Democrats, Obama roll over: FISA bill passed by Senate

[Broomstick]

If only some way could be found to ban people who drive pickup trucks from voting.

>cough< Mike, I drive a pickup (sometimes)... You want MY vote, I'm a flaming liberal! (At least by US standards) Maybe an exception for pickup drivers who are also pagan...?

No, it's the Hummer owners you want to vote-ban. Please update your American stereotypes file, thankyouverymuch.

For people who hang confederate flags on their vehicles or homes (or who wear them on their clothing), their votes could be counted negatively.

I could support this - see, you do want my vote!

As for Obama - yes, he is a Chicago politician with all that that implies. None of this shit that has people in an uproar surprises me a bit (although he's actually probably one of the more honest and ethical pols we have in this area). Too many fell into Obama-worship and are now finding he has feet of clay - which shouldn't surprise them because he's never been a saint and never will be.

One thing I will say for the likes of Daley type politicians (and I think he is one in many ways) is that they get shit done. One of the taglines for Chicago is "the city that works" and it does. Streets in the Loop keep flooding? Jack up the buildings and physically raise the street levels 2-3 meters. Run out of run above ground for more mass transit? Add a subway to the El. Sewage contaminating the water intakes for the city in Lake Michigan? Then permanently reverse the flow of the Chicago river. City burned down? Rebuild it. Brutal, snow-filled winters? Elevate snow-removal to a science. Little things count, like filling potholes and the dramatic reduction in the city rat population since Daley the Younger took office (I'm referring to rodents, of course, not members of the City Council).

Given the important shit that hasn't been down on the Fed level perhaps a Chicago-style politician might be of use, much as I despise politicians.

Land of the fucking free indeed...

Once again we encounter a gap between theory and practice....

[Yogi]

Land of the fucking free indeed...

Of course we're free! We're free to vote for Obama!! Or McCain!!

Or we can throw our vote away on a third party candidate, but in reality it's Kang or Kodos.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh give me a break. This law is more than just immunity.

Yet again, I never said that I approved of the meat of the bill; I find its implications for civil liberties quite disturbing. I was simply addressing a portion of the debate that was getting a good deal of attention, even though I readily admit it isn't as important as the rest. Obama has made an unpleasant and unexpected political maneuver, and I trust that he will try to undo it when he's elected.

Thank you for providing the summary, though.

And I am going to inform you that you are extremely naive. Civil liberties have this odd history of never being restored once they are removed.

[Master of Ossus]

He wasn't, but that really doesn't apply unless your position is that POTUS can issue illegal orders and immediately expect compliance no matter the actual wording of the law.

Please. The Executive Branch is tasked with enforcing the laws, and Presidents have the authority to do all sorts of things without Congressional or Judicial approval.

My position is that the telcos should have simply said 'meed existing FISA conditions and we'll comply' instead of saying 'Yes Sir, and may I have 20 more inches up my ass, Sir'.

What would you have wanted gunstore owners to have done during the North Hollywood shootout? Tell the police officers asking for firearms to please fill out the forms required to acquire new rifles and come back when the waiting period was over?

After all, the Bill of Rights is a listing of rights. not a listing of wants.
If the Feds can infringe on the rights of one subset of Americans, then the precedent has been set where they can ignore my rights as an American citizen.

And the telecos come into this... where? They're not the government, and I believe that the Bill of Rights typically applies only against the government. What are you going to sue the telecos for? What are you going to press criminal charges against the telecos for doing?

And to be brutal about it, I'm not about to sacrifice the Bill of Rights so that a bunch of fucking pussies can feel safe.

Nor am I, but I have a problem with charging corporations with criminal activity because some people disagree with their following of a lawfully issued Executive Branch instructions. Blame the government, not the company.

[Companion Cube]

Obama responds. The overall message is that he doesn't want people throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.

This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The (PDF)recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.

So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.

[Noble Ire]

And I am going to inform you that you are extremely naive. Civil liberties have this odd history of never being restored once they are removed.

Name one. Go on, give me one concrete example of a civil liberty that has been abjured on a national scale during time of crisis or for political expediency and has never been restored. Alien and Sedition Acts? The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War? The Jim Crow laws in the south? Prohibition? The varied abuses of the Cold War era? All have been remedied in time.

I'm not saying that I approve of compromising our civil liberties in the name of politics. The idea chills me to the core. Nevertheless, it can be a powerful tool, and if it gets Obama elected, I think the benefits will outweigh the risk; moreover, I maintain that an Obama White House will undo the damage done during this campaign.

I don't think Obama made the right choice here, but I do understand his reasoning. He's a pragmatist, and he'll do what he has to win. If you don't understand the necessity of that, then you're more naive than I am.

[Cecelia5578]

Name one. Go on, give me one concrete example of a civil liberty that has been abjured on a national scale during time of crisis or for political expediency and has never been restored. Alien and Sedition Acts? The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War? The Jim Crow laws in the south? Prohibition? The varied abuses of the Cold War era? All have been remedied in time.

Depending on what you define as Jim Crow laws, blacks were subject to all sorts of degredations for almost a century after the Civil War until the late 60s. In time, perhaps, but in some cases, an awfully long time, and with rather deleterious results.

[Glocksman]

Nor am I, but I have a problem with charging corporations with criminal activity because some people disagree with their following of a lawfully issued Executive Branch instructions. Blame the government, not the company.

The telcos aren't being criminally prosecuted, they're being sued in civil court.

And as I'm sure you're aware, the real purpose of the suits isn't to get money, but to get information by use of the discovery process so we can determine whether or not those orders were lawfully issued.

If there was no law violated then the telcos will easily win any civil suits.
So why do the telcos need immunity to begin with?
Unless of course the orders were unlawfully issued and they knew that and complied anyway.

[Noble Ire]

Name one. Go on, give me one concrete example of a civil liberty that has been abjured on a national scale during time of crisis or for political expediency and has never been restored. Alien and Sedition Acts? The suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War? The Jim Crow laws in the south? Prohibition? The varied abuses of the Cold War era? All have been remedied in time.

Depending on what you define as Jim Crow laws, blacks were subject to all sorts of degredations for almost a century after the Civil War until the late 60s. In time, perhaps, but in some cases, an awfully long time, and with rather deleterious results.

Granted, but those rights were eventually restored. Besides, of the example I gave, the Jim Crow laws were the only heavily regional case, based in an area with virtually every politician who wanted to get anywhere had to voice support for them, or at least look the other way. Truly national incidences, like the FISA issue, inevitably attract more open, high-level dissent, and are more quickly dealt with.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Do you have any evidence for this assertion apart from the fact that they are both Democrats from the state of Illinois? As a result of this proximity they certainly have some ties, and they have probably made some quid pro quo arrangement (probably exchanging Daley's early endorsement of Obama for his brother's placement on the Obama campaign and possible later support for the same's purported run for governor of IL). But apart from this flimsy stuff, what have you got?

This is the article I was going off of

By Ben Joravsky 03/24/2008 | 4 Comments

Geraldine A. Ferraro missed the point by concentrating on Sen. Barack Obama’s race to explain his rapid rise in politics. If you want to understand Obama, think Harry S. Truman.

On the surface, they don’t seem to have much in common. Truman was old and crusty when he came on the national scene -- Obama is new and fresh.

But in a way you could look at them both as a couple of machine politicians working to overcome their provincial roots as they move to the national stage.

In Truman’s case, he rose to prominence thanks to his ties to Mayor Thomas J. Pendergast’s infamously corrupt political machine in Kansas City, Mo.

Obama comes from the reform wing of Mayor Richard M. Daley’s machine -- which means he’s not really a reformer in the classic sense of that word at all.

It’s hard to explain Daley’s machine to people who don’t come from Chicago. It’s not like the model run by his father Mayor Richard J. Daley, who ruled the city from 1955 until 1976. The old man Daley headed the local Democratic Party and the city bureaucracy – there was no distinction. He distributed jobs and favors and contracts to acolytes in the local party, ward committeemen like himself, who sent out patronage workers to stump for Democratic candidates on Election Day.

Young Daley is not a Democratic ward committeemen – he’s barely a Democrat. In the 2004 presidential race, he made it clear that he had more of an affinity for President George W. Bush – apparently one of his pals – than Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

His rule is something like a benign cult of personality. Since being elected in 1989, Daley’s taken control of all aspects of local government. His appointees control the boards governing schools, parks, public transportation and economic development.

It’s true, Chicago has a 50-member city council, but it largely acts as the mayor’s rubber stamp. If reformers dare to run against one of the mayor’s aldermanic backers, they can expect a decidedly uphill fight. They may not even make the ballot, since their nominating petitions will be challenged by the incumbent’s backers for violating one of a multitude of bizarre rules in the Byzantine rulebook governing the process. The case will eventually come before hearing officers who owe their positions to Daley allies. Even if they survive this challenge – which will cost them time and money – they can expect to be vastly outspent in the election by the incumbents, whose campaign chests overflow with contributions from developers, lawyers and contractors doing business with the city.

Daley’s control extends far beyond the ballot. Want a zoning change? Hire the right lawyer – like Daley’s younger brother, who runs one of the top zoning law firms in town. Want a handout from the city to subsidize your development deal? Hire any number of former Daley appointees who works as city council lobbyists.

Traditionally, urban reformers are supposed to be against all of this, waging the good fight for open, clean government and against injustice, corruption and waste. But in Chicago, Daley reformers look the other way while the machine holds sway.

You can’t really blame them – there’s clearly no percentage in going against Daley. In the four years between his re-election campaigns in 2003 and 2007, Daley’s administration awarded about $100 million in affirmative action contracts to the Duffs, a white family with close ties to the mayor. His top city hall patronage chief, Robert Sorich, got sentenced to four years in prison for overseeing a hiring operation in which tests and interviews were rigged so the well connected got jobs over the well qualified. His transportation and streets and sanitation departments ran the notorious Hired Truck program, in which about $40 million in contracts were awarded to truck drivers who basically did nothing but campaign for the machine on Election Day. And a seemingly endless string of lower level city workers were nailed for taking bribes, sleeping on the jobs or, in one notorious case, selling heroin on the job at a city water filtration plant.

And what did the electorate do? They re-elected Daley to a sixth term as mayor with more than 71 percent of the vote.

The standard explanation is that we Chicagoans view nepotism, graft and waste as the price we pay to Daley’s machine for plowing the snow and collecting the garbage. It’s no wonder prominent liberals like Rep. Rahm Emanual, Rep. Jan D. Schakowsky and Obama want no part of this local fight. Their attitude is if you can’t beat them – at least look the other way.

You might think the city’s black political leaders would be critical -- since their communities routinely get the shaft in these deals. But the servitude of black elected officials to the machine goes back to the 1960s, when the City Council’s black aldermen were known as the “Silent Six,” for never opening their mouths to criticize the first Mayor Daley. In 1966, they even sided with that Daley over Martin Luther King Jr. when the civil-rights leader brought his open-housing campaign to town.

There was, of course, the blip on the radar in 1983, when Rep. Harold L. Washington, a champion of black political independence, defeated the machine and got elected mayor. But after Washington died in 1987, it was back to business as usual.

Obama settled in Chicago a couple of years after Washington died and this is the political universe he knows. His wife, Michelle Obama, used to work for the Daley administration. His campaign strategist, David Axelrod, ran some of Daley’s campaigns. Many of Obama’s closest advisers, like Valerie B. Jarrett, are Daley appointees and insiders -- it would be hard to find big players in Chicago who aren't. And last year, Obama mustered his oratorical powers to endorse Daley with a speech so reverential it made some of the senator’s fans cringe in embarrassment.

His local backers tell me Obama was only making a strategic choice when he backed Daley -- it's a purely political move by a guy who, in this campaign, has proved to be a remarkably sure-footed politician. It’s not that he likes the way Daley runs Chicago. It’s just that by supporting the mayor, Obama got Daley’s endorsement for his presidential run. That helps with fund-raising.

What everyone is hoping is that once in the White House, Obama, like Truman, will have the courage to stand up for what he believes. Presumably, his alliance with Daley is the price Obama paid for the right to be in a position to achieve national health care. Something even Truman couldn't pull off.



Ben Joravsky is a staff writer for Chicago Reader newspaper, where he writes a weekly column about politics.

Again, thanks for making a bald assertion that is pretty much entirely a non sequitur. Obama is a first-term Senator. Nixon was a 22-year veteran of the highest levels of the GOP, including a prominent role in HUAC, two terms as Vice President, a run for President, and a run for governor of California. Apart from some crap about how both of them promised a plan but it seemed kind of vague, what do they have in common?

It was just a reference to broad similarities that I'll concede--it was more a comment about how symmetric it would be, rather than an effort to compare Obama directly to Nixon.

[Yogi]

Obama responds. The overall message is that he doesn't want people throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility

There's that word again!!

I said previously that Obama's "compromise" is just Democrat-speak for "roll over". I said that I would have preferred a candidate that took a hard line against the Republicians. Of course, I was ridiculed by the Obama Drones, but hopefully this will be an important lesson in putting your faith in candidates who spout on about compromise.

[Broomstick]

It's a major flaw in US politics that "compromise" has become a sin and dirty word - compromise is necessary to politics and government. There are limits beyond which one does not or should not compromise, but anyone who rejects ANY form of compromise is a fool.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Ben Joravsky is a staff writer for Chicago Reader newspaper, where he writes a weekly column about politics.

That article is a lot less fire-eating than what you said and the stuff connecting Obama and Daley isn't exactly damning. I'm not going to argue that Daley isn't the king of Chicagoland... he is. But tarring Obama with that brush doesn't really scan. Daley dominates Chicago, which dominates Illinois, so it's not like Obama can avoid throwing him a few bones, but by no means is there evidence to suggest that Obama is Daley's creature. He certainly didn't help Obama win the senate nomination 2004.

It was just a reference to broad similarities that I'll concede--it was more a comment about how symmetric it would be, rather than an effort to compare Obama directly to Nixon.

In that case I'd say there are a couple major differences. The country is probably less exhausted and disillusioned with Iraq now than it was with Vietnam in late 1968. People are supporting the war at extremely low rates but we're not seeing the level of active opposition, almost certainly because of the current all-volunteer military. The other issue is that Obama is riding high on new grassroots fundraising methods and his own personal charisma, whereas Nixon depended most heavily on his "secret plan" as well as the disorganization of the opposing party.

But then of course, we have the benefit of hindsight, knowing that Nixon was completely lying about his secret plan, and we know how the Democrats failed in 1968. We'll have to see just how poorly the GOP shows in November, and just how much prevarication Obama has done. Possibly you're more right than I think.

EDIT:

It's a major flaw in US politics that "compromise" has become a sin and dirty word - compromise is necessary to politics and government. There are limits beyond which one does not or should not compromise, but anyone who rejects ANY form of compromise is a fool.

The issue is that "compromise" has come to mean that the GOP gets what it wants, and the Democrats get nothing. In this way Congress is essentially abrogating its responsibility to represent the American people (who by and large supported the Democrats in 2006 to stop the GOP), which accounts for their astoundingly low approval ratings.

[Yogi]

It's a major flaw in US politics that "compromise" has become a sin and dirty word - compromise is necessary to politics and government. There are limits beyond which one does not or should not compromise, but anyone who rejects ANY form of compromise is a fool.

You are absolutely right. Look at George W. Bush! He doesn't compromise and he is certainly a fool. He also gets his stuff passed by the Democrats in Congress who "compromise" on the issues. Why is "compromise" in "quotes"? Because in a compromise, the other side has to give up stuff as well. The Democrats don't compromise, they roll over.

Personally, I think that no bill at all is better than a bad bill.

[Glocksman]

It's a major flaw in US politics that "compromise" has become a sin and dirty word - compromise is necessary to politics and government. There are limits beyond which one does not or should not compromise, but anyone who rejects ANY form of compromise is a fool.

You are absolutely right. Look at George W. Bush! He doesn't compromise and he is certainly a fool. He also gets his stuff passed by the Democrats in Congress who "compromise" on the issues. Why is "compromise" in "quotes"? Because in a compromise, the other side has to give up stuff as well. The Democrats don't compromise, they roll over.

Personally, I think that no bill at all is better than a bad bill.

You're assuming that the Democratic Congressional Leadershit..er ship opposed immunity in the first place.

They didn't.
They wanted it
The primary movers on this weren't Republicans, but Democrats like Jay Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and some of the freshmen 'Blue Dogs' who are in the telcos pockets.

As to why they did it, my guess is a combination of telco campaign cash for the 'Blue Dogs' and my belief that GWB had those worthless fuckers briefed on the program back when it started and they don't want their own complicity to come out.

IMHO, this is more about Rockefeller, Hoyer, et.al, covering their asses and if Obama had got in the way they would have run him over.

[Broomstick]

You are all taking a general statement and applying it to one specific but I stand by my statement - the Republitards made "compromise" on any level a sin.

I think the problem is that a lot of people pinned unrealistic hopes on Obama and are now coming to realize he's a human being with flaws as well as good points. They forget that even the US presidents that are idolized did shitty things - Lincoln thought blacks were not as good as whites, for example. Franklin Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court in his favor, and used tactics that make what Bush & Co have tried recently look tame by comparison. JFK had that whole Bay of Pigs fiasco. Ford pardoned Nixon.

Politicians are flawed because they are human. Deal with it.

The operative question in November (for the those of us who can/will vote) is who is the lesser evil on the ballot. That's the way it's been, and that's the way it's going to be.

Obama is not the groveling tool of Daley some are making him out to be, but the fact is that if he was to have any political career in the Chicago area at all he had to play ball with Daley. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that is the way it is. Likewise, there is a limit to how much he can alienate either the Democratic party or the senior members of Congress. There is no realistic chance of any other sort of individual making it as far as he has towards the White House. Pure idealists do not survive the meatgrinder.

You are absolutely right. Look at George W. Bush! He doesn't compromise and he is certainly a fool. He also gets his stuff passed by the Democrats in Congress who "compromise" on the issues.

Ah, yes, that's why all those tax cuts he generated are permanent - oh, wait, no they're not. That's why the unemployment benefits extension he opposed failed - oh, wait, no it didn't. That's why social security has been privatized - oh, wait, no it hasn't. Gee, that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I bothered to dig I could come up with other things Bush wanted and didn't get. Or that the Republicans wanted, and didn't get (again, off the top of my head - a Federal Aviation Administration funded solely by user fees, nope, they still don't have that).

Does that mean the world is rosey? Of course not. Clearly the Republicans have the advantage here. But also clearly ya'll are practicing selective recall.

IMHO, this is more about Rockefeller, Hoyer, et.al, covering their asses and if Obama had got in the way they would have run him over.

Precisely - if he had opposed it the party big-wigs would have pulled the rug out from under him. And where would we be then?

[Yogi]

You're assuming that the Democratic Congressional Leadershit..er ship opposed immunity in the first place.

They didn't.
They wanted it
The primary movers on this weren't Republicans, but Democrats like Jay Rockefeller, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and some of the freshmen 'Blue Dogs' who are in the telcos pockets.

As to why they did it, my guess is a combination of telco campaign cash for the 'Blue Dogs' and my belief that GWB had those worthless fuckers briefed on the program back when it started and they don't want their own complicity to come out.

IMHO, this is more about Rockefeller, Hoyer, et.al, covering their asses and if Obama had got in the way they would have run him over.

It's mainly directed towards both Obama, and his attitude of "let's all be friends." In the end, it doesn't matter if Obama votes fo FISA because that's what he beleives in, because he wants to compromise, or because he's being bullied by the leadership. Whatever the reason, what's to stop it from happening again for exactly the same reason? Excuses are excuses, rhetoric is rhetoric, and politicians lie, so votes are the only thing that ultimately matters.

You are all taking a general statement and applying it to one specific but I stand by my statement - the Republitards made "compromise" on any level a sin.

And look at what they have accomplished with that attitude. Look at what the Democrats have NOT accomplished.

The operative question in November (for the those of us who can/will vote) is who is the lesser evil on the ballot. That's the way it's been, and that's the way it's going to be.

So, are you voting for Kang, or Kodos? I'm torn beteween voting for Obama, or voting for someone with principles.

Obama is not the groveling tool of Daley some are making him out to be, but the fact is that if he was to have any political career in the Chicago area at all he had to play ball with Daley. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that is the way it is. Likewise, there is a limit to how much he can alienate either the Democratic party or the senior members of Congress. There is no realistic chance of any other sort of individual making it as far as he has towards the White House. Pure idealists do not survive the meatgrinder.

He's the nominee. If the Democratic party is willing to gimp their own Presidential candidate in order to cover their asses, then they don't deserve my vote. Same thing for the Republicians.

Ah, yes, that's why all those tax cuts he generated are permanent - oh, wait, no they're not. That's why the unemployment benefits extension he opposed failed - oh, wait, no it didn't. That's why social security has been privatized - oh, wait, no it hasn't. Gee, that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I bothered to dig I could come up with other things Bush wanted and didn't get. Or that the Republicans wanted, and didn't get (again, off the top of my head - a Federal Aviation Administration funded solely by user fees, nope, they still don't have that).

Does that mean the world is rosey? Of course not. Clearly the Republicans have the advantage here. But also clearly ya'll are practicing selective recall.

So because there exists a single bill that Bush wanted and didn't get passed, that means that his "take no prisoners attitude" is less effective than a "let's all be friends" attitude? No wait, you didn't make a comparison at all!! You pulled out some random examples and called it an argument.

[Broomstick]

It's mainly directed towards both Obama, and his attitude of "let's all be friends." In the end, it doesn't matter if Obama votes fo FISA because that's what he beleives in, because he wants to compromise, or because he's being bullied by the leadership. Whatever the reason, what's to stop it from happening again for exactly the same reason? Excuses are excuses, rhetoric is rhetoric, and politicians lie, so votes are the only thing that ultimately matters.

You have a very naive view of how the government actually works. Yes, it does matter whether he believes in this, or whether he yielded to political pressure. IF he is PotUS then he is in a much stronger position to impose what he believes on the rest of us (though by no means absolute). If he believes in surveillance as a valid and constitutional tool then in office we will get more of it. If he did this due to party politics but believes the opposite then IF he is ever PotUS either it will be rolled back or lie unused. That, to my mind, is a rather important difference.

It has not been proven to my satisfaction either way as far as I'm concerned.

You are all taking a general statement and applying it to one specific but I stand by my statement - the Republitards made "compromise" on any level a sin.

And look at what they have accomplished with that attitude. Look at what the Democrats have NOT accomplished.

And yet you refuse to look at what the Republicans have NOT done, despite some of those goals being major from their viewpoint, or from significant sub-groups within the party.

But very well - you do not like either I take it. Please give me a viable alternative. It IS possible for a third party to arise and be successful in the US, even through rare and unlikely.

The operative question in November (for the those of us who can/will vote) is who is the lesser evil on the ballot. That's the way it's been, and that's the way it's going to be.

So, are you voting for Kang, or Kodos? I'm torn beteween voting for Obama, or voting for someone with principles.

Please point to that candidate with "principles". I'm serious - who is this person? Who do YOU feel is the right person?

The reality is that there is no place on the ballot for "None of the Above". Well, OK, the write-in candidate line, but as a practical matter your choice really is either Kang or Kodos. Thus, pick the lesser evil of the two.

Obama is not the groveling tool of Daley some are making him out to be, but the fact is that if he was to have any political career in the Chicago area at all he had to play ball with Daley. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that is the way it is. Likewise, there is a limit to how much he can alienate either the Democratic party or the senior members of Congress. There is no realistic chance of any other sort of individual making it as far as he has towards the White House. Pure idealists do not survive the meatgrinder.

He's the nominee. If the Democratic party is willing to gimp their own Presidential candidate in order to cover their asses, then they don't deserve my vote. Same thing for the Republicians.

Which leaves you with... who?

Yes, the major parties ARE willing to let their man twist in the wind. Sure, he might get the nomination and he might win, but that doesn't mean he won't be opposed by party leadership. That applies at all levels of politics

Ah, yes, that's why all those tax cuts he generated are permanent - oh, wait, no they're not. That's why the unemployment benefits extension he opposed failed - oh, wait, no it didn't. That's why social security has been privatized - oh, wait, no it hasn't. Gee, that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure if I bothered to dig I could come up with other things Bush wanted and didn't get. Or that the Republicans wanted, and didn't get (again, off the top of my head - a Federal Aviation Administration funded solely by user fees, nope, they still don't have that).

Does that mean the world is rosey? Of course not. Clearly the Republicans have the advantage here. But also clearly ya'll are practicing selective recall.

So because there exists a single bill that Bush wanted and didn't get passed, that means that his "take no prisoners attitude" is less effective than a "let's all be friends" attitude?

No, it means you can't fucking count you little idealistic troll - I named several instances where Bush did not get what he wanted, not just one. The privatization of social security was a MAJOR campaign issue for him in 1999 - perhaps you were still in diapers then and that's why you don't remember it. He's been beating the drum for permanent tax cuts 8 years and still hasn't gotten them. Those are not minor issues, those were major planks in his platform. Not to mention how much he'd like to ban abortion, and all those rebellious states legalizing gay marriage that are sticking in his craw.

