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."

Comments

Who supports FISA?

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[martinw89]

Yes, and in the true sense of "conservative," one would want to LIMIT the power of the government. But the problem is that "conservative" today is a way to masquerade as someone one's not.

And don't get me started on the other side of the pond; they're just playing like they're fighting the bad politics.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[nomadic]

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.

The right has this weird shifting thing going on. When they're in power the government is always right, and law enforcement should be able to do anything it needs to do. When they're not in power the government is eeeeevil, and law enforcement is made up of "jackbooted thugs."

Re:Who supports FISA?

[rockout]

The problem is not who supports FISA or what FISA really means to the average American; the problem for Obama is one of perception.

If he votes against this bill, he loses far more votes in the middle of America (both the literal and political middle) than he's going to lose from the left (and the coasts) by voting FOR the bill. That doesn't excuse his vote for it, and I wish he had voted against it, but giving McCain and the right an easy attack point ("Look! He's soft on the terrerrsts!") probably isn't something he can afford at this point.

Sadly, the best we can hope for is change after he's actually elected president, because being perceived as soft on terror while he's running for president may actually cost him that position.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[morgan_greywolf]

Today's Republicans are not conservative, plain and simple. They're as "big government" as the Dems

• That's why I prefer the terms statist and non-statist. You either want a big government intervention or you don't.
• Democrats want the government to redistribute the wealth from the rich to the poor.
• Republicans want the government to redistribute the wealth from the poor to the rich.
• Democrats want the government to censor the politically incorrect.
• Republicans want the government to censor anything 'immoral' or 'indecent'.
• Democrats want a mommy state.
• Republicans want a theocracy.

Take your pick.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Shakrai]

I support the FISA amendment. It's a good compromise. Read the thing before judging.

Obama's own statement explaining why he supports it suggests otherwise:

"I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses."

Indeed. We've now set a precedent for the Executive Branch to violate the law and not be held to account. Nobody is going to be held accountable for past violations of FISA -- not the current administration, not the telecommunications companies, not the intelligence agencies, nobody. Given all that I'd really like to hear Obama explain why future administrations are going to follow the restrictions contained in this FISA bill?

This is a dark day.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[drmerope]

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.

Apparently you do not understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

This roe over domestic spying is a smear no more fair or accurate that the swift boat campaign against Kerry. It simply is not a true characterization of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). The whole idea behind TSP is that NSA intercepts communications over US based fiber infrastructure originating at foreign sources. Any intercepts of US persons are accidents and discarded. Further, no evidence accidentally collected on a US person may be used in court, nor may it be communicated to any officer of government investigating any crime but terrorism.

Calling this domestic spying does severe semantic damage to our language, and THAT is a danger to our freedom. Newspeak people.

FISA's role in this endeavor is whether TSP requires court orders preceding each and every intercept. The FISA courts cannot authorized "domestic spying". There is not a domestic spying component to these programs.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Wrath0fb0b]

While I strongly object to the telecom immunity provisions, I support the substantive amendments to FISA regarding the wiretapping provisions. Of course, I would certainly vote against the bill as-is.

The rationale for amending the substantive provisions of FISA is pretty straightforward: the original statute had a bug where purely international communications passing through the US could not be bugged on US soil without a warrant, but if you tapped the very same cable in int'l waters, it was legal. This distinction makes no sense whatsoever -- the location of the wiretapping equipment should not be relevant.

Secondly, neither the original FISA nor any other provision of law ever prohibited interception of a foreign to foreign phone call, even if the physical interception happens on US soil. That same foreign-to-foreign communication would require a warrant, however, if it was written in a email that was retrieved from storage inside the US. Again, a distinction that makes no sense -- the mode of communication ought not to be relevant.

Thirdly, the new bill still provides that a court order is necessary if a target is inside the country OR a US citizen. In fact, the old FISA did not require a warrant to target an American citizen outside the country, whereas the new bill does -- an expansion of protection for our citizens traveling abroad.

