FISA Bill Passes, and Amendments to Strip Telecoms of Immunity Rejected

[DroppinScience]

This is a shitty day for politics. Even shittier that Obama voted the same with EVERY Republican senator. He could have been in there with Feingold to stop it, but he didn't.

(n)

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/07/10244/

Published on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 by Salon.com
Congress Votes to Immunize Lawbreaking Telecoms, Legalize Warrantless Eavesdropping
by Glenn Greenwald

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal by approving a bill to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.

Prior to final approval, the Senate, in the morning, rejected three separate amendments which would have improved the bill but which the White House had threatened would have prompted a presidential veto. With those amendments defeated, the Senate then passed the same bill passed last week by the House, which means it is that bill, in unchanged form, that will be sent to the White House — just as the White House demanded.

The first amendment, from Sens. Dodd, Feingold and Leahy, would have stripped from the bill the provision immunizing the telecoms. That amendment failed by a vote of 32-66, with all Republicans and 17 Democrats in favor (the roll call vote is here). The next amendment was offered by Sen. Arlen Specter, which would have merely required a court to determine the constitutionality of the NSA spying program and grant telecom immunity only upon a finding of constitutionality. Specter’s amendment failed, 37-61 (roll call vote is here). The third amendment to fail was one sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, merely to require that the Senate waits until the Inspector General audits of the NSA program are complete before immunizing the telecoms. The Bingaman amendment failed by a vote of 42-56 (roll call vote here).

The Senators then voted for “cloture” on the underlying FISA bill — the procedure that allows the Senate to overcome any filibusters — and it passed by a vote of 72-26. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture. Hillary Clinton voted with 25 other Democrats against cloture. And with cloture approved, the bill itself then proceeded to pass by a vote of 69-28 (roll call vote here), thereby immunizing telecoms and legalizing warrantless eavesdropping. Again, while Obama voted with all Republicans to pass the bill, Sen. Clinton voted against it.

Obama’s vote in favor of cloture, in particular, cemented the complete betrayal of the commitment he made back in October when seeking the Democratic nomination. Back then, Obama’s spokesman — in response to demands for a clear statement of Obama’s views on the spying controversy after he had issued a vague and noncommittal statement — issued this emphatic vow:

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

But the bill today does include retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Nonetheless, Obama voted for cloture on the bill — the exact opposition of supporting a filibuster — and then voted for the bill itself. A more complete abandonment of a clear campaign promise is difficult of imagine. I wrote extensively about Obama’s support for the FISA bill, and what it means, earlier today. With their vote today, the Democratic-led Congress has covered-up years of deliberate surveillance crimes by the Bush administration and the telecom industry, and has dramatically advanced a full-scale attack on the rule of law in this country. As I noted earlier today, Law Professor and Fourth Amendment expert Jonathan Turley was on MSNBC’s Countdown with Rachel Maddow last night and gave as succinct an explanation for what Democrats — not the Bush administration, but Democrats — have done today. Anyone with any lingering doubts about what is taking place today in our country should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmot0aZy4MM&e

What is most striking is that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP — when the Senate was run by Bill Frist and the House by Denny Hastert — the Bush administration attempted to have a bill passed very similar to the one that just passed today. But they were unable to do so. The administration had to wait until Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress before being able to put a corrupt end to the scandal that began when, in December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the President had been breaking the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.Yet again, the Democratic Congress ignored the views of their own supporters in order to comply with the orders and wishes of the Bush administration. It is therefore hardly a surprise that, yesterday, Rasmussen Reports revealed this rather humiliating finding:

Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

The Congress, with a powerful cast of bipartisan lobbyists and the establishment media class lined up behind telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping, looked poised to pass this bill back last December, but a large-scale protest was organized — largely online — by huge numbers of American who were opposed to warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity, and that protest disrupted that plan. Today, Sen. Chris Dodd, the leader of the opposition effort along with Russ Feingold, said on the Senate floor:

"Lastly, I want to thank the thousands who joined with us in this fight around the country — those who took to the blogs, gathered signatures for online petitions and created a movement behind this issue. Men and women, young and old, who stood up, spoke out and gave us the strength to carry on this fight. Not one of them had to be involved, but each choose to become involved for one reason and one reason alone: Because they love their country. They remind us that the “silent encroachments of those in power” Madison spoke of can, in fact, be heard, if only we listen."

Today, the Democratic-led Senate ignored those protests, acted to protect the single most flagrant act of Bush lawbreaking of the last seven years, eviscerated the core Fourth Amendment prohibition of surveillance without warrants, and cemented the proposition that the rule of law does not apply to the Washington Establishment.

* * * * *

I was on the Brian Lehrer Show this morning debating the FISA bill with former Clinton National Security Advisor Nancy Soderberg (who favors the bill). Because of some technical difficulties, I wasn’t on the show until roughly 7:30 in. That debate can be heard here. Tomorrow, at 10:00 a.m. EST, I’ll be on NPR’s On Point to discuss Obama and the FISA vote. That can be heard here.

© 2008 Salon.com

[alien autopsy]

another sad day in american history.


fuck this shit. and fuck obama

[DroppinScience]

More commentary from Glenn Greenwald on this, which highlights even the most hardcore of Obama supporters pissed off at this.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/09/10243/

Published on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 by Salon.com
Today’s Coverup of Surveillance Crimes and Barack Obama
by Glenn Greenwald

What we learned in December, 2005 that George Bush and the telecoms were doing — listening in on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants — is a felony under clear U.S. law, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense. Anyone can go read the section of FISA — right here — that says that as clearly as can be:

A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally — (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; . . .
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.

It was also as clear a violation of the Fourth Amendment as can be. For the Government to invade our communications with no probable cause showing to a court is exactly what the Founders prohibited as clearly as the English language permitted.

But today, the Democratic-led Congress — with the support of both John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of whom will even bother to show up and vote — will cover-up those crimes. Law Professor and Fourth Amendment expert Jonathan Turley was on MSNBC’s Countdown with Rachel Maddow last night and gave as succinct an explanation for what Democrats — not the Bush administration, but Democrats — will do today. Anyone with any lingering doubts about what is taking place today in our country should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmot0aZy4MM&e

As Turley says, and as I’ve written many times over the last two weeks, what is most appalling here beyond the bill itself are the pure falsehoods being spewed to the public about what Congress is doing — and those falsehoods are largely being spewed not by Republicans. Republicans are gleefully admitting, even boasting, that this bill gives them everything Bush and Cheney wanted and more, and includes only minor changes from the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill passed last February (which Obama, seeking the Democratic Party nomination, made a point of opposing).Rather, the insultingly false claims about this bill — it brings the FISA court back into eavesdropping! it actually improves civil liberties! Obama will now go after the telecoms criminally! Government spying and lawbreaking isn’t really that important anyway! — are being disseminated by the Democratic Congressional leadership and, most of all, by those desperate to glorify Barack Obama and justify anything and everything he does. Many of these are the same people who spent the last five years screaming that Bush was shredding the Constitution, that spying on Americans was profoundly dangerous, that the political establishment did nothing about Bush’s lawbreaking.It’s been quite disturbing to watch them turn on a dime — completely reverse everything they claimed to believe — the minute Obama issued his statement saying that he would support this bill. They actually have the audacity to say that this bill — a bill which Bush, Cheney and the entire GOP eagerly support, while virtually every civil libertarian vehemently opposes — will increase the civil liberties that Americans enjoy, as though Dick Cheney, Mike McConnell and “Kit” Bond decided that it was urgently important to pass a new bill to restrict presidential spying and enhance our civil liberties. 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).

* * * * *

Stanford Professor Larry Lessig has been a hard-core Obama supporter since before the primaries even began. He knows the candidate himself and has all sorts of contacts at high levels of the campaign. Yesterday, Lessig wrote a scathing criticism of what the Obama campaign has been doing over the past several weeks: “All signs point to an Obama victory this fall. If the signs are wrong, it will be because of events last month.” This is what Lessig said about the Obama campaign’s attitude towards the FISA bill:

Yet policy wonks inside the campaign sputter policy that Obama listens to and follows, again, apparently oblivious to how following that advice, when inconsistent with the positions taken in the past, just reinforces the other side’s campaign claim that Obama is just another calculating, unprincipled politician.
The best evidence that they don’t get this is Telco Immunity. Obama said he would filibuster a FISA bill with Telco Immunity in it. He has now signaled he won’t. When you talk to people close to the campaign about this, they say stuff like: “Come on, who really cares about that issue? Does anyone think the left is going to vote for McCain rather than Obama? This was a hard question. We tried to get it right. And anyway, the FISA compromise in the bill was a good one.”

So the highest levels of the Obama campaign believe this bill is “a good one.” Lessig adds that the perception of Obama’s craven, nakedly calculating behavior as illustrated by his support for the FISA bill is by far the largest threat to his candidacy as it “completely undermine Obama’s signal virtue — that he’s different”:

The Obama campaign seems just blind to the fact that these flips eat away at the most important asset Obama has. It seems oblivious to the consequence of another election in which (many) Democrats aren’t deeply motivated to vote (consequence: the GOP wins).

I can’t count the number of emails I’ve received demanding that I stop criticizing Obama for his support of this bill on the ground that such criticisms harm his chances for winning — as though it’s the fault of those who point out what Obama is doing, rather than Obama himself for completely reversing his position, abandoning his clear, prior commitments, and helping to institutionalize the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the concealment of Bush crimes.

Ultimately, it’s the sheer glibness of the support for this corrupt and Bush-enabling bill among Obama and his supporters that is most striking. Revealingly, Lanny Davis — a pure symbol of everything that is rotted and broken in our political culture — wrote an Op-Ed yesterday lavishly praising Obama for his support of the FISA bill on the ground that it “provided the senator an important chance to demonstrate his ‘Sister Souljah moment.’” Beltway operatives like Davis can only understand the world through the prism of this finite set of clichés — Stand up the Left. Sister Souljah. Move to the Center. That’s the same oh-so-sophisticiated political analysis one finds everywhere to justify what Obama is doing. As Dan Larison put it yesterday:

In Obamaworld, apparently wrecking the Fourth Amendment is roughly equivalent to ridiculing some obscure rapper. The only thing more depressing than the conceit that supporting unconstitutional measures is a way to “signal” to swing voters that you are not a radical loon bent on “ideological purity,” which is basically to make defending the Constitution a position held only by radicals and extremists, is the dishonest representation of support for the compromise legislation as being a pro-civil liberties position.

John Nichols of The Nation — one of the most pro-Obama media organs in the country — pointed out yesterday that Obama won the critical Wisconsin primary in large part by holding himself out to Democratic voters there — for whom civil liberties is a vital issue — as a steadfast ally of Feingold on these issues:

Before the February 19 Wisconsin primary, which confirmed his front-runner status in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Senator Barack Obama went out of his way to associate his candidacy with the name of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold. . . .
Obama wanted to secure the support of the substantial portion of Democrats nationally who, in polls conducted in 2006, indicated that they would back Feingold if he entered the presidential race. Internal polls by the various campaigns indicated that Feingold drew as much as 15 percent of the vote in a number of key states, coming mostly from anti-war and pro-civil liberties progressives. . . .

“I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grass-roots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty,” declared Obama, who indicated that he would support efforts to filibuster any attack on the ability of citizens to use the courts to defend their privacy rights.

Obama’s stance helped him. It was cited in endorsements by prominent progressives and newspapers in Wisconsin and other later primary states. No doubt, it contributed to his landslide victory in the Badger State, where the Illinoisan won a vote from Feingold himself.

Yet, now that he is the presumptive nominee, Obama is standing not with Feingold, but with Bush and the special interests Obama once denounced. He says he’ll vote for a White House-backed FISA rewrite — which is likely to be taken up by the Senate this week — in opposition to the position taken by civil liberties groups, legal scholars on the left and right and, of course, Russ Feingold.

Who can justify that?

* * * * *

Ultimately, what’s most amazing about all of that is that — as Senate Intelligence Committee member Russ Feingold pointed out yesterday — even the vast majority of the Congress, let alone Obama apologists, have no idea what these spying programs even entail or how they work. As someone who isn’t on the Intelligence Committee, does Obama even know?

Either way, here’s what the ACLU’s Caroline Fredrickson wrote to The Washington Post yesterday in response to Fred Hiatt’s latest Editorial praising Obama and the FISA bill:

The fact is that the revisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act under consideration in the Senate this week would virtually do away with the role of the FISA court in overseeing new dragnet surveillance. Its role would be reduced to little more than serving as a rubber stamp.
It is a shame that the paper that uncovered the Watergate scandal, which helped lead to more congressional oversight of executive authority and the checks and balances of FISA, now believes that the president once again should have unfettered power to spy on Americans.

Sen. Feingold — who, as a member of both the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, probably knows as much about the NSA program as any member of Congress — added:

The government absolutely must be able to wiretap suspected terrorists to protect our security, and every member of Congress supports that. With this bill, however, for the first time since FISA was adopted 30 years ago, the government would be authorized to collect all communications into and out of the United States without warrants. That means Americans e-mailing relatives abroad or calling business associates overseas could be monitored with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing by anyone. This bill overturns the laws and principles that have governed surveillance for the past 30 years.

The San Fransisco Chronicle editorialized today:

Warrantless wiretapping of Americans should outrage Congress into banning the practice. But, in a display of political expediency, the Senate is about to bless it, following a similar cave-in by the House last month.

Making matters worse, both likely presidential candidates — Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain - plan to reverse their opposition and vote for the White House-backed rewrite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bigger of the two reversals is Obama, who earlier this year had promised a filibuster to defeat the bill.

These are just facts — facts about Barack Obama, the FISA bill he supports and which the Democratic Congress will approve today. Recall that James Comey testified last year that what he and other DOJ officials learned in 2004 about Bush’s spying activities for the several years prior was so extreme, so unconscionable, so patently illegal that they all — including even John Ashcroft — threatened to resign en masse unless it stopped immediately. We still have no idea what those spying activities were. We know, though, that even the right-wing DOJ ideologues who approved of the illegal “Terrorist Surveillance Programs” that we know about found those activities indisputably illegal and wrong. But Barack Obama and the Democratic-led Congress will today enact a bill to immunize all of that, to protect the lawbreakers who were responsible.

As I’ve said many times before, there are clear differences between an Obama and McCain presidency. Denying that is just as irrational as those for whom the only political rule is Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill of Obama.

But it’s equally clear that politicians like Obama are unable within the prevailing political establishment to do much to stop the continued growth of the lawless surveillance state and our two-tiered system of justice, even if they wanted to stop it, even if they were willing to expend political capital to take a stand against it. And Obama — with his support for this wretched assault on the Constitution and the rule of law — is demonstrating that, contrary to his many prior statements, these issues are anything but a priority for him (Larry Lessig: Obama aides say “the FISA compromise in the bill was a good one”). Differences between Republican and Democrats exist and are important in many cases, but those differences are often dwarfed by the differences between those entrenched in and dependent upon the Washington Establishment and those — the vast, vast majority of American citizens — who are not.


UPDATE: The Savannah Morning News has an article on the ads running against Democratic Rep. John Barrow.

The vote on the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill is taking place now. I will post the vote total and details as soon as it is done.

UPDATE II: The Dodd-Feingold amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill just failed by a vote of 32-66.
I was mistaken about Obama’s not showing up to vote (that was the case, as I understood it, when the vote was scheduled for yesterday). He is in the Senate and, as he said he would, just voted (along with Hillary Clinton) in favor of the amendment to remove telecom immunity from the bill.

From listening, these are the Democrats who have voted in favor of removing immunity from the bill: Akaka - Baucus - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Byrd - Cantwell - Cardin - Casey - Clinton - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Inyoue - Kerry - Klobuchar - Lautenberg - Leahy - Levin - Mendenez - Murray - Obama - Reed - Reid - Sanders (I) - Schuemer - Stabenow - Tester - Whitehouse -Wyden.

Every Republican voted against removing immunity (including Arlen Specter, who spent all day arguing against immunity). Democrats voting against removing immunity: Bayh - Carper - Conrad - Feinstein - Johnson - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mikulski - Nelson (FL) - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb.
Specter’s amendment is next (to ban immunity if the spying was unconstitutional). Then they will vote on the Bingaman amendment (which I wrote about yesterday). They will both fail, and then they will vote on the final bill in its unchanged form.

UPDATE III: Specter’s amendment — merely to require the court to determine the constitutionality of the NSA spying program and condition immunity on a finding of constitutionality — just failed 37-61. Obama voted in favor of the amendment, and Specter was the only Republican to do so.

All Republicans voted against, and these were the Democrats voting against: Bayh - Carper - Johnson - Landrieu - Lincoln - Mikulski - Nelson (FL) - Nelson (Neb.) - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar. [NOTE: I’m recording these roll calls from watching the proceedings, and so it’s unlikely there are some errors and omissions. I will correct them as they are brought to my attention and will link to the official roll call vote once it is available. The Bingaman amendment is next.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book “How Would a Patriot Act?,” a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, “A Tragic Legacy“, examines the Bush legacy.

[RobMoney$]

I can't help but be annoyed by people who openly supported Obama who are already criticizing his decisions.
If you supported Obama you really have no one to blame but yourselves.

The second coming of JFK my ass.

[yeahwho]

Weather up here in Seattle is great, 70 degrees and just the lightest breeze. What a summer we're having here so far.

I've got no complaints, life is beautiful.

[DroppinScience]

I can't help but be annoyed by people who openly supported Obama who are already criticizing his decisions.
If you supported Obama you really have no one to blame but yourselves.

The second coming of JFK my ass.

Don't be an idiot. Obama actually campaigned on opposing FISA and how he'd stand with Feingold on filibustering this stuff. It's not like Obama supporters have a crystal ball and know that he'd do a complete 180 a year later.

I will for once in my life give Clinton credit for voting against it, but even then I question her motives (after all, had she been the nominee, would she have done the same thing as Obama? One can only speculate).

And the idea of JFK was a big myth anyways, so quit it mang.

[QueenAdrock]

You mean openly SUPPORT him, not openly supportED. No one here has given up their support of him, so there's no need for the past tense.

I don't agree with the FISA decision. Luckily, most Democrats don't have the "You're either with him or against him" idea (where have we heard that one before?), so you can have mixed feelings about a candidate or their decisions while still supporting them in their run for president. I don't agree with everything Bill Clinton said or did in his Presidency, but overall, I think he was a kick-ass president. Same with Obama. I may not agree with everything he says or does, but I do like him. My opinion of him has gone down since this vote, but I still agree with majority of his other ideas. I certainly hope he has enough common sense to stick with those during the rest of the season and into his presidency.

[yeahwho]

It's a matter of counting the votes, the majority voted yea, including democratic Senator Casey from Pennsylvania. Our two senators from my state up here in Washington, voted nea.

The F.I.S.A. bill passed 69 to 28 in the Senate, Obama is not going to look weak on National Security. It's fucked up but it's like Wright said, this is what politicians do.

From NYTimes Ed/Op today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?hp) Gail Collins,

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

[Documad]

I was never a fan of the first coming of JFK.

I just want Obama to get elected. I suspect that this vote will help it happen but I do worry. The last two democratic candidates played it safe -- played to the middle -- and they both lost.

I can't imagine that I will give him any money. Maybe that will change but I throw the mail away without opening it. I gave a lot of money to Kerry (a lot of money to me).

I saw a guy selling Obama signs today in a poorer urban neighborhood. They weren't real Obama signs but they looked good. I thought it was cool. It made me smile to see the enterprising attitude. It's good advertising and what does Obama care if they signs aren't really from his campaign? :)

[D_Raay]

It is one thing for a presumptive nominee to adjust policy positions to reach out to constituencies he wants to bring in to his coalition which were not part of his primary victory. We have seen Obama do that with evangelicals, for example. Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency. There is no sector of the American population that just might jump off the fence and get behind Obama if he only agrees to give telecommunications corporations retroactive immunity for illegally collaborating with the Bush administration’s spying. He is not courting votes here. Either he is caving in to pressure from the giant telecom corporations, or he has really bought into the idea that American actually needs warrantless wiretapping. Either option is equally unpalatable to many activists.

Throughout the primaries, one of the big criticisms of Obama was that when it came to votes, he backed off. Thus all those “present” votes in Illinois. But the campaign came up with what seemed like a plausible explanation for all that, and many Obama supporters decided he deserved a pass on that. Well, here we are, the first big vote Obama faces on the national and international stage, and guess what? He is backing off. Not good.

Yet there has been very little talk of not voting for Obama. What there has been is a pronounced change of tone, which may hold real implications for the rest of the campaign. Obama rode to the nomination in large part on the backs of… well, of people like me.

Senator Obama, you can tap my phone or my wallet, but not both.

[ms.peachy]

It's a matter of counting the votes, the majority voted yea, including democratic Senator Casey from Pennsylvania. Our two senators from my state up here in Washington, voted nea.

The F.I.S.A. bill passed 69 to 28 in the Senate, Obama is not going to look weak on National Security. It's fucked up but it's like Wright said, this is what politicians do.

From NYTimes Ed/Op today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?hp) Gail Collins,

Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?

When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.

Well spotted. The whole Collins op-ed piece is perfect, really; I would encourage everyone to follow the link and read it.

[RobMoney$]

Don't be an idiot. Obama actually campaigned on opposing FISA and how he'd stand with Feingold on filibustering this stuff. It's not like Obama supporters have a crystal ball and know that he'd do a complete 180 a year later.

I will for once in my life give Clinton credit for voting against it, but even then I question her motives (after all, had she been the nominee, would she have done the same thing as Obama? One can only speculate).

And the idea of JFK was a big myth anyways, so quit it mang.

I've raised the issue more than once on here that America doesn't really know Obama. That's my issue and it's turning out to be a valid one.
Trust me, I'm not enjoying having to make "I told you so" posts already about Obama. It's depressing actually.
The only positive thing I can hope for at this point is that Obama does for the liberals what GW did for the Republicans, he screws this country up so bad that middle America will turn a deaf ear to everything the left and right have to say.

My opinion of him has gone down since this vote, but I still agree with majority of his other ideas.

You're starting to make a habit out of saying that already.

[QueenAdrock]

Only in response to you repeating how you hate when Obama supporters criticize his policies, so I think it needs to also be repeated that you can criticize the candidate while still agreeing with majority of what he stands for.

I don't agree with his ties to Wal-Mart, or this FISA thing. Do I agree with his stance against off-shore drilling? Yes. Creating more green-collar jobs and introducing renewable energy? Yes. A woman's right to choose? Yes. His pulling out troops in a timely fashion so we won't be there for the next hundred years? Yes. His wanting to tax the wealthy and rolling back the Bush tax cuts? Yes. His stance on gun control and limitations he has on assault weapons and such? Yes. These are the issues most important to me, and I agree with what he has to say on those positions. Therefore, he has my support.

[DroppinScience]

I just want Obama to get elected. I suspect that this vote will help it happen but I do worry. The last two democratic candidates played it safe -- played to the middle -- and they both lost.


Exactly. Going "to the center" did not work the last two times, so why do the same thing time and again? The very idea that a vote such as this is even a good idea on a purely political point of view (nevermind the moral or activist point of view for a moment) is incomprehensible to me.

And I agree with D_Raay, where's the constituency he's reaching out to on voting for this bill? I don't think people who were previously committed to McCain will now jump ship and go for Obama based on this action. It's only a cave-in to special interests and telecoms.

[Bob]

Trust me, I'm not enjoying having to make "I told you so" posts already about Obama. It's depressing actually.

i'm having a hard time with this one, sorry

i particularly enjoy the fact that you "have to" make them. that must be hard for you, you're clearly very reluctant to do it, but no! it must be done

[saz]

I can't help but be annoyed by people who openly supported Obama who are already criticizing his decisions.
If you supported Obama you really have no one to blame but yourselves.

The second coming of JFK my ass.

are you for real? what, obama supporters are supposed to constantly kiss his ass and are not allowed to think for themselves, and have to agree with every single thing he does? give me a break.


Exactly. Going "to the center" did not work the last two times, so why do the same thing time and again?

because just like hillary, obama is a moderate, centrist democrat.

[RobMoney$]

i'm having a hard time with this one, sorry

i particularly enjoy the fact that you "have to" make them. that must be hard for you, you're clearly very reluctant to do it, but no! it must be done


Shut it, Obama-ton

[Bob]

heyyyy you can't use that against me, i gave you that!

[alien autopsy]

one can justify just about anything to his or her self. you can twist logic and reality to support your own beliefs- we all do it everyday.

reality is, obama is already showing signs of weakness. he is already acting to protect corporrate interests. he is already acting to to further imfringe on american rights and privacies.

how is this guy about change? how illusory a statement and platform he handles.

Its simple. A candidate for the people would only protect the people.
A candidate for the corporations would only protect the corporations. America has become a war mongering, bullying nation which propels itself on the idea that its citizens are freer and have a better life than anyone else on the planet (patriotism/nationalism). America is nothing more than a corporate entity banking of its own population and the suffering of peoples across the world. Dont fool yourself, this country is not headed for change.

[alien autopsy]

its funny to travel outside the country and see how other people feel about our beloved country. we are a huge fucking joke.

[saz]

1984 is knocking on your door (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bGMy0n6KqqE)

[alien autopsy]

nader has balls. ron paul has balls. cynthia mckinney has balls. we need a real candidate. one that has balls.

[Burnout18]

nader has balls. ron paul has balls. cynthia mckinney has balls. we need a real candidate. one that has balls.

Whats funny is you will never find one... and if you do, im sure he will be sleeping with hookers, and no no no, we cant have that!

[ms.peachy]

its funny to travel outside the country and see how other people feel about our beloved country. we are a huge fucking joke.
Well, as someone who lives outside of 'our beloved country' and has traveled around a bit, I would say that's not entirely true. There are indeed many things that other people find laughable about the US ("You pledge allegiance to a flag? A flag?!?"), but it's not so much that they think we are a joke, it's that they don't understand why we don't get that going around telling eachother and everyone else that we're the greatest thing ever is annoying as fuck.

Also, everybody I talk to seems to be rooting for Obama.

[alien autopsy]

exactly, they think we are a joke. not just because of the flag. because of the iraq war, 9-11, and because of our past history of lies, broken promises and exploitation. and also because americans carry this pride with them wherever they go, that they are american, and they are entitled.

my point is, it is bred into americans to feel pride. as most governments try to instill into their people and their system. it helps keep it all moving in their favor. proud to be an american!?

many people i have talked to in europe, australia and south america are aware of our shortcomings, mistakes, blunders and ignorance. just speaking from my own personal experience.

most people outside the us are rooting for barack, but only because the media has painted him as a true "changer" of america. he might as well be a rich white man. he stands for nothing new.

[QueenAdrock]

Well, as someone who lives outside of 'our beloved country' and has traveled around a bit, I would say that's not entirely true. There are indeed many things that other people find laughable about the US ("You pledge allegiance to a flag? A flag?!?"), but it's not so much that they think we are a joke, it's that they don't understand why we don't get that going around telling eachother and everyone else that we're the greatest thing ever is annoying as fuck.

Also, everybody I talk to seems to be rooting for Obama.

Same in Canada. Everyone loves Obama here, and they all hate that "America's #1!" bullshit. They bring up good points; number one in WHAT exactly? Defense spending? Fat people? Maybe entertainment, I'll give America that.

But honestly, think about it. What if the Japanese went around yelling "Japan rules! We're awesome! We're the best country in the entire world!"? Then maybe Americans could understand how goddamn annoying it is to hear another country constantly be acting superior to people. You don't hear any other country's people go around screaming about how great they are, and there's a lot of amazing countries out there that have been rated much higher than the US in terms of living conditions, health care, overall happiness of the people, etc. They just stay quiet about it because they realize it's annoying to act cocky and superior to others.

I love America, but goddamn it, the blinded "America's the greatest since sliced bread" people are really making everyone look bad overseas.

[saz]

lewis black on broadway talking about how america isn't #1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCDZMWVWuc)

bill maher: stop saying we're #1, and start acting like it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcz_NHAFGS0)

[Bob]

Same in Canada. Everyone loves Obama here, and they all hate that "America's #1!" bullshit. They bring up good points; number one in WHAT exactly? Defense spending? Fat people? Maybe entertainment, I'll give America that.

But honestly, think about it. What if the Japanese went around yelling "Japan rules! We're awesome! We're the best country in the entire world!"? Then maybe Americans could understand how goddamn annoying it is to hear another country constantly be acting superior to people. You don't hear any other country's people go around screaming about how great they are, and there's a lot of amazing countries out there that have been rated much higher than the US in terms of living conditions, health care, overall happiness of the people, etc. They just stay quiet about it because they realize it's annoying to act cocky and superior to others.

I love America, but goddamn it, the blinded "America's the greatest since sliced bread" people are really making everyone look bad overseas.

but but but glenn beck said

[saz]

why did the house and senate vote in favour of immunity for telecoms?

$chic-ching$ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VYzIh5UlhY&feature=related)

[yeahwho]

doesn't this just make you just want to cut Obama's nuts off?

[Bob]

doesn't this just make you just want to cut Obama's nuts off?

haha

[alien autopsy]

obama is all talk no nuts.