The FISA Drama isn't really about the 4th Amendment or principle. It is about Barack Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

If it were about the 4th Amendment, then Sen. Reid would be the target. He is the only person in the Senate who can keep the Telecoms from attaining Immunity and keep the bill from hitting the Senate floor. Yet, Move On.org and most posters here haven't bothered to deal with Sen. Reid at all. Move-On.org isn't even advocating that he be the focus.

And so it appears that this whole week-end drama is really about Barack Obama's principle. But if this is the case (and fine for those who admit it), then why isn't this also about those with their foot up Obama's ass own principle.

So why is principle a one way street here? Many expect Obama to show principle toward the 4th Amendment and to vote NO on the bill, regardless of the bill's chances......yet those same folks are not holding principle as a standard for themselves by aggressively going after those who would make a difference....and that would be all of the Senators, especially Sen. Harry Reid, as he is the Majority Leader; the person with the power to actually do something about this bill.

The sad fact is whether Barack Obama votes YES or votes NO, THE BILL STILL PASSES, and the 4th amendment still takes a beating.

So where's the principle in that? :shrug:

[rug]

1. It isnt really about Barack Obama. It's about government power.

Regardless of the occupant.

[FrenchieCat]

6. And this means what?

The bill still passes.....

Although there is a sliver of a chance that it could not hit the floor if Reid were the one that the guns were aimed at.


The bill not coming on to the floor would be a big Fuck you to government power......

But that's not what is happening.

[rug]

14. It means opposing this power grab is more important than tactical nuances.

Reid won't so it would be refreshing if the nominee did.

You can't defend a Constitution by discussing Senate procedural rules.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Tactical nuances such as what?

The "Nuance" of ire against one senator whose vote won't change a damn thing?

His own party turns against him but ignores Reid, the mastermind in all of this?

You are not defending the Constitution by dogging out one Senator whose vote won't change the outcome.

Outcome is not tactical nuance. Outcome is actually what it is all about in the end. Outcome is about the bill passing or not passing.

[rug]

23. The nuance of taking cover behind Reid.

The nuance of tacking right to look strong on defense.

The nuance of arguing the vote is lost, we'll fix it later.

The nuance of shifting the weight to the House.

The general bullshit of capitulation.

And, in this case, the outcome is validation for Bush's erosion of constitutional principles to defeat unholy terror.

Sorry, Frenchie, this shit won't flush.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Do you support Barack Obama to become the next President of the United States?

Because I don't think you do.

You never did before anyways. So I'd like to hear it from you now.

[rug]

34. Why don't you ask if I am now, or have ever been, a Clinton suporter?

Or stick to the fucking topic.

[FrenchieCat]

46. So no answer on my question, correct?

Or is there a pledge that I don't know about that I have taken that states that I cannot ask if you will vote for the nominee of the Democratic party.......unless I want to see a pic of folks taking a pledge.

[rug]

49. That photo is the result of McCarthy's loyalty tests.

Do you like it?

:patriot:

[woolldog]

52. I think he answered your question with his evasiveness, Frenchie

[Maddy McCall]

59. No. It's an insult for her to ask another member of this forum that stupid question.

His response was appropriate. Her behavior is McCarthyite.

[woolldog]

It's a fair question given that poster's history. n/t

[rug]

67. Tell me my history, woolly. Right after you undisable your recent profile.

And after you do, tell me what difference it makes in this discussion. Assuming the OP actually is seeking discussion.

[woolldog]

69. She wants assurances that you're arguing in good faith, obviously.

And given your posting history, I don't find her concerns are unreasonable.

[rug]

72. Give me an assurance you're posting in good faith.Thank you in advance.

[woolldog]

75. you asked what difference her question makes to the discussion...

and I answered what difference it makes to the discussion. Enough said.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Why is the question of asking members of Democratic Underground

if they are going to vote for the Democratic Nominee a stupid question?

His response was a nonresponse.

and continue to accuse me of using McCarthism. That's the real insult in all of this.

[Maddy McCall]

76. People who post at DU, with the exception of trolls, are voting for the Dem nominee.

You don't have to be so provincial about the candidate.

And your question was very HUACish. You shouldn't be surprised that it reckoned McCarthy comparisons.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

77. Actually,I think rug said exactly what should be said.

:shrug:

[Maddy McCall]

57. What? If he has genuine criticism of Obama, that means he doesn't want him to be POTUS?

Only in your world. :eyes:

[Kokonoe]

87. Lets pretend Obama is already the president.

Is he going to veto the Congressional democrats.

[NanceGreggs]

2. K and R ...

:patriot:

[NYC_SKP]

3. Instead of feeding the drama, everyone should take your advice and contact....

...all parties who have influence in this matter.

Your other post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6400385

I'm already on it.

[FrenchieCat]

8. That's it. We still have time to aim our guns at the person that can actually make a difference.

[madfloridian]

4. AND...why did Pelosi and Reid choose to do this and put him on the spot?

which is what some bloggers have questioned. Why?

[FrenchieCat]

13. I can't answer that question, although the remedy was to put our foot

up Pelosi and Reid's asses and keep it there.

Instead we are assailing one Senator, that although is running for President, isn't President yet. He cannot defeat this bill on his lonesome, yet all of the ire is aimed at him. So he votes against it and then what? Where's the principle on the 4th amendment on that outcome? Please tell me. I want to know.

[madfloridian]

26. I agree.

[merh]

55. To take the heat of themselves when it comes to the impeachment

measures and the failures of either chamber to use the powers they have to compel administration officials to actually give testimony under oath on such things as the politicizing of the DOJ, the approval of torture, the going to war with no proof, etc.

[Catherina]

79. THAT is the question of the week n/t

[woolldog]

5. Bingo.

This bill shouldn't even go on the floor. Limit the number controversial votes in the middle of a general election!

[Beaverhausen]

7. It's about Reid, Obama and any other dem who might allow this bill to pass

and it is very much about the 4th amendment.

[FrenchieCat]

10. But that is not what is happening, and you know it.

Which is why it isn't about the 4th amendment, although that's what it should be about.

[PretzelWarrior]

9. K and R Frenchiecat

we have to keep people focused on the real deal here. Don't let people eviscerate this big hope and chance of ours.

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. It's going to get voted on. Better hope they vote

it down.

[FrenchieCat]

20. They aren't going to vote it down.......

and of course you Want it to get voted on.

Which is why you are talking but not making any sense.

That's why your principle slip or lack thereof is showing.

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. It's a Dem congress & senate. It should be voted down. If not,

we've got the wrong people in Washington. It's as simple as that.

[FrenchieCat]

33. And how is the principle of the actual issues in the bill addressed......

it isn't simple as that.

Only for you because you don't really give a shit about the bill, just the players.

[The_Casual_Observer]

40. You got that wrong. Don't project your own shit on me. All you did

is cut & paste a another Kos deal here. If the Dems allow this to happen it's the Dems fault, not mine.

[FrenchieCat]

48. I barely even read KOS, and I'm not a member.

but please, go ahead.....with your unprincipled self.

[lumpy]

85. Your arrogance is overwhelming.

Who are you to admonish people?

[AlCzervik]

12. someone help me out here, what about democrats trying to jam poison pills into

the legislation? Why not? Why not try and pack with a ton of stuff so it will never pass?

[dailykoff]

15. Obama is the one who will have to defend this in debates with McCain.

Not Reid.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Reid is the one that can keep the bill from being voted on......

thereby giving no immunity to the telecoms.

The FISA Courts will always be there......because that is how it has been. It is only Bush's change of the FISA Rules that is at issue.

Obama can debate that fine. What he can't do is undo a bill to any great extent once it has passed. And so it is the bill that should be the issue, not debates after the fact.

[dailykoff]

21. He said on Friday that he supports the bill. That's a problem.

Asking Reid to make it go away is fine but we both know there's not a chance in hell he will. Obama is going to have to make a tough decision and he'd better not get it wrong or it will come back to haunt him just like Kerry's IWR vote did.

[FrenchieCat]

29. So it is about Obama not about the 4th amendment.

I just want to be clear on that.

[dailykoff]

32. It's about justice and Obama better be ready to pursue it

or I'm voting for McKinney, okay? yeah it's about Obama, whatever. I'm not voting for another freaking sellout.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Right. Thank you for agreeing with my OP's sentiment.....

Because in the post below, you made the 4th amendment and the FISA court the reason for the drama....but it is really about Barack Obama. I just want folks to stop posing. That's all.

dailykoff (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-21-08 12:05 PM
Original message
FISA: There's NO place for secret laws or courts in a democracy, and FISA is just that!
Edited on Sat Jun-21-08 12:26 PM by dailykoff
"FISA" is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance SECRETLY enacted in 1978.

Its original purpose was to regulate -- NOT abolish -- illegal and unconstitutional wiretappping activities conducted by the Nixon administration, basically by creating a secret court to issue warrants, AFTER the fact, for phone taps placed by federal government, supposedly to spy on foreign agents making calls to US phones or through US phone systems. From Wiki:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=6395233

[dailykoff]

53. Look, he's the nominee. He reversed himself to get behind RW legislation.

That's a problem. You're making a dumb point if I may say so.

[dailykoff]

56. Incidentally, I didn't mention Obama in the post you quoted.

But I'm glad you read it.

[lumpy]

86. Good point

v

[slipslidingaway]

18. Disagree, there were several threads back in Jan and Feb

and some of us were calling or writing various senators. And yes I did call both the Clinton and Obama camps at that time to ask that they speak on this issue.

If Obama, not Reid, told MoveOn that he would filibuster any bill that had the immunity provision in it and they want to hold him to his word, is that really such a bad thing?

They've been working on this compromise bill for months, it is hard to believe that Obama and his staff did not know what was being discussed.

[FrenchieCat]

24. So it is about Senator Obama...which is what my op states.

It is not about the 4th amendment.

that's the point.

Too many posters and bloggers elsewhere are trying to mask this issue as being about the constitution....when it is about testing Barack Obama willingness to take on a fillibuster in the middle of an election.

Let's just call it what it is, is my point.

[slipslidingaway]

45. No and yes. When Clinton was still running I called her office as

well, that was back in January and February when there were days of debate. Both had the attention of the media and the people, did they try and fight to strip out the immunity provision at that time or highlight their concerns about warrantless wiretapping and educate the people?

Clinton is now out and Obama has the media glued to him, use the media IF you want it defeated.

It is about both the bill and Obama's capacity to lead on this issue and about him keeping the promise he made to MoveOn filibuster the bill. Obama made the promise, not Reid or anyone else.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6396994#6400709

Obama did not speak on the floor that day, although he was there to vote on all the amendments. If he had made it an issue the media might have covered his speech that night and Senator Clinton could have done the same thing if she had been there for the votes.

And as I've said over the past few days, and to a lesser degree back in February, if our party really wanted to defeat this bill, or strip the immunity clause, they could have rallied support from the American people in their travels across the country and interviews in the media.

To come in at the 11th hour and say 'I'll try' knowing full well 67 senators voted against removing the immunity clause in February is a little late.


As they were campaigning against the Republicans it would have been easy to mention the illegal wiretapping under Bush and that the Republicans now wanted retroactive immunity for the companies that broke the law.

There is only one reason I can think of that this issue was not brought to the people and that is because too many in our own party wanted the bill with immunity to pass.

If you want to fight for an issue then use all the tools available.

[lumpy]

89. It is about the 4th amendment AND Obama's position on the

issue.

[Zhade]

19. WHY IS THIS BILL COMING TO THE FLOOR WHEN DEMS CAN BLOCK IT?

No one has answered this question for me.

WHY???

[AlCzervik]

22. i don't know, i asked about poison pills and i haven't gotten an answer either.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Because no one is raising hell with the parties concerned.......

the ones that could have kept this from happening in the first place.

Obama on this can't win. He does what the base demands, the bill passes, and the GOP have their ammunition against Obama. Or Obama proclaims this bill to be acceptable under the circumstances, votes Yes on it, the bill passes like it would one way of the other, but shuts up the GOP, but now Obama gets the bad press for not doing what he said he would do before. It's called a catch 22.

He's fucked either way.

I have urged Obama to vote NO. But again, it won't change a damn thing in reference to the actual bill, as it will pass if it gets to the floor.

[Zhade]

30. I'm certainly not blaming him, he's not Reid.

That said, he BETTER vote no.

[AlCzervik]

38. Reid better have some magic lined up, there better be something to kill that

legislation and Reid knows all the rules and the parliamentary tricks so he better damn well produce that black hat and pull a goddamn rabbit out of it.

[Tatiana]

35. What ammunition does the GOP have against Obama if he votes no? n/t

[dailykoff]

37. thank you thank you thank you.

please try to hammer this point home!

[FrenchieCat]

39. You can read it here....

As I pretty much spell it out: http://www.opednews.com/articles/FISA---Obama-can-choose-to-by-FrenchieCat-080621-624.html

[dailykoff]

43. Hint, he can't win on national security, and it's a loser anyway.

Running on terra is a sure way to hand the election to McCain. Where have you been?

[Tatiana]

44. So you're saying he'll be painted as a "flip-flopper?" That's what we're afraid of?

After surviving and successfully mitigating Wrightgate, bittergate, and now forgoing public finance... have we just decided that we can't continue defeating the Republicans on the issues?

I'm starting to think some of y'all need to show a little more faith in our nominee's fighting skills. Suggesting the right-wing will attack him (a Constitutional law professor) for defending the Constitution is really selling our candidate short...

They'll attack anything he does. If he votes YES to this measure, he'll truly be painted as a flip-flopper because he's has opposed warrantless wiretapping since 2006 and telecom immunity since 2007.

Why not just stick to his guns?

Why not play OFFENSE?

[FrenchieCat]

58. The point of this thread is the point of this thread.......

that this drama is actually about Obama, not about preserving the 4th amendment via this vote. period.

I want Obama to vote no, so I'm not saying otherwise from what you are saying.

I'm just not going to hang him if he decides to do whatever he decides, and there lies the difference, which is why I'm not doing drama.

[Tatiana]

73. Well most Democrats, including myself, will still support Obama regardless.

He'll still get my time and my $$$.

I don't understand why some have such trouble with OBAMA SUPPORTERS (not talking about the haters here, but genuine supporters) expressing their disappointment with Obama's leadership on the FISA/telecom immunity issue. Obama himself has said numerous times that he is accountable to people like you and me. If that is the case, then I'm sure he can handle a few comments urging his NO vote on the bill.

What many fail to realize is that if Obama had simply said

"I am opposed to the FISA bill in its current form. I will be offering an amendment to stip retroactive immunity for the telecoms from the bill. As Justice Kennedy said, even in times of heightened national security, our Constitution must remain in effect."

no one would have had a problem. And he would have put pressure on Senators like Webb and Whitehouse and Feinstein to think twice about voting yes.

I also wonder who drafted his statement. I doesn't really sound like Obama and I wonder if they rushed it before he had a good chance to look it over.

[Runcible Spoon]

80. saying something is so a million times doesn't make it so, Frenchie.

I'm sorry your point failed to attain memesis, but you certainly deserve credit for trying really hard to make it seed.

[Tatiana]

28. For some people. For others it is a genuine concern for all future American Presidents.

OK, so you trust Obama. Cool. What happens if Obama serves two terms and Jeb Bush is selected President? You want Jebbie with those powers?

Yes, I'm pissed at Reid. Yes, I've called and written him along with Senator Durbin. And actually, I think I do have a little *more* standing as an Illinois resident. Obama is still my Senator.

But to the point of why it's important for Obama to oppose this measure, even moreso than someone like Bayh. Not only is he now the leader of the Democratic party, but he also has unique relationships that he has built in the Senate. Harry Reid can't call up Chuck Hagel and ask him to oppose this measure. But Sen. Obama, who has a relationship with Hagel, who is someone Hagel respects, can do that. He can flip that vote. And I bet he could get Specter's vote as well.

This is about playing to our strengths with the talent we have. To whom much is given, much is required. If Clinton was the nominee, I'd be writing and emailing her, asking her to lean on her buddies Feinstein and Bayh. And I STILL expect a NO vote from Hillary. Schumer, surprisingly, seems to be on the right side of this issue.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I did email Barack...because I understand what you are saying....

And you agree then that it is more about Barack than it is about the 4th amendment.

[Tatiana]

41. It is an important issue for the 4th amendement and the democratic nominee

who happens to be Barack Obama. But it could be Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd... I'd still expect opposition to this bill.

I am disappointed in Durbin for not getting us 40 Dems to stop this. He was my go-to guy, along with Feingold and Dodd on this issue. But now Reid and Pelosi and Hoyer have put us in this awful position so we need a Hail Mary. Obama's the only one at this point who can deliver the touchdown.

[FrenchieCat]

42. It won't happen. Hopefully Obama will vote no. but

the bill will still pass. period.

[Tatiana]

47. What does Obama have to GAIN from voting YES?

No one can answer that question.

[rug]

51. Republicans will like him.

[FrenchieCat]

54. I think he stated this.

here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6390859

I'm sure it it is also tactical. Not wanting to hand fodder to the Republicans who are already questioning his patriotism and calling him weak on defense.

But then, I urged him to vote no.

I'm just not going to hang him for it if he doesn't.

He stated many times that he was perfect and that he would disappoint and that we wouldn't always agree.........and he was correct.

[Tatiana]

62. In other words, politically he gains NOTHING from a YES vote.

But politically, he does stand to gain votes from libertarians and Ron Paul republicans if he votes NO.

So even if we just forget about the rightness of standing up for the Constitution and the 1st or 4th amendments, and just look at this from a purely political standpoint, it does not make sense for Obama to vote YES.

Wouldn't it be cool to cut an ad explaining how John McCain wants the government to spy on innocent Americans, but as President Barack Obama will defend Americans' right to privacy according to the Constitution?

[Maddy McCall]

61. FISA IS about the 4th. It is now, and it always has been.

The concern with the intrusiveness of FISA didn't begin when Obama announced his bid for the presidency.

It is not about Obama.

[FrenchieCat]

64. So what have you done to stop this from happening? Since you care.

[Maddy McCall]

66. I've contacted numerous representatives through mail, email, and phone calls.

[FrenchieCat]

71. Good, cause that's what makes the difference......

[dkf]

65. Reid isn't accountable to us, Obama is.

Then Obama can get Reid to do a better job on this bill.

[FrenchieCat]

68. So it is about Obama.......

Because that really is my only point.

I believe that they are all accountable to us, especially Sen. Reid....as Majority Leader of the Senate, he sets the agenda in the Senate.

For now, Obama's got one vote as he is not President yet....and perhaps he won't be.

[dkf]

74. Yes, it is about Obama. I lost faith in Reid a long time ago.

I've never been inspired to donate a dime to Harry Reid.

But I've learned that as in a relationship, you start the way you mean to go along in life. I wouldn't care if he didn't make certain promises earlier. I really need to believe Frenchie... I guess I find it hard to be pragmatic, and I know what the downside of that is.

I'm not saying I don't support Obama anymore. I'm just trying to help him see what he is doing. Michelle does that for him all the time.

[FrenchieCat]

78. I hear you.

"My wife reminds me all of the time that I am not a perfect man, and I will not be a perfect President. I may disappoint you sometimes, and we may not always agree. But what I will do, is tell you things that you may not want to hear, but that you need to know......Change isn't easy"--Barack Obama (from his standard stump speech that he gave consistently throughout the primaries).

[Two Americas]

70. I agree

I have been in the thick of the battle here, but have not attacked Obama nor blamed him. I am objecting to the rationales people are using here to justify the Democrats in their compromising stance in general, and the insinuations they are making that many of the people here are traitors of some kind when they offer criticism of the party. I think that this is what many of us are saying, and our justifiable alarm and our thoughtful and sincere opinions are being misconstrued as some sort of attack on the nominee or disloyalty to the party.

[demokatgurrl]

81. Well if we take Obama at his word

he would have voted against the war in Iraq, on principle- and yet we know it would have passed. Why wouldn't it be natural to expect the same type of behavior now- why wouldn't he vote his principles (BECAUSE he is running for President, not in SPITE of that fact)? What better way to make a statement that he (apparently) would like to make? If he votes NO and the bill passes, that's only GOOD for him.

[uponit7771]

82. I think people should point at that the bill allows for civil suites PRE 911 & still allows for ...

...criminal prosecution for company heads who complied with the government knowing the law.

[Blue_Roses]

83. exactly!

thank-you for your voice of reason:hi:

[loyalsister]

84. I think this is exactly why

Senators have a difficult time winning the presidency when they have opponnents who of course, are not Senators.

[sourmilk]

88. The principle is in standing up for what is right, rather than bowing to tryanny.

http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?title=Dennis-Kucinich-on-New-FISA-Bill