I can't vote for McCain, but I don't have to pay for Obama's campaign until this plays-out, either.

Just in case f's4mccain shows up, and continues to be too illiterate or too lazy to do some research I've done it for him or her.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/09/cnn_abc/

I fear political tribalism will win, though. Tribalism results in a naive, blinded view of issues like this one: It's horrendous if the other guy guts the Constitution, but okay if our guy does, because our guy is good. (And anybody who resists our guy is a bad enemy and just doesn't know anything.)

If it wasn't so shortsighted and dangerous, it could be seen as a cute, childlike faith in and loyalty to one's own adopted parents.

But it is shortsighted and dangerous.

I can not support this action, or inaction by Barack Obama on a bill that approves previous lawlessness by the telecoms and George Bush and his administration. Indeed, the House and the Senate have or will vote for a bill of lawlessness. That is in itself indefensible.

I wrote his spokesman and his other campaign contacts to tell them I would not support their campaign monetarily and longer. Pathetic! To quote his fellow Senator (no doubt another vanguard of Constitutionality) "Shame on you Barack Obama"!

I just wrote a letter to Senator Obama to tell him that he has lost my vote in November due to his support of the FISA bill. I have been a campaign contributor, as well as active supporter of his policies. I told numerous people that he would never vote for the FISA bill and telecommunications immunity, just like he didn't vote for the Iraq war.

I was wrong.

...we live in a country whose government is thoroughly and utterly corrupt. What remains is only the illusion of democracy -- the idea that we have a choice -- when in fact, whether Republican or Democrat sits in high office, the MIC pulls all the strings.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"I was told flat out by my (extremely blue, extremely against immunity) congressman’s staff that this was exactly why it was happening, and (again, just flat out told) it was (rough quote) “because the leadership thinks you, and people like you, learned a lesson from voting for Nader.” This is one of the congressmen on our side; one of the 30 who joined the Republicans to throw a wrench into the leadership’s PAA extension last year.

So, as I asked at Digby’s–Is this going to keep happening? Every time between now and November that the Republicans say “Boo”, will this be the response? Are we going to see the Blue Dogs pushing the Democratic leadership into capitulation on an Iran War Resolution?

How long does Obama plan to wait before fighting this dynamic? Or will we be treated to a firm pledge to conduct the Iran War with due oversight?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/20/obama-replied/#comment-79524

It's that nowhere else to go feeling that has me so frustrated. They are correct. I do not want to see a repeat of the 2000 election. They know it. And, they know, I know it. Checkmate."

Pardon me, I don't know why I thought of it, but does anyone remember the MASH episode where the wounded soldier insists he wants to commit suicide and Colonel Potter says basically 'alright kid, you want to do this, let's do it right' and holds the anesthesia mask to his face - of course the kid realizes he doesn't really want to die. Not a very good analogy, I realize, but...

I feel like the Dumbocrats are daring me to vote for Nader knowing it would just help McCain.

All right, Dumbocrats, if we're going to head towards the cliff anyway, let's speed up and see what happens, shall we? If we're going over anyway, let's have a real stuntman do the driving instead of a President Milktoast; who wants to bounce off every boulder all the way down into the canyon anyway? Let's just get the crash over with and see if there's anything left to salvage. You all can go ahead and blame folks like me if you want; all I'm saying is pick one pedal or the other because coasting is not an acceptable choice.

Is this right or wrong. If right doesn't it also infer that any company, not just the telecoms, can get immunity from law breaking if they can claim a)the president told them to do it, and b)it was to protect us from the terrorists.

Now that the president can order you to break the law can he not do it through those who work for him? If a FBI agent tells you to break the law can he not then get the president to ok his actions.

Why then is this government still being called a democracy when it appears we are living under presidential decree where the law is subject to his will and not the constitution which has become merely a guideline...a suggestion of rules to be guided by.

John Dean suggested to Keith Olbermann that there are loopholes in this bill which will allow Obama (as president) to pick the lawsuits back up against the telecoms. Is this likely.

Why do you think Obama put such a deceitful spin on this compromise in exactly the same manner that Pelosi did on the House floor suggesting it was such a big improvement on the PAA passed last Aug.? I wish you would have pointed out Obama's deceitfulness so it would be clear to us supporters.

Once again..excellent post Glenn. I'm so grateful for your insight. Thanks

.. Dems and Repubs alike. Vote independent, Green, whatever. Give McBamaBush a Congress that will make his life hell if this kind of crap continues.

-- Somtimes the best thing to do is just stir things and see what happens. Then take advantage. - Stan Goff, "Full Spectrum Disorder"