You are totally wrong. Many people and groups on the left that support Obama are not dismissing criticism over this. In fact, they are vocally expressing their anger about his (and other Democrats) actions on FISA and they are taking action. These are groups with large audiences that have raised signifcant amounts of money and are poised to raise a lot more. It's one thing to recognize that there is a lot of room for improvement in our system. But the same old tired cynicism, based on false assumptions about how all sides are the same, is lazy and lame.
Regarding the bolded part, I thought Obama made this plain early in his campaign. The right-wing idea he wants to bulldoze a "left-wing agenda" on the country is complete garbage. Obama is a compromiser and this is but one example. More instances will follow in the campaign (and presidency if he wins). Our current pathetic president Bush said he would be a "uniter". HIS idea of uniting was that Dems were free to agree with him, nothing more than that. Your last sentence is only true if one intends to govern with broad support. Our current sorry president won in 2004 by cutting the country down the middle and focusing on increase the turnout of his "base". There wasn't anything broad about his support.
One of the most dangerous scams in the country is Constitutional Law. (Important because Obama was an "Advanced Constitutional Law" professor.) Jefferson thought that the Constitution was written to be understood by any person of average intelligence. It didn't need years of case study to explain away. The job of Constitutional lawyers isn't to understand the Constitution. The job of Constitutional lawyers is to figure out how to spin whatever the Government wants to do and convince other lawyers that it doesn't violate the Constitution. So when the Constitution says: ...the job of the Constitutional lawyer is to spin a law that allows the government to search without warrants and say that it doesn't violate the Fourth Amendment. They pull spin out of their asses and say things like, "The Fourth Amendment never applied at the border, and common law says that a nation is allowed to search border entries. Regardless of the fact that an international phone call is tapped at an interior location, it's really just a border search." Judges who have been chosen by their willingness to accept this kind of spin buy it hook, line, and sinker. Then another law that further erodes liberty is brought up for review, and this decision is used as precedent. Eventually, it gets to the point that the Constitution really just a "******* piece of paper". We need fewer Constitutional law experts in this country, and more people who will read and defend the Constitution.
okay, that's an issue. anyway, how come on Law & Order and other cop shows telecom companies are always sticklers about giving info to the cops
This makes me just as angry. We have a series of laws that have set up a secret court, allow the government to wiretap international calls without a warrant, allow the government to wiretap domestic calls with ex post facto warrants, doesn't allow the accused to see the evidence from this court, allows the government to prosecute anyone who talks about experiences in this court, and various other atrocities on justice. We have no debate about that. The executive, both houses of Congress, and both parties are in complete agreement on all of that. What do we argue about? Whether or not we can sue the telephone companies for obey illegal orders from the President. Have you ever watched a cat try to kill a squirrel? The squirrel sits there on the branch, wagging his bushy tail, and distracts the cat. Instead of grabbing the squirrel, the cat pounces on its tail, allowing the squirrel to escape. Washington is full of squirrels.
Except many of us responded to those "how is he a uniter" and "he's far left" and "he's just like Hillary" questions by explaining exactly this - he has a history of compromise and a different method of governing that's not nearly as ideological as other candidates. You also see this in his picks for advisors (see the Audacity of Data article). He's interested in (1) getting things done and (2) getting wide support for his plans. If you look at his health care and police interrogation legislation in Illinois, they both worked exactly like this. He doesn't demonize the other side - he listens, considers their views, and incorporates them into his plans to get wide support. That was one of the the fundamental differences in governing style when talking Hillary vs. Obama. I mentioned it way too many times to count - for Hillary, she's confrontational and fights for "her way" (see her health care disaster in the 1990's) and goes for the 51-49% split, whereas Obama starts strongly left, works with the other side, and comes up with something in the middle that's acceptable to many, but ideal for few. You may prefer one method or the other, but they are very distinct styles. For someone who's more moderate, that's a big part of the appeal of Obama - especially given that there are so many issues from taxes to trade that I disagree with him on. People might have hoped he was some kind of progressive, but I'm not sure why. Early in the election, the progressive community supported Edwards as the fighter for that style of leadership. For that community, Obama was the compromise candidate against Hillary (whose war position was untenable) and Edwards (who wasn't going to win).
Weslinder, I've never been in more agreement with you. the issue isn't the phone companies. even though its illegal, we shouldn't be relying on telecoms to protect our rights, they shouldn't even be put in this position
Umm, this thread has nothing to do with Ralph Nader. In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to your comments being factually false (as demonstrated in this thread). I have no idea where Nader came into it.
We should be relying on our representatives. (I'll wait for the laughter to die down) They have failed. Again. Including Obama. Especially Obama, as he has flip-flopped on an issue that is not subject to varying degrees of acceptability simply because it is politically expediant.
That's right, and because Obama has no experience on which he can be judged, flip-flops are even more damaging to him. We have nothing to judge him by except his words, and when he doesn't live up to his word, time and time again, then what really are you left with? An empty, unqualified candidate.
This email just came from a close friend who is a staunch Democrat and an Obama supporter -- but even he thought this was hilarious: Walking Eagle Senator BARACK OBAMA was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation two weeks ago in upstate New York .HE spoke for almost an hour on HIS future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living, should HE one day become the President. HE referred to his career as a Senator, how he had signed 'YES' for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the Senator was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his 'red sisters and brothers'. At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the Senator with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud Senator then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds. A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they came to select the new name had given to the Senator. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of $h-t it can no longer fly.
So when Hillary compromises its a sellout and when Obama compromises hes being wise? One of the major criticism of Clinton whas that she would do anything to win including compromising principles yet you are saying that the problem with her is that she wouldn't compromise. ONe of the biggest arguments for supporting Obama was that he would stand by principles. As I said in my own post it was inevitable in my mind that Obama would compromise. Now you personally might have seen that too but from reading some of the earlier Obama vs. Clinton threads that didn't seem to be case for most of the pro-Obama arguments.
Are you trying to inform me that Obama isn't going to be elected? My cynicism is fairly new, so let's clear the air. The republicans and democrats are not the same. I'm old but not that stupid. I don't assume they are the same, and I don't think they are buddies. I am convinced from reading and studying history and government that the influence of money and power in politics is underestimated by the public at large. You read this book and if you still think I have a lame view of politics fine. link
Major, I apologize, I posted in the wrong thread. This is the flip flop double cross, there I told you so thread. I am used to making these kind of mistakes. I actually like Obama, just wouldn't vote for him because of his positions.
Its because the presidency isn't really a single national election but 50 individual elections. If Obama wants to run a nationwide campaign and capture red states he has to adjust his message to appeal to those red state voters. People like to talk about how Obama won red states during the primaries but keeping in mind that these are Democractic primaries and there might not be enough Democrats in those states to make up the natural Republican advantage. Of course this is a balancing act and one that he has to be careful that he doesn't offend his core supporters into not voting for him but that is the nature of a nationwide campaign. Even GW Bush who's strategy wasn't based on winning broadly still had to finagle his message and compromise a few positions, illegal immigration is the main one that comes to mind, to maintain a coalition to squeak out narrow wins.
Oof, this is such a hack joke by now... http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_walking_eagle.htm WALKING EAGLE President Bush was invited to address a major gathering of the American Indian Nation last weekend in Arizona. He spoke for almost an hour on his future plans for increasing every Native American's present standard of living. He referred to his career as Governor of Texas, how he had signed "YES" 1,237 times - for every Indian issue that came to his desk for approval. Although the President was vague on the details of his plan, he seemed most enthusiastic about his future ideas for helping his "red brother" At the conclusion of his speech, the Tribes presented the President with a plaque inscribed with his new Indian name - Walking Eagle. The proud President then departed in his motorcade, waving to the crowds A news reporter later inquired to the group of chiefs of how they come to select the new name given to the President. They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of **** it can no longer fly.
What did you expect him to compromise on? I asked this back in February but for those who supported Obama because you thought he was going to be a uniter who reached out to the other side but also one who would stand up for progressive causes there is a problem in that to accomplish the first you necessarily have to compromise on the latter.
