FISA Freakout Open Thread

This is all Obama’s fault. I am sure progressives will keep that in perspective.






295 replies
  1. 1
    Gay Veteran says:

    I used to be a Democrat, until they caved in last year on FISA. Now it’s even worse.

    Now Obama is joining the ranks of the Vichy Dems.

    The presidential oath is “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Obama has shown he will NOT “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    That is a dealbreaker for me. I will not vote for Obama (he will carry Maryland anyway). He will not become president with my consent.

  2. 2
    cleek says:

    Oh Obama, why hast thou forsaken us?!

  3. 3
    Incertus says:

    I’m sure this will be an unpopular sentiment, but I’m so fucking cynical about government power and intrusion that I really can’t get worked up over this FISA thing. I labor under the assumption that personal privacy is a myth and has been for years, so I don’t see how this changes much. If this passes, we stop fooling ourselves, maybe?

    I gave up on privacy when I got my first credit card and really surrendered when I started shopping online years ago.

  4. 4
    Wilfred says:

    Well, let’s see:

    “I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he [Obama] said, adding that he believed in universal health care and that government had a strong role to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.

    Mr. Obama has faced a wave of complaints from his followers in recent weeks that he is tacking hard toward the political center and moving away from his liberal base now that he is in a general election campaign.

    “I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and put me squarely in the Democratic camp,” he said. But, he noted, he does not believe that the active hand of government is a replacement, say, for parental responsibility in education.

    Gosh, what’s the progressive position on FISA?

  5. 5
    Cain says:

    I don’t know why the huge outrage against Obama; one man cannot stand against an entire fucked up congress who seems to want this. My only source of outrage is that he personally endorses it because he thinks it is good for national security.

    My hope is that he will fix things once he is in office. He’s still the best game in town. Best to make the best of a bad situation and start kicking out the people of congress who can’t seem to honor their oaths to the constitution. Luckily, I will re-iterate that the oregon folks have their heads screwed on correctly… so I got no one to pester.

    cain

  6. 6
    matt says:

    It’s obnoxious the way a lot of people are acting like this is a flag burning amendment or something, and the dirty fucking hippies need to understand the politics.

    It’s kind of a big deal.

  7. 7
    cleek says:

    Incertus speaks the truth.

    this bill changes nothing.

  8. 8
    4tehlulz says:

    >>He will not become president with my consent.

    So you’ll stop paying taxes? Disobey federal laws? Take up arms against the government?

  9. 9
    cyntax says:

    I’m not happy with what Obama did, but I had my say, he said he understood why some people were unhappy with him and that he’d take his lumps on this, so it’s on to the next thing.

    I still think Steny Hoyer is a jackass.

  10. 10
    Tsulagi says:

    Final votes aren’t in yet, but yeah, I think I smell a Medal of Freedom in Obama’s immediate future. He’s done a heckuva job.

    But wouldn’t be fair to single him out for special recognition. Medals all around for the majority Dems! Complete with the coveted Wingnut Clusterfuck device. BBQ at the festive WH this weekend for a well-deserved pat on the back and thumbs up from their leader. It’s all good.

  11. 11
    Shinobi says:

    I read this in a time article about Web 2.0:

    Last week Maplight merged CRP info with voting data from GovTrack.us to assess the 94 House Democrats who had originally opposed immunity for wiretapping telecoms but then shifted positions to vote in support of the Bush Administration. Maplight’s analysis demonstrated that those who flip-flopped on immunity had received nearly double the amount in PAC contributions from AT&T, Sprint and Verizon as those who remained opposed to the legislation.

    I would be surprised not to see the same pattern in the Senate.

  12. 12
    Cain says:

    I still think Steny Hoyer is a jackass.

    I will happily pay money to see this fucker get kicked out of congress. In the mean time if we can find constitution toilet paper we should send that to him.

    cain

  13. 13
    D-Chance. says:

    “I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he [Obama] said, adding that he believed in universal health care and that government had a strong role to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.

    Running like Hell from the “L” word… and he’s running away in two languages.

  14. 14
    nightjar says:

    cleek Says:

    Oh Obama, why hast thou forsaken us?!

    To be , or not to be the President
    That is the question.

  15. 15
    Napoleon says:

    This says so much better then I could write many of the reasons I think the FISA cave is such a big deal.

  16. 16
    John Cole says:

    It’s obnoxious the way a lot of people are acting like this is a flag burning amendment or something, and the dirty fucking hippies need to understand the politics.

    It’s kind of a big deal.

    I don’t think anyone disagrees the bill sucks, at least not here. What is really obnoxious is the way this is being dumped on Obama’s lap.

    I love Glenn Greenwald, but go read his piece today. You know whose name appears once?

    Steny fucking Hoyer.

    Obama, on the other hand, appears 53 times. Because, you see, if there is one thing people wedded to an issue do, it is keep perspective on who is to blame when their issue fails.

  17. 17
    Cain says:

    Obama needs to do some more ass kicking or something, I’ve lost that loving feeling.

    That said, I’m attending some kind of strategy meeting for Obama. I’m not sure I could go door-to-door and have to face people who might ask me why the fuck that FISA pass..

    cain

  18. 18
    zmulls says:

    I agree with Cain, or at least share his point of view.

    I’m furious with the Democrats who let this happen, and I’m furious with Obama for giving the signal that it was OK to let it happen (“hey, I might vote against it but it looks pretty good to me”). I had hopes, dreams, of Obama storming into the D caucus and saying “Dudes, I’m the man now. I’m going to filibuster and you’re all going to be standing behind me” and have that be the story.

    But Obama is in a race for the Presidency and unfortunately, moving to the center pays off, and over the next four-five months he has to pick his battles. Dems have 49 votes plus Bernie Sanders. The Repubs were going to vote in lockstep, even the sternly worded Senator Specter; and a few Dems at the very least (an apathetic public and a pocket full of Telcom PAC money) were going to say “who cares, right, Jay Rockefeller?” It’s possible — probable — that there was simply no chance of pulling off a save.

    If you’re Obama, and you *know* you’re going to lose, you think about the optics. If he goes in there to ‘save the day’ on an issue most Americans seem to not understand, and he LOSES, then the media spends the next week calling him a LOSER and laughing about him, while they drool over McCain’s manliness.

    No, I don’t *agree* with refusing to take a stand on this one, but I think I *understand* it. Unfortunately

  19. 19
    Keith says:

    Steny fucking Hoyer.

    Remember when Pelosi was rumored to be favoring someone else for the cush role Hoyer got? Oh, but for a do-over on that one.

  20. 20
    montysano says:

    John, you just beat me to it about Greenwald’s piece. Whose name is in the title? Hoyer? Pelosi or Reid? Naw, of course it’s Obama. I never thought I’d say this, but what an asswipe Greenwald has become.

  21. 21
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    I still think Steny Hoyer is a jackass.

    Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner! Hoyer is responsible for this abortion of a bill, and he (and the other Democratic worms who pushed this) are the ones who should receive our ire. Obama can not stand against his party at a timelike this because of the preception of disunity it would feed the right and MSM vultures who are just dying for some red meat to chew on endlessly.

    Right now, Obama is one of 535 people who get to vote on this. He is not the president yet, and I will not hold him to stupid standards like some are prone to.

    McCain or Obama, that is the choice this fall. That is all that matters right now. FISA is a red herring, and that is all it is. If anyone thinks that our government will stop spying on its citizens because some bill says they can’t, they are downing the kool-aid by the barrel full. Incertus is right, this horse left the barn years ago.

    But what the heck, MORE COWBELL!!

  22. 22
    montysano says:

    That said, I’m attending some kind of strategy meeting for Obama. I’m not sure I could go door-to-door and have to face people who might ask me why the fuck that FISA pass..

    I’d bet good money that you’ll go door-to-door and NOT ONE PERSON will ever ask you about it.

  23. 23
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Remember when Pelosi was rumored to be favoring someone else for the cush role Hoyer got?

    Murtha supported the FISA bill too.

  24. 24
    Napoleon says:

    I personally have come to believe that basically the house and senate leadership shoved this one down Obama’s throat. Basically they told him what they were going to do and he is going along because he does not want a public rift with the leadership before the election, not that it makes him right or brave.

  25. 25
    Gay Veteran says:

    4tehlulz Says: So you’ll stop paying taxes? Disobey federal laws? Take up arms against the government?

    Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said “He will not become president with my consent.”

    John Cole: “…What is really obnoxious is the way this is being dumped on Obama’s lap….”

    Yeah, not like Obama is now head of the Democratic Party.

    He, and every other worthless piece of shit Vichy Dem who voted for this outrage, is now responsible for allowing our Crawford Caligua to continue his lawless surveillance state.

    And Glenn Greenwald as usual gets it right (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/):

    Wednesday July 9, 2008 08:21 EDT
    Today’s coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama

    …How completely do you have to relinquish your critical faculties at Barack Obama’s altar in order to get yourself to think that way?

    The issues implicated by this bill — government spying, lawbreaking, manipulation of national security claims for secrecy and presidential power, the extreme privileges corporations inside Washington receive — have been at the very heart of progressive complaints against the Bush era for the last seven years. The type of capitulation and complicity which Jay Rockefeller and Steny Hoyer embraced is exactly what progressives have spent the last seven years scathingly attacking.

    All of that magically changed for many people — by no means all — the day that Obama announced that he supported this “compromise,” when these issues were suddenly relegated to nothing more than inconsequential, symbolic distractions, and complicity with Bush lawbreaking magically morphed into shrewd pragmatism. It’s the same rationale that the dreaded Blue Dogs have been using since 2001 to justify their complicity which is now pouring out of the mouths of Obama defenders (we need to win elections first and foremost, and can only do that if we don’t challenge Republicans on National Security and Terrorism)….

  26. 26
    matt says:

    I don’t think anyone disagrees the bill sucks, at least not here. What is really obnoxious is the way this is being dumped on Obama’s lap.

    It’s being dumped on his lap because he’s the Democratic nominee for president, it’s not like he was randomly singled out to be picked on.

  27. 27
    John Cole says:

    I personally have come to believe that basically the house and senate leadership shoved this one down Obama’s throat.

    Of course they did. We have discussed this numerous times. The difference between you and me and the people who are now chanting ‘Obama is no different” or “Obama hates the Constitution” is that we don’t think Obama should be the one forced to stand on the deck directing a rendition of Nearer My God To Thee.

  28. 28
    El Cruzado says:

    Giving it a generous interpretation of the events, I think Obama just wanted the goddamned thing to go away, since it looked like the zombie issue that wouldn’t go away no matter how it got blasted every time it reared its ugly head.

    Anyway, all the executive privileges of the last 8 years will be immediately void as soon as the president doesn’t have an R before his name, so I wouldn’t worry too much about it :P

  29. 29
    Karmakin says:

    The progressive blogosphere is still missing to the forest for the trees here. There definitively something to be addressed here, but it has to be tackled head on instead of looking to play for political points, and to be honest, simple revenge.

    What people are worried about is the possibility of say…Karl Rove having access to wiretapping apparatus to use it for political gain. This is a serious problem. However what has to be recognized is a few things.

    #1. Secret warrants are not a protection for your privacy. They might as well not even exist in the first place.

    #2. Getting rid of wiretapping is NOT an option. It’s a political non-starter, as well it’s just a damn bad idea.

    The reality is that the progressive blogosphere was more than willing to give away everything as long as the telecom immunity wasn’t in there. Why? Did you think anything was ever going to come of it? Who had a lawsuit in the works? I wasn’t aware of any. Even if you COULD get a lawsuit through…

    I still remain with the same argument. It’s a nuclear argument, and there’s too many important issues to fix to start a damn nuclear war. If Bush can be impeached for lying about Iraq, Obama can be impeached for “lying” about the cost of health care reforms. That one resulted in many deaths and one didn’t is irrelevant. That the President of the United States is allowed to be in charge of what is essentially murder may be a problem. Fix it. But as far as it stands, that’s all nice and legal, unfortunately.

    The best revenge is obliterating his legacy. Also, ensuring that only people who respect the constitution are elected is the way to protect the constitution.

    Unfortunately, that won’t happen until the voters respect it, and are willing to share freedom. Grassroots, ground-up action, people.

  30. 30
    Napoleon says:

    John, you just beat me to it about Greenwald’s piece. Whose name is in the title? Hoyer? Pelosi or Reid? Naw, of course it’s Obama.

    I will defend this. Sure Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer no doubt had more to do with it, but Obama is the one single person who is believed to truely know how bad and wrong the bill is who refuse to try to stop it in the end. Plus if he would remain on record against the bill should he become President there is more of a chance he would try to reverse it (to the extent it is then reversible) instead of simply choosing to inherit the power give to him.

  31. 31
    Mary says:

    Lance Mannion, no Obama fluffer, is insufficiently outraged:

    I’ve read some posts and comments around this side of the bandwidth saying that Obama could have stopped this if he’d wanted to.

    How?

    By asking Harry Reid to develop a backbone?

    By threatening the Bush Dogs that when he’s President he will get really really angry at them when they threaten to block, scuttle, water down, or otherwise sabotage bills he wants passed?

    Democratic Senators live to embarrass Democratic Presidents.

    Bill Clinton’s worst enemy in Congress wasn’t Newt Gingrich. It was Sam Nunn.

    Unless Obama wins in a landslide he’s not going to have a whole lot of clout with the conservative Democrats.

    If he’d made a fight of this, he’d have lost. It would have been a double loss. He’d have shown up his weaknesses to his political enemies too early. And the Media and the Republicans would have finally found the narrative they’ve been looking for to define him to defeat him. Obama the weakling and loser who can’t even get his own party to agree with him.

  32. 32
    bago says:

    The worst part about this is that the TelCo’s contributions were just a few thousand bucks per legislator. like, 9 grand to a few hundred people, if that. That’s how much your constitutional rights are worth, 9 fucking grand.

    Clearly, we’re doing it wrong.

  33. 33
    El Cid says:

    I don’t know if even writing this puts me in the “freak out” camp, but it won’t be me that will be mocking Obama’s position on this in the fall electoral season. It won’t be ‘the progressives’ that it’s so fun to make fun of even though they are recommending both the right thing to do and the politically smart thing to do. It will be McCain and the GOP, who were just handed with this an enormous triumph and an enormous club, and that’s true whether or not 100% of Democrats on command agreed to shut up & pretend to like this nonsense.

  34. 34
    John Cole says:

    If he’d made a fight of this, he’d have lost. It would have been a double loss. He’d have shown up his weaknesses to his political enemies too early. And the Media and the Republicans would have finally found the narrative they’ve been looking for to define him to defeat him. Obama the weakling and loser who can’t even get his own party to agree with him.

    I have stated this repeatedly. I am too lazy to dig the posts and comments up, but I have stated this on numerous occasions.

  35. 35
    4tehlulz says:

    No I don’t have reading comprehension problems. You have civics problems. You “consent” to the government and society when you participate in it by following its laws and supporting it through taxes. That includes accepting whose running the government.

    The only way not to consent is to actively attempt to undermine it. Read John Locke sometime; his writings only were the foundation of the Founders’ philosophy of government.

    You sound like the whiny-assed GOopers in the ’90s who were going around spouting “Clinton is not MY president” type bullshit.

  36. 36
    Kevin says:

    Lance Mannion, no Obama fluffer, is insufficiently outraged:

    I think he sums it all up pretty damn succinctly.

  37. 37
    jnfr says:

    I will vote for Obama, but I am disappointed with his stand on this. I would have loved a scene from him like the one zmulls describes, but you go into the election with the candidate you have, not the one you would wish to have, right?

    And i agree with John that laying this all at Obama’s feet is just silly. This was a crime committed by the entire Congress, and I doubt any other candidate would have done it right.

    I’m even more disappointed with my own Rep. Mark Udall, who is running for Senate here in Colorado and who voted for this bill. I’ve been writing him to let him know, but get only mush in return.

    I really wonder just what happened behind the scenes to create this abrupt and total sell-out by the Dems. Probably we’ll never know.

  38. 38
    bago says:

    Also, nobody is for getting rid of wiretapping altogether, just the wiretapping explicitly forbidden by the fourth amendment, the kind without a warrant.

    You know, faithfully upholding the constitution and all that.

  39. 39
    John S. says:

    Yeah, not like Obama is now head of the Democratic Party.

    Please, enough of this preposterous bullshit.

    Obama is the head of the party in theory only. Until he gets elected, he’s just a senator running for president.

    Or do you think that John Kerry was actually the functional head of the Democratic party for 6 months in 2004 before giving up that mantle?

  40. 40
    matt says:

    moving to the center pays off

    This is the kind of statement I was referring to in my initial post with the example of a flag burning amendment. This isn’t some cultural, hot button wedge issue that progressives disagree with, yet still recognize that every state isn’t California, so we should bite our tongues and move along.

  41. 41
    mrmobi says:

    I personally have come to believe that basically the house and senate leadership shoved this one down Obama’s throat.

    That’s the most charitable take I can come up with for his behavior, as well.

    This isn’t a deal-breaker for me, but if he did it for political expediency, then McCain, who’s already attacking him for a flip-flop on this (pot, meet kettle) is the one who’s poised to benefit from his change of position.

    As I understand it, the 4th amendment went in the tank when the first PATRIOT Act was passed. Even a very progressive version of this FISA bill would not change that, would it?

    I’d bet good money that you’ll go door-to-door and NOT ONE PERSON will ever ask you about it.

    This issue is so not on the radar of the average voter. Obama knew going in he’d take some heat from the informed left on this switch, and he’s apparently willing to bet that people like myself and others in here won’t quit him over it. He’s won that bet with me. I’ll still do everything I can (admittedly, not much) to make sure he’s the next President.

    I will make noise at his website, though, FWIW.

  42. 42
    montysano says:

    Gay Veteran said:

    Yeah, not like Obama is now head of the Democratic Party.

    He, and every other worthless piece of shit Vichy Dem who voted for this outrage, is now responsible for allowing our Crawford Caligua to continue his lawless surveillance state.

    Nice rant. Very impressive. What’s your solution? Vote Nader? Stay home? Crack wise on a blog?

  43. 43
    Dan says:

    John, I think it’s entirely appropriate to say that Obama is the leader of the party and has some responsibility in that position. If he had stood up and come out squarely against it, it would have brought enormous pressure to bear on the rest of the party. Do you really think any of them woulld have openly defied him?

    Those of us who think he failed to show leadership aren’t neccessarily excusing Hoyer, Pelosi, Reid, Rockefeller or any of the others responsible for making this abomination happen. But in the vast majority of cases we are not represented by them and will never see their names on a ballot. Obama will be on all the ballots this November so we all can claim to be represented by him. And dismissing all this as a freakout is unworthy of you.

  44. 44
    The Moar You Know says:

    That is a dealbreaker for me. I will not vote for Obama (he will carry Maryland anyway). He will not become president with my consent.

    Shorter “Gay Veteran”: I will shit my pants, repeatedly, and not change them. That’ll show ’em who’s boss!

  45. 45
    Gay Veteran says:

    Karmakin, maybe instead of impeaching Bush for lying about Iraq he should be impeached for (1) repeately violating FISA (which carries a penalty of up to 5 years in jail) and (2) war crimes include war of aggression against Iraq, torture, murder, etc.

    John Cole: “…The difference between you and me and the people who are now chanting ‘Obama is no different” or “Obama hates the Constitution” is that we don’t think Obama should be the one forced to stand on the deck directing a rendition of Nearer My God To Thee….”

    gee, kindly point to a poll which shows that the American people support King George’s illegal wiretapping? As for Obama not being able to win the Senate vote (filibuster = 40 votes), you can’t win if you don’t try. But maybe he’s “keeping his powder dry”. We all know how well that works.

    But what the hell, it’s only the Fouth Amendment, after all there’s 9 others in the Bill of Rights.

  46. 46
    Cain says:

    Good post, Mary.

    So I guess it’s up *gasp* the American people to save the constitution while congress play their little games. That’ll be hard since we have to somehow take away their american idol or something.

    What I can’t believe is that there are conservatives out there supporting this shit.. I guess their “strong defense” trumps “small government”.

    In any case, I’ve always stated that they need to fear us a little more than the republicans. It might help them grow a backbone.

    If they have a press conference talking about how great the compromise is, someone needs to throw some rotten tomatoes at them.

    cain

  47. 47
    montysano says:

    BTW, Tbogg addressed this quite nicely a few months back. Anyone who can come up with the phrase “Rumbly Tumbly Pupperoos” is aces in my book.

  48. 48
    Wilfred says:

    I’m going to wait until Bush attacks Iran. If Obama goes along with that in order to get along, then fuck him – he’s not worth a vote under any conditions.

    I’m willing to back him on an ‘even so’ basis on everything else, while despising the rest of the leadership for their acquiescence in this FISA scam. If Obama wins big, he can exert his authority on the Hoyer/Pelosi/Reid axis.

  49. 49
    libarbarian says:

    You and your Professor Values

  50. 50
    BombIranForChrist says:

    Even though I am very disappointed in Obama, because I think this is a craven political move based on the self-fulfilling perception of Democratic weakness, I still agree with him overwhelmingly on a number of things, regardless of who the Republican is.

    Again, I am disappointed, even greatly disappointed, but it’s plainly ridiculous to vote for McCain (or sit at home or whatever) when McCain, on a whole, will continue to wipe his ass on the Constitution while Obama, on a whole, will repair some of the damage and put judges in the federal courts who will do the same.

    Wake up people. Get out the smelling salts.

  51. 51
    Mary says:

    John, I know you have said this, early and often. But Mannion often damns Obama with faint praise, so I thought his little piece was quite interesting.

    John, I think it’s entirely appropriate to say that Obama is the leader of the party and has some responsibility in that position. If he had stood up and come out squarely against it, it would have brought enormous pressure to bear on the rest of the party. Do you really think any of them woulld have openly defied him?

    I’m not John, but hell, yeah, they would have defied him. Yeah, he’s the presumptive nominee, he’s bringing voters and money into the party, and they actually stand a damn chance of winning this fall. But they are not beholden to him. For their own inscrutable reasons, they have caved on this bill even though they knew in advance that this would put Obama in a horrible position. As Mannion says, WTF would he have to threaten them with? How could he have appealed to their terrified, venal self-interest and made it stick. Told them to pull back or else he would refuse the nomination? They may think they would still do pretty well with Clinton, right?

    Someone tell me, please, what ACTUAL bargaining chips Obama has to play with. I have a nice cup of tea. I can wait.

  52. 52
    Gay Veteran says:

    4tehlulz Says: “No I don’t have reading comprehension problems. You have civics problems. You “consent” to the government….”

    NIce strawman you built. Try again. I said “He will not become president with my consent.” Nowhere did I say I would not obey the laws, not pay taxes, or undermine the government.

    The Moar You Know Says: “Shorter “Gay Veteran”: I will shit my pants, repeatedly, and not change them. That’ll show ‘em who’s boss!”

    Nice intellectual response. You confuse me with a pants-wetting right-winger.

    And sorry Montysano, but I’m not going to worship at the altar of Obama (and I supported him over Clinton after Edwards dropped out).

  53. 53
    Tsulagi says:

    Steny fucking Hoyer.

    At least Hoyer had the “decency” and honesty to declare victory by virtue of citing and adhering to the Dem genetic “Pick your battles, but never pick one” mantra. Obama though went for the “I’m smart and you’re too stupid to see what I’m doing” cover for his gutless capitulation.

    Either that or he truly believes the unitary executive form of government is good for America, and/or good for him. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he merely opted for gutless capitulation.

  54. 54
    John Cole says:

    You and your Professor Values

    That is one for the ages. It is almost as if someone asked “Is our children learning,” and someone said “yes, but I think we can try to do something about that.”

  55. 55
    Jake says:

    Good leaders pick their battles. Am I disappointed Obama didn’t pick this one? Maybe a little, but in the grand scheme of things, not so much.

  56. 56
    The Moar You Know says:

    Gay Veteran: voters have two realistic choices for President this fall: Obama or McCain. Neither one is perfect.

    You state you will not vote for Obama. Well and good; such is your right as a citizen.

    Here’s the lesson you and other purists should have learned from the 2000 elections, but I’ll repeat it just to be sure you understand it: in 2000, a vote for Nader was a vote for George W. Bush.

    You support John McCain.

  57. 57
    John says:

    I love Glenn Greenwald

    Really? I’d have thought that being a fairly recent Republican might have insulated our host from the disease that is Glenn Greenwald worship. I mean, I usually agree with the guy on most issues, but he’s one of the most obnoxious, self-righteous, humorless people writing on the internet.

  58. 58
    Wilfred says:

    I’d bet good money that you’ll go door-to-door and NOT ONE PERSON will ever ask you about it.

    Damn straight!

    “Now, FISA does not bo-ther me,
    Does you conscience bother you? (tell the truth)

    Dis-crete Eavesdrop-ping Device,
    Listenin’ in on my calls
    I would have never paid the price
    If I only had the balls…

  59. 59
    cyntax says:

    Re: Stenny Hoyer

    I will happily pay money to see this fucker get kicked out of congress.

    Exactly. And his Blue Dog Dems. Just go looking for local races in red-districts of your state and throw some money their way. I found this guy via DKos and there’s got to be more like him all over the country:

    When I see low ranking officers tossed in jail for carrying out the explicit directives of civilian leadership (I.E. Abu Gharib) that is not held accountable, silence is not an option.

    When I see our national security institutions compromised by the mistakes of Washington politicians, silence is not an option.

    When I see our intelligence community being used for partisan political gain instead of for defending our nation, silence is not an option.

    And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.

    And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.

    Charlie Brown, Lt. Col. USAF Ret.

    We’ve got levers to pull and sometimes the most effective levers are the local ones.

  60. 60
    The Moar You Know says:

    You confuse me with a pants-wetting right-winger.

    I don’t think I’m confused at all. What you are is glaringly obvious.

  61. 61
    John S. says:

    It’s a good thing folks like Gay Veteran weren’t in the majority in 1944 because after FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans, we would have had ended up with President Dewey.

    Big pictures aren’t for purists.

  62. 62
  63. 63
    The Moar You Know says:

    libarbarian Says:

    You and your Professor Values
    July 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    You need to post a warning with that link.

    Every time I think I have a handle on the level of stupid that the right wing can wield, someone will come along and post something to prove me wrong. Sometimes it’s just a little bit of stupid. Your link there is like getting punched in the face, or run over by the stupid train.

  64. 64

    If he had stood up and come out squarely against it, it would have brought enormous pressure to bear on the rest of the party.

    The Dems stampeded to pass this bill to inoculate themselves against the Republicans’ perennial “weak on security” meme in the upcoming elections. If their own consciences weren’t enough to keep Democrats from voting for this bill then Obama opposing it wouldn’t have accomplished anything more than handing McCain a club with which to beat him.
    My guess is that the vast majority of Americans, if they’re even aware of the eavesdropping, believe that it’s keeping us safe from the terrorists.
    And here’s why:

    “Homer Simpson, Yes — 1st Amendment ‘Doh,’ Survey Finds” (Associated Press 3/1/06).

    “About 1 in 4 Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances.) But more than half of Americans can name at least two members of the fictional cartoon family, according to a survey.

    “The study by the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared with just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.”

  65. 65
    Incertus says:

    We’ve got levers to pull and sometimes the most effective levers are the local ones.

    The most effective levers are always the local ones. National candidates have to appear moderate in order to get 65 million people to be willing to vote for them, barring extraordinary circumstances.

  66. 66
    Carlo says:

    Obama is getting more crap than anyone because he’s currently the de facto leader of the Democratic Party. AND he broke promises to deliver a “new kind of politics” and oppose any bill with telecom immunity. It’s really that simple.

  67. 67
    nightjar says:

    Gay Veteran Says:

    Ok, gay veteran, I take it your not voting republican. Is there a dem candidate, other than Obama, that you would like to see get the nomination?

  68. 68
    john b says:

    well at least obama voted for both of the failed amendments to strip immunity. you know who the two no-votes were for those amendments? kennedy (understandable) and mccain (of course).

  69. 69

    Obama is getting more crap than anyone because he’s currently the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.

    If Congressional Democrats actually recognized Obama as their leader then this bill wouldn’t have come to the floor in its present form.

  70. 70
    Zifnab says:

    Nice rant. Very impressive. What’s your solution?

    Well, I wou…

    Vote Nader?

    Who?

    Stay home?

    Mortgage meltdown makes that difficult.

    Crack wise on a blog?

    Winner!

    Seriously, at this point all you can do is bitch hard, bitch long, and bitch loudly enough to let people know you give a fuck. It won’t flip any serious votes today, but it will keep the fire burning for when a more progressive Congress can potentially unfuck the mess we got in.

    Stomping your feet and saying you’ll vote 3rd party is bullshit or stupid. But stomping your feet at least lets everyone nearby know that they’re not alone when they have an opinion on whose ass would be the most appropriate receptical for this bill.

    :-p

  71. 71
    Karmakin says:

    Gay Veteran:We both know, none of that will ever happen. Will. Not. Happen.

    Re:FISA, any potential abuse of FISA will NEVER come to light. Never. Ever. It’ll be locked behind that whole national security thing. And possibly correctly as well. That’s the problem.

    And on War Crimes, again, never ever happen. Being warlike is actually popular. It’s seen as being a virtue.

    Elections are the process in which we determine the government we deserve. Politics are the result of that process. Nothing I’m seeing here is outside of that process.

    The GOS recently had a poll, 75% think that there’s no chance that this effects them. You have to realize, this is free security with no potential drawback from their POV. Sure, people might SAY the right thing…but to act upon it?

    Frankly, they’re not even willing to extend freedoms to their own children.

  72. 72
    Dan says:

    The Dems stampeded to pass this bill to inoculate themselves against the Republicans’ perennial “weak on security” meme in the upcoming elections. If their own consciences weren’t enough to keep Democrats from voting for this bill then Obama opposing it wouldn’t have accomplished anything more than handing McCain a club with which to beat him.

    I think Obama had a chance to challenge the “weak on security” meme. In the same way he’s started to challenge Iraq on policy (not tactical) grounds he could have challenged what the GOP has been calling “strong on security” as being weak on traditional American beliefs in freedom.

  73. 73
    ThymeZone says:

    a more progressive Congress can potentially unfuck the mess we got in.

    Yeah, right. Who will elect that Congress? The one you have now is leaning strongly Dem in party affiliation, but is solidly centrist in ideology.

    If you want a progressive Congress you have to create a progressive electorate, and you are nowhere near doing that any time soon. The best you will do is party control over a squishy coalition, just like you have had for the last 75 years, regardless of which party is in the majority.

  74. 74
    Svensker says:

    Did you think anything was ever going to come of it? Who had a lawsuit in the works? I wasn’t aware of any. Even if you COULD get a lawsuit through…

    Actually, there are a number of lawsuits making their way through the courts — specifically, the Northern California court that just ruled against the Bushies. These lawsuits will be dismissed once the bill passes. Sorry YOU weren’t aware of them, but since YOU weren’t, then they obviously don’t matter. The ACLU and EFF were behind the suits.

    I’m disappointed in Obama, but I do agree that had he battled against this loudly, it would have been a lose-lose for him. I think he also feels that if there did happen to be a terrorist attack between now and November and he voted against the FISA abomination, he would get nailed for it, so he played it safe. That’s the only reason I can get behind, because I can’t believe he suddenly sees the Constitution differently, or that he’s getting a big new pile of money from the telecoms. So, meh, but his position didn’t change what will surely happen this afternoon — Bush and Cheney win, and the rest of us get shafted.

    Hoyer, Pelosi, Rockefeller and Reid are the real Dem piles of shit, here, along with a bunch of lesser creeps. You can sneer at Greenwald all you like, but he and a number of other bloggers have done yeoman’s work trying to block this bill. If you want to go after the weak-knee Dems, check out the Strangebedfellos PAC at Act Blue.

  75. 75
    Punchy says:

    Let me be the first the Officially Blame Obama for Global Climate Warming Change Warning Problems, because he did not personally climb into those dirty smokestacks and single-handedly plug them up using his daughters’ bed comforters.

    What a disgrace to the Democratic party. I’m voting the Wiccan party from now on.

  76. 76
    Karmakin says:

    weak on traditional American beliefs in freedom.

    Myth. Legend. Outright Lie.

    There is no “traditional American belief in freedom”. The American tradition, is freedom for me, and not for thee. In this way, to the average joe on the street, the freedom of feeling secure re:terrorism trumps your freedom to not be spied upon.

    The root is a bill of rights that only covers government/citizen interaction and NOT citizen/citizen interaction. It’s pure entitlement.

    The biggest weakness of the progressive blogosphere has ALWAYS been one of being way too patriotic.

  77. 77
    Cain says:

    Stomping your feet and saying you’ll vote 3rd party is bullshit or stupid. But stomping your feet at least lets everyone nearby know that they’re not alone when they have an opinion on whose ass would be the most appropriate receptical for this bill.

    step 1: get a list of every dumb ass democrat who voted for this bill.

    step 2: field a candidate who has more backbone and better standards. Get them to run.

    step 3: throw money at the candidate, and then start calling Hoyer or whoever and tell him his ass is grass and that you will do everything in your power to get your candidate elected.

    step 4: profit, you replaced a bad congressman with a good one.

    That’s the only fucking way to do it. Make. Them. Fear. They should be more afraid of us than republicans. (as the founders intended)

    cain

  78. 78
    Jake says:

    Completely OT, but I was somewhat dismayed to discover this morning that my 2008 campaign contributions have been documented by the Huffington Post.

    If you’ve given to a candidate this year, Google your own name and see if it comes up. I realize this is all public information, but I’d just prefer it be registered somewhere slightly less prominent than HuffPo.

  79. 79
    Karmakin says:

    Svensker:My mistake. I wasn’t aware of any actual lawsuits, however I still think the immunity is meaningless, as this seems a clean cut “national security” type secrecy thing. Now, you can think that this type of secrecy is a bad thing. (I’m on the fence on that) But what’s bothering me is that this argument isn’t being made.

    Honestly? It’s just that I expect better from our side.

  80. 80
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    Circular firing squad! Present arms!

  81. 81
    Svensker says:

    Re:FISA, any potential abuse of FISA will NEVER come to light. Never. Ever. It’ll be locked behind that whole national security thing. And possibly correctly as well. That’s the problem.

    Actually, had this bill not passed today (it hasn’t yet, but will any moment now), what you’re saying would not be true. The judge in No. Cal. just ruled that national security cannot prevent the evidence coming before a court, but that the government has to present the evidence in camera, and the judge would be able to rule on that evidence. This bill, passing today, will moot the cases, since the Congress will have judged the telecoms innocent. Had the bill not passed, evidence of what actually went on would have come out. Which is why many of us were so fixated on the telecom immunity section of this bill — and why Dick and Little Boots were so adamant that it be passed.

  82. 82
    Karmakin says:

    Cain:Actually you missed step 0.5.

    Convince a majority of your fellow voters to give up some of the illusion of security in order to increase the freedom of fellow citizens…especially brown and hippy ones. (Not themselves, as an overwhelming majority believe that this wouldn’t affect them)

  83. 83
    jake says:

    Yes this bill sucks. No it is not Obama’s fault.

    Yes you should contact your Congresscritter if he voted for this atrocity and inform him that he needs to update his resume before the next election.

    Did I miss anything?

  84. 84
    John S. says:

    The amendment to strip immunity just failed miserably.

    Obama voted for it.

    Not that this will appease the purists.

  85. 85
    NR says:

    Well, I think this whole situation has shown us what we need to do going forward. We need strong primary challenges for Dems who are really just Republicans in Democratic clothing. And if the challenges fail, we need to run third-party candidates, split the center-left vote, and give the seats to Republicans.

    The only way these people will learn is if some of them lose their jobs. We have a big enough majority that we can afford to make examples of a few Blue Dogs.

  86. 86
    Gus says:

    Substitute Hillary for Obama, substitute AUMF for FISA bill. Why spend political capital when the fucker’s gonna pass anyway? I’ll vote for Obama, I’ll just have the same enthusiasm as I did when I voted for Mondale.

  87. 87
    PaulW says:

    Nothing will change until people realize that both parties are bought and paid for. And form a third party that isn’t owned by the telecoms or the oil barons or anyone else with deep pockets.

    There is something else I want to ask, though: can’t this FISA bill being passed get challenged in the courts for being unconstitutional? Doesn’t it violate due process? Doesn’t it violate the Ninth Amendment and unenumerated rights?

  88. 88
    Trinity says:

    Greenwald vs. Giordano

    http://narcosphere.narconews.c.....-the-field

    Gotta tell ya…I agree with Al.

  89. 89

    Sigh.

    I will once again, for the 1,432,879th time, remind everyone that

    1) Ralph Nader is a Halliburton stockholder
    2) Ralph Nader is financially tied to one John Sidney McCain III
    and

    and therefore

    3) You really aren’t worthwhile as a person if you believe that Ralph Nader has at any point in the last decade+ been a banner-carrier for progessivism.

    Got it? Becuase there it is. And that’s all.

  90. 90
    4tehlulz says:

    >>And if the challenges fail, we need to run third-party candidates, split the center-left vote, and give the seats to Republicans.

    ‘sup Ralph?

  91. 91
    Karmakin says:

    Svensker:Maybe I’m too cynical, but I doubt it. Even if the local judge approves it, it would for sure be appealed up to a degree where the information would be blocked. And if the on-camera stuff was approved, it wouldn’t reveal anything useful.

    I’m not interested with the telecoms paying a million or so in damages. (I WOULD be interested with them being sold off, and their shareholders told to go to hell, but that won’t happen)

    So….why is Bush doing this? They’re playing their favorite game. It’s called piss off the DFH’s. Hell, it’s the reason they went into Iraq in the first place. You piss off the DFH’s, the Democrats have to get moderate to distance themselves from the angry people, and that pisses them off even more.

    I refuse to play that game. Eyes on the prize people. Only way to protect your freedom is to elect administrations who to some degree will respect it on a day to day operations level.

  92. 92
    Punchy says:

    OT:

    TPM catches the media dead to rights sporting a Iran hard-on.

    That’s about as disingenuous–strike, false–a synopsis of his briefing as one could write.

  93. 93

    Cripes,
    The coffin for the 4th was built with RICO and these are just the nails. You could add in some of the other BS the FBI can get up to currently that is even more egregious. Well, my Senator, Wyden, is on the right side of this one.

    Americans, in general, do not give a good goddamn.

  94. 94
    PaulW says:

    One more thing: about whose fault this is?

    This is our fault.

    This is the fault of the voters.

    This is the fault of every idiot who voted for Dubya in 2000 and for every coward who bought the fear-mongering in 2004.

    You get what you paid for. You voters wanted a clueless cronyist hack to serve as the CiC? You got one. You must be… so thrilled. >:(

  95. 95
    AkaDad says:

    [insert profanity-laced rant about Obama here]

    Am I disappointed? Yes. I’m a Liberal, so disappointment is what I mostly know.

    This election, I care more about Supreme Court appointments. If you’re pissed off now, imagine what another Scalito or two would be like.

  96. 96
    libarbarian says:

    That is one for the ages. It is almost as if someone asked “Is our children learning,” and someone said “yes, but I think we can try to do something about that.”

    Prof Cole,

    You know you want a reference on the page.

    Done anything worthy of inclusion under the list of “Crimes by Professors” or should be just stick with “Immoral, Unethical or Bizarre Behavior”?

  97. 97
    Genine says:

    I’m not John, but hell, yeah, they would have defied him. Yeah, he’s the presumptive nominee, he’s bringing voters and money into the party, and they actually stand a damn chance of winning this fall. But they are not beholden to him. For their own inscrutable reasons, they have caved on this bill even though they knew in advance that this would put Obama in a horrible position. As Mannion says, WTF would he have to threaten them with? How could he have appealed to their terrified, venal self-interest and made it stick. Told them to pull back or else he would refuse the nomination? They may think they would still do pretty well with Clinton, right?

    Someone tell me, please, what ACTUAL bargaining chips Obama has to play with. I have a nice cup of tea. I can wait.

    Exactly! Obama cannot wave his hands and change everyone’s mind. These congress people and senators WANT to give in on this (I have NO idea why) and NOTHING will disuade them. What’s Obama going to do? His party wants this and they’ll do anything (including going against the party platform and the people that vote for them and the Consitituion itself) to do it. Anyone who thinks differently is seriously living in la-la land!

    I agree that I think this FISA business is being shoved down Obama’s throat. The real question, for me, is why the hell are the Dems dying to do this thing anyway? What the hell is going on behind closed doors?

    But anyway, my anger is directed at the entire Dem establishment, not just Obama.

  98. 98
    cleek says:

    If you’ve given to a candidate this year, Google your own name and see if it comes up

    yipe! complete with a map showing everyone else in my neighborhood who gave anything this year, along with employer and occupation!

  99. 99
    libarbarian says:

    The Moar You Know Says:

    libarbarian Says:

    You and your Professor Values
    July 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    You need to post a warning with that link.

    Every time I think I have a handle on the level of stupid that the right wing can wield, someone will come along and post something to prove me wrong. Sometimes it’s just a little bit of stupid. Your link there is like getting punched in the face, or run over by the stupid train.

    You’ve just been Conservapedia-rolled!

  100. 100
    Svensker says:

    For those of you who think the FISA bill has been just a silly kerfuffle by the whiny Left and loony Libertarians, read this Salon piece by a lawyer who is involved in one of the lawsuits:

    Here it is.

  101. 101
    Gus says:

    my anger is directed at the entire Dem establishment, not just Obama.

    Exactly. The one thing Nader is right on is that the two major parties are bought and paid for.

  102. 102
    4tehlulz says:

    >>why the hell are the Dems dying to do this thing anyway?

    Two reasons, IMO:
    1. Telco cash (dur….)
    2. They’re afraid of what would come out in the discovery phase, implicating them, or at least embarrassing them more than voting for immunity would.

    >>WTF would he have to threaten them with?

    Turning him into Jimmy Carter II, Electric Boogaloo, by obstructing his agenda from Day 1 of his presidency. See also Health Care Reform 1993 for a more-recent version.

  103. 103
    Jon Karak says:

    Nice rant. Very impressive. What’s your solution? Vote Nader? Stay home? Crack wise on a blog?

    I don’t expect to break through the blockheaded rant-fest, but you should contact your senator’s office. Tell them that 200 years of the rule of law is an American value worth fighting for.

    If they’re hopeless then contact Sen Chris Dodd. He might be the only senator willing to filibuster this disaster-in-the-making

  104. 104
    cleek says:

    Gotta tell ya…I agree with Al.

    me too.

    i’ve had it with Greenwald. he’s just too excitable.

  105. 105

    The one thing Nader is right on is that the two major parties are bought and paid for.

    JUST!

    LIKE!

    HIM!

    JUST LIKE HIM!
    JUST LIKE HIM!
    JUST LIKE HIM!
    JUST LIKE HIM!
    WHY
    DOESN’T
    ANYONE
    LI
    ST
    EN????

    Just like him. Just like him! Just. Like. Him.

  106. 106
    Zifnab says:

    The amendment to strip immunity just failed miserably.

    Obama voted for it.

    Not that this will appease the purists.

    Better than voting against it.

  107. 107
    Scott H says:

    69-28.

  108. 108
    Svensker says:

    So….why is Bush doing this? They’re playing their favorite game. It’s called piss off the DFH’s. Hell, it’s the reason they went into Iraq in the first place. You piss off the DFH’s, the Democrats have to get moderate to distance themselves from the angry people, and that pisses them off even more.

    No, Bush is not trying to piss off the DFHs. He is trying to protect himself and Dick from felony charges, because he broke the law.

    And in camera does not mean on camera — it means “in the room”, i.e., in the judge’s secure and private chambers where he is the only one who get to see the secret evidence.

    Well, we staved the bastards off for 6 months, which is more than most folks have done. Now on to elect Obama and get rid of Hoyer, Reid, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Feinstein and a few others. And Lieberman.

  109. 109
    Zifnab says:

    Just like him. Just like him! Just. Like. Him.

    Who bought and paid for Ralph Nadar?

  110. 110
    Karmakin says:

    Svensker:Errr…I just read through that article, and to be honest, that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

    Like I said, I’m on the fence on this privacy thing, (I think that RICO laws should be used against investment firms and oil companies) however, that’s what I’m talking about. The secrecy veil is a minefield that’s impossible to navigate.

    This isn’t the law to fight about. The law to fight about, I believe would be the one that would revoke any secrecy cloak from any data or the gathering of such (or resulting data), that didn’t follow strict information gathering and sharing guidelines. This is the wrong fight at the wrong time. The whole situation is a mess that’s constantly being abused.

    Also, see the link Trinity posts above. There’s a much deeper problem here, one going past the Bush administration, about a history of untowards interference in certain affairs, both domestic and abroad. This argument does nothing about this problem. It misses the forest for the trees.

  111. 111

    Who bought and paid for Ralph Nadar?

    This little mom-and-pop operation called Hallisomething, or Whateverburton. I think they sell lollipops and sunshine.

  112. 112
    Brachiator says:

    Gay Veteran Says:

    Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said “He will not become president with my consent.”

    This is not even a plausible masquerade of a principled stand.

    Even after reading all the posts here, I still do not see why you or anyone else is laying responsibility for this on Obama. He is not yet president, and even if you want to declare him the de facto leader of the party, the plain fact is that the Democratic Congress caved on FISA a long time ago and that Obama was in no position to do anything about this.

    What we are left with, then is juvenile whining, more appropriate to the bad dialog of a Star Wars film: “Help me, Obi wan Obama. You’re my only hope.”

    As an aside, with all the hysteria surrounding this, has anyone noted what McCain’s or Hillary Clinton’s position on FISA might be?

    And Glenn Greenwald as usual gets it right (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/):

    Greenwald is stunningly irrelevant. He is right on the principles involved, but so what? No one, no one, and especially not Greenwald helped organize any opposition to the bill when it might have mattered. And neither Greenwald nor anyone else has much substantive to say about exactly why the Democratic Congressional leadership caved so easily on this issue.

    Pelosi and others seemed absolutely pleased with the “tough compromise” that they hammered out. This is delusional. And clearly, the Democratic Party’s legislative aides, who do much of the behind-the-scenes work on this stuff, are incompetent.

    The issues implicated by this bill—government spying, lawbreaking, manipulation of national security claims for secrecy and presidential power, the extreme privileges corporations inside Washington receive—have been at the very heart of progressive complaints against the Bush era for the last seven years. The type of capitulation and complicity which Jay Rockefeller and Steny Hoyer embraced is exactly what progressives have spent the last seven years scathingly attacking.

    This gets to the heart of the problem. “Progressives” seem to be very pleased with themselves that they know how to complain and “scathingly attack.”

    But you people don’t appear to know a damn thing about electing people to Congress who can effectively represent your views. And you clearly don’t know a damn thing about motivating the majority of citizens into mobilizing behind you.

    Despite all the hoopla, there is not a public opinion poll in this or several alternate universes that suggests that anyone gives a rat’s ass about FISA.

    Despite all the blogorific shredding of garments, Congressional sentiment has not changed significantly. What does this tell you?

    That they don’t fear you. That they have no need to fear you.

    So, “progressives” are impotent and irrelevant and yet still want to blame Obama as the single person most responsible for failing to rescue them from their own powerlessness.

    The smarter approach would be to give Obama some muscle, some leverage that he could use to help whip the Democrats in line. But this is harder work than swooning in the vapors of ideological purity.

  113. 113
    nightjar says:

    Alright, the vote is about over and Obama voted yes. Most if not all of the dems who voted Yea are from either red or purplish orange like states.

    The fact is, in these states the unconstitutional (imo)FISA amendments act is not that unpopular amongst the voting public. Wish it wasn’t that way, but it is. So what to do, dems living in those states maybe should work hard to get a more liberal Senator to replace the less liberal one that voted for FISA. Good idea, but chances are they would end up with a GOP Senator instead. And yes Obama is from a blue state, but is trying to get the votes of the knuckleheads in the red to purple states that he needs to get elected. If you don’t believe he needs to then your an idiot.

    Or we can work hard to get a stronger dem congress and a dem prez and flush out all the shit bills that were written by goopers the past 8 to 16 years, and replace them with bills written by dems. This will take years and dem unity to maintain said strong majorities. And if you think dem written bills will be like the wingnut ones then you also a moron.

    Meantime, this FISA bill expires in 4 years, so don’t call anyone or use email unless it’s absolutely necessary.
    Bin Laden uses runners and there’s no reason why we can’t also.

    /snark :)

  114. 114
    Face says:

    There’s shit pieces, there’s fluff pieces, and then there’s this

    McCain to win. Everyone’s saying it. How can they be wrong?

  115. 115
    Spartacvs says:

    Like many I don’t like what I’m seeing transpire today in the Senate with respect to Telecom immunity. But perhaps the histrionics might be somewhat tempered if people took the time to consider what a Republican majority in Congress could have pushed thro with a bare 51 vote majority to await dubya’s eager pen.

    Regards.

  116. 116
    The Moar You Know says:

    Zifnab Says:

    Just like him. Just like him! Just. Like. Him.

    Who bought and paid for Ralph Nadar?

    The GOP has been funneling him, and the Greens, money for quite a while – going so far as to set up their own “sockpuppet” Green Party in Pennsylvania in 2005.

    Which I don’t blame ’em for – more than once the thought crossed my mind to slip ol’ Ron Paul a few bucks.

  117. 117
    Xenos says:

    Dan Abrams had a Democratic Rep on last night (forget his name, segment is not on the net) who claimed that the new FISa would not grant retroactive immunity, just simplified an existing procedure whereby the Attorney General could grant immunity… at which point I just have to throw my hands up. The lack of transparency is such that there is really no way to know what Congress is up to, and there is no way to hold these people accountable.

    As for Obama, he has learned the lesson of Carter well. Never show contempt for the Beltway media and their corporate overlords – even if you can get elected on the heels of a criminal Republican administration, they will ruin you and wear you down and strip you of effective power.

    At this point the choice is really between Obama and revolution. I am not ready for fighting a revolution. Yet.

  118. 118
    horatius says:

    It is his fault. We thought we had somebody with spine in the Democratic Party. Now, we know all’s not right with that spine. We’ll have to keep searching for better Democrats.

    But for now, he’s the best we can get from this pussified Democratic Party. And the alternative is … well, there’s no alternative.

  119. 119
    NR says:

    ‘sup Ralph?

    Hey, I used to think the worst Democrat was better than the best Republican. I don’t anymore. I’ve come to realize that Republicans in Democratic clothing do more damage than actual Republicans do, because they vote for Democratic leadership that sells us out at every turn.

    The abortion that is this FISA bill would not have happened without Steny Hoyer.

    Mark my words, if Obama wins, these guys are going to cripple his presidency from the word go. There is nothing that conservative Democrats like better than hamstringing a Democratic president. We’ve seen it before. Remember, Bill Clinton’s worst enemy in Congress wasn’t Newt Gingrich, it was Sam Nunn.

  120. 120
    ThymeZone says:

    Everyone’s saying it. How can they be wrong?

    Jesus. “Everybody”is absolutely not saying it, the people who are are the people who said that we’d be in a Clinton-Romney campaign now,and they are always full of shit.

    What the fuck are you smoking? Oh, it’s you. Never mind.

  121. 121
    Tsulagi says:

    You really have to give the 28%ers credit, and at least some begrudging respect. They’ve really got the Democrats trained well.

    The 28%ers boogeyman evildoer in the country they’re proud to stand tall and act against? The “far left.”

    The elements Obama and other Dems said they were standing tall against in supporting this legislation? This capitulation to Bush/Cheney/28%ers? The far left.

    Dems just love the bridle 28%ers have fitted them with and gotten comfortable with it. They respond to direction well.

  122. 122
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    Greenwald vs. Giordano

    Holy cow. “Yes, I know these things because I’ve been researching them for thirty years.” “No, you don’t, you’re just an Obama shill.” Wait, what?

    Then again, you have Glenn’s Obama obsession, and you have his reaction to the Ron Paul newsletters too. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  123. 123
    Gus says:

    Just. Like. Him.

    Yep, just like him. Does that make it better?

  124. 124
    Big E says:

    There are enough Dems who knew about the illegal wire-tapping to sink a ship…..

    the reason the DEMS voted for the bill is self preservation,
    they would be culpable along with Bush & Co.

  125. 125
    LarryB says:

    Brachiator Says:
    As an aside, with all the hysteria surrounding this, has anyone noted what McCain’s or Hillary Clinton’s position on FISA might be?

    HRC voted nay. McCain was a no-show, but I’m sure he was for it.

  126. 126
    John S. says:

    Greenwald vs. Giordano

    No contest. Glenn showed up for the fight armed with a pillow.

  127. 127
    Dug Jay says:

    Terrific news out of the US Senate today! Here’s the lede from a press release just issued by the ACLU:

    “The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69-28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.”

    Also in the news, Glenn Greenwald, an American expat living in Brazil, was found comatose by an orgy participant in his apartment, an apparent result of a brain aneurysm brought about by news reports from the US.

    The AP reports that Obama was against the legislation before he was for it, but was for filibustering it before he was against filibustering it.
    The President will sign an English-only version into law, probably tomorrow.

  128. 128
    Michael Brown says:

    I love Glenn Greenwald, but go read his piece today. You know whose name appears once? Steny fucking Hoyer. Obama, on the other hand, appears 53 times. Because, you see, if there is one thing people wedded to an issue do, it is keep perspective on who is to blame when their issue fails.

    Yes, please do read Greenwald’s piece today. And then please explain who is the one congresscritter who told the entire world, on at least three separate occasions, that he was going to filibuster this bill if it came to the floor — and then proceeded to not only do precisely the opposite, but in fact voted for cloture on it? Not Steny fucking Hoyer. Not even Hilary fucking Clinton.

    John Cole, I think we now have a mathematical proof that you are one stupid mofo.

  129. 129
    John Cole says:

    John Cole, I think we now have a mathematical proof that you are one stupid mofo.

    You needed mathematical proof?

    Someone pass Michael the smelling salts.

  130. 130
    Tsulagi says:

    Greenwald vs. Giordano

    No contest. Glenn showed up for the fight armed with a pillow.

    You’re right. He didn’t need anymore than that. Proportionate force.

  131. 131
    Splitting Image says:

    Just an observation:

    While I understand people wishing the Democrats in general and the presidential candidate in particular had done more to stop the FISA bill passing, wouldn’t it actually have been a bad thing in the long run if Obama had been able to strong-arm his fellow Congressmen into doing what he wanted?

    That’s to me the biggest problem with the Republican Congress and the mentality we are trying to get rid of. The Houses are supposed to have power bases that are independent of one another so that they can challenge each other if need be. The biggest problem with the Bush regime is that his fellow party members capitulated all of their responsiblities to the White House. (Except Ron Paul, maybe, and a couple of others.)

    If Obama had strong-armed the rest of the Democrats into defeating the bill, it would have been a victory with respect to the fourth amendment, but not with respect to the constitution as a whole. The President (let alone a presidential candidate) shouldn’t actually be able to do that.

  132. 132
    David Hunt says:

    What a disgrace to the Democratic party. I’m voting the Wiccan party from now on.

    Cthulu/Yoggoth ’08. When you’re tired of choosing the lesser of two evils.

  133. 133
    cleek says:

    If Obama had strong-armed the rest of the Democrats into defeating the bill, it would have been a victory with respect to the fourth amendment, but not with respect to the constitution as a whole

    how does an ordinary law have any effect at all on an Amendment ? does it nullify or weaken the Amendment somehow ? and if so, where in the Constitution is that mechanism described ?

  134. 134
    Zifnab says:

    Greenwald is stunningly irrelevant. He is right on the principles involved, but so what? No one, no one, and especially not Greenwald helped organize any opposition to the bill when it might have mattered. And neither Greenwald nor anyone else has much substantive to say about exactly why the Democratic Congressional leadership caved so easily on this issue.

    Abuh?

    Let’s set aside the fact that a man with a prominent blog has been beating the gong on this since 2006, when Bush first tried to ram it through and a Republican majority blocked it.

    At every vote, Greenwald has been first in line to provide telephone numbers and rally support for swing House and Senate members. Recently, Greenwald has been raising money to put pressure on Blue Dog capitulators like Chris Carney. And that’s not the end of his fund raising. Working with other netroots blogs, he’s pushed for further protest ads in newspapers and on TV. He’s raised money for anti-amnesty candidates like Donna Edwards in Maryland deliberately BECAUSE she opposes amnesty. He’s been a leading voice and a leading actor in fighting the good fight. I don’t know anyone who has argued louder or worked harder against amnesty.

    So please get informed on the issues of which you speak. And until then, kindly shut the fuck up.

  135. 135
    Dreggas says:

    After reading this my belief was confirmed that no matter what was done, whether the bill had passed or not, bush would continue doing whatever the hell he wanted and would have used a signing statement to tell everyone to go fuck themselves just as he has always done. The moment Pelosi said impeachment was not on the table was the moment that anything and everything done by the bush gang was excused.

  136. 136
    Olly McPherson says:

    Greenwald is stunningly irrelevant. He is right on the principles involved, but so what? No one, no one, and especially not Greenwald helped organize any opposition to the bill when it might have mattered.

    This statement is absurd. Greenwald has done a lot of work to organize opposition, including spearheading a political fundraising effort that’s pulled in more than $300,000 and helping create ads to target some of the most prominent and/or vulnerable Democrats supporting telecome amnesty. In fact, that main complaint about him in this thread seems to be that ALL HE’S DONE LATELY is try to organize opposition to this bill.

  137. 137
    Olly McPherson says:

    Exactly Zifnab–we were thinking the same thing.

  138. 138
    patrick says:

    Now here’s a thing to think about…remember, Obama is the PRESUMPTIVE nominee….superdelagates CAN change their support (as a wave did from Hillary after the last primary)….Clinton voted FOR all the amendments, AGAINST cloture (opening up the possibility of fillibuster) and AGAINST the bill. what’s to say that the more progressive super-D’s that were in Obama’s camp won’t feel betrayed in this capitulation, and switch back to supporting Hil….very smart move on her part, if she still wants to be president….

  139. 139
    John S. says:

    HRC voted nay.

    If you think HRC would have done likewise were she the nominee, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

    Cheap.

  140. 140
    tim says:

    Oh John, you’re so cute when you’re willfully obtuse.

    Stenny Fucking Hoyer is NOT the presumptive Dem nominee for president, nor the titular (love that word!) head of the Democratic party, to whom all heads turn and knees bow in the run up to the Fall fiasco, I mean election. If Barry had chosen to have a backbone and use his bully pulpit on the FISA issue he could have dominated the media machine for weeks, explained the issue to the public, and changed a LOT of minds. He clearly, deliberately, for some reason chose not to do that.

    As with most issues in this corrupt government, MOST of what is really going on here is invisible to us, unknown…Barry is a tool of the establishment.

    Smells like the old bullshit.

    What I’m not clear on yet is why you are in the tank for Barry. I’m among those who would much prefer to be fucked over by old man McCain, who is clearly a douche bag and says so, than by Barry who pretends to be on MY side.

  141. 141
    John S. says:

    Now here’s a thing to think about…

    Wanna buy a bridge, patrick?

    Hillary voted the way she did precisely BECAUSE she is NOT the presumptive nominee. In other words, it’s easy to stand on principle when you have nothing to lose.

  142. 142
    Genine says:

    If Obama had strong-armed the rest of the Democrats into defeating the bill, it would have been a victory with respect to the fourth amendment, but not with respect to the constitution as a whole. The President (let alone a presidential candidate) shouldn’t actually be able to do that.

    Actually, Obama isn’t even in a position to strong-arm his party. Not yet. And, keep in mind that he needs these people to pass legislation when he becomes president.

    You know, I hear a lot of progressives complaining about the “magical negro” narrative. I don’t know why they’re complaining: they certainly seem to buy into it.

  143. 143

    69-28-3. Wow. I’m not sure how I fooled myself into thinking that Congress wasn’t quite that bad, but I’m certainly over that now.

    I remember the heady days of ’06, when the Democratic majority was going to bring our long national nightmare to a close. Ha. Silly me.

  144. 144
    John S. says:

    If Barry had chosen to have a backbone and use his bully pulpit on the FISA issue he could have dominated the media machine for weeks, explained the issue to the public, and changed a LOT of minds.

    What do the ponies graze on over there in Fantasyland?

    BULLY PULPIT? Dominated the MSM?? Are you fucking kidding me? Obama can’t even reiterate his position on Iraq without the MSM throwing a collective hissy fit about him flip-flopping, and you think he has the power to work them over in regards to FISA (an issue most of them don’t even understand)?

    The stupid, it burns!

  145. 145
    Blue Raven says:

    If Obama had strong-armed the rest of the Democrats into defeating the bill, it would have been a victory with respect to the fourth amendment, but not with respect to the constitution as a whole. The President (let alone a presidential candidate) shouldn’t actually be able to do that.

    Now, now, you’re talking sense and reason. Can’t have that here, our Magic Unity Pony threw a shoe! EVERYBODY PANIC.

  146. 146
    Michael Brown says:

    Someone pass Michael the smelling salts.

    And someone pass John an enema. The backlog he built up while supporting the Iraq War for 3 years is now clearly affecting his thinking.

    Oh, almost forgot: Some other slackjawed yokel here whined how left Dems don’t know how to elect people who represent their interests. I’d say we do it a little better than fundie Repubs, who are just basically going back to church with sore assholes. There are already campaigns on to primary every one of the Dem idiots who voted for this bullshit. Guess whose presidential campaign that money and time are going to come out of?

  147. 147
    slag says:

    No one, no one, and especially not Greenwald helped organize any opposition to the bill when it might have mattered.

    Are you insane? Greenwald, the women at Firedoglake, Digby…everybody’s been trying to fight this. From the beginning. It got delayed/hindered multiple times mostly because of Glenn’s work and the organizing he’s helped initiate.

    I’m all about discussing whether or not Greenwald is being too strident in his approach to the issue, but this statement is beyond the pale.

  148. 148
    susan says:

    This FISA piece of garbage they passed may not mean much to some but for me, it’s a big deal. And so, I’m sad to say I won’t be voting. I will be staying home. Sometimes you just got to take a stand. If we let this go by, what’s next? When do we say enough is enough. When it’s too late? I’m from Illinois and Obama will win this state easily, but he won’t win it with my vote.
    And Obama is now the leader of his party. He for christ’s sakes could have done more than he did. I’m not going to excuse my party’s or my candidate’s behavoir. What the hell do you think I am, a Republican?

  149. 149
    John S. says:

    You know, I hear a lot of progressives complaining about the “magical negro” narrative.

    Yes, I’ve heard. Kills men by the hundreds. And if HE were here, he’d consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

  150. 150
    John Cole says:

    LOL @ Hillary as the FISA savior. Her strong stance on this issue for months has been inspirational for everyone.

    Remember what a colossal pain in the dick Trent Lott was for years in the Senate after Bush and Rove orchestrated his ouster for the more subservient Bill Frist? Expect more of this- Hillary is going to be filling the Trent Lott FU role whenever she can.

    I bet the folks at Corrente are heavy-hearted and creast-fallen at what could have been, what with Hillary casting this meaningful vote against FISA.

  151. 151
    nightjar says:

    What I’m not clear on yet is why you are in the tank for Barry. I’m among those who would much prefer to be fucked over by old man McCain, who is clearly a douche bag and says so,

    Then he’ll have one more Douche for his Douche Bag.

  152. 152

    I’m an Obama supporter.
    I’m disappointed, but understanding, of the actions he took on FISA.

    And I’m glad as hell Greenwald is going nuts over this. The only time wingnuts ever took Bush to task for anything was when they thought he wasn’t sufficiently putting his boots all over immigrants/foreigners/etc. Everything else was fine, from shredding the Constitution to butchering the English language.

    And all this time I kept saying that once we finally got a Democrat in the White House again, progressives would actually stand up to him/her. Greenwald’s proving me right. So good for him.

  153. 153
    susan says:

    Yeah, Greenwald didn’t do anything to organize? That’s crazy talk. The man has been going around like his hair is on fire for months. He is a hero in all of this. He did everything one man could do to try to bring people to their senses. He’s a brilliant man and writer and he can be proud of his work. He opened a lot of peoples’ eyes. Unfortunately, the people on the other end of this argument aren’t as smart as he is. He was beating a dead horse.

  154. 154
    susan says:

    And as for Greenwald being too strident about this. I think not. He’s a constitutional lawyer, just like Sen. Obama. I think one of them acted appropriately and one didn’t. I’ll leave it to you to decide who I think blew it.

  155. 155
    John Cole says:

    I’m an Obama supporter.
    I’m disappointed, but understanding, of the actions he took on FISA.

    And I’m glad as hell Greenwald is going nuts over this.

    I really don’t understand much of the Greenwald antipathy. He cares about the issue. I think he is misguided in flaying Obama alive for something he had NO control over, and still contend he was basically force-fed a shit sandwich months ago by Hoyer and company, and have said as much repeatedly. I do, however, recognize that he did cave, but I understand why he did. This was lose-lose no matter what, particularly when you consider the bill was going to pass regardless after the House greenlighted it.

    And this can not be said enough, but keeps being missed in the Obama angst- THE SENATE COULDN’T EVEN SUSTAIN A FILIBUSTER. Even if Obama had gone down with the bill, it still would have passed. He only has one vote, magical negro and everything considered.

  156. 156
    thepanzer says:

    JC is always a day late and a dollar short. I give him 6 months before he figures out that he’s been had…again.

    In other news, lets see how well this issue was “neutralized” by the democrats. Here’s the latest from the McOld camp:

    “A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program,” said the statement from McCain’s campaign. “Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he’s willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office.”

    So McOld abstains from voting and can throw rocks from the side at Obama for flip-flopping. Which do you think will get more play time? That MCcain couldn’t be bothered to vote or that Obama was against it before he voted for it? This is a perfect example of the Democratic party, spearheaded by it’s leadership snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Given a mandate for change by the public in ’06 they willfully enable the republicans while JC and the TZ sunshine crew pass out more kool-aid.

  157. 157
    Kevin says:

    I love Glenn Greenwald, but go read his piece today. You know whose name appears once?

    Steny fucking Hoyer.

    Obama, on the other hand, appears 53 times. Because, you see, if there is one thing people wedded to an issue do, it is keep perspective on who is to blame when their issue fails.

    This is where I have a problem with Greenwald. The people who really are the worst culprits in this, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid, have been getting a comparatively free ride from him in his mad rush to blame anything and everything on Barack Obama.

  158. 158
    ThymeZone says:

    What the hell do you think I am, a Republican?

    Not all fools are Republicans. A few months at BJ will illustrate that for you quite well.

    75 years of systematic deconstruction of constitutional restraint on executive power and process under the cover of defense and national security, and now everyone is a champion of liberty over the FISA issue, an almost irrelevant and certainly insignificant piece of the vast conspiracy. How inspiring.

    And how intelligent to put the onus of that legacy on one of the newest senators in the building, who just happens to be your only hope for taking the country fully back from the GOP beast. Really, I am just moved to tears by the nobilitiness of your outburst.

    Tears of scorn and disdain, yes, but, tears.

  159. 159
    susan says:

    John, I understand why you don’t understand how a Democrat could go after a leader who is running for president. But that’s because you are still so used to Republicans walking lockstep with their leaders no matter what. I think our civil liberties are VERY important. Important enough to even cause trouble for our presidential candidate. And Obama could have done more, especially when the bill was still in the house. One word from Obama to Pelosi and he could have hamstrung this thing. Greenwald talked a lot about what Obama could have done earlier on when it would have mattered. This bill did not need to go through. FISA was fine the way it was. The Protect America portion of the bill had already expired. This was nothing more than Democrats covering the President’s ass and therefore covering their own. And the very person who might have said, privately of course, to Nancy, this bill should never see the light of day on the floor, didn’t do it. Why the hell not?

  160. 160
    Tsulagi says:

    I remember the heady days of ‘06, when the Democratic majority was going to bring our long national nightmare to a close. Ha. Silly me.

    I didn’t buy into they’d transcend doing anywhere near that. But damn, I didn’t expect them to pick up the rubberstamp and be more efficient with it. Not the competence I was looking for.

  161. 161
    Tlaloc says:

    So….
    How’s that new kind of politics working out?

    Cause from over here it looks an awful lot like the old kind of politics. Frankly.

    Brazen declarations of principles with no intent to follow through? Check.
    Cowardly caving in if the minority party says “boo”? Check.
    Handing the reps a giant club for the general? Check.

    Welcome to the DLC, Barack.

  162. 162
    ThymeZone says:

    Which do you think will get more play time? That MCcain couldn’t be bothered to vote or that

    That McCain has walked away from every position he has taken in the last ten years now that he is running for president.

    That he stated just recently that if the Iraq government asked the US to leave, we’d have to leave … until now, when he wants to pimp the idea that we cannot leave, and now has to explain away his earlier answer.

    The sooner you goddam fools stop cowering the shadow of the mighty Mister Magoo and his collapsing campaign and his lies and ineptitudes and crummy speechifying and incoherent ramblings and stand up for your candidate, the better.

    But please, keep up the bullshitstorm. It’s so amusing.

  163. 163
    patrick says:

    Wanna buy a bridge, patrick?

    Hillary voted the way she did precisely BECAUSE she is NOT the presumptive nominee. In other words, it’s easy to stand on principle when you have nothing to lose.

    Hey, I wasn’t a Hil supporter in the primaries, I was leaning towards Richardson or Dodd, but got very enthusiastic for Obama. This has taken all the wind out of my sails for him.

    This WILL come back to haunt him, this is his version of the AUMF vote. He had the chance to do the right thing vs. the politically expedient thing, and he didn’t.

  164. 164
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    This WILL come back to haunt him, this is his version of the AUMF vote.

    Show us where this bill leads to thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

  165. 165
    thepanzer says:

    And this can not be said enough, but keeps being missed in the Obama angst- THE SENATE COULDN’T EVEN SUSTAIN A FILIBUSTER. Even if Obama had gone down with the bill, it still would have passed. He only has one vote, magical negro and everything considered.

    Lol. Yeah so if George Bush says he wants to punch you in the face and Obama can’t do anything to stop it he should go along with the democratic leadership and CLAP while he knocks your teeth out. We’ve beaten the circumstances behind this into the ground what you don’t seem to be able to wrap your head around is he should not have voted for the damn thing. He should have voted no just as a symbolic gesture. The fact that he was afraid to do so in light of a public giving a mandate for change at near 80% shows we’re in store for 4 years of the lesser evil and more of the same, only watered down and with the velvet glove. So hooray! We’ll keep Mcnuts wingnuts of the supremes but unless Obama gets his head out of his ass we shouldn’t kid ourselves were getting anything other than another cetner-right-right democrat in the same mold from the last 20 years.

  166. 166
    susan says:

    How come people keep equating people criticizing Obama with people who obviously want McCain to win? It’s a false comparision. Of course I don’t want McCain to win. My God that would be horrible. But is it to much for us to want our candidate to do the right thing on matters of utmost importance? Why can’t we have both?
    Why can’t we ask our leader to stop the BS and campaign against the other guy. If Obama wants my vote and my money, he has to earn it. But I won’t blindly support him no matter what he does or will I stop asking questions and demanding better from Obama. That’s how we got George W. Bush.

  167. 167
    D-Chance. says:

    The Revrrrnnnd Jackson just bailed out the FISA folk. You know what will dominate the news cycle for the next 24-48 hours.

  168. 168
    Mary says:

    One word from Obama to Pelosi and he could have hamstrung this thing.

    What word would that have been?

  169. 169
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    The Revrrrnnnd Jackson just bailed out the FISA folk. You know what will dominate the news cycle for the next 24-48 hours.

    There were bigger headlines on MSNBC for McSame’s Iran comments, a report on Katrina trailers, and Mr. Ramsey being cleared (again) on his daughter’s death.

    But this vote is as big as the AUMF one. Really.

  170. 170
    susan says:

    Patrick, I’m with you. I was a huge supporter of Obama even going to bat for him with my inlaws and getting into a rift with them. But on this issue, he has truly dissappointed me. But, as Bush would say, some people don’t think we have a right to let our candidate know we are disspointed and this kind of capitulation won’t be tolertated. We are just supposed to smile and pray that this is just an aberration and not a sign of things to come. Damn, sometimes I wish I had the mindset of an authoritarian. Repeat: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

  171. 171
    ThymeZone says:

    That’s how we got George W. Bush.

    That’s not even remotely how you got Bush. And the fact that you don’t know that makes you unqualified to speak further on the subject.

    You got Bush because a 20-year orchestrated machine of political power carved out a 50%+1 electoral vote strategy and eeked out a victory thanks to a flaccid press and a compliant Supreme Court. Because that machine constructed a coalition of voter interest and money that rearranged the electoral map of the United States and gamed every element of the system from campaign financing to voter suppression to seal the deal.

    Get off your flimsy soapbox and get some facts straight.

  172. 172
    Genine says:

    This is where I have a problem with Greenwald. The people who really are the worst culprits in this, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid, have been getting a comparatively free ride from him in his mad rush to blame anything and everything on Barack Obama.

    That’s why only issue as well. My only issue with this entire freak-out is that everyone is blaming Obama. That is ridiculous.

    I think its very important we hold the feet of our elected leaders to the fire. Even a good politician can go bad if he or she stays in some Ivory Tower with no thought to the people they are leading. The best way to do this is with protesting, contacting the congresscritters and making sure we get the people we want at the local level. But we must also make sure we are not hurting our nominee during an election year. We have to think of the Long Game and what we want to accomplish. I don’t think any progressive will accomplish much of anything with President McCain.

    We MUST hold our leaders accountable, but we must do this with all of them, not cherry-pick. The biggest culprits are Hoyer, Pelosi and Reid. This “compromise” has been in the works for months and months before Obama became the nominee.

    Yet, now that Obama has been the PRESUMPTIVE nominee for about a month, he is suppose to undo months of manuevering in a single-bound. Could he have done more? Certainly. But the party leadership would have gone against him and Obama it would have hurt Obama during the election.

    I am angry with Obama’s stance on this issue, but I still fully support Obama. I think blaming him 100% for this mess is divisive and not beneficial. Mind you I am saying blaming him is divisive, not being angry about it. There is a difference and people need to learn that.

  173. 173
    susan says:

    Mary, how about NO. They have procedures to make sure that bills they don’t want to address never come to the floor. The reason it came to the floor was because Steny Hoyer and a group of Blue Dog Dems wouldn’t let it lie. But Obama, with his influence could have made sure that they all shut up and stopped the crap. He didn’t. Why not?

  174. 174
    Tlaloc says:

    Hillary voted the way she did precisely BECAUSE she is NOT the presumptive nominee. In other words, it’s easy to stand on principle when you have nothing to lose.

    Oh great. Where the hell was this epiphany when all the bitching about the AUMF was going on?

    Joyner:

    And this can not be said enough, but keeps being missed in the Obama angst- THE SENATE COULDN’T EVEN SUSTAIN A FILIBUSTER. Even if Obama had gone down with the bill, it still would have passed. He only has one vote

    He has one vote, yes. And he voted for. He could have voted against. Of course we all know that senators voting in the minority are marched out back and shot…

    oh wait. No, actually he could have voted against, like he claimed he would, like he claimed was the moral position. He could have voted against with no meaningful repercussions (all of this “he’d go down on the titanic” bullshit is just that, 28 senators voted against who wants to bet they all do well because of it?).

    He had one vote. And now you know exactly how he intends to use the power given him.

    Quick question-
    If Obama doesn’t have the conviction to stand among 535 peers and do what he says he will do, why the hell do you think he’ll suddenly grow a pair when its just him on the stage?

  175. 175
    4tehlulz says:

    Damn, sometimes I wish I had the mindset of an authoritarian. Repeat: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.

    And yet you wonder why equate purity trolling criticizing Obama on FISA with wanting McCain to win.

  176. 176
    John S. says:

    Show us where this bill leads to thousands of dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.

    Zing!

  177. 177
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    But Obama, with his influence could have made sure that they all shut up and stopped the crap.

    How?

  178. 178
    ThymeZone says:

    But this vote is as big as the AUMF one. Really.

    That’s right, it’s just as important as six years of useless war that is destructive to our national interests, a fucked foreign policy, a degradation of stability in the most flammable region on earth, aggrandizement of Iran’s power to disrupt the region further, skyrocketing oil prices, and a collapse of citizen confidence in American government. Yeah, it’s as bad as that, maybe the WORSTEST EVER OMG THE HUMANITY.

    Fucking bunch of idiots.

  179. 179
    John S. says:

    Where the hell was this epiphany when all the bitching about the AUMF was going on?

    Warrantless wiretapping = War

    Because the both have W-A-R in them.

    Idiot.

  180. 180
    susan says:

    You have a right to your opinion Thymezone and I have a right to mine. And your smugness doesn’t make that any less so. You still had to get a group of mindless drones to the polls. And those mindless drones never asked anything of their candidate but blindly followed him down whatever path to hell he took this country. And they did it again in 2004 even after they knew where he was leading them. A flaccid press and a political machine didn’t pull the lever in the voting booth. That would be people who believed whatever crap Bush said and never asked a question. You no longer have any right to speak on this matter.

  181. 181
    montysano says:

    from Drudge

    REV. JACKSON TRASH TALKS OBAMA: ‘CUT HIS N**S OUT’

    FISA forgotten, BO’s nuts take center stage.

  182. 182
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    If Obama doesn’t have the conviction to stand among 535 peers and do what he says he will do, why the hell do you think he’ll suddenly grow a pair when its just him on the stage?

    I’m still trying to figure out how the guy who said all along that he would work across the aisle in getting things done is getting flak for not being Captain Purity.

  183. 183
    Genine says:

    Mary Says:

    One word from Obama to Pelosi and he could have hamstrung this thing.

    What word would that have been?

    SHAZAM!(Apparently) Or maybe Abracadabra!

  184. 184
    thepanzer says:

    If Obama doesn’t have the conviction to stand among 535 peers and do what he says he will do, why the hell do you think he’ll suddenly grow a pair when its just him on the stage?

    Exactly. You’re going to have to give JC a Friedman unit or two to come to that same realization. TZ never will, he has the super-human ability to hold his breathe and put his head up his ass for years at a time.

  185. 185
    John S. says:

    If Obama doesn’t have the conviction to stand among 535 peers and do what he says he will do, why the hell do you think he’ll suddenly grow a pair when its just him on the stage?

    Yes.

    This has been another edition of SATSQ.

    Senators running for president do NOT have the same bully pulpit as the actual president.

  186. 186
    susan says:

    Oh yeah, I forgot Steny Hoyer has so much political power and the Freshman Blue Dog Democrats are just plain scary. I guess there would be just no way to get them to back down. After all, they are the political leaders of this party, no. . . wait.

  187. 187
    D. Mason says:

    There are alot of strawmen builders in this thread like the ones before it. It doesn’t seem like most people here expected him to single-handedly stop this shit bill, yet several here have surely suggested as much. Speaking for myself I just asked that he vote no. That’s fully within his power and would cost him nothing as he would be called soft on terror if he personally hunted down Osama .. Rambo style with a film crew in tow, then posted the video on youtube.

  188. 188
    Tsulagi says:

    If Obama doesn’t have the conviction to stand among 535 peers and do what he says he will do, why the hell do you think he’ll suddenly grow a pair when its just him on the stage?

    Because our irrefutable intelligence says next year it will be all candies and flowers. Slam dunk. Shouldn’t take more than a Friedman Unit or two. We know where his balls are hidden; they’re to the north, south, east and west.

  189. 189
    ThymeZone says:

    You have a right to your opinion Thymezone and I have a right to mine.

    You don’t have a right to the wrong facts. And in a contest of opinions, all other thing being equal, mine is the right one, and yours is wrong. For reasons that I have explained in depth and at length over a long period of time here.

    You are quite correct. My smugness does not make me right, being right on the facts is what makes me right.

  190. 190
    4tehlulz says:

    Oh yeah, I forgot Steny Hoyer has so much political power

    When you have the Speaker of the House bending to your will, that means you have much more power than a junior senator.

  191. 191
    montysano says:

    REV. JACKSON TRASH TALKS OBAMA: ‘CUT HIS N**S OUT’

    We can haz messige disiplun?

  192. 192
    Andrew says:

    SURELY THE WAY TO FIX THIS IS TO ELECT JOHN MCCAIN PRESIDENT

    Freedom is on the march!

  193. 193
    nightjar says:

    It’s going to be a long 4 months shouting down all the progressive concern and purity, and we haven’t even got to the real shitstorm to come of wingnut trolling against Obama (luckily not many will be trolling for MCcain, ( TG for tiny miracles)

    For those who want to express their outrage against the FISA bill and even Obama who BTW is THE DEM CANDIDATE then go for it, get it out of system and keep fighting to keep Mccain out of the White HOuse.

    And for all you smarmy fuckers who want to sling shit and do what you can to defeat Obama who is BTW the DEM CANDIDATE, then fuck you, fuck you today and tomorrow and the next day. You are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. You exercise your free speech rights and I’ll do the same.

  194. 194

    If FISA gives the President all sorts of awful spying powers, why are the Republicans voting to give the next Prez, Obama, all these powers. Because the bill doesn’t give power to the President, it gives power to the NSA.

    Why are BOTH parties giving all this power to the NSA even though everyone knows the rationale is bullshit? Because the intelligence community wants it. That says that the intelligence community and their allies are more powerful than the President and the legislative branch.

  195. 195
    Tlaloc says:

    For those who want to express their outrage against the FISA bill and even Obama who BTW is THE DEM CANDIDATE then go for it, get it out of system and keep fighting to keep Mccain out of the White HOuse.

    Because of course it’ll be better for crap like the FISA bill to be signed by Obama… er… for some reason…

    Here’s something to ponder- today Obama did more to support warrantless wiretapping than even McCain. McCain didn’t show, which was probably tactical, possibly cowardice, and possibly because a dem sentaro was out. Whatever. McCain didn’t vote. Obama voted for.

    But of course Obama will do a bang up job once he has *real* power. Naturally.

    And for all you smarmy fuckers who want to sling shit and do what you can to defeat Obama who is BTW the DEM CANDIDATE, then fuck you, fuck you today and tomorrow and the next day. You are not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

    Funny, I thought the problem, as so clearly evinced by the facts today, was that people like you gave us a dem nominee who is a lying chickenshit who will say one thing and then do another.

    That sort of seems to be the problem. At least from where I sit.

    Particularly when the “another” thing he does is vote with the republicans to help bury all their misdeeds.

    It seems that you define the problem not as “there’s an asswipe in the whitehouse who doesn’t give a shit about civil rights” but rather as “the asswipe in the white house who doesn’t give a shit about civil rights isn’t a democrat.”

    Well, if that’s the problem you want to solve I have no problem pissing on your efforts. Me and your nominee both apparently.

  196. 196
    Svensker says:

    But perhaps the histrionics might be somewhat tempered if people took the time to consider what a Republican majority in Congress could have pushed thro with a bare 51 vote majority to await dubya’s eager pen.

    The Republican Congress, under Bill Frist, refused to pass this bill back in 2002.

    It took the ballsy Steny Hoyer working with king of the dicks Jay Rockefeller, with stalwarts Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, to get this thing passed.

    Fucking assholes.

    Go donate to Glenn Greenwald’s Money Bomb PAC to help elect better Democrats. And stop trash talking Glenn — he has been a hero on this issue. Yeah, he’s a little bent about it, but he’s pretty much been working on it full time for the last 6 months. To have your supposed allies piss in your soup generally makes a fellah a bit edgy. Cut him some slack.

    Then go do something for Obama and against John McCain.

  197. 197
    nightjar says:

    Well, if that’s the problem you want to solve I have no problem pissing on your efforts. Me and your nominee both apparently.

    Hillary lost. Otherwise a BIG Yawn.

  198. 198
    Spartacvs says:

    John S. Says:

    And if HE were here, he’d consume the English with fireballs from his eyes, and bolts of lightning from his arse.

    Excellent movie, and a great line. The Messenger right?

  199. 199
    Tlaloc says:

    Hillary lost. Otherwise a BIG Yawn.

    Yes, she did. We’re stuck with Obama now. Thanks ever so much for
    a) giving the republicans an actual shot to win in a year when they should be burnt toast.
    b) making sure that even if they lose they win because our supposed progressive president does what he’s told to by the republicans.

  200. 200
    Katherine says:

    1. Greenwald et. al have organized anti-Steny Hoyer robo calls & I think they may be gearing up for a 2010 primary challenge. So it’s ridiculous to accuse them of not focusing on Hoyer.

    2. The “why blame Obama” stuff reminds me a bit of indignantly asking human rights activists why they don’t protest Uzbek (or wherever) torture chambers as much as U.S. chambers. Obama is running a national race; Hoyer is not, and I am not his constituent. I have never voted for Hoyer or given him money or volunteered for him; I did for Obama because I thought he was more trustworthy than Clinton on issues like this–I knew Hoyer was untrustworthy. Obama lying/breaking his promises about this stuff is a new, and quite alarming, development.

    (That said, Greenwald was being kind of a d*ck to Giordano).

  201. 201
    Spartacvs says:

    Svensker Says:

    Spartacvs Says: But perhaps the histrionics might be somewhat tempered if people took the time to consider what a Republican majority in Congress could have pushed thro with a bare 51 vote majority to await dubya’s eager pen.

    The Republican Congress, under Bill Frist, refused to pass this bill back in 2002.

    The Republicans didn’t need to expose themselves to the political cost in 2002 – “just use your signing statements George, or get one of those fancy lawyers to write up a secret memo granting you extra powers”. Now they manouvered the Dems into paying the price.

    Smart.

    Unprincipled, lying sacks of shit, sure. But smart too.

  202. 202
    Katherine says:

    (also: Greenwald is trying to raise the political cost of betrayals on issues he prioritizes. The way to raise the cost to Hoyer is to challenge him in 2010 & oppose his rising further in the leadership. The way to raise the cost to Obama is to make a big stink right now & make him think twice about further capitulations during the campaign or when he takes office.)

  203. 203
    Gay Veteran says:

    John S.: “It’s a good thing folks like Gay Veteran weren’t in the majority in 1944 because after FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans, we would have had ended up with President Dewey.”

    congrats, you just won non sequitur of the year award

    And the Dems and Obama look really strong by standing up for their principles. Oh, wait a minute, they didn’t! And the ReThugs will attack them ANYWAY. Don’t you people get that yet?!?!? Oh wait, I forgot, Obama is keeping his powder dry.

    Brachiator: “…No one, no one, and especially not Greenwald helped organize any opposition to the bill when it might have mattered….”

    Great smear. Greenwald has been fighting this for a long time and has been raising money against the Blue Dogs. Obviously doing a lot more than some posters here. And get your facts straight, he’s gone after Hoyer and Pelosi too.

    What to do? Support those who will STAND UP and defend the Constitution. I donated money to the DCCC and DSCC in 2006 and all I got was this T-shirt: “Had enough? Vote Democratic” Well that didn’t turn out too well, did it?

    Remember that Bush couldn’t get this bill with a ReThug Congress. Interesting fact, isn’t it.

    The personality cult around Bush was disgusting. Hopefully one isn’t gathering around Obama.

  204. 204
    Gay Veteran says:

    Greenwald is so “strident” on this issue because he’s a lawyer (as am I) and understands that the Rule of Law is more than just a fucking slogan.

  205. 205
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    a) giving the republicans an actual shot to win in a year when they should be burnt toast.

    Which is why we should’ve gone with the candidate who, um, lost to our nominee. I’m missing something here.

    b) making sure that even if they lose they win because our supposed progressive president does what he’s told to by the republicans.

    Yes, heaven forbid he should think for himself and actually work with Republicans. You know, the things he said he’d do while he was on the campaign trail.

    Bush could declare tomorrow National Pony Day, Obama could agree that’s a neat idea, and Tlaloc will be bitching about Obama folding to the Republicans again. No, you can’t have Bizarro Bush Presidency. Not yours.

  206. 206
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Greenwald vs. Giordano

    Obama, Olbermann, now Giordano. How long before Glenzilla comes for one of us? Yeah, laugh nervously and hope it doesn’t happen to you, that’s yer big strategy. Me, I’m counting on the Gov’t listening to Glenn’s phone calls and swooping in to protect me before He strikes.

  207. 207
    D. Mason says:

    You know, the things he said he’d do while he was on the campaign trail.

    Yes, he is CLEARLY doing what he said he would do on the campaign trail. Give me a break.

  208. 208
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Yes, she did. We’re stuck with Obama now. Thanks ever so much for
    a) giving the republicans an actual shot to win in a year when they should be burnt toast.
    b) making sure that even if they lose they win because our supposed progressive president does what he’s told to by the republicans.

    And we’d have nominated her too if it wasn’t for you meddling kids and yer dog!

  209. 209
    Tlaloc says:

    Yes, heaven forbid he should think for himself and actually work with Republicans. You know, the things he said he’d do while he was on the campaign trail.

    Strangely I can think of a different promise he might have kept today… but didn’t.

    But I’m glad you’re pleased that Obama has apparently decided working with Republicans is more worthwhile than civil rights. If he were my dem candidate I might be a bit miffed about that. YMMV.

  210. 210
    Tlaloc says:

    And we’d have nominated her too if it wasn’t for you meddling kids and yer dog!

    Now at least that’s funny.

  211. 211
    Gay Veteran says:

    The Senate Oath of Office:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

  212. 212
    KevinD says:

    I have to give Obama a pass, I’ll have my hands full bashing both my Senators and my dickweed dimcrat congressman, who all voted for this travesty.

  213. 213
    Rome Again says:

    A flaccid press and a political machine didn’t pull the lever in the voting booth. That would be people who believed whatever crap Bush said and never asked a question. You no longer have any right to speak on this matter.

    Actually, those people wouldn’t know a thing about what Bush believed if it wasn’t for the press. The fact that people cited he’d be a great person to have a beer with clearly shows the press didn’t challenge Bush enough for people to know anymore about him than that. The man was a recovering alcoholic for Christ’s sake, you don’t have a beer with a recovering alcoholic. If people were idiots it’s because the media influenced them to believe idiocy. Yes, the flaccid press DID have a role in pulling those levers.

    The political machines didn’t add votes, they REMOVED THEM. You have no clue of what you are talking about.

  214. 214
    ThymeZone says:

    You still had to get a group of mindless drones to the polls.

    Yeah, what I said was that you are not qualified to speak on the subject, and foolish rhetoric like this just proves it. Referring to half of American voters as “midless drones” doesn’t exactly make me confident in your, uh, analysis.

    This FISA piece of garbage they passed may not mean much to some but for me, it’s a big deal.

    Mean “much to some?” It doesn’t mean much period, to in terms of what it actually is, where it came from, and what it is part of. There is a reality about what it is, and you don’t understand that reality. It’s a small thread in a vast tapestry of shit that has been woven over decades.

    You no longer have any right to speak on this matter.

    Really? I said you aren’t qualified, but I would never submit that you have no right. Still, you called me smug.

    You are as bad at this back and forth as you are at understanding the issues here.

    Can I make a suggestion? When you are making a crater, you might want to put down your shovel.

    Or, not.

  215. 215
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Trinity Says:

    Greenwald vs. Giordano

    http://narcosphere.narconews.c.....-the-field

    Gotta tell ya…I agree with Al.

    Same here, and Al slapped Glen down quite well. Glenzilla’s brain is vapor-locked on this issue, and I have to say that his obsession with Obama on this issue is strange.

    Obama is the Senator from Illinois, and he should have to answer to the people who voted for him. Same with anyone here who had a rep or senator vote for this bill, you should focus your anger where it can be most effective. If your reps voted for this, then give them grief for it. But to focus on Obama like this whole mess is his fault is just stupid, short-sighted and intellectually lazy. Place the blame where it belongs.

    If FISA was a burning house full of children and our congress was a fire department with 535 firemen who could save the kids and put the fire out, instead of going after the firemen who not only started the fire but are also tossing more fuel on it, you idiots would rather blame one of the firemen (who did not start the fire) for the whole fiasco. You are looking for a scapegoat, and you are perfectly happy to let the rest of the motherfuckers get away with it. Stupid fucks.

    I could see the political cartoon that would result if Obama had tried to stop the party members from voting for this. All it would be is a semi with a cab stuffed with the Democrats who voted for this, barreling down the highway with Obama lying on the ground behind it, tire tracks all over him, with his arm raised and him saying “STOP!”.

    I have to give Obama a pass, I’ll have my hands full bashing both my Senators and my dickweed dimcrat congressman, who all voted for this travesty.

    A person who can use their brain! Congratulations, you are truly a rarity here. Stick around, I like talking to people who actually know how to think.

    Today my wife and I changed our voter registration to no party, and the purity progressives only have themselves to thank for it. We will not be a member of either party when BOTH are to blame for the mess we are in. Obama brought us back in to the party, and the purity progressives chased us right back out. Again.

    The ugliness of the rightmost wingnuts is comparable to the ugliness of the leftmost moonbats, each in their own way though. But ugly nonetheless.

  216. 216
    ThymeZone says:

    I can think of a different promise he might have kept today

    What promise would that be?

  217. 217
    ThymeZone says:

    No, actually he could have voted against, like he claimed he would

    Can you point me to a reference where he said that he would vote against the bill?

  218. 218
    cleek says:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

    how exactly did anyone damage the Constitution today ?

    take your time, show your work. points off for unsupported assertions.

  219. 219
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Greenwald is so “strident” on this issue because he’s a lawyer (as am I) and understands that the Rule of Law is more than just a fucking slogan.

    So what? John Yoo’s a lawyer, too. Does this mean we should respect his idea of “the Rule of Law” because of his J.D.?

  220. 220
    Rome Again says:

    how exactly did anyone damage the Constitution today ?

    take your time, show your work. points off for unsupported assertions.

    Cleek, while I agree that Obama has to be elected president before he can do anything about this, you know as well as I do that what people are griping about is the 4th Amendment claim of protection to be secure in our own persons, to not be subject to illegal search and seizure. Some might argue that this is not illegal search, but wiretapping phone calls sure sounds that way to me. Just because wiretapping (and phone communication for that matter) wasn’t a reality when the Amendment was created doesn’t mean the principle isn’t the same.

  221. 221
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Of course, since Hillary voted against this bill, Peter Daou (her paid shill) posted over at Kos about how Hillary did the right thing (which means that Obama did the wrong thing!). Of course, the Hillary supporters are over there pointing, clapping and smiling in joy. I guess the primary is still on in the Hillary camp.

    What a symphony of stupidity! Democrats like to pretend the Repubs are their greatest enemy, but blissfully ignore the fact that they are their own worst enemy. This election is the Democrats to lose, and it looks like they are trying to do everything they can to make that happen.

    If Obama loses, I hope the downticket Dems lose too. If the left wants to make a clusterfuck out of this, lets make a royal clusterfuck out of it. People get the kind of government they vote for, and you are seeing the results.

    But keep scapegoating one guy for the whole issue! MORE COWBELL!!!

  222. 222
    Rome Again says:

    Okay TZ, I’ve been dying to ask for days, wtf is the Lou Ferrigno graphic supposed to signify?

  223. 223
    Rome Again says:

    I guess the primary is still on in the Hillary camp.

    You didn’t know? They want to take this all the way to the convention floor. Tell me you didn’t seriously think all of her minions were falling in line, while some have, many others haven’t.

  224. 224
    ThymeZone says:

    wtf is the Lou Ferrigno graphic supposed to signify?

    It was in keeping with some humorous stuff going on here one day and I stuffed the link in on this particular machine (these things are stored in cookies on your computer). So when I am using this machine, the link is still there and I have not replaced it. Too lazy. The original connection was weeks ago, maybe more than a couple months? I don’t remember now.

    Something to do with the Incredible Hulk.

  225. 225
    ThymeZone says:

    Here’s a new url that is more up to date.

    Enjoy.

  226. 226
    Rome Again says:

    Something to do with the Incredible Hulk.

    Well of that much I was sure. LMAO

  227. 227
    Tlaloc says:

    CL:

    Obama is the Senator from Illinois, and he should have to answer to the people who voted for him.

    Yeah, it’s not like the guy is running for national office or anything…

    Come on.

    you idiots would rather blame one of the firemen (who did not start the fire) for the whole fiasco.

    So… you’re saying there’s no reason on earth to be mad at a guy for blatantly lying to your face about a matter of some importance?

    I could see the political cartoon that would result if Obama had tried to stop the party members from voting for this. All it would be is a semi with a cab stuffed with the Democrats who voted for this, barreling down the highway with Obama lying on the ground behind it, tire tracks all over him, with his arm raised and him saying “STOP!”.

    Yeah taking a stand sometimes means that happens. Look there were three options here:
    1) Obama could have been up front that this wasn’t a fight he was willing to take on. That would suck but it would have been honest.
    2) Obama could decide this was an issue that was worth taking the hit. That may or may not have worked out politically to his advantage (your cartoon vs the impassioned speech he could make on the topic).
    3) Obama could talk tough and then soil himself when the republicans glared at him.

    He chose 3. Why? Good fucking question since it was by far the worst choice. He obviously doesn’t have the moral high ground since he lied. He can’t claim he acted on principle. The republicans have yet another flipflop to club him with and he’s sabotaged his base.

    I know this is the stupid party but there has to be a limit.

    Rome again:

    Cleek, while I agree that Obama has to be elected president before he can do anything about this, you know as well as I do that what people are griping about is the 4th Amendment claim of protection to be secure in our own persons, to not be subject to illegal search and seizure.

    You can throw in the Article three explanation of what the function of the court is, and how congress negating ongoing lawsuits with no recourse not only probably violates that but also may violate the first amendment right to redress of grievances.

  228. 228
    Rome Again says:

    Here’s a new url that is more up to date.

    Enjoy.

    Better! ;)

  229. 229
    Katherine says:

    Cleek–Congress cannot change the text of the constitution, but it can prevent the courts from enforcing it. Which it just did with Obama’s support in defiance of his campaign promises.

  230. 230
    ThymeZone says:

    1) Obama could have been up front that this wasn’t a fight he was willing to take on.

    What was he not up front about? Provide a reference please.

  231. 231
    cleek says:

    ou know as well as I do that what people are griping about is the 4th Amendment claim of protection to be secure in our own persons, to not be subject to illegal search and seizure.

    not even an attempt to answer my question?

    i don’t care what people “feel”. i want to know how the 4th Amendment was damaged.

    was this law proposed and ratified as a Constitutional amendment by 2/3s of the legislature ? no? then it doesn’t change the Constitution.

  232. 232
    Rome Again says:

    You can throw in the Article three explanation of what the function of the court is, and how congress negating ongoing lawsuits with no recourse not only probably violates that but also may violate the first amendment right to redress of grievances.

    True, but you didn’t ask for all ways that Constitution could be damaged, you asked “how exactly did anyone damage the Constitution today ?” and while I might say the Constitution has been damaged for a long time, today it was just one more example of it becoming legal to do so. I would agree with someone above that the Patriot Act did the same as well.

  233. 233
    Tlaloc says:

    What was he not up front about? Provide a reference please.

    TZ, I have to assume you are being willfully dense. Obama said he’d fillibuster, then he turned around and voted *for* cloture. He *lied.*

    No two ways about it.

  234. 234
    ThymeZone says:

    Obama’s support in defiance of his campaign promises.

    Please supply a reference to the promise(s) you think he did not keep.

    Original references only, not that someone else said he made a promise. An actual quote that constitutes a promise, please.

  235. 235
    cleek says:

    Cleek—Congress cannot change the text of the constitution,

    of course it can. the Amendment process itself is part of the Constitution.

    Which it just did with Obama’s support in defiance of his campaign promises.

    so don’t vote for him.

    you know the stakes.

  236. 236
    Rome Again says:

    was this law proposed and ratified as a Constitutional amendment by 2/3s of the legislature ? no? then it doesn’t change the Constitution.

    But that’s just a ploy. While the Constitution still stands, wiretapping is now apparently legal because of what was done today and the law that was passed today will be exercised, not the Constitution that says the wiretapping law goes against it. Nobody is going to challenge wiretapping and telecom immunity based on the Constitution until Bush leaves office at least. Not before, assuredly.

  237. 237
    Rome Again says:

    No two ways about it.

    You might be wrong and not even realize it.

  238. 238
    ThymeZone says:

    Obama said he’d fillibuster

    Show me the quote. To my knowledge he did not.

    What he said, in reference to Chris Dodd’s proposal to filibuster the bill, was that he would support Dodd’s effort to mount a filibuster.

    No filibuster was ever mounted. The Dem leadership shelved the plan. Obama never said that “he” would filibuster anything. If you think he did, show the reference.

    If you are asserting that his offer to support a filibuster that never happened constitutes a lie, then I assert that you are the liar.

    If I am wrong, show me the references.

  239. 239
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Tlaloc, you are just another Hillary shill who is here whining about Obama. Trying to hold an intelligent, reasonable conversation with you is an impossibility.

    Say no more.

  240. 240
    Rome Again says:

    then it doesn’t change the Constitution.

    I will grant you that the Constitution itself is still whole, but there is a law now that is at variance with the Constitution and that law will be exercised. So while 2/3rds didn’t ratify a change of the Constitution (no law changing the Constitution was even introduced)- the reality is the same, a law exists that goes against the “law of the land”.

  241. 241
    Tlaloc says:

    Please supply a reference to the promise(s) you think he did not keep.

    TPM has a timeline:
    here

    these leap out:

    Bill Burton issues a statement, October 24, 2007, reaffirming Obama’s position and pledging to support Chris Dodd’s filibuster:

    “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

    Campaign statement, December 17, 2007, further elaborating on this point in regards to a particular upcoming Senate vote on Dodd’s filibuster:

    “Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd’s efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It’s not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster.”

    Bill Burton is an official spokesman for Obama. Emphasis added.

  242. 242
    cleek says:

    But that’s just a ploy.

    nope. it’s my entire point.

    While the Constitution still stands,

    thank you. i wish more people could reach that conclusion. the less we sound like the black helicopter crowd, the better, IMO.

  243. 243
    Rome Again says:

    If you are asserting that his offer to support a filibuster that never happened constitutes a lie, then I assert that you are the liar.

    Well, perhaps not a liar, just “mistaken”.

  244. 244
    Katherine says:

    cleek–how about we both vote for him & you stop making bullshit excuses & minimizing the importance of the rule of law?

  245. 245
    Tlaloc says:

    No filibuster was ever mounted.

    Yeah, cause we usually hold cloture votes for funsies.

  246. 246
    ThymeZone says:

    Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same.

    Dem leadership killed the filibuster plan. No filibuster was ever mounted.

    What promise did Obama break?

    You are the liar.

  247. 247
    Rome Again says:

    But Cleek, there is still a law out there that was voted and passed today that is at variance with the Constitution, you’re being disingenuous to not admit that.

  248. 248
    Katherine says:

    in other news, the Military Commissions Act didn’t change the anti-torture statute or the Geneva Conventions–it just ensured their non-enforcement. If you slam shut the court house doors, the courts don’t say what the law is; David Addington & John Yoo do in secret bad faith memos, and presidents can violate it with impunity. I intend to vote for Obama. I don’t intend to donate anymore but feel free to pick up my slack. But justifying his broken promises with unconvincing apologetics is actively harmful.

  249. 249
    cleek says:

    but there is a law now that is at variance with the Constitution and that law will be exercised.

    there is an entire branch of government set up to address that very situation.

    this is not the end of the world, or of the republic, or of anything. if the law is as unconstitutional as everybody (myself included) believes, it will be struck down.

  250. 250
    ThymeZone says:

    Yeah, cause we

    Obama offered to support a filibuster proposed, IIRC, by Chris Dodd (possibly during an early Dem debate).

    He never (and would never, nor would anyone else) offered to conduct his own filibuster or mount one by himself. Filibusters, unless they are theatrical in nature, are mounted according to a caucus-planned and orchestrated parliamentary process. Dem leadership did not advance the filibuster plan, and it died.

    Obama broke no promise. And you are a liar.

  251. 251
    Rome Again says:

    Yeah, cause we usually hold cloture votes for funsies.

    Tialoc, the voters for a filibuster weren’t there, what part of this don’t you understand? While some were angry and talked a blue streak that doesn’t mean they had a true filibuster. It was symbolic only.

  252. 252
    cleek says:

    cleek—how about we both vote for him & you stop making bullshit excuses & minimizing the importance of the rule of law?

    and how about you tone down the panic and let him get elected? quit trying to kneecap him for something that was going to pass with or without his support. this frenzy around Obama, as if he is the fucking majority leader or whip or the sponsor of the bill, is absurd. he’s the nominee for President, not the actual President. he has no more power in the Senate than he did last year.

  253. 253
    Rome Again says:

    this is not the end of the world, or of the republic, or of anything. if the law is as unconstitutional as everybody (myself included) believes, it will be struck down.

    I agree, but it won’t be struck down before January.

    Thank you for allowing that.

    You may perhaps remember, I’m not one who has been screaming about this, I’ve been screaming that we need to get Obama elected first.

  254. 254
    nightjar says:

    3) Obama could talk tough and then soil himself when the republicans glared at him.

    He chose 3. Why

    As usual, You don’t know what your talking about tlalac, and you don’t give a shit whether Obama is doing the right thing or not. Your here shilling for Clinton even though the war is over, like the Jap in the jungle still fighting ww2 in 1960, and also like some fucking vulture hanging around for a chunk of meat. You claim Obama isn’t honest, but you come here with your concern the dem nominee isn’t dem enough when you have no intention of voting for him regardless, lest he might win and Hillary couldn’t run in 2012. Your the liar tlalac, Obama made a calculated political move that may or may not work to his advantage. Flip-flop yes, weak and against the constitution no. Either way, he had ZERO chance of influencing a bunch of perennially frightened dem congresscritters. So come of your own petard and level with us what your up to.

  255. 255
    cleek says:

    You may perhaps remember, I’m not one who has been screaming about this, I’ve been screaming that we need to get Obama elected first.

    agreed (obviously).

  256. 256
    ThymeZone says:

    Well, perhaps not a liar, just “mistaken”.

    Willful repetition of a lie, willful use of an unverified claim that is being mimeographed by Republicans to try discredit our candidate, even being pimped by such whore operations as Salon, that’s lying.

    The factcheck is easy, anyone can do it quickly and easily. The fact is, the offer Obama made is the one that our resident liar posted right here. Obama offered to support a filibuster that was never advanced or mounted. The offer was made in about October of last year, long before the actual nature of the bill’s progress through the various steps required were even known, or the final wording of the bill known. It was nothing but a signal to leadership that they’d have his support if they mounted a filibuster.

    The thing never happened. End of story.

    Senators who are an integral part of a caucus, especially junior senators, do not mount filibusters on their own unless they are out to unilaterally do something theatrical and probably futile. Obama would never commit to such a thing in October of last year, he’d have been crazy to do so.

    Most of the blather on this thread is woven around this lie, that somehow Barack promised something and reversed course. That is not the case, never was.

    To my knowledge, he made two public assertions about the measure: That he’d support a filibuster if one were mounted, and recently, that he would reluctantly vote for the bill as it now exists.

    The first statement is moot, no filibuster was mounted. The second one has been validated by his actual vote.

    That’s it, that’s yoru big betrayal in a nutshell. Pure bullshit, pure lie.

  257. 257
    ThymeZone says:

    Flip-flop yes

    Nope. Myth. Can’t be shown to be true. Unless you have a reference that validates this assertion, I call bullshit.

  258. 258
    nightjar says:

    Nope. Myth. Can’t be shown to be true. Unless you have a reference that validates this assertion, I call bullshit.

    He promised to filibuster the bill if it had amnesty, and didn’t. by voting for Cloture. Which I’m glad he did.

  259. 259
    Michael Brown says:

    If Obama loses, I hope the downticket Dems lose too. If the left wants to make a clusterfuck out of this, lets make a royal clusterfuck out of it. People get the kind of government they vote for, and you are seeing the results. But keep scapegoating one guy for the whole issue! MORE COWBELL.

    Ya know, I have seen some authentic puling drivel on BJ before, but the responses from you, CL, and TZ and John himself today really break the biscuit.

    Yeah, I got the snark, shit for brains. So if you’re all such sophisticated RealPolitik adepts, riddle me this: How, precisely, did Obama’s shifting his stance on this issue help him? No, not how do you imagine it held off some Rethug attack we all know is coming anyway. How did it HELP? What, precisely, did it accomplish for Obama’s candidacy?

    Go ahead, professors, lecture the students. Show us a single poll that’s improved for Obama since he announced he was a liar (that one’s for you, TZ, since you’re so fond of assigning tail-chasing find-the-link duty to your opponents — and not since the vote, dummy, since the announcement). Demostrate for us how a move that inspired 20,000 of your committed supporters to form a web group opposing your stance was a a cunning electoral play. You’ve seen some of the responses here saying they’re not going to vote for Obama now, or give Obama money, or how they’d be embarrassed to campaign for him door-to-door. Please explain how that result was just what was intended and plays into Obama’s Master Plan for Victory, muahahaha? How many others do you think are actually considering not voting for him, or actually voting for McCain? How many millions do you think that would have gone into Obama’s campaign are now going to the ACLU and other groups who actually stand for something? And all of us out here who are angry and disappointed, we’re the problem? Obama is just a brilliant politician and we should suck it up and deal? Stick it up your cowbell, CL.

    I’ll tell you what Obama accomplished. No, better, I’ll let Larry Lessig tell you, since he got it exactly right (as did thepanzer and some others here). It was Self-Swiftboating. Basically (to bring up your favorite person, John), while Hilbot may no longer be running to be the nominee, the things in the Democratic Party Hilbot represented are running the nominee:

    There are at least two views about what makes Obama so compelling. One that he happens to have the mix of positions on policy questions that best matches the public’s. The other that he is perceived by the public as “different,” and hence (given the public hates politicians so) someone the public can like, or more significantly, get enthusiastic about.

    I’m strongly in the second camp. It seems to me nothing more than consultant-think to imagine people choosing a President with a checklist of issues, finding the one to vote for the way they pick a place to vacation. It seems to me nothing less than obvious that people are passionate about Obama because he strikes them as a different kind of candidate — one that stands for his beliefs, that speaks clearly and directly, that can be trusted to stick by his beliefs, that says what he believes regardless. Such a creature, in most people’s minds, is “not a politician.” Such a creature (i.e., “not a politician”) is what people want in a President.

    Democrats never seem to get this. The last two campaigns were lost (in my view) because the campaign was working overtime to bob and weave to match the program of the candidate to the pollsters’ latest work. That the shifts would signal that the candidate was nothing different just didn’t seem to compute. Better, for example, to have people believe the candidate (Kerry) was against gay marriage than to worry that most would see the position as a political ploy.

    Republicans, on the other hand, seem obsessed with this. It was the defining feature of the success of Reagan that he made it appear as if he did what he believed, not what the polls said. It was the part Bush v2 mimicked best. It is the clear dream of the McCain campaign to do the same. “You may not like what I say, but at least you know where I stand” is the signal virtue in a GOP campaign. It is the signal blindness of a Democratic campaign.

    I am not saying that Republicans are consistent and Democrats not. I am saying something very different: that Republicans believe appearing consistent/principled/different is the key to victory, where as Democrats (apparently) do not.

    And you three stooges want to lecture us about what makes sense politically. You got bupkis and you know it.

  260. 260
    ThymeZone says:

    Nope, he offered to support a filibuster, not to filibuster or to mount a filibuster. The difference is not trivial.

    Senators do not filibuster on their own in these situations.

    Nobody would paint himself into that kind of corner.

  261. 261
    ThymeZone says:

    How, precisely, did Obama’s shifting his stance on this issue help him?

    He didn’t. The only unambiguous statement I saw is that he would vote for the bill. He voted for the bill.

    End of story. You are full of crap.

  262. 262
    Michael Brown says:

    Oh bullshit, TZ, you’re tossing this out on a technicality. I’ve encountered kitchen roaches with more intellectual integrity.

  263. 263
    nightjar says:

    Nope, he offered to support a filibuster, not to filibuster or to mount a filibuster. The difference is not trivial.

    Senators do not filibuster on their own in these situations.

    Nobody would paint himself into that kind of corner.

    When a Senator says he’ll support a filibuster, it means he’ll vote no on cloture, plain and simple. The filibuster was supported by 26 dems who voted no to cloture, so he would’ve hardly been alone. Believe what you like TZ. I believe he did the right thing for the dem nominee trying to get elected, but it was a flip flop.

  264. 264
    ThymeZone says:

    no on cloture, plain and simple.

    Uh, no. I think you will find that he offered to support a specific (Chris Dodd’s, I think) proposed filibuster. What was that intended to do, and what did that have to do with the cloture vote?

    The technical votes are specific in nature. I think you will find that no promise was broken. The fact that lefty shitheads want to manufacture one, nothwithstanding.

  265. 265
    nightjar says:

    How many others do you think are actually considering not voting for him, or actually voting for McCain? How many millions do you think that would have gone into Obama’s campaign are now going to the ACLU and other groups who actually stand for something

    How bout you fool and maybe Larry Johnson and his house of crazy. Millions, not hardly. They may be pissed right now but only dumbasses like yourself will stay home or vote for Mccain.

  266. 266
    ThymeZone says:

    Believe what you like TZ. I believe

    I believe what I found to be true. The man made a specific offer to support a specific filibuster that never happened AFAIK.

    You are dealing with lefty shitheads who would rather make a technical case against this guy and win than see him elected president. You are lining up with idiots.

  267. 267
    nightjar says:

    The fact that lefty shitheads want to manufacture one, nothwithstanding

    I hope you weren’t referring to moi’ as a lefty shithead TZ? Anyways believe whatever the fuck you want, like always.

  268. 268
    ThymeZone says:

    I hope you weren’t referring to moi’ as a lefty shithead TZ? Anyways believe whatever the fuck you want, like always.

    I am not referring to anyone in particular at the moment, and I sure don’t need your permission to believe or say anything.

    But thanks for the thought.

  269. 269
    Michael Brown says:

    I’m still voting for Obama, nightjar. Never said I wasn’t. But you know that plenty are not now, and so does everybody else. Exactly like I said, you idiots got nothin. You all know it didn’t help, and you’re worried that it may have hurt enormously. So do I (and Larry Lessig, if you bother to read his piece).

    And next to Exhibit A, we have the Marvelous TZ, to whom 20,000 people opposing the candidate on his own website means absolutely nothing about that candidate’s electoral fortunes — well, nothing next to TZ’s own Mommy’s Little Lawyer explanation of filibuster mechanics. TZ, I have some shithouse rats over here would like to talk to you about taking your meds on a regular schedule….

  270. 270
    nightjar says:

    You are lining up with idiots.

    No, I’m lining up with the truth. Obama changed his mind on an issue, OMG he’s politician and we know they would never do such thing. Obama ain’t perfect and pretending he is is feeding the meme that his supporters are more like worshippers, and I don’t worship anybody, except maybe Cate Blanchett.

  271. 271
    Doug H. (Fausto no more) says:

    But you know that plenty are not now, and so does everybody else.

    They aren’t? Where are the polls saying ‘We’re not voting for Obama because we’re butthurt over FISA?’

  272. 272
    Liberal Masochist says:

    At long last, laying this on Obama is crazy. Brachiator, TZ, JC and all the others have it right.

    One last thing: voting yes is a free option for Obama. It was going to pass anyway and he really can use the bully pulpit to dial it back after he is elected.

  273. 273
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Michael Brown, what exactly is yer point? Are you suggesting he did it for political reasons but the polls don’t bear out a political gain? There’s an easy explanation for that: he didn’t do it for political reasons. Ya know, like he said.

    If we gotta shit all over our nominee, why not just assume he voted for the bill to ensure he gets those awesome extra-constitutional superpowers for when he’s Prez? I kinda like that explanation best. It was up to the other 534 legislators to check his future power and they failed us.

    I’m gonna write all 534 of ’em right now to complain.

  274. 274
    nightjar says:

    You all know it didn’t help, and you’re worried that it may have hurt enormously. So do I (and Larry Lessig, if you bother to read his piece).

    I don’t know if it helped or hurt and citing polls right now is no indication. He’s doing what dems have been doing for awhile now,moving to the center. I wonder if that will help that much in the current climate, but I am absolutely positive if HC were the nominee she’d have done the same. And on this issue there is no way he could have made any difference preventing the bill getting passed. It was a done deal that Steny Hoyer laid in Obama’s lap.

    . Exactly like I said, you idiots got nothin.

    Oh, and kiss my ass asshole.

  275. 275
    D. Mason says:

    Obama is the Senator from Illinois, and he should have to answer to the people who voted for him.

    His problem is that he also has to answer to the people he is asking to vote for him.

  276. 276
    cain says:

    Mary Says:

    One word from Obama to Pelosi and he could have hamstrung this thing.

    What word would that have been?

    So, here’s the problem. It’s the same problem that the other side has. When one is the presumptive “leader” of the democratic party, he is not in fact a King. Where his word is now law. While you and I maybe inspired by his words, and are willing to follow his lead, the same is not true of a bunch of self interested muckity mucks who have their own agenda.

    All Obama has is his candidacy, he has no historical outreach with his fellow senators unlike say Kennedy. (By the way, how did he vote?) So, when a guy only been around for a short time he doesn’t have the chops to do this. That’s why the president’s most powerful tool is the ability to speak the american people. The man has that in spades. He can bend congress to his will that way. So give him a break and let it pass. The battle is won, but we still get to break the will of those who voted the wrong way.

    Peace out.

    cain

  277. 277
    Michael Brown says:

    @JSFuckhead:

    Are you suggesting he did it for political reasons but the polls don’t bear out a political gain? There’s an easy explanation for that: he didn’t do it for political reasons. Ya know, like he said.

    If he did it for the reasons he said, then he’s an even bigger idiot than I think TZ is. That bill had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “preserving security”, “preserving FISA”, or any of the other bullshit explanations Obama offered. As Dodd, Feingold, Greenwald, Turley, the ACLU, the EFF, John Dean, and every civil libertarian in the land took endless pains to explain.

    @Nightjar:

    I don’t know if it helped or hurt and citing polls right now is no indication.

    OK, so it’s even worse than I thought: You not only don’t know, you don’t want to know. Exactly the point I was making. Of course, the 20,000 Obama supporters on MyBO could be wrong; but I doubt it.

    Oh, and kiss my ass asshole.

    No problem, sweetheart, bend over. No, really, I’m gonna kiss it! And you can trust me, because I’m “different”! Hell, after I’m elected, I’ll even buy you some Astroglide….

  278. 278
    nightjar says:

    Of course, the 20,000 Obama supporters on MyBO could be wrong; but I doubt it.

    Imagine that, Obama letting his own supporters vent their anger at his vote on FISA ON HIS OWN website. I bet they won’t vote for that elitist now. Your an idiot Brown, who thinks he has special knowledge about what’s going to happen when the voting begins. We’ve had a shitpot full of you fuckers come by and tell us what the future holds and that it’s not bright for Obama. And guess what, he won anyway. These are the same dildos who were just waiting for the HC coronation, and got their asses handed them by Obama. You know less than zero, genius.

  279. 279
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    Of course, the 20,000 50 Obama supporters, 5,000 Republican Ratfuckers and 14,950 Hillary Die-Hards on MyBO could be wrong; but I doubt it.

    Fixed.

    Heckuvajob Brownie!

  280. 280
    Michael Brown says:

    Oh, so it’s a conspiracy! Well, that explains everything, CL!

  281. 281
    TenguPhule says:

    That is a dealbreaker for me.

    Piss off, you whiny little shit.

    The fuckers in charge already legalized TORTURE.

    Somehow, these little snits about illegal spying just don’t carry quite the same weight.

    What’s one more turd on the Constitution? You can barely see any clear pages left already.

  282. 282
    TenguPhule says:

    Mary Says:

    One word from Obama to Pelosi and he could have hamstrung this thing. I also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy

    Obama could no more have told Pelosi off then he could tell Reid off on this.

    That said, he was a stupid fuck to vote for the bill.

    Frankly, he needs a good kick to the junk to get his perspective back.

    Pelosi and Reid need to be horsewhipped. Then hanged.

    And the rest of the compliant motherfuckers need to be lined up against a wall and shot.

  283. 283
    Katherine says:

    “there is an entire branch of government set up to address that very situation.”

    And they can’t hear the case if Congress takes away their ability to do so, and Congress just did. Civil suit after civil suit after civil suit on these issues have been thrown out of the courts. (The most recent: Maher Arar’s. Though that wasn’t based on a recent Congressional action.) Criminal suits never are brought because the Justice Department has a gaping conflict of interest and never charges anyone. You either don’t know a damn thing about how the judicial branch works, or you’re deliberately trying to deceive people.

  284. 284
    John Cole says:

    Ya know, I have seen some authentic puling drivel on BJ before, but the responses from you, CL, and TZ and John himself today really break the biscuit.

    Yeah, I have really been “breaking the biscuit” today by stating I think Obama was wrong to vote for the bill, but that I think he was handed a shit sandwich, it was a lose-lose situation, and I can understand why he did what he did in a bill that was going to pass anyway and couldn’t even be filibustered.

    That is really outrageous of me. John Cole- Enemy of Biscuits everywhere.

  285. 285
    patrick says:

    while this may/may not be a dealbreaker for my vote (throw me back into the “undecided” camp, but I will NOT vote McCain), it has thrown out any possibility of my financial support for the Obama campaign.

    Heck, Bob Barr even thought it was a crappy piece of legislation….if I can get over his idiocy over the Clinton/Lewinski witchhunt, he might get my vote.

    And the guy piling it on Kennedy for how he voted? he wasn’t there, he’s still undergoing treatment for BRAIN CANCER…but him a little slack.

    oh, and worshipping Cate Blanchett? Kate Winslet is much hotter.

  286. 286
    Gay Veteran says:

    4tehlulz, learn to read: “Greenwald is so “strident” on this issue because he’s a lawyer (as am I) AND understands that the Rule of Law is more than just a fucking slogan.”

    While it is true that Greenwald and Yoo are both lawyers, the difference between the two is that Yoo is a monarchist and Greenwald is not.

    cleek, if you need to be informed about the 4th Amendment then go over to Greenwald’s site. OK, just read your remarks about Congress amending the Constitution, you really need to take a civics class because Congress can start the amendment process but the states still have to ratify.

    ThymeZone: “If you are asserting that his offer to support a filibuster that never happened constitutes a lie, then I assert that you are the liar.”

    WOW, really dancing on the head of that pin, aren’t you. So Obama would support a filibuster but not start one. Well that’s leadership. Until now I never truly recognized the full extent of the cult of personality developing around Obama.

    Michael Brown: “…What, precisely, did it accomplish for Obama’s candidacy?….”

    Extremely good question. Your remarks are right on target.

    TenguPhule: “…What’s one more turd on the Constitution? You can barely see any clear pages left already.”

    jeebus, why not join the ReThugs and put a pillow over the Republic’s face? After all she’s been sick for a long time now, and wouldn’t it just be an act of mercy?

    every senator and congressman who voted for this bill is a TRAITOR:

    The Senate Oath of Office: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will SUPPORT and DEFEND the CONSTITUTION of the United States AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

  287. 287
    4tehlulz says:

    >>Until now I never truly recognized the full extent of the cult of personality developing around Obama.

    Yet another “liberal” finds his excuse not to vote for Obama.

  288. 288
    Nora Carrington says:

    I’m delighted to see the boyz here once again engaged in the high-minded discourse that has always been a hallmark of BJ’s comments section “.

    Thanks, Gay Veteran, you said it well.

    John, this is a genuine question: Is there anything Obama could do that would lose your support? No, really. Anything?

    The “mental distress” was inartful, the pile on with the faith-based was expected, the cautionary words on Iraq [which are not new] — all these are marks of a tired Democratic candidate intent on stressing where he (mistakenly, imo) thinks the vast majority of the electorate lives. While I can wish he were as progressive as, say, the Kossaks once believed him to be, he’s not, although those who would denigrate his past rhetoric as mere pandering are, well, pandering. I can deal with all that. I don’t have to like it, but I’d still happily support him, and with some enthusiasm.

    I submit this issue is different. I submit that if a constitutional scholar, one I heard in person say with some passion, “I’ve taught the Constitution. I love the Constitution, and I swear I will protect and defend the Constitution,” [Key Arena, Seattle, Feb. 2008] can vote for this bill, *knowing the amendment to remove immunity would fail,* then the gentleman doesn’t care quite as much about that document as he claims.

    For me this election has always been a one-issue race: who’s going to restore the balance of powers and hold this Administration’s law-breakers accountable.

    If the answer is “no one,” or rather, “neither of the major party candidates,” it seems to me that as a patriot I need to think long and hard about whether I can vote for Obama. If I knowingly cast my franchise for a candidate who has already demonstrated he will not defend the Constitution, then I become the traitor.

  289. 289
    TenguPhule says:

    it seems to me that as a patriot I need to Vote for Fuckstain McCain.

    Translated for accuracy.

  290. 290
    Nora Carrington says:

    TenguPhule,

    Ah, the refreshing smell of gratuitious obscenity in the morning. What part of “neither of the major party candidates” are you having trouble understanding? I’d rather eat dog shit than vote for McCain. But if I vote for Obama, am I not eating ground glass?

  291. 291
    Gay Veteran says:

    Nora Carrington, TenguPhule thinks you’re not giving enough deference to the new messiah

  292. 292
    D. Mason says:

    Pay no mind to tenguphule, he is one of the biggest McCain supporters around here. Always telling people that if they don’t like something Obama did they should vote for McCain. I guess he thinks McCain is better, it sure seems that way.

  293. 293
    TenguPhule says:

    I’d rather eat dog shit than vote for McCain. But if I vote for Obama, am I not eating ground glass?

    Hello former Nader Voter.

  294. 294
    TenguPhule says:

    D. Mason Says: Look at me! I’m a bitter Hillary wanker!!

    Corrected.

  295. 295
    TenguPhule says:

    Gay Veteran Says: Look, things can’t possibly get any worse if Fuckstain is elected.

    Better Fuckstains please.

Comments are closed.