Slashdot Mirror
Obama Losing Voters Over FISA Support
Corrupt writes "I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep."
Are there any American citizens (who understand what FISA is) that actually support it? I would think that even the right should be against it. If conservatives want to restore traditional American values, then surely preventing the government from using new technology to conduct widespread domestic spying is conducive to that goal.
With both congress and the president's approval rating hovering at below 20%, it is clear that the will of the people is not being represented. The only plausible explanation for FISA is that it is intended an means for the executive branch to seize an even greater imbalance of power, and/or to cover up widespread criminal activity that took place in the last eight years.
That's why we always vote for Lesser Evil, not the Greater Good.
I've admired Obama, but I never confused him with a genuine progressive leader. Today I don't admire him at all. His collapse on FISA is unforgivable. The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep
Well, now that Obama has the party nomination, he can't possibly manage to get anything done. Now he has to support all the things Hillery wanted done, while making sure that he seems Conservative enough to attract some of the republicans that don't like McCain. If Obama tries to be different, he risks alienating long-time democrat supporters, if he tries to be the same he risks alienating all the people who want to vote for him for change.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
If a higher office candidate has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they aren't progressive.
That probably goes for any letter, but those two in particular.
FTFA: "Every time I wonder whether I can ultimately vote for Obama in November, given all of his political cave-ins, McCain does something new to make sure I have to."
Thanks for propping up the good ol' two-party system there with your thinking, ma'am. Seriously, there are other bloody candidates out there, and if you don't think you should vote for Obama or McCain, then vote for one of them! It really gets tiring listening to the thinking exhibited by most people, which locks us into the hellhole of a political party system we have.
Change starts with you, and all that.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The guy seriously fudged the bucket with me. I actually had some amount of faith in this dude.
This was the big test to see if he would collapse under the pressure of the telecoms. More money was offered so he decided to go with it.
I am very upset over this but I should not be surprised. He is just another politician. (But lesser of the two evils)
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
Senator Obama: Because of the miserable failure that George W Bush has been, I have been placing the candidates for this presidential election under strict scrutiny. Until yesterday, I was proud to tell my friends that I supported Barack Obama for President of the United States. Now, I fear that my interests and your interests are not aligned and I can no longer lend you my support. Yesterday, while you did vote for the Dodd amendment, you failed to support a filibuster, and you failed to vote against the revised FISA bill that does for the telecom companies who have implemented surveillance against the American people what Gerald Ford did for Nixon. Being President of the United States means sometimes taking an unpopular stance on an issue despite the outcry of the public. It sometimes means thinking in the long term instead of the short, 24-hour sound-bite news cycle. What you have done today is embolden the elements of the government that tapped Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and handed them a fresh set of excuses to listen to the phone calls and Internet traffic of the American people. Maybe things work differently in Washington. Maybe the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the president have sworn to Representatives and Senators not to listen to their calls. Maybe the Republicans have sworn to the Democrats not to sabotage them like in the '70s during Watergate. Out in America, away from the halls of power, what protection does the citizen have against those who would gladly violate their expectation of privacy? Might I remind you that the president that suggested this bill also lied to start a war, approved the torture of innocent civilians, and believes himself to be above the law. What you did today was sell The People down the river for political capital. I hope you are proud of yourself. I am not proud of you. You are no different than any other politician, using the politics of fear to get what you want. The only sort of Hope you offer is False Hope - the worst kind because by the time it is identified as such, it is too late. A humble citizen, MasterOfMagic (I put my actual name, but I'm not going to post it here)
I was under the impression that Obama is not perfect but that he would always admit if he was wrong and quickly qork towards the right direction. I think this will be a big test of him in my eyes. If he never turns around on this issue it means he is clearly as stubborn as the rest. If he can admit he is wrong then hes better than someone who started out agreeing with me more.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
If you don't like the entirety of something, you shouldn't vote for it!
Why?
Eventually, someone will hold you responsible for the part(s) you didn't like, and all you can say is, "But I didn't like that part," to which they will respond, asking, "Then why did you vote for it?"
This is why legislators like Ron Paul vote against things: if they don't like the whole thing, they vote no, no matter how important any one part of the whole is.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
It's not just FISA, there's also the death penalty for child rapists (is that "progressive"?), pulling out of public financing, and even being inflammatory on abortion despite being pro-choice in the past.
I think I agree with the Huffington Post. Is this the guy everybody got excited about?
Four years ago I saw an interview with Feingold, the democrat from Wisconsin. I thought he would be the one running this election, and now I wish he were.
Did you just say that if he screws you over, then says, oops I was wrong... it's ok? Put the crack pipe down! How is he going to fix this is the question, not whether he was wrong or not. wow.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Even after following your link to a conservative website I fail to see how what he said is so unreasonable. He is basically saying that we should be like the rest of the world and have our children learn multiple languages early on. Spanish would be fairly useful since there are many people in the US that speak Spanish.
This is my problem with conservative personalities these days. They try to take these things out of context to make it seem like what Obama says is horrible. But every time I look at the full transcript of what he says, he comes off extremely reasonable. This link didn't even hide the context. So really, what's the big deal?
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
The rest of those things don't bother me much at all. I don't expect to share that many viewpoints with anyone, to me those are all small potato personal value judgements that people can reasonably disagree about.
The FISA bill is what is really disappointing. It's amazing how overnight it's completely destroyed my opinion of Obama. When is a politician going to have the courage to stand up and point out the simple absurdity of shredding our own constitution, trampling human rights, and sparing no legislation to cover our own asses to fight a threat that is statistically insignificant? The terrorists must just be laughing in their caves right now. Are we such pussies in America that we can't rely on real intelligence and police work to fight terrorists?
This isn't a partisan issue at all, it's the absolute insanity of our times. Obama really sounded like he understood that, then he turns around does the exact opposite. It's not about flip-flopping per se, it's about pretending to know what the biggest, scariest, most obvious problem is in this country, then turning around and pandering to bamboozled middle america huddled in fear thanks to 7 years of fear-mongering by an incompetent who was just trying to muddle through a job that was way wayyy beyond him. If Obama had stuck to his guns (if he even understood the point of what he was saying), he could have used the bully pulpit to bring rationality back to America ala "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Unfortunately now his rhetoric has become hollow. I still think he may redeem himself as president, but his most powerful tool, his voice, is now castrated.
It's like somebody lent the guy one of those self help books, but the title is, "How To Be A Dick", and he's turning it into his own personal Bible. Doesn't Obama understand that he gets a huge amount of his support from people who just didn't give a crap about politics before, and who will vanish like smoke if he turns into the same old thing with a pretty face painted on it?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
What gave you that impression in the first place, because he said so? All he's ever done is spout platitudes tailored to his audience. He preached hope and change and far left ideology to win the primaries, now he's taken a hard right turn to try and win the general election. He's Bill Clinton with far less experience, far less gravitas, and a better tan.
The problem is that Obama depicts himself as different from all other politicians, that he claimed he would support a filibuster over telecom immunity, and that he voted to cut off filibuster.
He flat out reneged on an important promise, apparently because he wanted to "move to the center", "accept the compromise (sic)", and "appear tough on terrorism".
All he really did was show that he is just another ethically challenged politician.
Infuriate left and right
And if that is truly the case, then it shows Obama's true colors. This bill does not introduce a vital new tool or method for law enforcement to track down the "bad guys." It only removes restrictions on existing methods, and so now we have even fewer protections from our government. If this is the goal Obama really sought, then he is not promoting the sort of "change" that I am really interested in. This is the compromise: Obama wants to loosen restrictions on how investigations will be performed, so he is willing to allow telecom companies to be immune from prosecution for their role in assisting the government in ignoring restrictions on how investigations may be performed.
Then my friends wonder why I am voting third party.
Palm trees and 8
What COULD he do? As a Senator, he could only do 3 things;
Vote for amendments eliminating the immunity provision (He did)
Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)
Vote FOR the bill and bide his time (He did)
Make no mistake, Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity; there's simply nothing yuo can do when OTHER blue dog democrats with cushy incumbent seats wantto retain their fat lobbyist paychecks and vote with their wallets. rather than their constituent's values, defeating perfectly logical amendments.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Frankly, I don't really don't care that much that the telecoms get off the hook in this instance. Yes, it's a bad precedent, but it's far from the biggest problem here. It's part of a pattern that is far more worrying.
The biggest problem is that the FISA amendments allow the government to destroy surveillance records, or not to keep them in the first place. What possible legitimate purpose could that serve? The telecom thing isn't there to protect the telecoms, it's there to make it impossible for private individuals to determine the scope of the government's intrusion via discovery. Likewise, the amendment prevents states from investigating crimes committed against their citizens.
Clearly, the biggest practical effect of these amendments is to allow the executive branch to engage in criminal activities and obstruct any effort, private or public, to determine the extent of those crimes.
This is not a "liberal" issue. Concealing and destroying evidence shows this is not an argument about the extent to which the President is bound by one law or another, but whether he can exceed his constitutional powers with impunity and then escape accountability. This transcends liberal/conservative divide over the President's "inherent powers", because whatever you think the scope of the President's powers should be, this allows him to exceed that scope.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What would have been the point of suing the telecom companies?
The point was to find out exactly what the hell happened through the discovery process. This wasn't some thinly veiled attempt to get money out of Verizon and AT&T. This was an attempt to find out what the extent of this illegal wiretapping program was and to hold those who violated the law (within the administration and within Verizon/AT&T) accountable.
The lawyers would have made most of the money anyway
Yes, those money-grubbing lawyers at the EFF and ACLU only took this on so they could make legal fees....
What if it comes out the "wrong" way? What if the courts decide the President has that authority?
Yes, if only Dred Scott had been content to remain a slave and hadn't sued to change it... then we wouldn't have had the horrible Dred Scott decision on the books.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There are some admirable politicians out there. The fact that you are unwilling to look at their individual behavior, and simply tar them all with the same brush, marks you as intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Senator Obama:
When I first heard you speak, I was moved, literally. Very few people who speak give me chills, and you were one of them. Later, I was excited to attend your speech at Joe Luis Arena when you came to Detroit--not only excited to hear you speak in person, but excited to be a part of something big and meaningful. Though I am still young and have only been following politics for the past eight awful years, I felt honored to be able to finally support a politician who seemed different from any other.
I'm now several months removed from the first time I heard you speak and a few weeks past the night I attended your speech in Detroit. I'm writing to you five days after Independence Day, and only a few hours after you voted for the FISA Amendment Act. Simply put, I feel cheated, and I know I'm only one of tens of thousands of supporters who feel the same way. It's one thing for the majority of the Senate to pass this legislation, it's another for someone who you thought was different to vote for it. That's the biggest slap in the face.
In light of your vote, I'm no longer excited about your stake for presidency. I thought that we might be on a path to something new, something better. But your vote tells a different story, and that's not change that I can believe in. It's simply more of the same.
Thank you for your time.
Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)
Why not vote against it?
Why not punish the people who draft bills that are too broad in scope or have insane riders on them and let them know that if they want laws passed they should learn to be concise? Or how about actually standing up for their constituents?
What the hell is wrong with the government working for the people it's supposed to represent for a freaking change?
Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity; there's simply nothing yuo can do when OTHER blue dog democrats with cushy incumbent seats wantto retain their fat lobbyist paychecks and vote with their wallets.
WRONG. Yes there is. How about voting your conscience rather than rolling over and taking it up the tailpipe? This is supposed to be a leadership value?
Please don't think I'm a Republican when I type this, but if this is Obama's idea of "Change" - well, it looks like the same old same old to me.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Kind of like voting for a war ... and then opposing it.
The time for thoughtful consideration is BEFORE the damage is done.
Words are cheap.
I was under the impression that Obama is not perfect but that he would always admit if he was wrong and quickly qork towards the right direction. I think this will be a big test of him in my eyes. If he never turns around on this issue it means he is clearly as stubborn as the rest. If he can admit he is wrong then hes better than someone who started out agreeing with me more.
How do you know that they won't change their views back once elected?
That's the dilemma that politicians face. If they change their views, they are "flip-floppers". If they don't, they are stubborn.
Ignore for a second how you feel about any particular politician and consider this example. Obama is being hammered for changing his views. Bush is hammered for NOT changing his views. They are damned if the do and damned if they don't.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"Nothing would ever get done if everyone in Congress refused to vote for anything that contained a provision that they didn't agree with."
That would be an ideal country to live in. The greatest politicians in history have been the ones that did not do anything. No bad ideas made reality, no debts paid back to campaign financiers, no added restrictions on individual rights. It's the ones that think they need to change the world - acting on their definition of "the Greater Good" - that you must worry about.
Note: This is not flamebait. It is the truth.
He voted FOR the bill. Nevermind he said that he would never vote for a bill that granted immunity. Nevermind that this bill is the last chance at exposing Bush's misdoings regarding the wiretapping scandal. The key is that it undermines individual protections; and he voted for it in favor of executive branch power.
He did NOT need to vote for the bill. The idea that law enforcement is denied 'precious' tools has been debunked time and again. All it denies is oversight - which is a terrible, terrible idea. The original FISA bill allowed for wiretaps with warrants, warrants that are easy to get, even after the fact. Instead, he has opted for blind trust in the executive branch.
There is always something you can do; he didn't need to vote for the bill. It would have been an easy thing to do - the bill still would have gone through. Make no bones about it; he's shifting to the middle in hopes of picking up swing voters who swallow the purple punch and believe the current Administration's rhetoric about how this is 'vital' to national security, or we're all DOOMED. It's overblown propaganda, and people need to recognize that.
Finally, let me note that he's not 'biding his time'. There is nothing he can do now; the bill has to be repealed by Congress or the Supreme Court. It's not like once he's President he can wave a magic wand and make the bad thing go away. More to the point, even if he could, voting for the bill does nothing to increase his ability to do so. It's entirely gutless move.
[Ego]out
Ah, I see, so it's all those other Democrat's faults. Obama is just selling out on liberty as a reasonable measure.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Claiming some morally superior position doesn't mean a damn
thing if you aren't willing to actually act on it.
Obama should have been willing to start the fillibuster himself.
He's supposed to be a leader rather than a follower. This is
true of him just in his role of Senator. Nevermind asking to
be President.
At the very least he should have voted no on the bill and made
a nice speech on CSPAN.
He was given an opportunity to be counted amongst those that are
as he describe himself "not merely a part of the status quo" and
he failed.
Now his "new and progressive and different" rhetoric has been completely "busted".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
He's not going to be the leader of the people. He's going to be the executive authority of the Union. He's going to lead the troops. But he has no direct authority over the law-abiding citizens of the country.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
I'm curious to know how you could believe that a man going back on his word -- breaking an agreement -- is somehow justifiable in anybody's moral code.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
He's not just a senator anymore -- he's a de facto party leader, and gets as much press as he wants. People will pour over his every word. He could and should have used this opportunity to take a stand against widespread civil rights violations. Most democrats would have followed him, too -- nobody's gonna retract their endorsements at this point.
Instead he made a nominal fuss, then caved to the big money. Typical.
(Precious tools? Please...)
Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity
He voted for the bill, ergo he favors telecom immunity. Case closed.
As someone once said, you can judge a man more accurately by his actions than his words.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Your ideals are noble but your efforts misguided. Rome wasn't built in one day and the US political system will not change overnight simply because Obama (or ANY politician) suddently decides to rage against the machine. Once elected, Obama can enact REAL change and retroactively remove the immunity if it is even worth it.
I personally don't believe single-issue voters have ever, or WILL ever decide an election and therefore Obama has made a shrewd political move insuring his electability. The Republican propaganda machine THRIVES on perceived fears of terrorism; giving them prime ammunition like "Obama voted against finding terrists!",while the bill is GUARANTEED TO PASS ANYWAY, achieves nothing.
Idealist never achieve anything; the only vote that has lasting effect is from the rooftop. The restis all decided by the leaders-that-be, and solely themselves.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
There's only one party...The RepublicCrats, They pretend to disagree on minor distractions, but nobody wants real change. After all, a politicians first job is to get reelected. The current system put them in power, and they are not about to change it.
I used to say "If you want real change, vote for Chuck Baldwin with the Constitution party." Then the black box voting machines stopped counting our votes.
Now I say "If you want real change, learn to shoot."
Andy
The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.
FISA's authority here was already exclusive, as was recently reiterated in a Federal court by a Bush Sr. appointed judge. Obama voted for a meaningless provision. "I'll help you get away with doing something illegal this time, if you'll let me make it double-illegal for next time!" is not a compromise, it is idiocy. The only remaining question is whether Obama was dumb enough to believe this argument himself or just dishonest enough to try to trick his supporters into believing it.
My sympathies for those of you voting in swing states. Helping choose between John "I'd like to shred the Fourth Amendment" McCain and Barack "I'll shred the Fourth Amendment, but I'll feel sad about it" Obama is probably still important, but it can't be very fun.
Actually Kucinich made it clear that he was saying the same thing you did - it was an Object, Flying, Unidentified. He was then asked "What do you think it was?" and replied "I have no idea."
However, he has an in-law who's a fairly successful (in the sense of 'profit-making') astrologer, and she whomped it up horribly, going on about how he felt a great sense of peace and all the usual woo-woo.
Guess which version the media keeps harping on?
Far left ideology? Man you Americans have some strange ideas about what left-wing ideology means. "hard left" where I live would mean slashing military expenditure to perhaps 5% of the current levels, instituting proper free healthcare everywhere, proper free education everywhere,.. actually HARD left would mean making private education illegal. Try googling "socialist workers party" for some hints at what "hard left" really means.
Nelson Mandela blew up government buildings under direction of the Soviet-backed African National Congress. Whether he did it for the right reason or not, is not the point. The point is that he used violence to affect political outcome. That makes him a terrorist.
Obama is not, as far as I can tell, a terrorist. He's just a politician - and that means saying and doing whatever is convenient at the time. It's the same now as it always was.
History has provided, from time to time, true statesmen - but they are are far and few between - and their status is usually guaranteed or denied to to political considerations at the time.
David Ben Gurion was a terrorist who blew up buildings and assassinated British soldiers and officers, yet he's the hero of Israeli independence. Michael Collins was the same for Ireland, and you have your Nelson Mandela.
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist who blew up a government building hoping to start a revolution. Instead of an honourary doctorate and a country, he got executed. Everyone likes to admire a winner; only "fanatics" and "extremists" admire losers who use the same tactics.
Either way, trying to compare Obama to Nelson Mandela has got to be some sort of corollary to Godwin.
Why not vote against it?
Because the bill passed, while not a good bill, is STILL better than the present law. Obama, and others, tried to strip the immunity. It didn't work. So given the choice between maintaining the status quo (worse) or accepting that the telecom companies have bought out a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Obama voted for the bill so AT LEAST executive power is restrained a bit more.
Obama chose 'something' over 'nothing'.
The immunity is also not absolute, and if/when Obama is President, hopefully the issue can be revisited when a Bush veto doesn't have to be overcome (which is a mere 6 months from now).
paintball
What is wrong with FISA that the current bill fixes?
This bill changes nothing except now what the Bush administration did illegally, it can now do legally. And the fact that they were doing it illegally before is also, actually, legal.
The only thing this does is confirm that the CIA/NSA can do whatever they want regardless of the law and if they get caught, Congress will bail them out.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
This is just ONE of MANY examples proving that Obama is a total stuffed shirt who only says the right things, and almost never does them.
If he was a REAL candidate of hope and change, who actually gave even a passing nod to the constitution, or even any of the tenets set forth by Franklin, Jefferson, and the other geniuses who set up our system, he would not be a "realistic" candidate, and he certainly wouldn't get so much air time on corporate TV.
All you Obama fans had a real guy representing the stuff you really wanted. His name was Kucinich, and his wife is totally hot.
Oh, and he's the one in congress delivering impeachment papers day after day, too.....
But what he doesn't have is CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSN, and Rolling Stone completely sucking his cock. There's a reason for that, too. He's the real deal, unlike stuffed shirt Obama, who talks the talk and then sells the constitution out for corporate and political power every time. Just like the FISA thing.
You people claiming it's a simple mistake that he will work to correct are idiots. The FISA thing is an OBVIOUS choice, actually talked about DIRECTLY in the fourth amendment.
You people claiming Republican's are far worse are also idiots. They are exactly the same. They just don't even SAY the right things. Well, they say the right things for old people and people who talk to invisible men in the sky, but then they vote pro corporate and pro fascist just like the Democrats. There is NO difference. The party lines are both the same: The bottom line for Viacomm, AOL/Time Warner, Bertelsmann, News Corp, and Disney.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Once elected, Obama can enact REAL change and retroactively remove the immunity if it is even worth it.
Wow, it's as if the Republicans' fantasies about unlimited executive power and the Democrats' fantasies about Obama's goodness had a baby. A baby with fetal alcohol syndrome, who will never even be able to comprehend the SchoolHouse Rock version of "how a bill becomes a law"...
therefore Obama has made a shrewd political move insuring his electability.
Absolutely. He was against telecom immunity before he voted for it. There's no way the Republicans will ever be able to use that against him. He's nearly as electable as John Kerry, now!
The Republican propaganda machine THRIVES on perceived fears of terrorism; giving them prime ammunition like "Obama voted against finding terrists!"
That could have been awful. Instead they're now stuck with second-rate ammunition like "Obama voted against the Protect America Act for finding terrists, but caved after we courageous Republicans showed him who was boss!"
Idealist never achieve anything
The Bill of Rights looks pretty idealistic. Just because it'll be completely dismantled in the end doesn't mean it wasn't a very good achievement for a very long time.
``It's not like the requirements to get a FISA warrant (someone with a pulse to stand in front of a secret court and say "gimme" at some point not necessarily before you started spying) were exactly onerous.''
And that's the problem we have gotten into since 9/11. We _had_ laws and mechanisms in place to get the Bad Guys. Now, we have let governments grant themselves the power and the legitimacy to go after everyone.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Unless you are comparing it to the statutes of the "Protect America Act" this law is significantly worse, and does nothing to protect our safety. But it is worse than the PAA, because the statutes of that law expire, which puts us back to the fine FISA act which was passed in 1975. There is nothing that this new law adds to the '75 FISA act which protects our safety. What it does is allows the Executive Branch full power to break the law as it sees fit, with the only oversight coming from the Executive Branch, this law would make the Watergate affair legal.
Goddamnit, there were no fucking "precious tools" that would be denied without this bill. If you can't get the rubber stamp of the FISA court to approve your warrant, you've got less than nothing.
This is 100% about covering up the most massive, vicious, and egregious violation of the fourth amendment in the history of this nation. It has absolutely fucking nothing to do with surveilling terrorists.
I don't want McCain to win, but at the same time, someone has to have some principles somewhere along the line and I'm not giving up mine. I'm standing up for myself and not supporting Obama any longer.
I don't know about anyone else, but this sounds just as narrow-minded as any other single-issue voter. In a democracy, you will not always get everything you want. You need to weigh what's important, and what's possible, and try to get the best candidate you can. Sure, a multi-party system would help, but beyond that you sound no different than someone voting entirely on the issue of abortion, gay rights, or gun rights.
Sure, if you find FISA to be -the- issue, and it outweighs all other issues (environment, Iraq, foreign policy, etc), then go right ahead and throw your support elsewhere. Or if you think that his stance on FISA shows an endemic problem in his character, then go right ahead.
I think this is crap, too. And I'm really upset (in general, at first glance. I haven't read enough about it to have a full opinion) that Obama voted this way. But there other important aspects of his platform that I -do- agree with, and I won't let this one reasonably large flaw change that.
There's a THREE DAY grace period between when the spies can start spying, and they have to get their spying rubber-stamped by a Judge.
So, there is NO LAW ENFORCEMENT BENEFIT to this bill. It is purely there to provide cover for CRIMINALS.
Remember that: Anyone who voted for this bill is SOFT ON CRIME and HATES THE AMERICAN VALUES OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, AND DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Let's be clear about this. The Immunity was added this way because the administration says that while the Law Enforcement Tools were important, the immunity was more important. They were willing to turn down the law enforcement tools, to get the immunity.
I agree - it *is* more important to deny the principle that when the President orders you to break the law, you are allowed to break the law, than it is to stop another terrorist attack.
Let's make this clear - I lost friends in the Pentagon *and* the World Trade Center, and I would *rather* get hit by Al-Qaeda, *again*, than to have established that the President can order you to break the law.
Frankly, I consider this immunity an another in a series of absolute wrongs foisted on our country by cowards and traitors.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Welcome to the world of politics. As much as I like Obama, one must never forget he is still a politician.
It just took the flag pin and now this for more people to get it. Unlike Hillary, Barack waited until after the primaries to start making the huge mistakes.
The immunity only covers CIVIL liability, criminal liability is still on the table, but with the 'leaders' we have, I cant see anyone bringing criminal charges against the TELCO and Bush et al unless the next president makes it an issue. (which they should)
So chin up, Obama isn't perfect, but aside from a revolution to replace the government, he will be better than what we could get with McCain or what we have now with the moron from Connecticut via Texass.
We didn't lose our rights overnight, and it will take time and effort to regain them. That is if people start worrying more about the future of America and less about gas prices, American Idol, and gay marriage.