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

[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.

[Psycho4Bud]

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:

[AspenGrow]

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.

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.

[Psycho4Bud]

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:

[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. 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.

[Psycho4Bud]

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: