How many percentage points will Obama's FISA vote net him?

[jgraz]

So many people are saying that Obama "did what he needs to win" with this FISA vote. So, let's make some predictions: how much of a gain will this be for him? How many percentage points will he get out of his vote?

[jgraz]

1. Someone thinks this will gain him 15 points or more? Please explain.

[L0oniX]

71. Disruptive trolls from the other camp?

[Shoelace]

120. YES! Tickling the underbelly of the beast begets strange bedfellows

Hillarites, RNC, GOP trolls, various "others" like fucking Army ants knawing away ala Fox News bites, baiting the enemy without eyes to see or ears to hear.
Negative energy being injected into a very positive direction like lemmings they flow off the cliff to vapid land.

Led by spurious factions, fed and feeding the frenzy to specious aggrandizement by the Emperor of deception.

Arrange them all like soldiers in a war awaiting the perfect one to meet their expectations. Let them speak our words. Let them, let them SPEAK OUR THOUGHTS.
(Fox News redux).

MAinly, castrate their "hope." "Tyrants cannot rule when hope abounds. We need no soldiers in this war. They are their own worst enemies!"

(news from the frontlines)

[L0oniX]

122. LOL

[BlueStater]

2. This will probably hurt him if anything

I think he lost the respect of more than a few people after this act of political cowardice.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Misleading question, I think.

Was his vote designed to get more support, or to fight off the 527 attacks that would surely have come his way?

I voted 0 points, he won't lose any support, nor gain any, but at least he won't face the hell he might have.

Except from the purity freaks.

[jgraz]

8. Sorry, but if you think this will prevent one 527 ad, you're dreaming.

There will be MORE 527's because of this vote. Now they can attack his character and his core principles instead of his support of national security. That's a much more damaging charge, especially since it's TRUE.

A real, strong leader would have done what Obama said he was going to do: take on the Repugs directly on this national security issue. Instead, he ran and hid under his desk and (once again) gave away the store to the least-popular president in the history of the republic.

Classic losing strategy. Classic Democrat.

[Baltoman991]

22. Sorry

But I don't see McCain touching this one now. Why you might ask? For the simple fact that it can be turned right around on him when he's asked, "why didn't you even bother to show up to vote?"

See, it works both ways. Obama did what he did today to fight off the "weak on National Security" garbage that was sure to be thrown his way.

You can slam him all you want or continue to think that he will be attacked by McCain for this but the fact is he won't. Not without McCain looking like a bigger idiot than he already is.

[jgraz]

25. McCain and 527's are two different things.

The McCain campaign may stay away from it, but the 527s will eat this up.

[NattPang]

43. McCain didn't even vote on this bill.

The GOP 527s are not about to explain FISA.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

84. How will 527s eat this up? Which 527s, for one thing, and what will they do?

It wouldn't make sense for Republican groups to attack him for his vote since every one of their Senators voted for the bill. So who's going to do a 527? The ACLU? What, they're going to attack Obama who has an 86% rating with them so McCain who has a 0% can win?

I doesn't make sense. :shrug:

[jgraz]

95. Flip Flop

The ads almost write themselves.

Now you're going to say: "b-but McCain is WORSE! He's a worse flip-flopper than Obama!! They wouldn't DARE raise this issue."

And for that I point you to a little something called The Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth -- defending a deserter by attacking a war hero's military record.



Seriously, we never fucking learn. Never.

[jobycom]

16. Misleading, simplistic, disingenuous.

He's crafting his campaign, and he knows what voters he's targetting and why. His polling numbers and demographics research indicated this was the best thing for him to do. It's not a question of whether he picks up a set percentage of votes by this one move, it's a question of whether he constructs a campaign that appeals to the groups his detailed information shows he needs to appeal to.

His wasn't the deciding vote, anyway. If he had stood up to the bill, he'd have changed nothing. If he had taken the opposite position, he'd have had to prove his leadership skills by championing his position. If he championed it and lost, he would look less like a leader in the Senate, and that would be a bigger mark against him than his individual vote.

[jgraz]

19. 3 out of 10.

That's how many elections these bullshit centrist tactics have won us in the last 40 years. Meanwhile, we've ceded every possible point of contention to the fascist wing of the Repug party. For fuck's sake, we're now arguing over whether support of the 4th Amendment is a good campaign strategy. :banghead:


3 out of 10. And somehow we think this time will be different.

[jobycom]

54. Not true. The "centrist" candidate has won 10 out of 10 of the last elections.

First, I don't know that this has anything to do with centrist tactics. We have to wait and see what his strategy is. This is just one senate vote in a career that has trended towards the center.

Second, candidates of both parties always try to capture the middle voters, for obvious reasons. That's where the votes are, and the votes in the middle count twice--once for you, once against the other side.

Third, you're starting at Nixon for your ten. Go back two and include JFK and LBJ--certainly two of the most centrist candidates. Heck, JFK ran to the right of Nixon to win. Then we've won 5 of 12. Considering how badly LBJ and Carter screwed up, that's practically even.

But the bottom line is, the candidate who has won each of those elections is the candidate who has appealed to the middle voters, and who successfully portrayed their opponent as the extremist. JFK won by out-chest thumping Nixon. LBJ won by making Goldwater look extreme. Nixon and Reagan won four elections by claiming their opponents were too liberal, and cashing in on the anger created by the Democrats over Civil Rights. Mondale and Dukakis were made into far left candidates, not "centrist." That, and Carter's failures with the economy and Iran--both issues they painted as symptoms of liberalism, from Carter's refusal to invade Iran to his support of social spending and other liberal policies.

Clinton won by being centrist. Gore was the one populist candidate we had (which also screws up your 3 of 10), and might have won by bigger margins if he had been more centrist, and cashed in more on the success of Clinton's economic policies. Bush portrayed him as too liberal, and pretended he was the moderate one. Remember his calls for a balanced budget and his railing against "state building?" No matter how he governed, he ran as a moderate--ask the many DUers who admit voting for him believing he was moderate.

Candidates of both parties win the nomination by playing to their base, then campaign in the general by playing to the middle. So, Reagan, Nixon, and W get labeled as conservatives, just as Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore were labeled as liberals. During the general elections in each case, each candidate tried to make his opponent look beholden to the extremists of his party, and himself look like the more centrist candidate.

You are defining "centrist" as something that only Democrats are doing and as that thing which made the Democrats lose, so of course you are coming up with numbers to prove your point. You're crafting definitions to make it so.

[jgraz]

58. Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 were not centrists

They got centrist votes, but their policies were anything but.

And remember why Bush 41 LOST? Because he did the centrist thing and raised taxes when he needed to. In other words, he went back on his word and his base deserted him. Sound familiar?

[jobycom]

59. They ran as centrists.

They ran by portraying themselves as closer to the center than their opponents. And I disagree on why Daddy lost. He lost because the economy sucked, and he seemed clueless on how to fix it, and because Clinton seemed closer to the values of "mainstream Americans--" meaning the center. Hell, the first history of his presidency was titled "From the Center to the Edge."

[jgraz]

60. Bush 04 and Reagan 84 ran as a centrists? How the hell do you figure that?

We already knew these guys were as right-wing as they come. People voted for them because they acted like strong leaders and stuck to their principles -- no matter how fucked-up those principles might be.

Also, Bush 92 lost because he was weak. Just like McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry lost because they were weak.

[jobycom]

66. You've changed your argument.

Bush Daddy lost because he was centrist, now he lost because he was weak. Our candidates lost because they were centrist, now they lost because they were weak.

The losing candidate always looks weak, because they lost (though Gore won). If W or Reagan or Clinton had lost, they would look weak.

And yeah, Bush 04 and Reagan 84 ran as the candidate most appealing to the center. They both painted their opponents as too liberal, too extreme. Never mind how they governed--we were talking about campaigning. They ran as the candidate closest to the center. That's centrist.

Wikipedia's entry on Mondale in 84 (Wikipedia being just a summary of conventional interpretations): "Mondale ran a liberal campaign, supporting a nuclear freeze and the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). He spoke against what he considered to be unfairness in Reagan's economic policies and the need to reduce federal budget deficits." (Isn't that what you wanted?)

On Kerry in 2004: The Americans for Democratic Action, a prominent liberal organization, rates Kerry's voting record better than that of Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA), causing Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie to joke, "Who would have guessed it? Ted Kennedy is the conservative senator from Massachusetts."

[jgraz]

73. I did not. Centrist == Weak in American politics.

And, btw, Clinton won despite looking weak. He lost the Congress and, more importantly, he lost the debate (well, he simply gave up and started acting like a Republican). He had some significant accomplishments, but he didn't move the issues one bit to the left after 12 years of radical conservatism.

Also, you're doing the same thing the Democrats always do: allowing Republican operatives to define our candidate. I'm hoping you just want to win the argument, but Ed Freaking Gillespie? Is that really who you want to put your faith in to evaluate our candidates?

[jobycom]

97. Why don't you just define "centrist" as "Whatever I say it is?"

As for Clinton, if you don't think he changed the direction of this country from the ultra-conservative trajectory of Reagan, you just shouldn't vote or post. That's beyond uninformed, that's fundamentalism of the worst kind. Ask anyone recently married in California how important it was that Clinton prevented an amendment banning gay marriages. Ask anyone who receives any government assistance how important it was that Clinton stopped Gingrich's plan to roll back our government to "pre-FDR levels," as Newt put it. Clinton halted our blind plummet into the depths of a conservative hell when even the Democratically controlled Congress he had at first was conservative.. Without him, or worse, with a lukewarm, inexperienced president who maybe said pretty things we wanted to hear but was unable to work with a conservative Congress (even when it was Democratic for the first two years it was conservative), Gingrich and Delay would have become moderates, and we'd be well beyond where we are even now. We wouldn't be worrying about whether the Fourth Amendment was being compromised, we'd be worrying about the people being imprisoned for teaching science in our schools and the bodies piling up on city sidewalks as the growing number of homeless failed to find assistance or handouts from the shrinking number of people with actual disposable incomes. We'd be reading John Steinbeck as an example of the good old days and pushing George W Bush as the last liberal hope for this nation.

[jgraz]

98. Once again, reading comprehension is your key to success

What of Reagan's damage did Clinton roll back? I know he prevented a whole-scale conservative putsch (well, he delayed it for a few years), but what of Reagan/Bush did he overturn? The worst features of the Reagan years remained alive and well all through the Clinton era.

At best, he just kept the ball on our own 20 yard line and waited for W and Cheney to run it into the end zone. At worst, he set them up for the authoritarian takeover and destruction of our domestic economy. Either way, it's not particularly impressive.


And yes, Centrist is viewed as Weak in American politics. The lack of understanding for this fundamental fact is why Democrats have lost so many elections over the past 40 years. It's also why we've gone from impeaching a president over a minor coverup to passing our own coverup legislation for a president's wholesale violations of the Constitution.

[BlueStater]

24. Who the hell is he trying to appeal to?

I think most Americans, if they truely understood what this FISA crap was, would not support it. Unfortunately, Obama didn't even attempt to fight back against GOP smears and caved in like a weakling.

[Benhurst]

50. A constitutional scholar who can't persuade the electorate of the

importance of the Fourth Amendment? So much for Theodore Roosevelt's "bully pulpit."

[jobycom]

61. I'm not defending the bill. It sucks.

And I'm not defending Obama. I don't like him, never have, and I think Clinton should be the nominee. He's doing exactly what his history shows he will do--anyone who spent a minute or two investigating him rather than simply bashing those of us who told everyone what he was like would have known that.

I'm saying the OP's poll is ridiculous. You can't measure the effect of a single action on the overall campaign, unless it is a catastrophically negative action. The Willie Horton ad worked against Dukakis, for the first example that comes to mind, not because of Dukakis's one action as governor (it wasn't even his action), but because his opponent crafted an entire campaign to make Dukakis look weak on crime. The Horton add worked because it personified the entire strategy against Dukakis. If he had been a tough-on-crime crusader who wanted the death penalty for littering, the Willie Horton add wouldn't have meant much.

I don't know Obama's plan, but apparently whatever it is, it involves this vote--either avoiding a negative image associated with it, or building on something he thinks it does positively (It does put some restrictions on Bush that he doesn't have now, like forbidding a president from overriding the requirements of the bill by using the war powers act).

Whatever it is, the OP's poll is just ridiculous. That was my point.

[Bake]

62. That's pretty fucking sad, if you ask me.

"His polling numbers and demographics research indicated this was the best thing for him to do."

Whether it was the RIGHT thing for him to do, well, fuck that. Do what the polls demand. THIS is our "new kind of politics?" Sounds like the same old losing strategy Dems have followed for decades.

Sell out the Fourth Amendment because that's what the polls say to do. Sad. Really fucking sad.

Bake

[jobycom]

70. No argument there.

I'm not defending Obama, I'm explaining him, and explaining why the OP poll is "misleading." You want my opinion on Obama? He's the wrong candidate. I've believed that from the beginning, which is why I supported Dodd, then Richardson, then Clinton. He's inexperienced, naive, doesn't know when to compromise and when to stand firm. He's like John Edwards, telling anyone who will listen whatever they want to hear, using broad feel-good platitudes that say nothing and promise nothing. His record shows exactly that. He campaigned for the Senate against the war, then voted for it every chance he got once elected. He sided recently on two SCOTUS decisions with Scalia and Thomas against the liberals. He's equivocated on abortion. He's told Canada he didn't mean what he said about NAFTA, and he's told the BBC he didn't mean what he said about withdrawing from Iraq. He's pandered to every group so badly that he contradicts himself. His only consistency is his slogan, which essentially tells everyone they should Hope for Change.

I don't like him. But he's still a lot better than McCain. No contest. So what's the point of polls like the OP's? Obama isn't going to listen to us. He's going to listen to his polling data, and that tells him he's done with the left for now, and has to go after the center. Many of us said he would do this, and we were called vile names around here. Now it's happening, and those of us who take this all seriously enough to pay attention to the whole candidate and not just his beautiful personality and pretty words are forced to defend someone for doing what we warned everyone he would do in the first place. And we get attacked for doing that by the same people who wouldn't listen to us in the first place.

Politics sucks. It's not for the weak, it's not for purists. It's for people willing to make small gains and swallow a lot of crap in the meantime. The Republicans win so much because they are better at that. We liberals want everything at once, and that will never happen.

He's our candidate. Stick with him, or go to the other party. Those are the options now. He's not going to listen to any of our complaints--he's focused on the general now.

[Popol Vuh]

92. "Purity freaks"???

Is that the label you use for folks who are concerned about the Bill of Rights being trashed on? I hope you weren't one us "purity freaks" when the Chimpster trashed on habeas corpus. I mean that would be a hypocritical purity freak.

C'mon man, using labels like purity freaks is no different than FAUX using labels like cut & runners, etc. People have legitimate concerns with respect to what's going on with our civil rights.


n/t

[MercutioATC]

4. None. It wasn't meant to. It was meant to inoculate him from the "weak on terrorism" attack.

No more, no less.

Strategically, it was a good move.

[DarthDem]

6. Yes

So glad to see someone actually understanding this.

[jgraz]

11. Cool. Now he gets the "weak on principles" attack instead.

How'd that work out last time?

[NattPang]

23. When was the last time

We had a candidate running
who was rumored of being a Muslim
while we were fighting two wars
in the Middle East?

[jgraz]

26. What. The. Fuck?

I honestly have no idea where you're coming from with these insane posts.

[NattPang]

29. How are my posts

anymore insane than yours?
Who made you judge?
Your post count and length of membership?
Sorry but post count doesn't equate brain cells.

[jgraz]

30. No, but common sense and ability to speak in complete sentences does.

I've been giving you a break so far because it's obvious that English is not your first language (I hope that's the case, because otherwise... damn)

But even allowing for a language barrier, you are posting some shit that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Obama should vote against the 4th amendment because some redneck asswipe dumbfucks think he's a Muslim? How the hell does that even make one molecule of sense?

[NattPang]

35. If you remember the Patriot act, than you remember when your rights were taken away.

and it was before today.

English may not be my first language
But I am an American, and I read
and think and like you have opinions.

You are upset about this vote.
You have been upset for weeks now.

I have a different opinion about
the vote today and Obama's rationale
for it.

To feed fears about
Obama becoming President,
a No vote on FISA
would have given the media
the tool they needed.

Sure, they can now portray him
as a flip flopper
if they try hard enough,
but Obama is running against
an even bigger flip flopper,
so that won't be as easy for them.

Obama, who some voters already believe is Muslim
and whose patriotism has been questioned,
cannot win this election with a media narrative
that can portray him as soft on terrorism.

Obama is in it to win,
and his choices today
was to vote for this bill
or to satisfy some principle
that would not change a thing
for any of us.

[DarthDem]

93. It Didn't

To my knowledge the attacks on Kerry (a far, far weaker candidate than Obama, and I think Kerry would readily admit that) were not based on the fact that he was weak on his principles, or if they were, they were based on his initial vote for the war, then his change to oppose it.

The war can be readily understood by anyone. The FISA debate, while important to you and me, means nothing to most Americans. This will have no effect whatsoever as soon as Glenn Greenwald and the purity crowd stop shouting about it.

[jgraz]

88. So he gains NOTHING electorally? No votes? No uptick in the polls?

How again was this a good move strategically? I thought we were trying to win an election here.

[slick8790]

5. You are being dishonest in your framing of this issue.

This was not about "netting him points". This was about firstly shutting down a potential republican line of attack, and secondly about facing the political facts. This bill was going to pass. Obama's one vote did not and would not make a difference.

If he tried to influence other dem senators to try and prevent this bill from passing, they would shrug him off, the bill would pass anyway, and the media would start a new meme about how not even obama's fellow senators listen to him, about he's not an effective leader, etc etc. Plus it gives John McCain just another "weak on national security" line.

[depakid]

7. "shutting down a potential republican line of attack" ??? You're kidding, right?

He just handed the Republicans the flip flopper narrative on a silver platter!

[jgraz]

9. And, more importantly, immunized McSame from the same charge.

McCain *was* incredibly vulnerable on his flip-flops. Now that issue is "off the table".

[depakid]

17. It was a lose/lose proposition for all concerned

except for Bush and the Republicans

Or perhaps, those fulsome Dems who're the recipients of Telecom money (and/or favors once they're out of office).

[Bake]

65. And that fact speaks volumes about the current state of the Democratic Party.

And they're not good ...

Bake

[jgraz]

87. Unless it translates into a positive electoral shift, it was BY DEFINITION politically stupid

So, what's your assessment? How much will "shutting down a potential republican line of attack" and "facing the political facts" get him? If the answer is "nothing", or if the answer is "no one can say", then you and I just got sold out for a pig in a poke.

[cookie monster]

10. very few

This issue is not atop American's priorities.

[AtomicKitten]

12. It was a strategic smooth move, nothing more nothing less.

Not enough votes for a filibuster.

[jgraz]

14. I predict this will turn out to be a strategic disaster.

Taking the flip-flop mantle from McSame and putting it on himself? It doesn't get much dumber than that.

I don't think this will cost him the election, but it will give the 527's a great meme to pound on. And of course, we've (once again) completely ceded the national security debate to the fascists.

To say nothing of that whole "gutting of the 4th Amendment" thing... :banghead:

[AtomicKitten]

18. I disagree. A flip-flopper calling someone else a flip-flopper falls flat.

The bill sucked ass, but there weren't enough votes for a filibuster. Under the circumstances, in my opinion he made the smart strategic move. I was pissed off for a while, but realized Obama stands between us and McBush's Third Term. I think if some here act out their anger by not voting for him, that is what would be really dumb but not surprising. He can fix this bill when he's in the White House. We cannot fix a botched election.

[jgraz]

20. Wait, you just said exactly what I was saying.

Barack can no longer call McCain a flip-flopper. But the Repugs, with their legions of media lapdogs, sure as shit can pin the label on Obama.

This is already a botched election. Let's hope it's not botched enough to let McSame get into office (notice I didn't say "win").

[Baltoman991]

27. How

is this a botched election? Is it because the person you supported didn't win the nomination? Obama hasn't flipped on anything.

I see posts all over the place calling him a liar because he "promised to filibuster" when in fact he promised only to support one should there be enough votes.

You're doing nothing but spinning at every turn here. The media is painting the picture for you and you're running with it.

No, this election is far from botched. Sorry that it upsets you that Obama is going to win but thats just how it goes.

[jgraz]

31. Once again, reading comprehension is key to communication

As is the ability to handle nuance.

You might want to give my last post one more run through your mental rinse cycle, see what pops out.

[Baltoman991]

32. My comprehension

is just fine thanks. You said this was already a botched election and I ask again, how is it botched? I mean, the only "election" we've had so far is to see who our nominee would be.

Are you saying that was botched because Obama won?

I don't profess to be psychic so your "botched election" isn't really clear in it's meaning.

[jgraz]

33. botched: spoiled by poor work; bungled

I still think Obama is going to win -- he hasn't blown it that much. But the *true* goal of an election -- winning the debate about where this country needs to go -- has been lost, once again, to the rightest of the right-wingers.

[Baltoman991]

34. And thats

your opinion and I respect it. But I don't agree with it. How has he suddenly lost the debate about where the country needs to go?

If people are going to jump ship over this vote then so be it. They were never really going to support him anyway. But I don't see one issue as losing his way. And there is no way in hell he'll lose any debate to John McCain. The man hasn't a clue in the world as to whats going on.

[Lord Helmet]

114. yours is a whole lotta hyperbole

[uponit7771]

13. His other moves have been a net gain, I don't get this but he's still our man

[jgraz]

15. This is not about whether he's still "our man"

It's about whether "our man" is turning into "that last guy who got his ass kicked by a worthless Repug".

[NattPang]

39. If you keep talking as you are

you will give the media
the fodder they need to
have his ass kicked.

"Our man" understands
that you don't hand
the media a goldmine
and provide a narrative
that you cannot recover
from.

The bill was going to pass
period.

Symbolism is not how you will
gain your rights back; rights
you lost in 2001.

There is a lot of hard work to do
if you are in it to win.

If you are in it to whine,
than make yourself at home;
you have arrived.

[jgraz]

42. You may find this hard to believe, but media interest in my internet posts is somewhat low

Also, if we've nominate someone who can be brought down by griping on an anonymous political forum, we're already screwed.

[NattPang]

44. We have been screwed for some time now, 7 years to be exact.

The lazy media comes to this site and others
where all of the whiners resides,
and then we hear the moans on the news
presented as the majority opinion,
if the moans suits them.

They love it and they most likely love you.
But they won't give you back your rights.
Those we have to fight for,
and we have to be smart about it.

Voting on symbolic principle
is a wonderful thing,
except in the case
that it will harm the greater good.
This was such a case.

At this time,
it is no longer about Obama wanting to win
as much as the American people needing him to win.

[Bake]

67. Bingo. Nail, meet Hammer. Bang. Whoop there it is.

I'm appalled that more DUers can't see this.

Bake

[mwooldri]

21. IMO Obama shouldn't have voted at all.

His challenger Mc* didn't show up for the vote... so if both didn't vote or show up then neither of them have a record of where they stand. Then it becomes a non-issue and both Obama and Mc* can flip-flop all they like. The only good thing about Obama voting yes to this is to appeal to the other side ... wait the other side isn't going to vote for him so as they say in LOLcat speak: Epic Fail.

I read slashdot (the techie in me) and there's plenty of people PO'd about Obama's vote, they're not going to vote for Mc* but vote for Bob Barr instead.

Mark.

[BlueStater]

28. Why couldn't he of just voted "Nay"?!?

Selling out the Bill of Rights simply because he was afraid the GOP were going to say nasty things about him is really fucking pathetic.

[NattPang]

36. Does it change anything ?

Except some Principle
that would not mean a thing?

I think your outrage is
exaggerated.

The bill of Rights was sold
in 2001.

If you want it back,
crying now is not how
it will happen.

Sometimes I believe those
who are having fits about this,
have lost touch with reality.

Did you support Obama during the
Primaries?

Because then,
that might provide a hint as to why
you are so loudly willing
to blame one man's vote,
whose vote really won't count
until after November.

[BlueStater]

37. The people who think this isn't a big deal are the ones not in touch with reality n/t

[NattPang]

38. Please tell me how that is?

I am listening.

[BlueStater]

40. You don't think the butchering of the Constitution is a big deal? n/t

[NattPang]

41. And do you truly think that

Obama's vote or your bitching
brings back the constitution,
that was shredded long before
the vote that you are lamenting
about endlessly?

You couldn't have been an Obama
supporter ever. Because if you were
you'd be more interested in winning
than whining about a symbolistic vote
that would not change a thing.

You must wear a lot of flagpins.

[Bake]

68. "The Bill of Rights was sold in 2001"

So, what then shall we do? Just fuck everything else? That's a great strategy. There are some principles that are paramount. Our leaders should be fighting to get BACK the Bill of Rights, not continuing to flush what's left of it down the toilet.

Bake

[Swamp Rat]

45. I've joined the 'butt' voting bloc.

Brought to you by Carl's Jr.

[jgraz]

47. Understandable. We're getting fucked from all sides these days.

[Swamp Rat]

48. Pass the K-Y

:spank:

[jgraz]

46. .

[Lilith Velkor]

49. Ow

my butt.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Impossible to say. I think it helps his 'bipartisan pragmatist' cred, while weakening the

'weak on terror' attack. For the final total, I guess it would depend on how many people decide to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

[AndyTiedye]

52. How Much Further to the Right Will He Have to Go to Defend Himself Against Every Conceivable Attack

[Occam Bandage]

53. It's kind of funny to watch everyone act as if the issue most pressing

on their minds this election was whether telecommunication corporations will have to field civil lawsuits regarding improper sharing of personal information in a government-sponsored program that was later found to have overstepped its Constitutional limits.

[jgraz]

56. Believe it or not, some of us actually DO care about the rule of law

As opposed to just winning at all costs.

[Occam Bandage]

74. Passage of a law is not at odds with rule of law. Civil immunity is not, either.

[jgraz]

78. Wow. You don't really think that, do you?

Just because you call it a "law" doesn't mean it strengthens the "rule of law". The rule of law is more than just the word "law". It actually means that *individual persons* are subordinate to *statutes*. In our Constitutional democracy, it also means that some laws are strictly disallowed (barring a constitutional amendment).

The law that congress just passed violates BOTH of these tenets. It chucks out a supposedly inviolable part of our constitution and it places individuals (The AG, DNI and the President, not to mention anonymous drones at the NSA) in charge of how and when these statutes apply.

Don't forget, everything Hitler did was "legal" as well. Does that mean he followed the "rule of law"?

[Occam Bandage]

81. Ah good. The courts should throw this out quickly, then, unless you're suggesting

that judicial review no longer exists.

[jgraz]

83. I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it outright.

When you have Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy (on a bad day), you no longer have judicial review. The first four are not "justices" in any traditional sense of the word, they are simply Republikan operatives in robes.

Do you really trust that the SCOTUS will protect our civil rights?

[Bake]

69. Nice try. That's not even the worst part of the bill.

Although it is rather heinous.

Bake

[Occam Bandage]

75. What is, then? All I'm hearing about is telecom immunity, with the occasional

vague appeal to the 4th Amendment (which is no more harmed by this bill than it was by the 1978 bill Carter signed into law.)

[jgraz]

79. You might want to switch off the teevee machine and actually read the bill.

It's a pain in the ass, but you can actually get through it in an evening. It helps to have the ACLU or EFF analyses handy, but they're really just convenient guides. A few careful (boring) hours of reading will reveal more about what we've lost than a week of MSNBC will.

[Occam Bandage]

80. I'm asking him what he thinks the worst part of the bill is. I've read it.

[jgraz]

82. The phrase "All I'm hearing about" leaves a different impression.

Also, you seem to be arguing from very limited information. Do you actually know what the FISA Amendment allows that was prohibited before?

[terryter1]

55. I don't think the vote helps him but it probably doesn't hurt him

People are not really paying attention to the election right now.

[jgraz]

57. Good thing he helped gut the 4th Amendment, then

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

63. What a stupid question.

Entirely unanswerable, and you know it.

[jgraz]

76. Coming from you, that means a lot

:eyes:

[MGKrebs]

64. Incorrect assumption, I think.

I believe he "did what he had to do" because the alternative was worse, not because it would get him a bump in the polls.

[jgraz]

90. If the alternatives were worse, then he must have netted something positive out of this

How many votes will this translate into? By how much more will he beat McSame now that he's sold out the 4th Amendment?

If your answer is "none" or "no way to know", then we just got fucked over for nothing.

[MGKrebs]

109. It didn't have to be about votes. Maybe he just thought he was doing the

right thing, because it was important.

it's possible.

[jgraz]

111. A constitutional scholar thinking THIS bill was the "right thing"?

I'm not sure we can afford to elect someone that dumb.

[MGKrebs]

115. OK, so let's say he voted against it, and convinced enough others to also,

so that it failed. Then what? We revert to the 1970's statute that doesn't consider data mining or cell phones or internet phone service?

[jgraz]

117. Are you saying you WANT to allow the govt to data-mine, or you want to prevent it?

Cuz this bill throws the barn door wide open on that one.

With the old bill, we still had the specificity clause of the 4th Amendment protecting us:

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.

Now that's explicitly voided, unless a court overturns it.

[Milo_Bloom]

72. It will lose him points in that some people will stay home

who may have otherwise voted.

It won't swing a single vote from one to the other.

[jgraz]

77. Not only no-shows, but decreased donations and volunteerism

It's going to be difficult to assess the real political damage from this vote, but I think it's going to be significant.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

85. Hey, you're being lauded on a PUMA site.

They're saying that "jgraz is one of the O-bots who realized what a flim flam artist he is".

Congrats.

[jgraz]

86. Why would I care what those fucking idiots think?

I don't think he's a "flim-flam" artist. I think he's showing himself to be a typical Democrat, the kind who's lost the last 7 out of 10 elections.

And BTW, you dried-up, bitter PUMA hags: He's STILL 1000 times better than Hillary would have been. Can you imagine if SHE'D been the nominee? That NO vote you're lauding her for would have turned around so fast it would have broken the fucking sound barrier.

Hillary lost because we ALREADY KNEW she'd do or say anything to win. The gnashing of teeth and rending of garments you're giggling over is motivated by people realizing that Obama is just a little bit like Hillary. How's that taste?

[TwilightGardener]

89. Wasn't designed to win him votes. It's just a shield. We may see

in the upcoming months that it might even pay off.

[jgraz]

91. So, in other words, nobody knows

Luckily, we erred on the side of fucking over the Constitution. Nice move.

[TwilightGardener]

96. Well, we temporarily squooshed one article. It can bounce back.

Laws, bad laws, even good laws, can be changed--and usually are.

[jgraz]

99. Really? FISA used to be viewed as a terrible law. Now it's the *good* side of the argument.

Governments don't tend to give back civil rights once the people give them up.

[azmouse]

94. Won't make one bit of difference.

Most Americans aren't paying any attention.

[PassingFair]

100. Then why would he purposely risk pissing off his base?

It makes no sense, unless he wants to reserve
those powers for himself.

This is bothersome because:

A) He might not win; and

B) Because I don't believe that ANY administration
should be able to get away with the ILLEGAL
surveillance of it's citizens, even a DEMOCRATIC one.

[jgraz]

101. Because we aren't his base.

Trust me, the REAL base of the Democratic party -- the one they actually care about -- is just fine with this legislation.

[polichick]

102. Younger voters could see him as same ol' same ol' and opt out...

He's risking both his credibility and his momentum ~ for what?

[jgraz]

113. Correction: young voters ARE seeing him as same ol' same ol' and they ARE opting out

I've talked to more than a few Berkeley students and all of them are disgusted by this. If we think that they aren't paying attention, we're in for a very unpleasant surprise come November.

[muryan]

103. I nets him ~5%

He might lose liberal votes in some blue states, but it stops him from losing votes in swing states. If he voted no, it'll be less than a month before wiretap vets for truth forms and starts running ads of Obama in a turban kissing Osama bin laden.

[depakid]

104. That "strategy" lost elections in 2002 and 2004

if you recall.

[muryan]

105. 9/11 lost us 2002

2004 was lost because the kerry campaign was incompetent, and they allowed the republicans to constantly attack him. The obama campaign is deflecting or reacting to everything, its completely different.

[depakid]

108. No, the Dems chose to vote (over and over) with Republicans on issues like this to defray criticism

AND IT BACKFIRED IN A BIG WAY. Mainly because it made Democrats look weak and unprincipled (which is exactly what this vote does).

Here's George Lakoff to tell you why that is:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/07/10162/

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. But, but, what would george know?

:sarcasm:

After 2004 you'd think they get it

[muryan]

118. If you think independents

care about anything other than gas prices, national security, and the economy, you are out of your mind.

[depakid]

119. If you think that the social sciences don't explain peoples' behaviors

Then your intellect's on par with many of the fundies....

[muryan]

123. I never made that assertion

I just pointed out that most voters care very little about singular issues like FISA, unless that particular issue is blown up to make a person look weak on a broader issue like national security.

[DFLforever]

106. Zero.

It wasn't designed to gain or lose votes. It was a preemptive vote against a weak on terrorism, naive on national security charge.

Sure, the RNC is calling him a flip-flopper. But that's so 2004.

They'd MUCH rather be calling him an enabler of terrorism.

[dailykoff]

107. This is going to get very, very sticky when the debates begin.

McCain: I would never, never vote to violate the 4th amendment.

Obama: You are the man who can protect us from terrists, John. That's why I flipflopped on FISA to make sure you have all the "tools" you need including me.

[jgraz]

112. Nailed it.

[last_texas_dem]

110. No change or a very small loss

The issue will fly under the radar screen for the vast majority of Americans. It will piss off some politically active liberals, but likely not enough to have any noticeable effect on Obama's numbers.

[dailykoff]

121. The rationalizations are sounding more and more desperate.

I think everybody knows he fucked up but good, and not too many really want to know why. I would like to know however.