Ugh.
“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance — making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”
Of course, any notion that Obama will “work in the Senate” to strip out telco immunity is a joke, and Obama knows it (as does everyone else). This is a big capitulation by Obama, and a big disappointment. It’s an obvious general election move; one can see the logic, while simultaneously deeply regretting that Obama saw it as necessary.
impeachment was necessary.
<
p>It’s pretty tough to take away newly accrued presidential powers without it. Sad, sad news.
Love child of elite corporate scumbags and their Manchurian’s Manchurian candidate.
First I hear that he wants to spend $50Billion on the economy. Just like a politician to come up with the answer without defining the problem. (Why not $5.00 or $5gazillion?)
<
p>The the bowing a scraping to AIPAC and the story of his camp counselor. I know they all pander, but, really…
<
p>Now FISA.
<
p>My youthful exuberance is dying. My hope that he was of better stuff than his contemporaries is dimming.
<
p>One thing I’ve come to see is that politicians don’t consider that actions speak louder than words. They might be right. Will the voters figure out that B.O. might be no different from McSame?
We can only hope that his opposition to immunity manifests itself in much stronger words on the Senate floor. After all it does little good to vote no and not fight like the dickens to stop this legislation.
In fact, it’s of little consolation that every member of the Mass delegation has voted against immunity. The question remains, what have they done behind the scenes. At this point nothing short of the taking down of the corrupt Democratic leadership of the House and Senate is of any value at all as we watch the Constitution being handed over to the gleeful crooks.
Will anyone fight against an AIPAC war resolution?
just like when the Democratic Leadership had the brilliant idea of approving the AUMF to “get the issue off the table before the election.” This issue was not going to move voters.
<
p>All Team Obama had to do was say “we don’t trust Bush and we aren’t giving him the power of a king.”
how can you hold corporations criminally responsible for granting “patriotic” favors to the FBI or CIA or Dick Cheney without first holding those entities criminally responsible for seeking the favors? If the law was broken, was it really the primary fault of the telco’s, who probably feared being branded as traitors or otherwise retailiated against by the only things more poweful than themselves: namely, Bush, Cheney, the various Attorneys General and the thoroughly corrupt Federal Government? Can you really have expected them to have said no to Cheney?
All of which is to say, since we flunked the impeachment test, everything else really became moot anyway- I agree with Ryan.
the better. If he can’t operate within the constitution, he should propose some amendments or quit the presidential race altogether. We are not in a permanent “state of emergency” that will allow a president to do whatever he wants a la Adolf Hitler or Emperor goddamn Palpatine. It’s not worth it. Enough is enough.
Pure, unadulterated red meat for the nitwits who view corporations as the root of every evil.
<
p>Were there no immunity, the result would be that there would be a big class action lawsuit resulting in a settlement for record dollar figures. The settlement would put a strain on the telecommunications industry and set back growth by a year or three, and may wind up provoking a round of competition-limiting consolidations.
<
p>Consumers, as the class plaintiffs, would each receive a coupon worth ten cents off their next phone bill as their “settlement.”
<
p>Then, the plaintiff’s lawyers would collect a few hundred million as their contingent fee, claim that the whole process was a victory for civil rights, and would be lauded by the same nitwits who see corporate boogeymen behind every corner.
<
p>All in all it would be a thoroughly asinine process, a massive waste of time an money benefitting no one other than the plaintiffs’ bar, and would tend to obscure that the problem was with the executive that demanded the information, not the companies that complied with that demand.
<
p>All in all, I have to say I am pleased with Obama’s planting of his foot firmly in posterior of the self-styled “progressives” when their dearly wished for policy demands are so plainly ill-advised.
The reason that this is bad is that these suits were the only way the public could learn of the extent of Bush’s warrantless wire tapping. This was never about going after the telcos for the big bucks. This is about government accountability to the people. The courts have now been stripped of their ability to shine a light on government abuse.
There a Congress and, come January, there will be a whole new executive branch, and can hold hearings and issue reports as I see fit.
<
p>If these lawsuits were supposed to be some cheapo alternative for a Congress that is too busy hiding under its blankie, afraid to go to the mat against one of the least popular executives in history, then this is all the more reason to close the lawsuit avenue off.
never put all your eggs in one basket. over the past, oh, I don’t know, several decades… what exactly has inspired confidence in you that the legislative branch is competent enough to do justice to this through the hearing process?
<
p>illegal wiretapping has now become another new power for presidents in the future. Woot!!
This isn’t about the telcos, not really. It’s about avoiding the investigations. People have spoken at length about how the Dem leadership, who was briefed on this program, is more covering their own ass than Bush’s. If this was just about Bush and the telcos, this legislation would NEVER pass.
<
p>Instead, we’ll just never find out what happened, end of story, period. The Dem leadership is as culpable on this particular issue as Bush AND the telcos.
Thinking about this for ten more seconds made me realize what a preposterous hope this was anyway.
<
p>We needed the lawsuits because that was the only way the story would come out? It would have been a class action lawsuits. Class action lawsuits don’t produce any information.
<
p>Here’s how it woud go:
<
p>Some sucessor to MIllburg Weiss would find three “injured” plaintiffs and file a complaint seeking to certify a national class of plaintiffs consisting of all customers of the defendant that purchased telecommunications services during the relevant time. Defendant disputes class certification by arguing none of the customers were similarly situated, and a year or so of wrangling over this arcane issue ensues.
<
p>Eventually, the class is certified. The next day, the company’s lawyer calls the plaintiffs’ lawyer, and says “How much money do you want?”
<
p>”A billion dollars” says the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
<
p>”Okay” says the company lawyer.
<
p>The next day, they go to the judge. “We’ve reached a settlement your honor.” they say. Now comes mountains of paperwork sent to all of those customers, buried in hyper-arcane legal jargon, that translates as “your information may or not have been disclosed, and you have a claim that has been settled on your behalf.”
<
p>How many customers has AT&T? Verizon? These people, collectively, get to share 75% of a billion dollars. Probably about a dollar or two apiece, at most.
<
p>The plaintiff’s lawyers get $250 million as their fee.
<
p>Case over.
<
p>Moral: there would be no disclosure of anything.
<
p>Dems in Congress may be chickens, but notfor granting immunity to a telephone company. They’re chickens for being afraid to act as an independent branch of government.
Bush says that the telecoms are doing nothing illegal. If they aren’t doing anything illegal, they should have nothing to worry about. Now, either Bush is a liar and the telecoms are breaking the law, or this bill is completely unnecessary and a waste of the US House and Senate’s time. I’m betting it’s the former.
Litigation is a crapshoot.
I’ve always believed, that if a matter won’t settle, and goes so far as a trial, litigants each have a 50:50 chance, and the outcome hinges on often the oddest things: the appearance of the lawyer, the likeable-ness of a particular wittness, the persuasiveness of a particular juror….
Qwest refused to turn over the records. So apparently it was possible, though not easy, according to the original report.
<
p>
The FISA court, as I understand, as something of a record of being a rubber stamp. If you have enough evidence to show your face in front of it, they’ll grant your request. They’ve turned down only a very very small number of requests. Out of 18,000+ requests up through 2004, they only rejected 4, and modified 200 others.
<
p>The fact that the NSA was unwilling to get the court’s approval just goes to show the questionableness of some of their actions.
… asks you to break the law, and you know its breaking the law, compliance is criminal. Keeping it a secret afterward is conspiracy. This is all true regardless of the legal disposition of the FBI.
The reality is that Obama will not be pleasing you lefty types by taking “centrist” positions before the elections. He does need moderate voters to get elected, or have you guys figured out yet that your positions are not those generally accepted by the masses?
Edgar is saying that the “masses” have come to despise American values: our Constitution and our democratic values that have inspired the world.
<
p>Have the public really become so profoundly unpatriotic?
<
p>Is the spirit of liberty really dead in this country?
<
p>I hope not, though recent election results (prior to 2006) would seem to suggest that he may be right.
“Have the public really become so profoundly unpatriotic?”
<
p>That’s a rhetorical question, right? I mean, take a look around…
<
p>It’s not that the general public is unpatriotic (in the treasonous sense), it’s that they have no clue about, much less concern for preserving, the values embedded in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps a better word would simply be, “un-american”.
<
p>We get the government we deserve. When we act (and vote) like sheep we end up electing a shepherd, i.e. a “leader” that won’t think twice about shaving us naked or harvesting some of the flock for lamb chops come the spring feast. It is exactly what we asked for by re-electing Bush in 2004, and it seems even the current Democratic house leadership has decided to play along. Give the people what they want!
unpatriotic in the sense of forgetting that this country was supposedly founded on democratic principles, with strict limitations on the ability of government to intrude into the affairs of citizens and abundant safeguards for individual liberties. The patriotism that manifests itself in “flag lapel pin” controversies is false patriotism, the “last refuge of a scoundrel” like you read about. That said, I love your image of Bush as “The Bad Shepherd”.
There’s going to be another ‘statement’ issued by the Obamintern, err Obama HQ tonight. Let’s see what that says.
<
p>But it’s becoming a pattern. Obama is now de facto shedding the liberal positions he took and shifting moderate/centrist. Where many of us said he instinctually was and is all along.
<
p>The more I look at it, the Obama-McCain story is that the country is voting in the person to complete and collapse the remains of the Bush agenda/policies/commitments. So it’s all going to run in the ruts of the past 6-7 years for at least 1-2 more. In that it’s lot like the 1976 election, in which Carter and Ford vied about the remains of Vietnam, stagflation, etc. that Nixon left to deal with.
<
p>And it’s going to take another set of elections for a real change of agenda. Clinton in ’12…. 🙂
Obama points out how this legislation is an improvement and is honest about how it disappoints him. Yes, getting more through the Senate will be tough, but certainly we can all see his heart is in the right place. I don’t see general election move here as I haven’t seen polls about the public’s attitude toward telecom immunity. What I see is someone who understands that the Senate is generally not the place for “my way or the highway”. Once we elect him President maybe he can issue an executive order to put a stop to this nonsense once and for all.
It is about how the public views national security issues, and the “general public” usually acts like Pavlov’s dogs when those words are uttered. Unfortunately, instilling fear in voters works. This was a “general election move” by Obama. BTW, Congress makes the laws in this country, not the President through executive orders. So what executive order do you think Obama as President could issue which would change the immunity being granted to the telecoms by this legislation? Or do you think he is going to ignore the Constitution like George Bush has?
He won’t be able to repeal telecom immunity through executive order, but he can order that the wiretapping practices themselves be stopped.
When the fallout is finally realized from all this wiretapping stuff, we want the execs who gave into Bush to have immunity? Are you crazy? Bush effectively ignored the legislative process, making this all up as he went along, and now – after the fact – we’re supposed to say, “Don’t worry, that’s okay!” to Mr 26%? Are you crazy?
<
p>This is a huge, huge loss. For you. For me. For Americans everywhere and for the Constitution. I sincerely doubt we know the half of what’s gone on with all this FISA stuff; it already makes Watergate look about as serious as getting a parking ticket. I am so ashamed to be an American right now, with the lack of concern and outrage over this.
I even agree all of this might be grounds for impeachment. I just understand how the Senate works. Maybe when Obama is President he can propose legislation to repeal the immunity, and hopefully make effective use of his bully pulpit in the process.
<
p>This sounds very much like the same-sex marriage discussion and Obama’s position thereon on another thread. Some take the “I want my way and I want it now!” position while I feel like those people need to be reminded how our system works. In both cases I completely agree on the merits, but seem to have a bit more patience.
when your own ass isn’t on the line.
what would have happened if women hadn’t pushed for the vote? If African Americans hadn’t demanded civil rights? What if unions hadn’t struck for healthcare insurance, decent wages, sick time and vacation pay? What if the GLBT from the Stonewall Riots just took the abuse…just one more time? Do you think this country would be what it is today?
<
p>Now imagine (and I know it’s hard)….it was you who has been denied and some “holier than thou” guy, an alleged progressive, told you to be patient. Effem, right?
<
p>Just remember how good it is to be a straight, white man in this country. And remember how many straight, white men run this country and ask yourself if the “pursuit of happiness” in the preamble is only for straight, white men.
I’m just saying don’t lay all your grievences at the feet of one man and demand that he fix it. That’s just not how it works. If I were dictator for a day I would stop the wiretapping, institute full marriage equality at the federal level, and probably a few other things. Thing is, I don’t expect that appointment anytime soon.
<
p>Maybe its more a personality thing. I tend to just be more laid back about most things, political and otherwise, even if I have a strong opinion. Of course I believe the pursuit of happiness is for everybody, even if Jefferson did not. You are not likely to see me at a protest rally screaming slogans and waving signs, or certainly not practicing civil disobedience; that’s just not my style.
use this power.
<
p>Are you serious? Throughout the past few years, with a Democratic Majority, it hasn’t been about getting a majority of votes to pass legislation… it’s become getting a super majority. The Republicans have CERTAINLY been operating under the assumption that it’s “my way or the high way.” This is just one more reason why Democrats are weak in the knees. We need to grow a killer instinct.
<
p>Instead of being weak-ass on this bill, Obama should take off a few days of campaigning, promise to filibuster FISA to death and shame any Democrats that don’t go along with it. He can make it a very, very easy fight, turning this into a battle of “do you support the constitution or not?” What we lack in America, at least for the past few years, is effective leadership. I want to see Barack Obama be an effective leader.
Because grandstanding on the Senate floor for a few days on an issue that most Americans don’t get at all (outside of we the all-knowing progressives of BMG and those like-minded FISA-obsessives on kos)and showing up the whole party in the process, including all those conservative dems who are most fearful of their prospects, would prove real effective.
<
p>Effective would actually be getting something done on the issue and nothing you propose would actually do that, other than make all of us swoon about what a gutsy principled stand he took, even if it led nowhere.
<
p>The Senate is a defensive institution. The Dems don’t have the votes to get the exact bill they want. Reid could decide to pull it and just not pass anything, but a lot of the party doesn’t want to let the issue hang around their necks coming into an election year. Let’s remember, not all of these guys and gals in the Senate represent Brookline. Obama has to be able to work with those folks as well.
<
p>
about actually framing this as protecting the Constitution, fighting for equal protection under the law, and assuring the people that the government can not spy on Americans without a court issued warrant? Is this debate position only understood and appreciated by people from Brookline? I certainly hope not. If it isn’t, I’m afraid Ben Franklin’s advice “we have a republic, if we can keep it”has truly gone unheeded.
<
p>Yes, it would, because we’d win. Again. Instead, he’s letting this issue be tucked under, allowing it (and the Constitution) to go away.
<
p>However, why do you have to be all snarkish about my comments? He need not grandstand beyond the measures in which any other Senator would grandstand. If he’s not going to “Grandstand” when it comes to protecting the Constitution, when is it acceptable to grandstand? Pray, tell. If he’s not going to demand more of the Democrats as our popular Nominee for President, pray tell, when is it appropriate for him to demand more? Furthermore, there are obviously numerous ways to get Democrats to go along with it – shaming them being the last resort. I’d imagine if Obama said this was going to be a central issue to him and that he’d provide the cover, we’d have no problem destroying this. And no problem making Americans aware of what’s going on: all we have to do is turn this into a battle of “do you support the Constitution?” and it’s one we’ll win in public opinion polls. So far, we’ve been to afraid of this issue to even make it an issue, scared silly of Rovian tactics that just don’t work anymore.