If anyone wants to show me any provision of this bill that provides for the warrant-less wiretapping of American citizens, I'd be glad to see it. Until then, that characterization is unfounded. See the analysis at Balkinization (who opposes the reforms, btw, so you can't accuse me of getting information from a friendly source!): http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/guide-to-new-fisa-bill-part-iii.html

Of course, it's utterly contemptible that Pres. Bush didn't go to Congress in 2001 and get the law fixed instead of just ignoring it. That fact, however, is strictly independent of the merits of the reforms. Simply pursuing a goal illegally (immorally and in unbelievable disregard for the rule of law) does not actually materially change the merits of the goal itself.

Re:Who supports FISA?

[martinw89]

And that's exactly my point. Politicians are striving for "looks" rather than the best interest of our country on both sides. In the primaries, when looks were not influenced by the political right as much, Jeremiah Wright suddenly became a problem for Obama. But Barack didn't do the best for his "looks" at first, he went to great lengths to not personally attack Wright. Anybody remember his speech? That speech inspired me a great deal; in fact a little of that hope caught on with me.

But now I see that Obama is not going to hold press conferences on important matters and deliver well written speeches. His biggest group of supporters did not want him to sign this bill yet it seems that his campaign put more thought into a crazy mega church preacher than our government spying on us. To them, it was a simple logical decision. This can be soft on terror, so don't do it. Yes Obama made that small attempt at amending the bill, but there was no big speech, there was no hope. It was literally "I'll try, but don't expect much. Sorry guys."

Re:Who supports FISA?

[Snocone]

Yes, and in the true sense of "conservative," one would want to LIMIT the power of the government.

You misunderstand "conservative". The true sense of "conservative", and the only one it should retain for political discourse to have any objective meaning whatsoever, is to avoid change. Thus it is correct to label as "conservative" those who defended absolute monarchy against its removal, and those who defended the Communist Party of the USSR against its removal, although both of those are as far from limited power as one could imagine.

And, indeed, a great deal of the positions referred to as "liberal" in current U.S. political discourse are, in fact, conservative. A misunderstanding helped not in the slightest by the universal usage of "conservative" as a synonym for "evil" by those self-identifying as "liberal". And vice versa, of course.

Limiting the power of the government is most correctly -- or at least, most understandably -- referred to these days as a "libertarian" policy. This is also referred to as "classical liberal", to distinguish the original philosophy referred to as "liberal" from its current meaning, which it seems in the vast majority of cases works out to "utterly totalitarian, but in service of ends we feel are good, namely stomping out any disparity among individuals".

Re:Who supports FISA?

[fredrated]

"broad military issues should be left with strong leadership, not with bureaucracy"

          The founding fathers said congress declares war, not the president

"International terrorism is primarily a military - NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT - matter"

          As another has said, this requires investigation, not a military strong point

"We don't need warrants against spies"

          funny, the Constitution says nothing about exceptions for spies

"Communications of internationals, like it or not, are NOT covered by the US Constitution"

          sure it is, where it says we are not to be survailed without a warrent.

Why do you hate Americas freedoms?

Re:Who supports FISA?

[SputnikPanic]

I was at Monticello very recently, and I saw Jefferson's grave. If I had listened closely, I probably would have heard sounds of rotational movement emanating...

Lesser evil

[NetDanzr]

The only thing Obama has going for him this week is that McCain is matching him misstep for misstep.

That's why we always vote for Lesser Evil, not the Greater Good.

Sigh...

[bigstrat2003]

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.

Fudged the bucket

[Drakin020]

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)

My letter submitted to Obama's website

[MasterOfMagic]

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)

Re:Bills

[Rinisari]

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.

A multi-cave

[pzs]

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?

I am a libertarian

[kipin]

Who supported Dr. Ron Paul and came to the conclusion that I would vote for Obama because I believed he would change the world's opinion of the United States.

However, after his vote on FISA, I have decided to throw my vote to Bob Barr, whereas I was previously planning on voting for Obama.

I hope others who were planning on voting for Obama decide to do the same.

The political culture in this country scares me, and I am very afraid of where we are headed. It is a shame to see the Constitution mocked like this. The only hope I have left is in the judicial system which I hope has the balls to stand up to the power grab and strike it down as unconstitutional.

Re:Bills

[maztuhblastah]

So instead of voting to take a way a tool in our war on terror,

Don't be deceptive. FISA has worked fine for 22 years -- there's no reason it suddenly needs to be updated now. The only thing this bill removes is judicial oversight and accountability. It's not as though it's challenging to get approval for a legitimate tap from the FISA court -- they've only ever rejected a handful of requests. It's also not about the need to tap in an emergency: FISA makes provisions for that too. Taps can be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that has to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours.

