, folks. And he will still say whatever he knows you want him to.

I'm all for implementing legal immunity for telecom companies in this case. People and business shouldn't be facing legal repurcussions for following the legal dictates of a then-current administration, following the law as put forth by government. If you can prosecute anybody for following the law of a previous regime, because that law now greatly differs under the current regime.... well, it's probably time to run to the hills and live as nomads.

Note: I am very against many of the Patriot Act's provisions, including the warrantless wiretapping and general disregard for the essence of the orginal constitutional philosophy. Let not the people pay for the mistakes of government, however.



As for Obama, he does indeed represent "change"; as much as every prior administration represented their own versions of change, which amounted to minor shifts within the status quo. Ron Paul, loving him on some areas and astounded by others, for better or worse, was the only guy IMO that actually represented real change. The rest; they just tighten or losen the nuts and bolts of the same old political machine. Make no mistake; Obama's just another Democrat.

I agree with Gandalf...
Obama is just another Democrat.

AND I SURE AS HELL HOPE HE WINS THE PRESIDENCY!
One change he represents that i support, is not having another rich old white guy as president.

He can lie his way into the oval office for all i care. If he can convince the Conservatives to vote for him, sweet. The true test will happen for these candidates when one of them is voted into office.

I support Ron Paul and the dramatic change he represents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

I'm all for implementing legal immunity for telecom companies in this case. People and business shouldn't be facing legal repurcussions for following the legal dictates of a then-current administration, following the law as put forth by government. If you can prosecute anybody for following the law of a previous regime, because that law now greatly differs under the current regime.... well, it's probably time to run to the hills and live as nomads.

Note: I am very against many of the Patriot Act's provisions, including the warrantless wiretapping and general disregard for the essence of the orginal constitutional philosophy. Let not the people pay for the mistakes of government, however.



As for Obama, he does indeed represent "change"; as much as every prior administration represented their own versions of change, which amounted to minor shifts within the status quo. Ron Paul, loving him on some areas and astounded by others, for better or worse, was the only guy IMO that actually represented real change. The rest; they just tighten or losen the nuts and bolts of the same old political machine. Make no mistake; Obama's just another Democrat.

---

If you support legal immunity for the telecoms, would then the administration that allowed them to do it be held legally responsible, because I'm sure cheney and bush have more than enough money to pay any financial damages occuring from any pending lawsuits. But what I'm more concerned about is finding out the depth that this all went more so than any financial retribution.

Yep, I'm all for prosecuting the Bush administration for blatantly violating the constitution. Bring the charges strait to the crooks I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxfire342

Obama is useless.

---

all these politicians are useless.

This is a funny ass thread.:thumbsup::):thumbsup:
I can't wait to read more!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH

This is a funny ass thread.:thumbsup::):thumbsup:
I can't wait to read more!:jointsmile:

---

I'm still waiting for the hard core Obamites to respond. I guess they don't have much to say about their God. :rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey

Yep, I'm all for prosecuting the Bush administration for blatantly violating the constitution. Bring the charges strait to the crooks I say.

---

But didn't the phone companies have the option of saying no? Qwest did, and they weren't included in the lawsuits, it seems like the companies should have asked what the legal justification was, and when the NSA or whoever refused to provide it, they should have told them to STFU and go home, but they didn't, and therefore are partners in crime and should be PROSECUTED and made to pay for their actions. Just because the chief of police tells you it's ok to kill someone doesn't mean the DA won't charge you.

Politicians are useless, why do 'we' rely on them to run our lives?


"we" are stupid. geeze.

LOL....still the hard core avoid the question of the month.

Have a good one!:s4:

Why do the Obamite avoid this thread?

Have a good one!:s4:

LegalizeTheGreen....if you want to repost that without the slams go for it. I'd advise ya to read over the sites guidelines AGAIN.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Why do the Obamite avoid this thread?

Have a good one!:s4:

---

There were these young kids in class who told this older guy to "think for yourself" in response to his desire to vote for McCain. I pointed out to why Obama voted for the FISA bill. Silence is golden.