<
p>
<
p>Gee golly whiz. I guess that means you’re one of the people who think Democrats need 60 votes, while Republicans need only 51. Earth to Lanugo: the Republicans can’t pass crap. If they don’t want to pass our bill, then they need not pass a bill at all. Oh, and we’ve managed to pass extensions to the current FISA a few times now – we certainly could have done the same, and allowed the next President to preside over the permanent fix. It need not “hang around our necks” and if the Republicans want to make it so, let them try: we can certainly make this a battle of “do you support the constitution.” And that will win.
I’d love to think that we’d win as you suggest. But, the fact is we ain’t winning a floor vote on this and Reid and Co. are too afraid to bury the bill. Of course the Republicans can’t pass crap – but the Dems don’t want to be beaten up on this for the next few months so they are giving themselves some breathing room. Does that suck? Maybe so. But Obama shouldn’t be blamed for this. He is not actively seeking a compromise from what I can tell or saying we must pass a FISA bill.
<
p>Blame his leadership colleagues for it and the moderate-conservative wing of the party who think leaving this issue out to dry is a losing proposition for them. They don’t think holding out on this is a winner. You obviously disagree but you don’t represent Nebraska or Louisiana now do ya?
<
p>It would be great if civil libertarian arguments carried the day – but the blunt reality is they don’t, accepting of course the 2nd amendment, which has a huge lobby and organization behind it. The ACLU ain’t exactly the NRA when it comes to political juice and to overlook that reality is plain dumb.
<
p>If Obama made this a signature issue he would make all those centrist Dems absolutely furious. He’d be throwing them under a bus and they would start to run from him. He’d been pilloried as a guy who can’t work with anyone to get things passed and the American people don’t work another ideologue after 8 years of Bush. That is just the facts on this one.
<
p>The best thing we can do is get Obama elected so he can change our intelligence gathering policies as president and I have no doubt he will once in the Oval. Sorry to use pathetic war references but sometimes in battle you have to pull back from the field to fight another day when you have a better chance. We win in November and we get to reverse these Bush policies.
<
p>
We probably aren’t winning this bill now, since Obama’s thrown up the white flag and Dodd’s facing his own scandal, but that doesn’t mean we could win if Obama saves face and challenges this.
<
p>Let’s also get the ‘facts’ straight: there is no breathing room. Once we give telecoms retroactive immunity, they’ll always have retroactive immunity. There’s nothing we’d be able to do about that. That’s just the way the system works. So, I’m sorry, but I’m demanding more. I’m not settling on this.
<
p>I blame them too, but Obama’s vote matters. Perhaps even more than any other, because he is in the position to demand more of the party, and the party would almost certainly listen. If Obama wants to be the kind of president he says he does, this is really his first big, real test. He’s failing it, so far.
<
p>
<
p>A) Do you value the Constitution more or less than political calculations? We need leadership like LBJ on this.
<
p>B) Which centrist dems? In D.C. or across the nation? If in D.C., I really don’t give a damn. Let them throw a hissy fit, so long as they make the right vote. They’ll get their’s later. That’s how it works over there. If it’s across the nation, I completely disagree: first, few even know about FISA, because dems have been too scared to make it an issue. Secondly, the Dems have never done what they long ago should have: taken initiative on this issue. The first thing they should ever utter about FISA is, “Do you support the Constitution or not? If you support the Constitution, then you can’t support this bill. When I was elected, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution and that’s exactly what I’m going to do.”
<
p>Not going to happen. If Obama gets into office, he’s most likely going to keep these new powers, because it’s nearly impossible to take away powers from the POTUS. That’s why we needed to impeach Bush, because otherwise these new powers weren’t going anywhere.
<
p>Furthermore, no matter how much you’d like to believe we can pass this bill now and fix it later, that’s an absolutely crazy, impossible thing to do. Once we grant immunity to telecoms, they’ll always have it for the things they’ve already done. That much is just a fact. I don’t understand why you so vehemently oppose the Constitution.
You make a lot of good points as you always do. And maybe you are right that telecomms immunity will be near impossible to strip out later, that Obama may find these executive powers attractive when in office and seek to keep them and also that the bill will be very difficult to fix from here. All are valid points.
<
p>Where I think you miss the boat though is on your read on the politics of the issue and understanding of constitutional history.
<
p>Obama’s vote of course matters but where I think you are wrong is assuming that if he staked out a position in contrast to his leadership and a big portion of his party in Congress that he could change their votes on this. He couldn’t and they wouldn’t. Conservative dems are voting for this for their own self-preservation and nothing Obama says about it will shake them from their view that this is necessary to their re-election. I think its crazy to assume that a candidate can “demand” things of his party. He has nothing to offer them, no leverage, no patronage, nothing. What they most want from Obama is for him to run a mainstream campaign that doesn’t make them uncomfortable in their districts being associated with him. Obama has to show these people he can be trusted and not go to war with them – which will only make the Democrats look divided and hurt our chances come November.
<
p>You mention leadership like LBJ. Is this the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Vietnam War never being declared, huge expansion of executive war-making powers LBJ you are talking about? Funny comparison but I am sure what you mean is LBJ’s great accomplishments on civil rights. As Senate Majority Leader in 1954 he was able to convince his mentor Georgia Senator Richard Russell to allow a vote on a civil rights bill. It was a half measure that went nowhere near as far as the bill LBJ signed into law in 1964, but it was the first time a Southern Democratic filibuster had been broken on a civil rights bill. Impressive leadership in 54′ but still a huge compromise which left Hubert Humphrey and the liberal Democrats steaming that it was insufficient, which it was. My point is that LBJ was the ultimate compromiser and it took him more than a decade to make progress on civil rights. The battle for civil liberties in an age of terror has many more fights to go so don’t let this one vote on a compromise bill and Obama’s support for it shape your entire opinion. No one though LBJ would the champion of civil rights he turned out to be.
<
p>And I’d also say that your accusation that I don’t support the Constitution is ridiculous. Constitutional matters are fluid and far from clear, lending themselves to fine judgments more than blunt assertions. Our original Constitution enshrined slavery and judged blacks to be 3/5ths of a person. Abraham Lincoln who saw his highest duty in office to be the preservation of the constitution he was sworn to uphold, suspended habeus corpus, as fundamental a legal and constitutional principle as there is. He had a number of possibly secessionist Maryland legislators arrested without charge so they couldn’t vote in the Maryland legislature for secession. Chief Justice Taney ruled the policy unconstitutional and Lincoln essentially just ignored it. His reasoning was that if the Government fell (and it may have had slave-state Maryland crossed to the Confederacy) then the Constitution itself was meaningless. Thus, preservation of the Government was paramount even through the use of what many saw as extra-constitutional means. What is and what is not constitutional is not always so black-and-white and that has always been the case.
<
p>Believe me, I don’t like wire tapping American citizens or giving the complicit telcos immunity. I’d like to see Obama overturn these policies when he wins the presidency. But, while it is good to hold Obama accountable for his position I think judging Obama by this one politically delicate matter is somewhat unfair. There are many things constraining his actions here and many views beyond the liberal blogosphere’s to consider.
<
p>
N/T
know what could have changed that much since they pretty much blocked this bill last year.
<
p>Unfortunately, Chris Dodd is fending of questions about ? if he got special treatment on a loan from Country-wide. I think he will lay low. He had promised to filibuster any bill that included retroactive immunity. I am always suspicious when there are these timing coincidences. I called Dodds office and he is still very much against retroactive immunity but wouldnt say if there would be a filibuster.
<
p>Now with retroactive immunity–I think that Telco’s could still be compelled to testify by congress in investigation of Bush operatives.
<
p>Working to strip provisions out of a bill that appears to have gotten consensus approval in the labyrinth of congress seems impossible to me. As Dave says “a joke” (or close to a joke).
<
p> I get the sense from the way the House flipped that there will be not enough support for a filibuster to help. Obama is probably the only one with enough political power to do this in the senate. It is probably a calculated decision to not expend political capital on a bill that is a done deal —I would disagree.
<
p>BTW, I never was under any illusion that Obama was going to be pandering to left in party—that is what I like about him. I fault Obama if he sees opposing retroactive immunity as pandering.
<
p>To put things in a popular contest though — I am sure the telecom issue that most US people care about right now is porn on I Phones.
<
p>http://www.time.com/time/busin…
Yeah, but I don’t want the government to know that I use my phone to look at sites like “Dirty Democratic Debutantes”, “Legal Left-Wing Lolitas”, “Pretty Progressive *****” and “The D.I.L.F. National Convention” (the ‘D’ stands for Democrats!). If I want to look at phone porn while riding the 23 bus or waiting at my doctor’s office, I’d prefer to keep that private!
<
p>What? Don’t judge, people. I figure if I’m gonna financially support the porn industry I should at least patronize sites like these that funnel a portion of the profits are funneled into progressive causes like the Obama campaign, the DCCC, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Global Fund for Children, and Doctors Without Borders.
<
p>————
NB: No, this isn’t for real. ;^)
actually be onto something. I think all the blowhards in the media thundering over the Gloucester pregnancy pact were turned on by the whole thing.
Wow, this must have come as such a shock to us all. Imagine if he was picked as the democratic nominee and then word of the CountryWide scandal comes out. The fast taking CT senator should take a lot of heat over this, but he’ll skate with democrats controlling the senate.
It reinforces (my) opinion that (most) politicians are politicians, who can’t be trusted.
Hey, at least he isn’t waiting until he’s elected to disappoint us!
<
p>Seriously, this just reconfirms my wish that we had some real freaking choices in the primary. All the good candidates were too afraid to run against Hillary and Obama. Russ.. =(
<
p>If anyone thinks we’re going to have grand sweeping changes (for the good) in the next 4-8 years, please don’t be disappointed. The best we can hope for is a return back to the Clinton years, but no real substantive progress beyond that. Stuff like this gives me no hope for true change on health care, a complete withdrawal from Iraq, DOMA or anything hugely important to me. America is broken and I’m not sure if it can really be fixed… at least without completely starting over again, new constitution (since this one’s being pissed on everyday) and everything.
Yeah, maybe should we should all just vote for Nader and pack in this blogging stuff if its all gotten this bad.
<
p>
no help that Obama is going to do shit for it. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’ll stop working on behalf of those issues, because I DO have hope we can create change – but it’s going to have to be bottom up.
from the bottom up. This is the challenge of democracy. Trust that any elected official can change the system without a strong and continuous pushing from below is illusory. Time will tell whether Obama lives up to his reputation as one who encourages the people to be involved in the process and responds, himself, to the stimulus from below. This is what I’ve been counting on.
Sounds like you and Obama share a belief that real change starts from the roots.
<
p>The thing is, right now on FISA, outside of the blogosphere and predictably liberal bastions like our home state, there really isn’t a bottom up infrastructure to fight the civil libertarian corner on this stuff. Education of the broader public about what this fight is all about is needed but that will take time – but a presidential campaign is a difficult place to do it effectively.
<
p>Obama can play a role in changing that, but there are many issues for him to tackle this election and given that this doesn’t register as a priority for most people – certainly not compared to the economy, or Iraq, or health care, etc.. then he has to pick his fights and focus on the stuff most people are worried about.
to extend a temporary version of the bill we already have, as has been done several times now. I’m sorry, but I’m not as cynical to be okay with sweeping things under the rug because it’s an election year when they’re as important as constitutional rights. Bush has dug a whole in this body’s literal and figurative constitution and has continued to do violence to it, and you’re saying we should pick off the scab and dig deeper. No thanks.
I just don’t think he should be dragged over the coals for supporting a compromise his leadership and key members of the party will pass regardless of whether he supports it or not.
<
p>
Given the sincere questions about how we should treat corporations that respond to illegal requests from our government, I thought this interview from last October might be of interest. I have excerpted it below (with original emphasis). “GG” is Glenn Greenwald and “CC” is Cindy Cohn. As usual, the EFF has done solid work in digging up the legal history to understand why the bills were written and how they were meant to be interpreted.
<
p>http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…
<
p>
<
p>What AT&T did was illegal, and they knew it, and they knew that FISA would have protected them if they had denied the government’s request. Now they will likely be forgiven for their crime, and that will make it nearly impossible to prosecute the government forces who pressured them into this action. That’s the bottom line.
testifying against Bush and Cheney?
because they would have to tell the judge first that the Bush admin had told them that their activities were legal. As a result they would have no incentive to expose their partner in crime and their protector to an inquiry that they know would make a lie of this statement to the judge.
Not to defend McCain, and not that I’ll support and vote for McCain, mind you, but I was also not one bit impressed by BHO’s speeches about change, hope, unity, etc., and I smelled a rat all along, if one gets the drift. BHO’s capitulation regarding FISA has reinforced my opinions that BHO’s like most of the politicians of both stripes: he’s not to be trusted, and that whoever ends up our next POTUS, be it McCain or BHO, we. are. seriouisly screwed–big time.
<
p>
??
<
p>An outrage is more like it, imho, especially considering all BHO’s lofty talk about change, unity, hope, etc. He’s really not going to change anything, and so far he’s turning out to be not a whole lot better than McCain. Lest some people accuse me of dousing the fire with gasoline and hurting myself, I’m just expressing my own opinions, like any other average, run of the mill human being and U. S. Citizen.
THE love child of global corporate interests go against the totalitarian police state program? Surely you did not expect anything in defense of like real principles did you.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumb…
I see all of those pictures on the internet of Pelosi smoozing up to Bush and all that yet zero is done about impeaching.
<
p>FISA is only a diversionary fake issue against the very real and totalitarian concept of data mining. It is only a push for more and open funding of things they have been doing on a routine basis since the dawn of the electronic age.
<
p>To hell with “reality” this is more my style.
http://www.newsnet7.com/view/5…
<
p>National security is a real issue of concern! I will reserve judgement on this tactical move by Barack.
<
p>Let’s not forget that the Bush administration dropped the ball and failed to protect us on 9-11.
<
p>Francis X. Taylor was sworn in as Coordinator for Counterterrorism on July 13, 2001. Did this right hand to then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice do enough? Was it hot an humid in D.C. that fateful summer and did Rice and he tragically and fatally drop the ball?
<
p>Wasn’t Richard Clarke sounding the alarm to everyone? Belatedly, hasn’t George Tenet claimed there was a lot of “chatter” that summer?
<
p>Didn’t Bush and company fail the nation!?!
<
p>Wasn’t Rice rewarded with secretary of state? Isn’t her deputy, Steve Hadley, now national security advisor?
<
p>How’s Frank Taylor doing at GE? Didn’t George W. win re-election by selling that he was concerned with keeping America safe?
<
p>Didn’t Frank Taylor testify on October 10, 2001, before the House Committee on International Relations’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere that the masterminds of 9-11 were in Afghanistan?
<
p>
The article in the Boston Globe concerning national security touches on many concerns. Why Congress needs to be telling this President how to do things is absolutely amazing. That is because from day one George W. Bush didn’t get it.
<
p>Amazingly, he still doesn’t get it!
<
p>After 9-11; Condoleezza Rice, Steve Hadley, Francis X. Taylor, and others should have been fired for incompetence! But miraculously, Rice got promoted to secretary of state, Hadley moved up to be “national security advisor,” and Frank Taylor was moved from coordinator for counterterrorism to be assistant secretary of state for dimplomatic security and now makes the big bucks as global security chief at General Electric.
<
p>It is unfathomable how anyone could think President George W. Bush has a handle on terrorism, war or national security!
<
p>Thank goodness John Kerry is calling this to the attention of the American people!
<
p>George W. is mor than just a benign idiot, he has put us all in great danger!
<
p>From ignoring Richard Clarke to the war to today, we are only marginally safer today and at a tremendous cost to our values!
<
p>
if one gets the drift.