My latest hateful, rude, asshole-y, concern-trolling letter to the Obama campaign

[jgraz]

(I figured this time I'd get all the insults out of the way early)

Dear Senator Obama,

Please stop treating your supporters like children. We know that you are much more than "just one Senator" -- you are the Democratic nominee and the de facto leader of the party. You could stop this FISA bill if you wanted to.

Please remember that you did not win the nomination by catering to "Low Information Voters". We are active, we are aware and we are going to hold you accountable.

Please start living up the the expectations you set over the past 6 months. Stop this assault on the Constitution and start standing up for the people who you want to put you in the White House.

Sincerely,
jgraz

[JVS]

1. But he needs the LIVs for the GE!

[jgraz]

3. So tell the LIVs that John McCain eats puppies. Let the rest of have our 4th amendment.

[Barack_America]

2. Did you mean to send that letter to Reid?

Funny me, I thought he was the top-dog in the Senate.

[jgraz]

4. You are aware we just had a nominating contest for president, aren't you?

Remind me again... who won that? :shrug:

[Barack_America]

6. Sorry, I wasn't aware that made him Senate Majority Leader.

My apologies.

[jgraz]

8. So you think that Wussy Harry would tell Obama to go jump if he asked him to kill the vote?

Really? You think Harry Reid has more power than Obama right now?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Barack_America]

13. More so than if Kennedy, Levin or even Clinton told him to...

And yet I haven't heard anything from them. Frankly, not knowing where they stand is more concerning to me.

Say what you will about Obama's position, at least he had the courage to present one.

[DevonRex]

14. Yep. And this de facto leader stuff... I don't know. I need some

hard evidence that the Senate Majority Leader automatically does whatever the candidate wants. So far all I've seen is folks saying that Obama can get Harry to do this or that. But I haven't seen any historical precedent.

[jgraz]

40. Right -- only Bush can get Harry Reid to do whatever he wants.

[K Gardner]

5. Wow, Obama must be really scared. You really told him ! I bet they ran your CHILDISH email right

over to him ! Powerful (ly juvenile).

[jgraz]

7. Oh noes -- are you going to call me an asshole again?

:eyes:

[lame54]

42. If he gets a shit-load of similar e-mails. shouldn't he listen?

[jgraz]

70. You'd think he would.

Of course, for those who are in this campaign for drooling hero-worship, no criticism of the messiah is permitted.

[high density]

9. Yup, it's assholey

Your options are McCain, Obama, an also ran, or to not vote. To win the White House, Obama does need to be concerned over "low information voters" because those assholes are the people who gave us Bush TWICE.

[jgraz]

10. Where did I say I wasn't going to vote for him?

Do you really think that we should be prohibited from criticizing his actions until the election is over? Or longer?

[high density]

11. Well, your rant reads like a threat to me. Gimme gimme or no White House for you, Obama.

I'll vote for the guy even if he bakes a baby in an oven, given our choices. I'm not about to whine to him about every issue that we disagree on, and there are plenty.

[jgraz]

16. Read it again, keeping in mind my strong support for him this primary season.

My letter is a simple statement of disappointment and anger at Obama's response to this issue. This is "not an issue we disagree on". He agrees with us, he's just not willing to do anything about it.

For example, I supported Obama even knowing his ridiculous stance on gay marriage. If he was voting against a federal gay marriage law, I'd hate it but I'd say nothing. His position is well-known, and I couldn't blame the guy for voting the way he said he would.

But that's not the case here. He's repeatedly come out against telecom immunity and in favor of restoring the 4th amendment. He's billed himself as a different kind of Democrat who isn't going to do things the "Old Washington Way". In this way he is failing us. And he's compounding the failure by giving us this transparently ludicrous spin about how our party's nominee is "just one Senator".


Obama has already got my vote, my money and my volunteer time. Now he's going to get a piece of my mind.

[KingFlorez]

15. He doesn't have the authority to stop this bill

Yes, he's the nominee, but he doesn't set the agenda. He's still only one Senator with one vote. That's reality.

[DevonRex]

18. And I have yet to see anyone put forth any evidence that he COULD

stop it. They SAY he can. But is there precedent for it? Have other candidates automatically started to run the agenda in the Senate before? If they could provide some history of another candidate taking over completely, they should do so. If not...

[thewiseguy]

20. He keeps repeating himself with no substance

[DevonRex]

22. Yep. I need hard facts, not assertions. nt

[thewiseguy]

23. Then you are wasting your time. There arent any.

I cant believe how many times I have told him this and he keeps repeating himself and when gets angry he starts spewing insults.

[DevonRex]

28. You are right. Why am I bothering? And now I have a killer headache.

AGAIN.

You know, things got a little more normal over the past couple of days here. And all of the sudden today, it's flared up again. Maybe it's time I took a break. I'm sure I have some weeds that need pulling. I can take out my remaining frustration on them.

[Zodiak]

59. Dodd shut the operation down by himself last time

And he was not even the nominee, just one candidate in a primary field of eight.

Senators can do much more than House members.

[jgraz]

19. So what's your understanding? That he didn't know about it?

Or do you think Wussy Harry is pursuing a vote over Obama's objections?

It seems unthinkable that the party leaders would not let the nominee know that such a bill was in the works. If, at that point, Obama had told them NO, there would never be a vote. Never.

He didn't, and now he wants us to buy the spin that he's "just one Senator".

I can deal with a nominee who disagrees with me. I can even deal with one who goes back on his word. What truly pisses me off is when a politician thinks I'm so fucking stupid that I'll swallow any bullshit he feeds me.

[KingFlorez]

33. Things do not work that way

You obviously have no understanding of how things work. The work in the Senate is separate from internal party politics and the Presidential campaign. What you are describing is something that would happen in a banana republic, where the defacto leader of a political party makes all the decisions. It's never ever worked that way and it doesn't work that way now. As I said, it's reality.

[jgraz]

38. Yes, they do.

Here's one example of majority in Congress coordinating with their presidential nominee: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD153AF931A2575BC0A964958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It strains credulity to think that any party in control of a political instrument as powerful as the House or Senate would simply refuse to use that control to support the wishes of the nominee of their party. Hell, the Rethugs used everything from Homeland Security to the Justice Department to further their political goals.

Your claim that the Senate and House majorities do not coordinate with their presidential nominee is extraordinary. Do you have ANY evidence to back that up?

[KingFlorez]

45. You are still wrong

That was one occasion, there isn't a history of this kind of thing happening. You are blaming Obama for not stopping this bill because he's the defacto leader. The nominee of a political party does not automatically get power to set the agenda and make decisions.

[jgraz]

47. See also the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" in 2000

Same shit, different party.

Now, do you have any evidence to support your claim that the presidential nominee has no influence over his party's actions in Congress?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

58. The operating phrase being "different party"

I don't know about you but after 7 1/2 years of the most politicized Presidency and legislature (when it was in GOP hands) in recent history I'd like to return to a quaint notion known as separation of powers. As a Presidential candidate, Obama is certainly going to be under a lot of scrutiny for what he does as a Senator, and inarguably has some influence over the process at this time. But Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader and Obama is a junior Senator, presumptive nominee and leader of the party or not. The Senate is not the Democratic Party and that's how it should be. Much as I disagree with the telcom immunity, I would be more disturbed if Obama were able to get any bill he wanted killed simply by picking up the phone, as a candidate or President. The FISA bill is Reid's baby and his responsibility.

[jgraz]

60. Funny how I'm being attacked both for being too cynical and too naïve...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. I'm not attacking you as either.

I think you have expressed your very legitimate concern very reasonably. I'd just like people to consider all the aspects of the issue, political and legislative, in addition to what's in the FISA bill itself. I don't want the Democratic version of Rovian politicization of every function of our government. I want the Senate to be the Senate and Obama to be a Presidential candidate, and then President. Harry Reid should kill this bill because it is being used as a political football and there is no pressing security need that it be passed immediately.

[merh]

17. I like your letter.

We have every right to let Obama know what we want and expect.

[DevonRex]

21. Where is your evidence that Obama can now run the Senate?

If so, there must be precedent for it. Have other candidates taken over completely? Who? When? How?

[Barack_America]

24. Don't forget the House. He's apparently responsible for Pelosi caving too.

In fact, there's a big pothole in my street. I live in a Democratically run city. I think I'll bypass our public works department and mayor, and blame Obama directly.

Damn yous Obama, for the huge pothole! I hold you accountable for it not being filled! *shakes fist in rage*

[DevonRex]

25. I guess he can fill the pothole himself while filibustering and

simultaneously doing Muslim outreach. :evilgrin:

[jgraz]

27. Oh, so you're saying Obama has no power and Nancy Pelosi is really our stealth nominee

See? I can construct straw men too.

[DevonRex]

29. Now, now. I'm saying back up your claim that he can run the Senate.

That's all.

You did make me smile, tho, with the Stealth Pelosi thing. :)

[jgraz]

35. Never made the claim. Stop constructing straw men.

My claim is that it is common for the majority party in Congress to coordinate with and help their nominee. It happened in 1992, and it happened in 2000.

Here's one example, which I've already given you:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD153AF931A2575BC0A964958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[DevonRex]

41. That very article says it is RARE for congress to promote a theme

of the candidate. And promoting a benign "theme" is NOT the same as stopping votes on legislation that has been in the works for many, many months.

"a rare Congressional effort to underscore the themes of Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign."

[jgraz]

46. Yes, that was a major public effort to push Clinton's ideas.

The House was doing it again in 2000, in service of Bush -- remember the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"?

Now you claim that the nominee has no influence over his party in Congress, which is an extraordinary claim. Do you have anything to back that up with?

[jgraz]

26. You're constructing a straw-man. I never said he could run the Senate.

But he sure as hell can set the agenda for the party. If he had told Pelosi and Reid that he did not want this bill voted on, this bill would not be voted on. It would be almost unthinkable to defy the party's nominee for president.

So we're left with two choices: either he lied about his objections to the bill, or Pelosi and Reid don't care what our nominee wants and they're actively working to hose our shot at the White House.


BTW, Here's one example of how the majority party usually supports their nominee: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DD153AF931A2575BC0A964958260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[DevonRex]

31. So you DO think he runs the Senate? If he controls which bill

is voted on when, then he controls the Senate.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence of that in ANY previous race for the White House by ANY previous candidate. If you have it, I'd like to see it.

[jgraz]

49. Wow, you really love that simplistic straw man. Please let it go and let's have a real debate.

I've shown you evidence, from both 2000 and 1992, of the party in Congress coordinating with their nominee. Can you support your claim that Obama has NO say in the actions of Congress?

[Barack_America]

39. Pelosi caved under pressure from House members in swing districts....

who would have been vulnerable if the Republicans could paint them as being "weak on terror" if FISA was allowed to expire.

Obama provided cover for these House members among Dems by saying that he too could support the compromise (which in truth he probably doesn't like at all). Obama ultimately agreed to do this figuring that he could completely gut the thing when he takes office.

We'll see what happens in the Senate.

Was it a risky move by Obama? Absolutely. But so is assuming that a terrorist attack won't happen (or won't be made to happen) between now and November.

[jgraz]

48. There are risks on both sides, so why not just do the right thing?

Obama has already shown with his "Race Speech" that he can take the lead and change public opinion on a divisive issue. This issue isn't really all that divisive -- how many people still want this president to have unlimited spying powers?

[Barack_America]

53. That's why I'm waiting for the action on the Senate floor.

The statement was issued to provide cover for House Dems. Nothing more.

Let's what he has to say about it on the floor.

[Beaverhausen]

61. remember Chris Dodd?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/dodd-filibuster.html

[Cha]

30. Thanks, I don't think you're

all those things.

[DevonRex]

32. I don't either. Jgraz is a passionate dem and I have a lot of

appreciation for him/her (?) and even quite a bit of fondness.

Note to self: Look up Jgraz' profile so I won't have to say him/her.

[DevonRex]

34. He is a HE!!!! Now I know. :) nt

[Cha]

36. Yeah, he's a he..I looked it up before

'cause he usually makes laugh or smile. :)

[democrattotheend]

37. I don't think he has the power to stop it

The majority of Americans oppose this bill. Obama is not in bed with the telecoms. Stopping this bill would be a boost for his campaign if he had the power. Sadly, I don't think he does. I don't think he has enough control over Democrats in Congress to stop this bill, but if he puts himself out there to try to stop it and it still passes, the press will have a field day talking about divided Democrats and Obama being weak and ineffective.

[DevonRex]

43. Hell, many of them were afraid to even endorse him before

June 6th. And yes, failure would be something the media jumped all over.

[Bake]

44. Good letter, graz!

Obama NEEDS to hear from Democrats about the issues. He also needs to make sure he doesn't lose his spine along the way to the White House ...

Bake

[ihavenobias]

50. It's true

It does only take ONE Senator. And Obama isn't just any Senator, he really is the de factor leader of the party now.

K & R

Pretending that Obama is perfect is not what I had in mind when I voted for him. If we do that, we are no better than the ass kissing Republicans that still pretending Bush is a good president.

And for the record, of course I'm voting Dem this November, without a doubt. And I still think that overall Obama could be a very good president. He's just wrong on this issue I won't ignore that just because he's got a (D) next to his name.

[The Doctor.]

51. I think there's more hype over this than is necessary.

From what I gather, the version of the bill that everyone's so bent out of shape over does not, in fact, prevent the telcoms from being pursued and prosecuted.

[Buck Rabbit]

52. Hi Jgraz

Is your anger at having a FISA bill, the telecom immunity or both?

I haven't been following everything as I have been sick. But FISA itself has never been ruled unconstitutional and was originally created to put more limits and accountability on the intelligence gathering abuses of J Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon.

Your letter would appear to be against the whole Bill not just the immunity portion?

[jgraz]

54. Both. This expands warrantless wiretapping to every international call.

That means I can call my American friend in Paris and Bush can listen with impunity. To paraphrase Feingold, that's not a compromise, it's a capitulation.

[Buck Rabbit]

55. Thank you, I was was not aware this bill expanded the FISA scope.

I will have to edumacate myself more fully on this before I can spew a "Bravo JGraz" or a "Go Eat Shit" .

Either way, you have always been a warrior for progressive causes on this board, so even a go eat shit should be taken as from an ardent reader and supporter of yours, the same as your letter to Obama.

I think though that your letter would be more effective if he knew what you were complaining about, his campaign would probably assume you are just talking about immunity portion. Also knowing the letter comes from a supporter not just a freeper or disgruntled Clinton loyalist would probably carry more weight.

[jgraz]

56. Obama has my donation records. He knows how much I've supported him.

I supposed I could take more time and choose my words more carefully, but then the letter would likely never get sent.

[Buck Rabbit]

57. Yep, been there done that, repeatedly.

[Zodiak]

62. I wrote him, too...as a supporter

What I fear is that he is unaware of how many jgrazs are out there, me included. He needs to hear from his angry supporters because frankly, this is not "one issue", it is the Constitution. It is the fourth amendment and your right to privacy. This is one hell of a big bargaining chip, and not one that I am willing to give up without a peep because 10 anonymous House Dems whine to Pelosi about losing their districts when they supplied no eivdence for their assertions. Basically, we are being asked to give up our Constitutional rights for "secret evidence" about electoral loss from the Blue Dogs and DLC.

The bill allows for free wiretapping without a warrant for seven days, and then the FISA court gets to review it (without knowing who is tapped, I might add...just the procedures used). If the FISA court says "no way", the President can still wiretap without a warrant during the entire appellate process, which as you know, can take quite some time. Plus it expands who can be tapped (although I do not know the details on that one). Basically, it is expanded powers with a gigantic legal hole in it that effectively allows warrantless wiretapping go on for months.

And even so, it designates the compromised and Bush-packed Justice Department Inspector General to review the cases in secret. I have no faith in an office of the President's cabinet reviewing the President, as we have seen for the last 7 years.

Jgraz, like me, knows that Obama is a Constitutional scholar. Barack knows this is a stinking pile of horse shit. He had better fight it convincingly, or many of his ardent supporters will lose some of their drive...not their vote necessarily, but their drive. We cannot afford to lose that.

I do not support candidates by overlooking their stances on big issues. I support by suggesting routes for electoral success. In today's atmosphere, we are not going to lose districts that went blue last time around. The mood of the country is even worse. In my opinion, this is typical Blue Dog/DLC becoming an albatross around our necks. It does not serve these corporate-loving conservative Dems to have a President like Barack Obama and a Dem party caucus dominated by progressives. They make their living out of giving Republicans what they want.

Sorry for the long rant...it is not at you in particular...just how I see things.

[Generator]

64. Exactly what my husband said

I find it tre amusement that my husband is now outraged over his great love. Well, I have no lovers left-Edwards was my last political lover. I am SO used to being let down I have no more outrage. My husband was furious and wrote a similar letter to Obama while informing me and them no more money from him to Obama.

I told him you never know-maybe Obama will use the laws to trap Cheney cofessing to planning 9/11. (I'm the Lihoper-my husband is the prove it to me guy) KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

[cboy4]

65. LOL

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iconicgnom]

68. We all know about Pelosi and Reid. Dammit. Nevertheless, what Obama *can* do is the right thing.

[jgraz]

69. We can still have hope.

[iconicgnom]

81. uh huh. Nowadays that takes quite some audacity, I hear.

[Catherina]

71. My letter was a lot more diplomatic but I'm glad you wrote though n/t

[jgraz]

73. I would love to see your letter.

We should be putting these online, perhaps they'll convince others to write.

And hey, I've been told I could use a few pointers on diplomacy. ;)

[Catherina]

82. Here you go. On reread it wasn't my best but I think it sends the message

Dear Senator Obama,

I’m going to keep this short and blunt because I know you’re a bit busy these days. I’m a long time supporter and donated a total of $4,600 hard-earned and not very easily-spared dollars to your campaign because I support your message of change.

I’m very saddened by your statement on supporting the FISA compromise which has seriously dampened my enthusiasm. I am intellectually insulted by the statement you released as it plays both sides of the fence. There can be no “compromise” with eviscerating the constitution.

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

I strongly urge you to

1) speak out against the bill in its entirety and lead other Senators to vote against it when it comes up for a vote in the Senate next week

2) vote against the bill in its entirety


You assured us you would hold the current administration accountable for its crimes. How can you do so if you “compromise” and vote to give them immunity before you even get into office?

Vote no Senator Obama before losing the support of many hard-working activists who were planning to spend the summer converting others to elect a President who genuinely cares about the people.

We’re past the hope part and your FISA vote is a crucial confirmation of how much faith we can place in CHANGE, which is much more important to us than romantic hope.

Vote No Senator and restore my enthusiasm for your campaign.


With utmost respect and good wishes,

(me)

[jgraz]

84. Yeah, that's much better than mine

I just hope he's getting a lot of these.

[dailykoff]

72. Good letter. I hope he gets a ton of them.

Personally I'd be happy if he just voted no on the bill, with or without the immunity. I'm pretty sure it will pass but if he saddled himself with that vote he's going to get nailed in the debates. Life isn't fair that way but it is what it is.

[jgraz]

74. I think the ship has sailed on this one. The letters are to prevent the next cave-in.

Seriously, NO Democrat should be caving into this ridiculous excuse for a president. The guy is about as popular as anal herpes, and yet the Democrats are scared of opposing him. It's sickening.

[dailykoff]

76. He can still vote no.

So he bucks the WH, that's a problem? That's why he's winning in the first place. If he votes yes the flipflop drums will start beating, and that's just the start of how it will haunt him.

[jgraz]

83. Obama has yet to "buck" the White House.

Can you think of a single time when Senator Obama has stood up to Bush and won?

[dailykoff]

85. You've got a point.

Why he's choosing this moment to FLAUNT it, I don't know. He could vote no and still get his wiretaps if that's what he's pining for. He's not going to win anybody over by voting yes.

[Political Heretic]

75. I wrote to him to urging him to do more, but I'm not going to demonize the guy if he doesn't.

He's in a tough spot.

[dailykoff]

77. Why is he in a tough spot?

If he ties himself to this dreck, THEN he's in a tough spot. If he votes no and it passes, he wins the courage award and he still gets his damn wiretaps if that's what he wants. Win win. :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

78. You don't seem to know much about elections

[dailykoff]

79. You didn't answer the question, and nobody else has either.

This is poison electorally. I don't think that's why he got behind it.

[Life Long Dem]

80. You sure did sign that Jealous!!

[TheKentuckian]

86. Leadership is behind this folks

Even if Obama actually wants the wiretaps, he surely doesn't want this debate on the table as it places him in a no win scenario.

There is no logical argument that a candidate in Obama's position would want this to come to a vote at all.
Write away, I totally agree with the sentiment but the blame aspect is very misplaced Reid and Pelosi are screwing the nominee, whatever his actual goal is. You have to be blinded not to see this.