I think the deal with the FISA bill was that the entire FISA system was set to expire in August, which is something that no one wanted to happen. So even though a lot of people weren't happy with all of the bill, no one wanted it to completely expire and have absolutely no way to wiretap foreign terrorists. That seems like the responsible thing to do, given the choices. There was not enough support to sustain a fillibuster, so you can't really fault him for not supporting a fillibuster if one never happened. And the Dodd ammendment failed. If I were in his position, I would have done the same --- it would not have been responsible to let the FISA provisions completely expire over the issue of whether these telecoms get retroactive immunity for cooperating with Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping.

As I understood it, the original problem was not FISA itself --- it was that Bush was not following FISA and was wiretapping outside of the FISA provisions, without warrants. My understanding is that the new FISA authorization clarifies that FISA is the last word on this kind of wiretapping and the president can't circumvent it the way he was before (a good thing). And it includes the retroacrive immunity to protect companies that cooperated when the president was illegally circumventing FISA before (a bad thing). On balance, weighing the good changes and the bad changes, and considering that FISA is necessary in my opinion, I think it was probably a good vote, even if it pisses a few supporters off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think it was probably a good vote, even if it pisses a few supporters off.

---

I'm with ya on that but it's a matter of his platform during the primary elections:

"Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last fall. In December, as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Obama's office said: â??Sen. Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Sen. Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill."

In February, Obama voted for an amendment to carve the retroactive immunity out of the measure. And he said: "I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd, Sen. Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people."

What else is he leading the public on about? It's a matter of holding to your word instead of to a political poll. This "yes" vote was to gain the trust of the moderates...nothing more. Ya know, Clinton voted "No" on this.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I think the deal with the FISA bill was that the entire FISA system was set to expire in August, which is something that no one wanted to happen. So even though a lot of people weren't happy with all of the bill, no one wanted it to completely expire and have absolutely no way to wiretap foreign terrorists. That seems like the responsible thing to do, given the choices. There was not enough support to sustain a fillibuster, so you can't really fault him for not supporting a fillibuster if one never happened. And the Dodd ammendment failed. If I were in his position, I would have done the same --- it would not have been responsible to let the FISA provisions completely expire over the issue of whether these telecoms get retroactive immunity for cooperating with Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping.

As I understood it, the original problem was not FISA itself --- it was that Bush was not following FISA and was wiretapping outside of the FISA provisions, without warrants. My understanding is that the new FISA authorization clarifies that FISA is the last word on this kind of wiretapping and the president can't circumvent it the way he was before (a good thing). And it includes the retroacrive immunity to protect companies that cooperated when the president was illegally circumventing FISA before (a bad thing). On balance, weighing the good changes and the bad changes, and considering that FISA is necessary in my opinion, I think it was probably a good vote, even if it pisses a few supporters off.

---

Ah, but that is just the thing, even if FISA expired, you could still wiretap terrorists because it is a National Security issue, which enables them to wiretap for up to a week without telling anyone, even the FISA court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

I'm with ya on that but it's a matter of his platform during the primary elections:

"Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last fall. In December, as ABC's Jake Tapper notes, Obama's office said: â??Sen. Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Sen. Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill."

In February, Obama voted for an amendment to carve the retroactive immunity out of the measure. And he said: "I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd, Sen. Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people."

What else is he leading the public on about? It's a matter of holding to your word instead of to a political poll. This "yes" vote was to gain the trust of the moderates...nothing more. Ya know, Clinton voted "No" on this.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Still pissed off about the sudden reversal, and am probably not voting for him in the fall, but I couldn't stand voting for McSame either, so I hope there's a good 3rd party candidate that has a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AspenGrow

Still pissed off about the sudden reversal, and am probably not voting for him in the fall, but I couldn't stand voting for McSame either, so I hope there's a good 3rd party candidate that has a chance.

---

Now THIS is what I was looking for here....no lame excuses for the change in heart after he won the primary from Clinton but a voter that stands for his/her convictions. Even though I don't agree with your stance on this subject, MUCH respect for holding to your values regarding this issue!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

It's ridiculous to assume that you're going to agree with your candidate on all issues, but at least on the big ones you should. I can't stand that Obama wouldn't stand up for our freedoms and such, but such is the life of a typical politician, which is what he turned out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AspenGrow

It's ridiculous to assume that you're going to agree with your candidate on all issues, but at least on the big ones you should.

---

Well in a way feel fortunate; at least you had a candidate for awhile. There's not a ONE of the candidates in either the primary or now that I really support...just some I dislike more than the others.

Have a good one!:s4: