How Expedient Is Obama's Support for the FISA Bill? (redux)
[reposting this after TPM ate the body of my post. Josh/Greg: Preview would be nice!]
The piece that I find unconvincing in arguments defending (or choosing not to critique) Obama's support for the FISA bill is the supposition that he needed to do this to win the election. For supporting this bill Obama is now being attacked as a flip-flopper by the GOP. So if the situation was a damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn't, then why not stand on principle and be damned for defending the Constitution (and the Obama "brand" of not poitics as usual)? And did he really gain anything by doing this? Most people support the idea of requiring the goverment to get warrants for wiretapping international calls and emails [pdf link]:
Obama has certainly run a strategically savvy primary campaign, so seeing him make an allegedly calculated and expedient choice that doesn't obviously gain anything is puzzling at best. Seeing him do this at the expense of defending the Constitution is definitely troubling and none of the "get over it" arguments have convinced me that we shouldn't critique our leaders when they stray from ideals that they had previously professed to uphold. And none of this is to say I’m taking my ball and going home. I’m still voting for Obama and still donating money (after giving some to Greenwald’s Act Blue fund for FISA issues); I really think that using a polarized, with-us-or-against-us frame for this discussion is a counter-productive approach that short changes what should be a worthwhile discussion. So I’d like to avoid attacks on people’s patriotism and love for the Constitution in exchange for not being dismissed as a whiner or someone who can’t see the big picture.
The piece that I find unconvincing in arguments defending (or choosing not to critique) Obama's support for the FISA bill is the supposition that he needed to do this to win the election. For supporting this bill Obama is now being attacked as a flip-flopper by the GOP. So if the situation was a damned-if-he-does, damned-if-he-doesn't, then why not stand on principle and be damned for defending the Constitution (and the Obama "brand" of not poitics as usual)? And did he really gain anything by doing this? Most people support the idea of requiring the goverment to get warrants for wiretapping international calls and emails [pdf link]:
Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters favor requiring the government to get a warrant from a court before wiretapping the conversations U.S. citizens have with people in other countries, with an outright majority of voters (51%) “strongly” supporting the requirement for warrants.
Obama has certainly run a strategically savvy primary campaign, so seeing him make an allegedly calculated and expedient choice that doesn't obviously gain anything is puzzling at best. Seeing him do this at the expense of defending the Constitution is definitely troubling and none of the "get over it" arguments have convinced me that we shouldn't critique our leaders when they stray from ideals that they had previously professed to uphold. And none of this is to say I’m taking my ball and going home. I’m still voting for Obama and still donating money (after giving some to Greenwald’s Act Blue fund for FISA issues); I really think that using a polarized, with-us-or-against-us frame for this discussion is a counter-productive approach that short changes what should be a worthwhile discussion. So I’d like to avoid attacks on people’s patriotism and love for the Constitution in exchange for not being dismissed as a whiner or someone who can’t see the big picture.
Advertisement
I'm with you on this. It's not at all obvious to me that Obama needed to join in the Democratic capitulation on FISA in order to win. In fact, the theory that Democratic presidential candidates gain by strutting around pretending to be "tough" on this or that doesn't really seem to hold much water anymore. Obama would have looked tougher had he come out against the bill and exercised his enormous rhetorical talent in explaining what was wrong with it. As it is, he looks about as tough as, well, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi.
But, like you, I'm still voting for him.
June 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for dropping by. As I recall, Obama actually got some credit from conservatives for hanging tough on the Wright issue (at least initially), so I think you're right to say that not backing up tough talk about FISA could do more harm than good with independents.
June 27, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not trying to look tough. He's trying to blend in with the crowd. He's trying to be inconspicuous. The only fight worth fighting when you're running for office is the fight you know you can win. The others are for another day.
We will return to this issue. And when we do, we will have a Democrat in the White House and a solid majority in the House and Senate. Until then, this issue will be treated like the landmine that it is, and any politician with a tough battle ahead of them will run past it as quickly and as quietly as possible.
On FISA, the best friend the Republicans have is those on the left who will work to keep this thing alive and deadly for as long as possible.
June 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm not sure that keeping the FISA issue alive is deadly for Obama. If, as you've stated below, Joe-sixpack doesn't care about FISA, then Obama can use FISA to Sister Souljah all of the nutty netroots types (crazy ALCU-huggers and whatnot) and build up more centrist cred. Obama's stance on FISA is only deadly if centrists and independents actually care about it, which if I understand you correctly, you don't think they do.
June 28, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
They'll only care if he fucks up. Then the RNC will make absolutely certain that it's the most important issue Joe Sixpack has ever faced.
June 28, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really seemed that Obama was spoiling for a national security debate. He has responded impressively on the issues of the war in Iraq and of negotiating with other nations by re-framing the debate intelligently and effectively.
Given your cited evidence that popular opinion would have favored him tremendously had he taken a stand on FISA, it is difficult to understand why he shied away from this no-brainer. There just is not any real evidence that it would have hurt him in November. On the contrary, the Democratic congress has avoided executing the mandate for which it was elected and now consequently faces rock-bottom popularity.
June 27, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it puzzling; it just doesn't seem like a good issue to pivot towards the center on. At least not as good as capital punishment or guns.
But it's also possible that this isn't a pivot to the center as much as it is an attempt on Obama's part to solidify his influence within the party.
The people in the House who seem responsible for trying to hustle this through prior to the election are the BlueDog Dems as lead by Steny Hoyer. Now they took a good amount of cash from the telcos and that cash flows from the Blue Dog Dems out to other members of the House, so that factors into the equation, but I’m wondering if the Blue Dog Dems didn’t come to Pelosi (and maybe Reid too) saying that they needed this FISA bill as inoculation going into the November elections.
What really can’t be discerned is how much Obama feels he needs the Blue Dog Dems’ support, except possibly for his endorsement of Rep John Barrows (a big proponent of warrantless wiretapping) over primary challenger Regina Thomas (african american and opposed to warrantless wiretapping) sometime last week. So Obama’s FISA stance may be driven by what he sees as a strategic need to shore his support/influence among conservative Dems in the coming Congress.
Whatever the case, it's disappointing to say the least, but I don't believe that trying to make Obama aware of what we think about this issue is tantamount to ceding the election to McCain, as some posters have implied or outright stated.
June 27, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the popular opinion explanation fails to pass the laugh test and because many of these Telco supporting Dems were superdelegates, legislators such as McCaskill and Barrows, who supported him during the primary, Obama's current position on the issue is indeed more easily explained in terms of internal party politics and support consolidation.
June 27, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very astute comment. I think it might be about not making his House and Senate allies many of whom he is courting look bad.
And also, lest we forget, the Senate already made a FISA bill, and it sucked. So the sense is that there aren't the votes in the Senate to challenge this. There just aren't. The only hope is for a few people to fillibuster and kick the can down the street.
The House had a good opportunity with a better bill after the Senate had already failed on FISA. But the House blew it. I think Obama knows it's a lost cause -- unless it can just be delayed til next year (when there won't be Bush's veto threat).
June 27, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
AdAbsurdum, please advance directly to the bonus round.
Dodd, Feingold, and now Reid are out front on this issue precisely so that Obama doesn't have to be, even though he otherwise would be.
And P.S., this is NOT a done deal till the votes are cast, there's not going to be a vote till after the 7/4 break, so as long as our reps are going to be in town as it were, let's put some heat on these guys and let 'em know how we feel. Unless there's already been a cloture vote (I think there hasn't?), then maybe we can scrape up 41 votes,,,,,,
I'm just sayin'...
June 28, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama rarely does anything out of expediency, it seems. He probably genuinely feels that the immunity issue cannot be sensibly fought until the Congressional elections in November and therefore opts to work on the more important actual eavesdropping regulation. He might be right, he might be wrong, but he has repeatedly run circles around me intellectually, tactically and strategically so I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Curiously, it is as he described his position about a year ago, too.
June 27, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
His position is the same as a year ago? I'm not entirely clear on that. Here's what he said back in December:
So technically this is not the very same bill, but it is one that grants the telcos immunity and grants even more sweeping powers to the executive for warrantless wiretapping, which are exactly the things he was objecting to before. Obviously this isn't the sum of what he's said about it, but everything I can recall him saying was in this vein, so I have trouble as seeing his current stance as consistent with what he said duringthe primary. But if you've got some other quotes I'm unaware of, I'd be happy to look them over.
June 27, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with cyntax's second comment; this has everything to do with internal party politics.
Once he passed the nomination threshold, Obama moved swiftly to put his stamp on the DNC: reconfirming Dean as chair, moving most operations to Chicago, putting his own people in power, rejecting lobbyist donations.
Seems to me the party's Washington establishment balked, and this bill was a bit of reassertion of congresscritters' power over the agenda.
Sort of, "Hold on, there, Change Boy, you may be our nominee. And with our co-operation, you may end up president six months from now.
"But right now, you're just a rookie junior senator -- and fairly new to how we do things in D.C. Watch and listen."
I read a lot into the Obama camp's 24-hour silence after the Hoyer "compromise" was made public.
We're studying the bill, we were told.
That's always a good approach, but it suggests Obama wasn't kept entirely in the loop on the fine details of the FISA bill.
Out campaigning, he may have been blindsided by Hoyer as he and Jay Rockefeller lined up solid majorities for passage in both houses.
At which point, Obama had to ask himself: Do I go to war against a fait accompli by my own party's congressional leadership -- and likely lose both the fight and crucial allies in the process?
Remember that he has a good chance of being in the White House next January, at which point he will have the inspector-generals' reports in hand and can go as public as he wants on the who, what, when and how of warrantless wiretapping.
Yes, the telecoms will be off the hook -- but Obama can choose to release the information that the telecom lawsuits were designed to extract.
I just hope there aren't too many more of these Faustian bargains Obama has to cut within his party in order to secure his own White House power base.
June 27, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never even considered this scenario, though given how Washington works, it is as plausible as him actually thinking the legislation could provide some good measures even if it isn't perfect.
In fact, given how Obama works, both of the above could be true. He could have been blind-sided and ultimately agree with the over-arching goals of the legislation.
That's why I think he'll be a great president. He has complex and nuanced thinking that doesn't run rough-shod over any constituency in pursuit of ideological purity. I actually think he would sacrifice ideological purity if it meant that an opposing view could be folded into the final compromise.
Funny thing is, most of the founders of the country felt the same way - that ideology is the surest way to anarchy or subjugation.
June 28, 2008 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent point. What does 'immunity' for the telecoms mean? Immunity from big damages/fines that will be passed through to customers?
Immunity strips the telecoms of both liability and their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination - between the inspector general reports and a few Congressional hearings, we will find out what my old pal called 'the true truth.'
I'm OK with that trade-off.
June 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Seeing him do this at the expense of defending the Constitution "
This is a law, not an ammendment. Laws can be changed with new laws, and overturned by the courts. But I like the phrase "defend the constitution". Sounds heroic. He should hold a sword too.
The strange thing is that people can't seem to really explain their opposition on this very well. Most have not read it, and wouldn't understand it. It seems to be an obsession with punishing the telecoms. That's all Feingold and Dodd are trying to strip out. Otherwise, it's just an update to an existing law.
Are netroots becoming like dittoheads who just parrot what some lead bloggers tell them to think? Greenwald freaks out "This destroys the constitution" and now that's all you hear. Don't get me wrong, I like netroots and think they are a force for good. But I sense some ego and powerplay here. And a little too much blind obedience, a little overzealous and preachy.
Let's not lose sight of what is good about progressives to begin with -- openminded, self-critical, ethical, etc. etc. We've had one winning cycle (one!! that's it). Now is not the time to overreach or rest on our laurels.
June 27, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on all points but one - We are the netroots as well, and I refuse to allow it to become Dittohead Lefty Land without a fight. I hope those idiots come packing a lunch because I don't need much sleep.
I would love to build a country that is both conservative and liberal (as we most certainly are) all moving toward progressive goals. Better than the shit end of the stick we get now.
How did we end up with Clintons and Bushes as our frame of reference? Why not FDR and Teddy as the idealogical standard-bearers of each party? Both were progressive men with progress goals who approached the problem from opposite ends of the spectrum in their days with huge popular support.
Seems like when this country works best when that is the dynamic. Partisanship only benefits special interests and the intellectually deficient.
June 28, 2008 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's your understanding of it, but that's not necessarily the definitive word about what this bill does. Take for example John Dean's summation of it from Olbermann's show the other night [link]:
And Fiengold has described the bill as very badly written so criticism of this isn't simply a knee-jerk reaction about the telcos as you seem to be implying. Further, doesn't it strike you as bit ironic to be lauding the net-roots' faculty for self-criticism at the same time that you're trying to inoculate Obama from such criticism?
June 28, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the outset let me state I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances.
Many of us (although with reservation myself included) presume Obama will fix this once in office even without assurances.
Considering Obama unequivocally stated he would not vote for legislation containing amnesty for the telecoms and then reverse position is a dynamic that may indicate an emerging pattern.
Iam against giving amnesty to the telecos because it essentially says the president can do as he likes even if that means breaking the law on his or her say so. It would be the same as giving the president a permission slip to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment.
Allowing Bush to supersede the law without consequence strengthens a posturing for future presidents that is dangerous and unprecedented for an open society.
Furthermore it impedes learning to what the extent the government has been spying on us.
In a strong democracy the government does not spy on its citizens -- without probable cause outside the rule of law. Thus denying citizens their right to seek redress in the courts, vital for maintaining a balance between individuals and the powerful, is deeply troubling.
An article in Wired Magazine warns that the data being collected on every citizen is groundwork for establishing a police state. That warning comes from a whistleblower who worked for AT&T. The unmitigated weakening of our Democratic institutions for the past 7.5 years lead me to believe he is not whistling "Dixie."
That is reason enough (although many more exist) not to cast a vote for McCain who stated he has the right as president to wiretap Americans as he pleases.
I will vote for Obama.
June 28, 2008 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Serena, you actually addressed many of your own concerns within your own post.
Barack didn't simply reverse his stance. He changed his mind. People do that all the time based on new information. He also must have realized that this legislation was an update to previous legislation and would provide some necessary changes to existing Constitutional compromises.
We have a number of them, even with regards to the Fourth Amendment. Sobriety checkpoints are only one instance that has been upheld by the Supreme Court and could easily be applicable to this case.
I would agree that we should amend the Constitution and not simply pass laws that contradict it, but that isn't the game America is playing right now. Right now, we are trying to get America into intensive psycho therapy. That is probably not the best time to point out that its hair is messy, eyes are bloodshot and its breath stinks.
You also said, "In a strong democracy the government does not spy on its citizens -- without probable cause outside the rule of law."
I totally agree with this as well, except that we don't live in a strong democracy. We live in a fairly weak representative republic with a largely apathetic electorate. We live in a country that has been medicated and satiated and fed shit via the tube for decades now. Our version of democracy is in serious trouble. At least, it was in serious trouble before the Internet came along and disrupted their plans. (I bet the old white bastards are still trying to figure that one out.)
We need to be patient with our fellow citizens as they catch up to where we on the progressive left have been for years.
Given the long and noble history of the republican party, I am willing to believe that they were just as victimized as we all were by the neocon coup that took this country over in 1968. They have the added damage of being complicit in what is now obviously this country's worst 40 years with regards to real growth and opportunity for all. Finally, most are ashamed of what's been done in their name.
The time is ripe for an Evolution of the Revolution, but we can't simply ignore the input and concerns of more than half of the country who consider themselves (conservative) in some way, shape or form.
Wired Magazine leaves out that the information is there whether used for a police state or a corporate state or no state at all. Data is immaterial to this discussion. I say give them all the data, all the time. Overload their ass with data. Give them so much data it explodes from every orifice. Data isn't the issue. Data is basically useless without context.
The issues are: Who has access to that data; what is the data; and what are they using it for?
There is also additional context in that companies misuse this data all the time in pursuit of commercial ends. They package data and sell it to each other and we end up with pounds of junk each week in our mailbox. The corporate world is much more intrusive for a wider variety of Americans than anything under the legislation in question.
I'll end with one last point.
While it doesn't provide justification, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution violated itself before the ink was even dry on the signatures. The Three-Fifths Clause is just one of many compromises that break the essential, underlying compact of the Constitutional Congress. They set out to create a union, hoping we would do the necessary work of perfecting it. They called for protections and procedures that they themselves were unwilling and/or unable to carry out.
We put the founders up on a pedestal that they would never agree to. We hold the document they created as some infallible thing, completely in keeping with a modern context, though it is Jefferson himself who said the Constitution should be re-written at least once every 20 or 30 years. He envisioned each generation modifying whole-cloth the ideas that came before it. We've barely touched the thing in 230 years. We still cite it as the infallible touchstone of America, notwithstanding that the men who wrote never believed it to be such.
Interesting points, though. Thanks for continuing to support Barack despite your doubts.
June 28, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because in the first instance, he loses the election. In the second he wins.
The lefties are not going to vote for McCain, and they are not going to stay home. They're not even going to vote for Nader this time around. Even if Obama pisses them off, he'll still get their vote. But if the wingers get the chance, they'll destroy him by uniting their base, which is currently in disarray. Learn to think a few shots ahead. You're missing the point completely.
June 28, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but I don't buy this without a further explanation. Why exactly do you think that opposing this FISA bill would have cost Obama the election?
June 28, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a chipping away. You already know the argument about what the Republicans will do if Obama opposes, so I won't get into the details. The clear goal of the Republicans is to define him. They want to paint him as too liberal, out of touch with the concerns of average Americans, an elitist, weak on national security--in short, the usual. Obama's goal is to take advantage of the fact that he's relatively undefined. The reason so few U.S. Senators have been elected President (I believe the number is fifteen) is because the business of a Senator is very complex and a Senator's voting record can exploited very easily by an opponent. Obama needs to make it through this process without screwing up. He doesn't need to make any points--just avoid screwing up. And opposing this FISA bill, while popular with left-leaning Democrats would be screwing up. Left-leaning Democrats are friends Obama can't afford to be seen with these days. Not if he wants the votes of middle America. And he most definitely wants those votes. Without them, he loses.
Constitutional issues are for the left. National security issues are for Joe Sixpack. If Joe Sixpack chooses McCain, McCain wins.
June 28, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if 61% of Americans believe that the goverment should get warrants before tapping citizens international calls, is this really a left only issue? I don't think it is.
And I think Obama missed a critical opportunity to reframe the debate away from the Republicans on national security (if this really was a pivot to the center).
June 28, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so let's go with your plan. Obama votes against the bill. The bill passes anyway. Where does that leave him? From a PR standpoint, it leaves him up Shit Creek without a paddle. The McCain campaign tars him as the most liberal member of the Senate, opposing a bill that a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate supported. He's now fully defined as weak on national security and spends the rest of his campaign answering the question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" He's left standing out in left field with Dodd and Feingold. Game over.
Obama will have plenty of time to reframe the debate on national security once he's in the White House. Can't you see what's happening? The debate is already being reframed. And Obama is winning. The deal the Bush administration just made with North Korea is a complete vindication of Obama's stance and a self-repudiation of everything Bush and the Republicans have stood for over the past eight years. This stuff takes time. Have a little patience. If we lose the White House this time, it's gonna be a long, long time before the stars line up like this again.
June 28, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at this Bellows article I linked to in my original post. It lays out a different course, granted it's a bit more audacious, but worth considering:
So yes, there is exactly the danger that you're describing. But Bellows lays out another option, one that really would redefine the debate:
Now obviously Obama could wait, as you're suggesting, but that just begs the question of how effectively he'll stand up to Republicans and factions like the Blue Dog Dems once he's set a precedent otherwise. I mean he may change tactics once he's in office, but at a minimum it seems important then to remind Obama of our expectations that he not govern the same way he ran for office.
June 28, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're holding him accountable for power he doesn't possess currently.
How Barack reacts to his colleagues as a junior senator from Illinois is totally different than how he will react as a president with a governing mandate because he ran a campaign that captured a good chunk of the republican vote and most independents.
Your stat is incomplete. The 61% number is how many democrats believe a warrant is needed first. Want to guess the republican numbers? Exactly the opposite. 61% say do whatever the hell it takes to get the terrorists before they get us. Half of independents think the same exact thing.
It is naive and romantic to believe the country is ready for some enlightened awakening as all of us come together and agree on every issue all at once, but that isn't how shit happens in this country.
We are still pretty evenly divided between those who consider themselves conservative and those who claim liberal, regardless of the party they pick.
June 28, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am somewhat at a loss from the source of your numbers. The reports says:
However, I will agree with you about Obama's limited influence now and even extend your argument. After being blasted two weeks ago with headlines asserting that Obama was the de facto leader of the Democratic party, we may be overlooking certain serious limitations to his current influence over the party.
Unlike recent nominees, Obama did not win enough primary elected pledged delegates to seize the nomination and is therefore at the mercy of the superdelegates to carry him over in Denver. I have not done the inventory yet, but many of these superdelegates came from redder and purpler parts of the country and I suspect many of them are in favor of this legislation.
So we bawl and scream when he returns support to these superdelegates, many of whom are targeted by the liberal blogosphere, but we forget that without their support, we do not have our dream candidate. The FISA cave-in could very well be necessary for Obama to hold the nomination. Had he secured enough pledged delegates, he certainly would be less at the mercy of the interests of these superdelegates.
This, I fear, is a political reality we must grasp before we pass harsh judgment on Obama. He may not take money from lobbyists, but he is the nominee only because he receives the support of other elected officials who are betrothed to the special interests.
June 28, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is about wiretapping Americans. The legislation in question is about international communications with a limited number of American collateral damage.
The 60% of republicans, 50% of independents and 40% of democrats support legislation that gathers intelligence on foreigners and provides protections for Americans who get caught up in it.
Of course, all this is based on polls, which I don't believe in either. I just get very suspicious when people use poll numbers about one thing to support an argument about something completely different.
Otherwise, I agree completely.
June 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't think so. If you're looking at the poll I linked than the Dem number is here:
June 28, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that would be naive; luckily that's nothing like what I'm arguing about so I think we can just ignore that strawman.
June 28, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are saying that republicans and right-leaning independents support the netroots left on how to define this legislation. I think that is a naive view based on one poll. Of course I was using hyperbole, but it wasn't a strawman.
June 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not saying all Republicans and I didn't mention "right leaning independents." I'm citing a poll that shows a majority of voters 61%(all voters not just Dems as you said up thread) oppose blanket warrants. This breaks down as follows along party lines:
Democrats (74%)
Independents (59%)
Republicans (52%)
I'm using this to suggest that the public at large doesn't see FISA as some sort of inside baseball concern that only lefties worry about, and that the public at large doesn't see the rule of law as interfering with national security. Yes, it is one poll but that's 100% more evidence than you've cited so far.
June 28, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most don't see it as blanket authorization. That is the problem with polls. You can ask any question to get the answer you are looking for.
When asked specifically about this legislation, the numbers are closer to my estimates and are entirely along party lines. Or, most likely, along conservative/liberal lines, which crosses party lines.
I know you didn't cite that mix specifically, but seem assured that a majority of the country agrees with the netroots left on how best to fight "terrorism" with regards to foreign surveillance. I dispute that claim based on a single poll. Hell, I sispute most claims based on polls as a matter of course.
If I could find the poll I saw about this legislation specifically I would provide it. It was kind of interesting to see the dichotomy.
June 28, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look you're free to dispute it; I would expect people to do just that. But you're not offering much in a substantive counter point, other than one other poll that we don't seem to have access to, and a general argument that seems to hue to the CW that only lefties care about this issue.
As an aside, I'd just like to point out that if the CW was always right you and I wouldn't be debating about candidate Obama's stance--we'd be talking about candidate Clinton's stance.
Obviously nothing I'm going to say is going to sway you, but perhaps you can see how your stance (at least as you've presented it so far) is far from airtight.
June 28, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, your argument is because I can't produce a link to yet one more single-poll snapshot my analysis is flawed? That doesn't compute.
I offered plenty of reasons for my opinion beyond any actual poll. Polls are irrelevant when making most points. I think it is hardly a secret that most republicans are OK with spying on terrorists to prevent further attacks and if an American gets caught up in it, well, if they have nothing to hide then it wasn't a big deal. I also don't think it is a secret that some democrats and independent feel the same way. They even have a name and a constituency in Congress called Blue Dogs.
This all seems like common sense to me and not in need of meaningless polls to provide corroboration.
June 29, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he could pull that off (and I would be very surprised and impressed if he did), I'd obviously be pleased. But let's not forget that he's not only thinking about himself here. He's also providing cover for vulnerable Democrats who are up for reelection. And many of them simply can't afford to screw up on this. With a Democratic majority in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House, the Blue Dogs are going to be under a lot more pressure to toe the Party line. Votes like this one will be very, very different in that case. But we've got to get the majority first. We can't afford to gamble this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity away on a long shot.
June 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Vulnerable Democrats in the Senate AND in the House.)
June 28, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly hope you're right about that, but I've got my reservations. Anyway we'll see how it plays out and I appreciate you taking the time to debate the issue with me.
June 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto from here.
June 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post cyntax. I agree 100%.
In fact, Obama could have used taking a stand on this FISA bill to his great advantage by showing the nation that here is a presidential candidate who will always be willing to stand up for the Constitution. A favorite Republican theme for many years has been to paint Democrats as weak on defending the rights of all Americans, and here was a perfect opportunity that Obama (as well as many other Democrats), are voluntarily giving up.
It makes no sense.
Like you, I'm still likely to vote for Obama also, despite the travesty of his going along with a "compromise" that protects Bush from being held to account for his lawbreaking, that ensures with telecom immunity that no discovery will ever reveal the extent of that lawbreaking, and with a FISA law that constitutes the final nail in the coffin of the Fourth Amendment, but I'm no longer excited about Obama's candidacy as I was previously.
I no longer feel that Obama is bold, fearless, or principled enough bring the kind of "Change We Can Believe In."
I really wish Feingold run for president. Now there is an absolutely brilliant guy whose every vote is bold, fearless, and principled.
June 28, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. Which is why his position on this was the right one to take. The beauty part is that moderates (and even some Republicans) will undoubtedly be swayed by his centrist stance and will be convinced to help us put him in the White House. Can you imagine this? We've got an African-American Senator, called by those on the right "the most liberal member of Congress", and he's well on his way to becoming the next President of the United States of America. A setup like this won't happen again for another million years.
June 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but helped into the position by moderate republicans and right-leaning independents. "Dogs and cats living together. Mass chaos."
June 28, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's fuckin' awesome.
Hey Jason, later this summer or early fall my wife and I are planning to come out that way. It's been about a million years since we were in D.C. (we used to play the 930 Club way back when it was still on F Street). Mind if I look you up? I was figuring maybe it would be a good idea to grab a couple of beers and discuss tribal business. :o)
We'll see what happens, but I've been missing the hell out of the East Coast lately.
June 28, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. That would be a blast and we are centrally located. Shoot me an email at jasoneverettmiller@gmail.com to discuss the details.
June 29, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Truthwhip.
Yeah, there's definitely that fallout from this for some of us. Don't know if you caught it, but Markos said something similar on Olbermann's show:
And for myself, what I find really dampens down my enthusiasm are the arguments that we can't criticize Obama lest he lose the election. I'm willing to vote for him, I'm willing to keep donating money and doing my part, but I'm not willing to sit back and bite my tongue when I see my candidate doing something I strongly disagree with. That sort of appeal to authoritarianism and expediency just doesn't seem like a good idea, and dissent doesn't equal betrayal. Which isn't to say I want to see protests at the Convention or anything like that, I don't.
June 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf:
Which is why his position on this was the right one to take.
No. Obama's position cannot be construed to be the "right one" in any sense whatsoever. The expedient one, sure. The cowering, Republican Lite, Blue Dog, DLC one, yes indeed. The kind of uncertain, weak, fearful sort of position that screams a total lack of true conviction, certainly. The kind of timid stance that Democrats have been taking for years on end, thus letting the GOP define the entire political landscape so that Americans would be convinced to give up their Constitutional rights bit by bit, and piece of shit legislation by piece of shit legislation, absolutely.
June 28, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the winning-the-election, next-president-of-the-united-states one? Yeah, that's the one I like.
June 28, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truthwhip, I don't know if you're old enough to remember this, but George McGovern ran a race very much like the one you're advocating for Obama. At that time, the issue was the Vietnam War. The left were unequivocal in demanding that he take a stand against an illegal and immoral war, and while many within the party urged him to take a more centrist position, he stuck to his guns. He lost in a landslide to Richard Nixon. McGovern received 17 electoral votes.
June 28, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
cyntax,
You know what really gets me about this whole thing? The fact that movement on FISA didn't even have to happen until AFTER November. The Democrats decided to MAKE this happen now, rather than simply wait.
Last weekend, Hunter over at Kos summed up this fact nicely in a post. He wrote:
If you're interested, you can read the rest of the post here:
Why Do We Care About FISA?
Obviously Vichy Democrats felt compelled to send a couple of messages pronto:
The first message was to assure the corporate powers-that-be that the status quo will be maintained at all costs, even when Democrats are in charge. No matter what their crime, as long as campaign donations continue to pour in to the Democratic Party, the Democratic majority will be more than willing, in fact they'll actually go out of their way, to protect their interests.
The second message was to assure the nations "moderates" that the "leftwing extremists" that comprise the Netroots would continue to be shat on, no matter how much money we raise for them, or how often we volunteer for them, or how damn hard we've been working to get Democrats elected.
In fact in the media these politicians are being praised for "standing up to the netroots."
I find it galling that trying to defend our Constitutional rights and basic civil liberties is being redefined as "leftwing extremism."
June 28, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right that Hunter piece was a good summation, nice link.
Here's John Cole's take from over at Ballon Juice [link]:
At this stage, having said that he'd vote for it, Obama pretty much has to, short of going with Bellows' option 2 which seems an unlikely course of action for him to take.So certinaly disappointing, but it just means that we'll have to keep a closer eye on him than we might have thought otherwise. Speaking of which, did you see the article Greg posted about the facebook group that has formed on myBarack.com to pressure Obama on FISA? It's an interesting application of the website to say the least.
June 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
cyntax,
Yeah, obviously we will have to watch Obama much closer than we thought we'd need to. After giving him so much of my money, I personally find that to be a serious bummer. And yes, I also thought that Facebook idea to send the message on FISA is a really interesting/good one.
June 28, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf:
How about the winning-the-election, next-president-of-the-united-states one? Yeah, that's the one I like.
Oh I see. This is just like rooting for a sports team for you. Good leadership might be a bonus you'll possibly get as a result, but isn't totally mandatory.
June 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be an idiot. And don't try to pick a fight with me either. If you want to discuss this, fine. If you want to fight, find someone else to play with.
June 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truthwhip, I don't know if you're old enough to remember this, but George McGovern ran a race very much like the one you're advocating for Obama.
I was a small child when McGovern ran for president. But it's apples and oranges. Obama isn't anything like McGovern was as a candidate, and eight years of the worst leadership this nation has ever seen with Bush's presidency hadn't occurred when McGovern was running for office. With every position, confused comment, and ignorant gaffe McCain has promised to continue with the exact same kind of leadership that Bush has given us. If Obama can't win this election, even while taking a principled stance on the Constitution, then the people of this nation are simply too appallingly stupid, and are quite beyond help.
But I don't think that's the case.
And this why it's so completely pathetic that Obama is refusing to support the principled side of this bill. He really does have little to lose by voting against such a poorly crafted piece of legislation.
June 28, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about winning the election. Nader could "win" the election as a democrat this year. Hell, I could probably win this year as the democratic nominee, though that might be stretching our luck.
It is about winning the election by a landslide, with a governing mandate that includes independents and republicans, so when he takes office he can actually deliver on all the shit he campaigned on in the primary.
It also about accepting the fact that many people in this country, including Obama apparently, don't agree with you on this issue. We have a pluralistic society that requires an ethical majority to govern at the consent and approval of the minority.
Just because the neocons broke that Constitutional pact doesn't mean progressives should as well.
If we are going to fix our laundry list of problems it is going to require every able body, not just the ones who are left of center, a center that constantly changes depending on who is president.
Can we at least agree to dig a little deeper than cheap slogans like "...taking a principled stance on the Constitution." Even the writers of the Constitution didn't take principled stands on the Constitution. At best, they consulted the document while crafting period-specific compromises based a number of competing interests.
Opposing ideals work for 190 years. Until the neocons took and we became a debtor nation full of prickly partisans.
I suggest that as the pendulum shifts back to the left that we actually redefine the conversation and allow our historic bipartisan system craft some workable solutions. Why not create a politics where conservatives and liberals argue over who is more progressive? That is the power of narrative as it can be defined by a truly informed and involved electorate.
Why do you want to shove us all back inside a box of limited thinking and lack of empathy for the "other side" of the debate.
June 28, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it may be about winning the election, though. Even if he was only bluffing, McCain's cryptic and somewhat disturbing boast that he would win this "in the last 48 hours" should be a reminder that we need to consider this a competitive race until a winner is declared. Obama could lose (not likely, but it could happen). That would be a disaster for America. Especially considering that the next three retiring Supreme Court judges are likely to be liberals. McCain, if he won, could potentially screw us for the next 30-40 years.
I know many on the left see Obama's lead as a sign that Obama can afford to take a chance, I see it as a sign that he knows what the hell he's doing and that we should shut up and let him do his work.
I'm not worried, but I'm sure not taking anything for granted either.
June 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. When you are in the lead is the exact wrong time to take chances. If a team is up by a touchdown in the third quarter they don't start doing on-side kicks and tossing Hail Mary's on every down.
June 28, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or filibustering FISA bills. :o)
June 28, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I've been thinking about just how amazing this election is. The rise of the Internet, the Iraq war, the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush (combined with the complicity of the Republicans and the Democrats), the price of a gallon of gasoline, the housing crisis, the flailing economy, the falling dollar, and the acceptance by nearly everyone of on the planet of the reality of global warming. It all adds up to this perfect storm that just couldn't possibly happen. I mean, what are the chances? And then along comes this brilliant, inspiring guy named Barack Obama. And against all odds, he defeats the First Family of the Democratic Party and wins the nomination. If I didn't believe in fate and the alignment of stars before, I sure the hell do now. This is an amazing time to be alive.
June 28, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. I even take it a step further in giving me confirmation of some sort of guiding purpose to existence. We are absolutely and without a doubt to the point of no return. If we don't reverse course immediate, this game is over.
A generation is then born to shake up our status quo and start a transition, tempering themselves in the crucible of world-wide upheaval. The World War II generation were the first truly educated bourgeois in America and were revolutionaries on the picket lines and bread lines long before Boomers tied flowers in their hair. That wave of upward mobility led straight into the Civil Rights movement and incorporated the Boomers into the struggle that had been going non-stop since the end of the Depression.
Then it was snuffed out over the period of a few months in 1968. It was topped with a crescendo of horrified violence across the country. It has taken forty years to recover our senses. In the meantime, we have been abused six-ways from Sunday by the System we allowed to develop.
However, the Boomer's babies grew up, learning important lessons and having trials of our own. The Boomers also had a second wave of children, the Millenials, who are even more in line with the thinking that was counter-culture 40 years ago. The generation beyond that is the same. What we have is a perfect storm of extinction brewing for the human race that meets head on with a multi-generational shift in philosophy.
It's hard to make this point on a blog. It's much better to talk it out over a couple of pints. :O)
June 29, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your point in saying that would be? That we should all suffer because the majority of Americans are stupid? I think we've already tried that.
(Tip: there's a "Reply" link at the bottom of every comment. Helps to make it clear who you're replying to.)
June 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
JasonEverettMiller:
Can we at least agree to dig a little deeper than cheap slogans like "...taking a principled stance on the Constitution."
No. Because it isn't principled of the Democrats in Congress to be more interested in protecting Bush and the telecoms from accountability for their lawbreaking than they are in protecting the Fourth Amendment.
Why do you want to shove us all back inside a box of limited thinking and lack of empathy for the "other side" of the debate.
Because the "other side" of this debate plays directly into the themes the Neocon Authoritarian Republicans have been hawking with their "War on Terra." I'm not interested in Democrats playing along and furthering those themes, instead I'm interested in us ridiculing the utter ridiculousness of them, thus, exploding them from all national consensus.
hrebendorf:
(Tip: there's a "Reply" link at the bottom of every comment. Helps to make it clear who you're replying to.)
Yet, it looks as though you figured it out somehow.
June 28, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering why you're intentionally trying to come across as a complete asshole. Is it us, or is it you?
June 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering why you're intentionally trying to come across as a complete asshole. Is it us, or is it you?
It must be you, since complete assholes tend to act like winning is the only thing of any real importance, and start off making statements like "Don't be an idiot." and then end them with such things as "If you want to fight, find someone else to play with."
June 28, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this year and at this late date in The Destruction of America, Part II, winning is not just the only thing, it is the moral thing and the just thing all at once.
To do all of the things you cite will take many elections and many years to accomplish.
It is truly a complete asshole who would rather sacrifice the winning touchdown to make sure his mom saw him with the ball in the big game - by stripping it from his own quarterback.
June 28, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But winning this argument is exempt, right? When you do it, it's the right thing.
Anytime I see someone with the word "truth" in their moniker, I always tend to stick my wallet in my boot and prepare for the worst.
June 28, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
JasonEverettMiller:
It is truly a complete asshole who would rather sacrifice the winning touchdown to make sure his mom saw him with the ball in the big game - by stripping it from his own quarterback.
Sacrifice the winning touchdown?!!! Don't you know that implying that winning this election is anything remotely like pulling for a sports team automatically qualifies for the comment "Don't be an idiot"? Btw, I already said I was still voting for Obama even though I'm not all that excited about it at this point -- so I guess that means I can't be a complete asshole.
I just happen to be pretty damn disappointed that so many over-the-top Obama fan girls and boys in TPM seem to think that the best, most "electable" way for the Democratic candidate to look Strong on national security issues is for him to go completely back on his word about telecom immunity. Giving in to a weakened president by giving his criminal administration and the minority party 98% of what it wants just isn't something that seems to qualify as Strong.
hrebendorf:
Anytime I see someone with the word "truth" in their moniker, I always tend to stick my wallet in my boot and prepare for the worst.
Huh, now there's a coincidence -- I feel exactly the same way about people who like to torture and harrass their pets by dressing them up in silly costumes.
June 29, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given the anemic quality of your comments, I figured a sports analogy would be easier to understand. Still too complex? What would be an easier metaphor for you to take? How about chemotherapy and cancer, taking poison in the short-term to effect a long-term cure of what is killing us?
June 29, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink