McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said the vote showed Clinton had more principle than Obama. "Charting Barack Obama's reversals on this issue reads like a road map to political expediency -- further demonstrating he uses his word as a political tool, not a principled commitment. However today, it appears the same cannot be said of Senator Clinton," he said. This is especially funny, given that McCain didn't even vote on it - and hasn't cast a vote in the Senate in about 4 months.
I don't know how any red-blooded american can read that and not be livid. I'm really surprised that you turned this into a partisan issue, as if conservatives promote a government that blatantly violates our constitutional freedoms. libertarians are a classically conservative ideology, and that is far, far away from what this bill was. blame can be laid solely at the doorstep of the Democrat-led congress. They're even more of a doormat now than they were when they were the minority party. It's shameful, really. And I'm really surprised that Obama didn't take a stand on this.
I don't understand what's so bad about giving the telecom companies immunity for cooperating with the president on wire-tapping. they should be sued for that? Shouldn't it be the gov't under the gun for going after taps without warrants, not the companies that are following executive orders.
Did this include both civil and criminal behavior? Would it be possible for a future AG revisit this issue?
this is a bigger issue than obama (i'm not defending him) the democrats are still afraid of being soft on terror, its ridiculous. if there was anytime to strike down these rightwing assaults on the constitution it would be now. its an issue of being out of touch. i bet the average american voter doesn't even know what's going on with FISA. if the democrats fight this, and this issue actually becomes fodder for mainstream press instead of more pressing issues like Obama's church, when americans find out what is happening to their rights they will take the side of taking their rights back. its not anything to be afraid of, but they are so afraid of being considered the soft party they miss obvious chances like this to expose what has gone on since 9-11. they need a new strategy overall.
Are you sure the public isn't already aware of this? It's not like this information hasn't been out there awhile. And the press did cover it extensively. I haven't seen any polls on the public's opinion on FISA recently, but back when I see them, I don't recall a vast majority of people being against it. In fact, a slim majority may have even favored it.
rhad I feel ya brother but here's some thoughts to think about -- Why the Left Doesn't "Get" Obama Peter Clothier I've been noticing a defensive note creeping into a lot of response to that "Obama moving to the center" criticism. My friend, Daniel Cardozo, takes a more positive view. Here's what he has to say: A remarkable lecture by neurologist and internet-sensation, Jill Bolte Taylor, recently brought popular attention to the divide between the left and right hemispheres of our brains. In simplified terms, our left brain is logic and detail oriented, while our right brain relies on feeling and big-picture thinking. In relation to Obama, we on the political left don't seem to know which side of our brains to trust. We stand open-mouthed in front of our screens as Obama reminds us that "there is not a liberal American and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America," and our right-brains pulse with life. Brimming over with poetry and strength, Obama reminds us that the Iraq war "should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged," and our right brains get intoxicated with hope for a country we can be really proud of. But then we open up our New York Times and read that Obama opposes a court decision banning the death penalty for child rape; that he supports another court decision striking down a gun-control law; that he supports a FISA compromise bill granting immunity to telecom companies who facilitated the Bush administration's streamrolling of civil liberties; that he supports certain limited federal funding of faith-based organizations. And so we flip the switch on our right brains and our left brains cry foul. "What happened to our great hope for the future?" Feeling betrayed, Obama supporters organize protests on barackobama.com, and NYT op-ed specialist Bob Herbert accuses the candidate of "lurching right when it suits him, and... zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that's guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash." In her lecture, Jill Bolte Taylor argues that both our left and right brains are crucially important in their different ways, and that a symbiotic unification of the left and right brain is possible. We progressives need to get our left and right brains working together, and to do this means first recognizing the conflict, which amounts to a significant "left brain" misunderstanding about what Obama stands for. Obama believes it is less important to defeat Republicans on every issue than to repair government so that good ideas can begin to flourish again. Obama is no Kucinich, no Ralph Nader, no Michael Moore, and has never tried to be. Through his flexibility on FISA and his nuanced positions on gun control and capital punishment, Obama is gaining credibility with the right. Instead of yelling at them, he is uncovering areas of genuine common ground. This is Obama's way forward, and it's the kind of politics he has been championing from the beginning -- the kind of politics, let's remember, that had us all deliriously chanting, "Yes, we can!" And Obama believes it is the kind of politics that will finally lead to real movement on the root causes of so many of our challenges: jobs, health care, education, social security. To put it more concretely, Obama's hard-line stance on the 2nd amendment might lead to a softening of his relationship to the right, and that new relationship is what will lead Republican lawmakers to begin to lay down their arms in certain cases. Ultimately, Obama's willingness to upset progressives on some of their pet issues may be what allows progress on the larger goals on which virtually all progressives can agree. Would you soften your stance on gun control, in exchange for more economic opportunity in inner cities, that in turn greatly reduces the incidence of gun violence? I certainly would. The biggest question mark about Obama has been: is his candidacy about more than words? At this juncture in the campaign he is making those words come to life, and he is being hit for it from the left. It's time to ask ourselves: are we "one America" or not? Are conservatives enemies to be vanquished, or are they fellow patriots worthy of being treated with respect? And worthy of being argued with as adults. I encourage everyone who is captivated by Obama's speeches to make a "left brain shift" and trust the man a little bit more. If nothing else, it will make the campaign more fun to watch. http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080709/cm_huffpost/111704;_ylt=Am4xzVgpNgs58QHxpFhW4uKs0NUE
Mark: I am fine with compromise. BUT NOT ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL CIRCUMVENTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS! Give me a break. This is why the democrat-controlled congress is such a heaping pile of uselessness. They don't have any clue what to take a stand on anymore. They just pander, pander, wilt, and pander.
I have given this some thought since the news first broke, and I'm not buying it. This wasn't some fringe radical left wing cause he's compromising. It's an issue that every American should be outraged over and one that lies at the heart of this nation's constitutional principles. I never supported Obama. I'm far too cynical and disillusioned with this nation's politics to fall for that. But his nomination atleast on its very rhetorical surface represented a small glimmer of hope. With this compromise of the Constitution, that is gone. It's not about progressivism or Democratic support. It's about something that should be so obvious - distinguishing oneself as above the depravity which has characterized the past decade. Very disappointing.
This is intellectually dishonest (Not you mc mark, but you did post it). I don't really care about Obama's stance on killing child-rapists and when he came to it (I'm against the death penalty, but it's a really minor issue for me.) But on the Heller decision, Obama has switched his position completely. He was for the DC gun ban until it was overturned, and then he agreed with the courts. It is certainly possible that Scalia convinced Obama to change his mind, and I hope that happened, but it really smacks of political opportunism. It seems like Obama saw a chance to win back some Pennsylvania coal-miners that he lost when he accused them of clinging to guns because they were bitter, and made a calculated change in position. I never expected the Democrats to be against FISA. It's their baby.
so letting the gov't listen in on phone conversations is the same crime as exterminating jews? hmmmmmmm. Again, if all this bill does is to give telecom immunity for cooperating with Bush I don't see a problem. As long as their is a court to monitor the wiretapping and ensure that there isn't abuse taking place, I think the bill is fine.