No, even with the current domination of the Republications Bush is not getting all he wants. He is, in my opinion, getting entirely too much, but he is still not getting all.

No wait, you didn't make a comparison at all!! You pulled out some random examples and called it an argument.

Um... what the fuck did you want me to do? Not give any examples at all? Oh, yeah, that would support my position! You said the Republicans always get their way. I provided counterexamples. Yes, that's an "argument", or if you prefer, a "discussion".

I agree with Glocksman that this was at least in part (and perhaps largely) a move by the Democrat leaders to cover their asses. Well, the hell do you expect? Very few people will shoot themselves in the foot, and even fewer politicians The problem isn't so much this piece of legislation (though I'll grant it's problem enough) but rather the way the Dems rolled after 9/11/01 - a point in time when Bush hadn't been in office long enough for everyone to know what sort of tyrannical buffoon he really was.

[Glocksman]

Precisely - if he had opposed it the party big-wigs would have pulled the rug out from under him. And where would we be then?

Probably dead drunk on 01/20/09 while watching President McCain take his oath of office.
Am I in love with Barack Obama?
Hell no, but I am throughly convinced that a McCain presidency would be a total disaster for the nation.
That's why I support Obama despite my disagreements with him WRT gun control, the FISA bullshit, and illegal immigration.

In fact, I'm so convinced of it that I have actually donated money to Obama,
And despite my earlier pronouncements of never voting for HRC, in the cold light of day I probably would have in the end, simply to keep hothead McCain as far away from the White House as I could.

[Yogi]

You have a very naive view of how the government actually works. Yes, it does matter whether he believes in this, or whether he yielded to political pressure. IF he is PotUS then he is in a much stronger position to impose what he believes on the rest of us (though by no means absolute). If he believes in surveillance as a valid and constitutional tool then in office we will get more of it. If he did this due to party politics but believes the opposite then IF he is ever PotUS either it will be rolled back or lie unused. That, to my mind, is a rather important difference.

It has not been proven to my satisfaction either way as far as I'm concerned.

Really, so how do we tell what does he belive then. What it says on the website? Assume what a politician says is the truth? That he won't lie to get elected? Now who'se naive?

He's a politician. Words mean nothing. Only actions matter.

And yet you refuse to look at what the Republicans have NOT done, despite some of those goals being major from their viewpoint, or from significant sub-groups within the party.

But very well - you do not like either I take it. Please give me a viable alternative. It IS possible for a third party to arise and be successful in the US, even through rare and unlikely.

Viable alternative to compramise? Simple, no compramise. If Bush wants to fund Iraq, vote no. Bush wants to voilate the constitution? Vote no. Bush does blatantly illegal things? Investigate.

Please point to that candidate with "principles". I'm serious - who is this person? Who do YOU feel is the right person?

ME!!!

Just kidding. Seriously, the candidate I like the most is Mike Gravel. Of course his chances of winning at this point are rather slim.

The reality is that there is no place on the ballot for "None of the Above". Well, OK, the write-in candidate line, but as a practical matter your choice really is either Kang or Kodos. Thus, pick the lesser evil of the two.

And we wonder why voter turnout is as low as it is. At this point, the marginal benefit of Obama is looking pretty thin.

Which leaves you with... who?

Gravel 4-EVA!! That, or I might start doing research into the Libertarian and/or Green party candidates.

I wouldn't be doing this unless I think America is fucked whatever I do, and seeing how Obama has voted I beleive that America is fucked whatever we do.

No, it means you can't fucking count you little idealistic troll - I named several instances where Bush did not get what he wanted, not just one. The privatization of social security was a MAJOR campaign issue for him in 1999 - perhaps you were still in diapers then and that's why you don't remember it. He's been beating the drum for permanent tax cuts 8 years and still hasn't gotten them. Those are not minor issues, those were major planks in his platform. Not to mention how much he'd like to ban abortion, and all those rebellious states legalizing gay marriage that are sticking in his craw.

No, even with the current domination of the Republications Bush is not getting all he wants. He is, in my opinion, getting entirely too much, but he is still not getting all.

Um... what the fuck did you want me to do? Not give any examples at all? Oh, yeah, that would support my position! You said the Republicans always get their way. I provided counterexamples. Yes, that's an "argument", or if you prefer, a "discussion".

The underlined section was a lie, therefore you fail.

I agree with Glocksman that this was at least in part (and perhaps largely) a move by the Democrat leaders to cover their asses. Well, the hell do you expect? Very few people will shoot themselves in the foot, and even fewer politicians The problem isn't so much this piece of legislation (though I'll grant it's problem enough) but rather the way the Dems rolled after 9/11/01 - a point in time when Bush hadn't been in office long enough for everyone to know what sort of tyrannical buffoon he really was.

But Obama's diffrent, right?

[LMSx]

If there was no law violated then the telcos will easily win any civil suits.
So why do the telcos need immunity to begin with?
Unless of course the orders were unlawfully issued and they knew that and complied anyway.

Exactly.

What would you have wanted gunstore owners to have done during the North Hollywood shootout? Tell the police officers asking for firearms to please fill out the forms required to acquire new rifles and come back when the waiting period was over?

This wasn't an emergency. Any emergency situation requiring the law to be broken post 9/11 should have been temporary and ceased as of October 2001 when Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act, updating FISA. But again, the program as originally described was in operation from just after 9/11 to late 2004. The telecom companies stopped being innocent once they willfully complied for several years in a clearly illegal program that the Bush Administration passed on repeated chances to bring into legality.

We have a "rule of law" in this country, and I happen to think we should encourage obeying it.

[Master of Ossus]

Exactly.

What would you have wanted gunstore owners to have done during the North Hollywood shootout? Tell the police officers asking for firearms to please fill out the forms required to acquire new rifles and come back when the waiting period was over?

This wasn't an emergency. Any emergency situation requiring the law to be broken post 9/11 should have been temporary and ceased as of October 2001 when Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act, updating FISA. But again, the program as originally described was in operation from just after 9/11 to late 2004. The telecom companies stopped being innocent once they willfully complied for several years in a clearly illegal program that the Bush Administration passed on repeated chances to bring into legality.

So far as the telecos were concerned, it was an emergency. The Executive Branch has the authority to declare states of emergency, and had repeatedly told the telecos that this was a national emergency. Not even Congress has the authority to tell a governor or a sitting president whether or not something is an emergency. Moreover, are you seriously arguing that a police officer has the authority to declare a state of emergency? The Mayor of LA and the governor certainly never said any such thing during the shootout, nor did any condemnation or eminent domain actions commence to allow government officials to seize the requisite firearms.

We have a "rule of law" in this country, and I happen to think we should encourage obeying it.

I agree, which is why I made the analogy above.

[LMSx]

Exactly.

What would you have wanted gunstore owners to have done during the North Hollywood shootout? Tell the police officers asking for firearms to please fill out the forms required to acquire new rifles and come back when the waiting period was over?

This wasn't an emergency. Any emergency situation requiring the law to be broken post 9/11 should have been temporary and ceased as of October 2001 when Congress overwhelmingly passed the Patriot Act, updating FISA. But again, the program as originally described was in operation from just after 9/11 to late 2004. The telecom companies stopped being innocent once they willfully complied for several years in a clearly illegal program that the Bush Administration passed on repeated chances to bring into legality.

So far as the telecos were concerned, it was an emergency. The Executive Branch has the authority to declare states of emergency, and had repeatedly told the telecos that this was a national emergency. Not even Congress has the authority to tell a governor or a sitting president whether or not something is an emergency. Moreover, are you seriously arguing that a police officer has the authority to declare a state of emergency? The Mayor of LA and the governor certainly never said any such thing during the shootout, nor did any condemnation or eminent domain actions commence to allow government officials to seize the requisite firearms.

We have a "rule of law" in this country, and I happen to think we should encourage obeying it.

I agree, which is why I made the analogy above.

I'm not familiar with the North Hollywood shootout beyond Wikipedia so I might have tripped up interpreting the analogy, but I assumed the gist of your quote was that some technically illegal things (skipping the waiting period) might be acceptable during an emergency. I certainly wouldn't demand the policemen go through the waiting period during that incident if they needed heavier weaponry now.

You're suggesting that the President has the authority to declare an authoritarian state of emergency bypassing all laws for an indefinite amount of time? That's what "repeatedly told the telecos that this was a national emergency" suggests. In early 2004, it was still ok to explicitly break the law because of terror threats stemming from 9/11? Doesn't sound like the rule of law to me.

[Broomstick]

You have a very naive view of how the government actually works. Yes, it does matter whether he believes in this, or whether he yielded to political pressure. IF he is PotUS then he is in a much stronger position to impose what he believes on the rest of us (though by no means absolute). If he believes in surveillance as a valid and constitutional tool then in office we will get more of it. If he did this due to party politics but believes the opposite then IF he is ever PotUS either it will be rolled back or lie unused. That, to my mind, is a rather important difference.

It has not been proven to my satisfaction either way as far as I'm concerned.

Really, so how do we tell what does he belive then. What it says on the website? Assume what a politician says is the truth? That he won't lie to get elected? Now who'se naive?

Not me, sweet little pixie - I didn't read about Nixon and Watergate, I remember it as it unfolded. Despite that, I am intelligent enough to know that while politicians can and do lie not everything they say is a lie. Not every campaign promise is kept, not everyone SHOULD be kept.

Seriously, how old are you? Are you even old enough to vote? You have a child's outlook on truth and NO grasp of history or politics. I am not in love with Obama, but I tell you he is far from the worst of politicians. I do not believe there is better out there.

He's a politician. Words mean nothing. Only actions matter.

Motivations matter, too. Or else parents who get their kids vaccinated would be arrested for abusing their children by causing deliberate pain.

This may shock someone of your paltry life experience, but circumstances can and do change. Sometimes what made sense six months ago no longer does.

And yet you refuse to look at what the Republicans have NOT done, despite some of those goals being major from their viewpoint, or from significant sub-groups within the party.

But very well - you do not like either I take it. Please give me a viable alternative. It IS possible for a third party to arise and be successful in the US, even through rare and unlikely.

Viable alternative to compramise? Simple, no compramise. If Bush wants to fund Iraq, vote no. Bush wants to voilate the constitution? Vote no. Bush does blatantly illegal things? Investigate.

Again, you are against any and all compromise. Clearly, you have never been married or you would realize how untenable a position that is in life.

And your no voting will buy you... what?

Fine, vote no on Iraq funding - and you will everything you want vetoed. That accomplishes... what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except, as Commander in Chief the PotUS can order the troops into Iraq funding or no, and then you have to explain to your constituents why the military hasn't the money to provide proper body armor. Thus, not only have you not accomplished any of your agenda, your constituents now hate you because their children are coming home in flag-draped boxes.

Please point to that candidate with "principles". I'm serious - who is this person? Who do YOU feel is the right person?

ME!!!

Good lord - even the lowest level politician in this area could take his morning shit, turn around, and find chunks of people like you floating in the bowl.

Just kidding. Seriously, the candidate I like the most is Mike Gravel.

Who?

The reality is that there is no place on the ballot for "None of the Above". Well, OK, the write-in candidate line, but as a practical matter your choice really is either Kang or Kodos. Thus, pick the lesser evil of the two.

And we wonder why voter turnout is as low as it is. At this point, the marginal benefit of Obama is looking pretty thin.

This must be your first election cycle... child, voter turn out for the primaries was at record levels. The electorate is MUCH more energized than usual. Granted, that's still not much, but it again displays your appalling ignorance.

Which leaves you with... who?

Gravel 4-EVA!! That, or I might start doing research into the Libertarian and/or Green party candidates.

There should be no "might" about it. I see - you don't like the major party candidates, and yet you have not investigated any alternatives either. You are a whining brat.

I wouldn't be doing this unless I think America is fucked whatever I do, and seeing how Obama has voted I beleive that America is fucked whatever we do.

What boggles my mind is that you are so convinced that Obama is so horrific when we have others so very much worse than he is... yet you still are not certain where you stand on this. There is nothing wrong with disliking Obama, or any other candidate, but if your knee was jerking any harder there would be a dent in your forehead.

And, as bad off as our country is - and I have no doubt that this is the worst we've seen in my lifetime and my Depression-era parents have told me that it is starting to resemble the state they remember from childhood - we are still not as bad off as many in this world today, and far from the worst possible scenarios. Although I have occasionally made noises about fleeing to Canada I have not made any serious inquiries in that direction as I would much rather stay here and fix the problems than run away. You are, like many in the US, a spoiled brat with no historical perspective or ability to compare your current inconveniences with a true disaster.

Yes, the recent legislation was a slap at the 4th amendment but it was hardly the worst violation of the Bill of Rights to ever pass Clowngress, and while disturbing I feel the unlawful and indefinite detention of individuals without recourse to trial or even hearing, or even a notification to relatives that they are being held, is FAR more disturbing and dangerous than someone listening in on phone conversations. That is in no way approval of eavesdropping, just that, unlike you, I do not see the world in stark black and white but am capable of discerning shades of grey.

Um... what the fuck did you want me to do? Not give any examples at all? Oh, yeah, that would support my position! You said the Republicans always get their way. I provided counterexamples. Yes, that's an "argument", or if you prefer, a "discussion".

The underlined section was a lie, therefore you fail.

No, asshat, you said:

Look at George W. Bush! He doesn't compromise and he is certainly a fool. He also gets his stuff passed by the Democrats in Congress who "compromise" on the issues.

Bush does not get everything he wants, therefore YOU fail, you skanky cunt.

And yes, Bush DOES compromise - though you'll never hear the words from his lips. A case in point is the extension of unemployment benefits to which he was adamantly opposed. He yielded on that because the Democrats got it attached to the funding for his precious little killing-fest in Iraq. That's a compromise you donkey-felcher.

Again, you fail. Tell me, do you even pay attention to the news? There are people on this board who have never been in the United States who appear to be better informed and have a better grasp of US politics than you do. How pathetic.

But Obama's diffrent, right?

Speaking as someone who actually knew who the fuck he was BEFORE he started running for national office... I don't know. And you don't know either. No one does. He certainly is part of the Democratic machine in these parts, but if he wasn't he wouldn't be in office. Yes, he was influenced by Daley - but then so was Illinois' governor Blagoevich who is now waging epic battles with the Mayor of Chicago and the state political machinery despite predictions he'd be just another Chicago pol. He doesn't toe the party line completely, which in my mind is a point in his favor, but neither is he contrary just for the sake of being a dickhead. He is NOT a favorite of the black politicians in this area - I don't believe Jesse Jackson was anything but sincere in his recent comment - so that's one established group he's already bucking. But I don't except you to grasp the nuances of Chicago or Illinois politics, the amount of research required would keep you up past your bedtime and make your mommy sad.

[LMSx]

It struck me that I should make clear that in my first response to your North Hollywood analogy, I used emergency in the colloquial sense of "urgent", not in any official governmental usage. I wonder if we're talking about two different uses of the word.

But my cogent point is this: Bush said on October 26, 2001 after signing the Patriot Act:

This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.

Bush said this at the same time he was violating the very law he just signed. At that moment, Bush acknowledged he had everything needed to monitor terrorists, yet he and the telecoms still decided to break the law and continued to do so for years. Ergo, they should be prosecuted as felons.