No, this bill is about removing judicial oversight, removing accountability, and removing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Re:Good time...

[Nutria]

not to be in the US.

Oh, please. Australia banning Fallout 3, Canadian judge overruling a parent's normal punishment, and Britain is officially insane.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6aaf855a-47e3-4e3f-8709-5b53dcfffff0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nbaby.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2008/06/25/noindex/nchild.xml

I'll stick with the imperfect USA.

Canada, being so close to the US, still appears to have a little sense:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080628/steyn_commission_080628/20080628?hub=TopStories

The Honeymoon Is Over

[telbij]

he is "no doubt" a progressive, just one who now supports the scandalous FISA "compromise" and Antonin Scalia's views on gun rights and the death penalty, no longer plans to accept public campaign funding, and wants to make sure women aren't feigning mental distress to get a "partial-birth" abortion

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.

If you don't like what he did

[Alzheimers]

Tell him so.

It's not the issue, it's the meta-issue

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bills

[betterunixthanunix]

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.

Before Everyone Goes Off the Hook on this One

[Knara]

Perhaps you want to actually read what the man has to say about it:

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once Iâ(TM)m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics,

I admire certain politicians

[spun]

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.

Re:I admire certain politicians

[ColdWetDog]

There are some admirable politicians out there.

No, you're thinking of Statesmen. Those are dead politicians (Berkeley Breathed).

The answer is right there

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:The answer is right there

[MrMarket]

Why not vote against it?

You need to weigh more than just telecom immunity when considering this vote. I'm not saying he made the right vote

Perhaps the 4th Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:The answer is right there

[KenSeymour]

There are two sides of national politics, principles and compromise.

Senator Obama reversed himself on retroactive immunity because he felt the FISA bill was a good compromise.
I can't site it but I remember him being quoted as saying there were adequate protections
in the bill and that overcame his objections to retroactive immunity.

Where this is a change from the past seven years is this:

Our current president is known for is never changing his mind no matter what happens. People used
to think that was a virtue, but look what has happened. Bush will say over and over that he will
veto a law that contains "X" where X is some principle he is against. As a result, there has been
no movement on some issues.

Obama is showing that he is the opposite. He will compromise with people he disagrees with and
change his mind. Some may see that as expedient. I see that as a good alternative to having
two groups stand on opposite sides of the room never reaching an agreement while big problems
go readdressed.

As a lifelong Democrat with left of center views, I struggle between being pissed off at
Democrat Senators (like Dianne Feinstein) who often vote against my own opinion and also
wanting all these legislators to work together and make some headway against the growinglist of problems our country faces.

Sure I'm upset at retroactive immunity. But I can't vote on only one issue because I think
that the environment, the deficit, the falling dollar, rising oil prices, immigration,
health care are also important.

The struggle for me is that on the one hand, I want Democrats and Republicans to work together
to solve some of these problems. On the other hand, I'm not always happy with the result.

If a politician signals that they are never going to change their vote, then no one bothers
to change the bill in order to get your vote.

If you can find someone who sticks to their principles and never changes their mind, go ahead
and vote for them. But that sounds like what we have had for the last 7+ years -- same old same old.

Re:The answer is right there

[rumcho]

Well, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. That's why he's a senator - he can write legislation that is not broad but very specific. Obama needed to vote NO on this FISA bill and propose another one. What's so difficult? "You're damn if you do and you're damn if you don't"? Bullshit!

Re:The answer is right there

[MindStalker]

Good things about the bill
1) It closed many loopholes that allowed the warrentless wiretaps in the first place.
2) Requires further wiretaps to follow at least some process (process isn't perfect but its better than the lack of process before).
Bad things about the bill.
1) Provides retroactive immunity to telecoms, it doesn't provide forward immunity though.
2) Expands wiretapping provisions over the old laws, but as I said earlier previously the old laws were ignored completely... Shrugs.

Re:The answer is right there

[mattwarden]

Don't be ridiculous.

1) Bill is submitted with Rider Amendment #7.
2) Bill fails.
3) When asked, people who voted against the bill say they would have voted for it if not for Rider Amendment #7.
4) Bill is submitted with a revised amendment or absent the amendment.

If you vote for the damn thing anyway, why would politicians ever fear adding on seriously controversial rider amendments???

Obama... Grow a spine!

At this point it would not matter.

[khasim]

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.

Re:You admire a politician?

[AmaDaden]

He did, kinda http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/my-position-on-fisa_b_110789.html. He responded to the criticism but still held his stance. Basically it seems that to him it was more important to prevent future abuse then to vote for the power to punish past abuse.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.

So basically he voted for this to undo things from the bill from last year. If this bill failed a worse one was in the works that the Bush gang would have liked to see get passed. So I'm guessing if Dems started to vote ageist it GOP members (who wanted the worse one) would have voted ageist this one. The dems might have been able to dead lock things but that might have meant that the NSA could continue to do wire taps with out restriction. Personally I'm not at all happy about this but I think he did the best he could and I still think that he will do more to undo the abuse once in office.

Re:You admire a politician?

[Divide By Zero]

What COULD he do? As a Senator, he could only do 3 things;
Vote for amendments eliminating the immunity provision (He did)

Good.

Vote against the bill, denying law enforcements precious tools (He didn't)

"precious tools"? The ability to spy on Americans, in violation of their rights guaranteed by Amendment IV to the United States Constitution? 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.

Vote FOR the bill and bide his time (He did)

He could have voted AGAINST the bill, knowing full well that it'll pass, but sticking to what he said he'd do, and differentiating himself from his unpopular predecessor and his main competition.

He could have SPOKE against the bill, supporting the filibuster and calling out those members of his Party that were letting people off the hook for committing felonies and letting the Government off the hook for violating the Constitution. He really does speak well, and he chose not to speak here.

The man would not have lost political capital by opposing the least popular President ever (?) and he wouldn't have lost a lot of financial capital because he doesn't need AT&T's money. He could have gained both (for keeping his word) and he failed. This was a losing move for Senator Obama.

Make no mistake, Obama has clearly stated he is against granting the telecoms immunity;

And Bush clearly stated that he was a uniter, not a divider, and that's what counts, right? What a politician SAYS means exactly zero. What he DOES is what counts, and this is what he did. This kind of behavior is what you take to the bank, not a statement.

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.

Sure there is. You can lead. You can say, "No, I won't gut the Constitution. You all can, but I won't." The man is running to be the leader of 300-some million Americans and can't successfully convince 51 Senators to uphold an oath they all took to defend the Constitution.

Obama, today, lost my vote (which will be a write-in, probably Kucinich, because he sticks to what he believes in, he shares beliefs with me, and his wife's got that wood-elf hot thing going), and a hundred bucks that I'll send to the EFF instead. Call it a futile gesture, but I'm doing what I can do.

How about: Show Moral Backbone?

[EgoWumpus]

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.

Re:You admire a politician?

[Demiansmark]

As I went through the thread, thinking high level thoughts about the nature of politics and my reaction to Obama's vote, I got completely thrown off by your comment... She IS friggin' hott! http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/kucinich%20and%20wife.jpg

Re:You admire a politician?

[jedidiah]

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".

Re:You admire a politician?

[ishpeck]

The man is running to be the leader of 300-some million Americans and can't successfully convince 51 Senators to uphold an oath they all took to defend the Constitution.

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.

Re:You admire a politician?

[MushMouth]

As the presumptive nominee of the majority party, he should have the power to stop any legislation. If not he is the wrong guy for the job. With any pressure by Obama this bill never makes it out of committee.

Re:You admire a politician?

[corbettw]

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.

Re:You admire a politician?

[roystgnr]

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.

Re:You admire a politician?

[imipak]

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.

What's wrong with FISA?

[sweatyboatman]

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.

Re:Because....

[quanticle]

Because the bill passed, while not a good bill, is STILL better than the present law.

How? As far as I can tell, the new FISA bill the same or worse in every respect. It loosens restrictions on government spying, creates loopholes that could be used to have unconstitutionally broad spying programs, reduces judicial oversight, and, finally, adds immunity for past wrongs (effectively turning this into an ex post facto law).

Tell me again, how is this law an improvement?

Re:You admire a politician?

[roystgnr]

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.

Foxes guard the henhouse, worse in every way.

[MushMouth]

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.