Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Pandering Child Trauma Ignoramus 1 and Pandering Child Trauma Ignoramus 2.
Which one is the Democrat? Oh darn, I forgot. Just pick one.
Glenn, you are amazing. Time and again you employ the force of logic and facts to get down to the bone of this absurd FISA issue. We can only hope the delay on the bill will give us enough time for those trembling, weak-kneed Democrats to find the courage to kill it. And I wonder what Olbermann will have to say tomorrow. I can hardly wait.
This would be a perfect opportunity for Obama to show leadership, commitment to principles, and toughness.
Instead it's, well, looking like the opposite of that.
Back when Congress was debating "defunding" the war, Obama claimed his constituents wouldn't understand that this didn't mean defunding troops on the ground, i.e., leaving them without equipment or weapons. In other words, he voted the way he did because he couldn't explain his position to his constituents. At this point in the campaign I decided I couldn't vote for him in the primary.
Remember John Kerry at The Citadel? He spoken eloquently and wisely to really green young soldiers about the need to let the inspectors do their job in Iraq, etc. I was quite moved watching this.
A couple of days later he voted for the IWR. Why? My guess is some Shrum-like weasel (if not Shrum himself) told Kerry that he'd look weak on terror if he voted against it. The beginning of the end, as it turns out.
If Obama is to lead a movement, that means he has to LEAD. Leaders don't rely on secret loopholes. They don't use votes as opportunities to polish their credentials to people who won't vote for them anyway. They use them as opportunities to stand up for what they believe in. Obama could be using this opportunity to say, loud and clear, "Oh, no, the president doesn't get to tell anyone to violate our constitutional protections and then give them cover!"
Instead he says, loud and clear "As president I will listen to shrum-like weasels in a vain attempt to win a few extra votes instead of standing up for your Constitutional rights!"
This is a Constitutional scholar and professor. If he can't explain to the "center" (a misnomer, as you point out) why this bill is (a) unnecessary, because FISA is alive and well and doesn't need saving, just enforcement, and (b) a travesty, because it basically says "If the president tells you to do it, it's not illegal", to re-word Nixon a bit - no one can.
It's Obama's job to LEAD and I believe he'll be a great president. But I wholeheartedly agree that every time a democrat makes clear he's afraid he can't sell his positions to us, he signals he won't stand up for us. It's sad.
From two years ago: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6658
I want to point out that Barack Obama told me that progressive activists should judge him explicitly by what he does - and not come up with wild theories that absolve him. Here's the money quote from my article on him in The Nation two years ago:"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in," Obama said.So by Obama's own admission, when he casts, say, an anti-progressive vote on civil liberties, we shouldn't whip up wild fantasies about him supposedly doing it because he actually is progressive on civil liberties. We should believe that he is, in fact, anti-progressive on civil liberties. That is, we should judge him on his actions.
is also part of Obama's secret plan, and we just don't know it yet.
On a more serious note, it's not just outdated and outmoded DC circles who think this is a winning strategy. There are a large number of posters on lefty blogs who also seem to have internalized that idea.
It seems like a lot of Democrats have battered wife syndrome. They don't believe standing up for oneself can possibly work.
is that Obama is "just another politician who, while a very talented politician, simply uses his words to influence people with nothing to back those words up".
By adopting his new FISA & "national security" stands, he is demonstrating that characterization to be nothing but 100% true. Just look at the worst-of-the-worst, Charles Krauthammer's opening salvo in the WaPo Friday:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603653.html
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 27, 2008; Page A17
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
-- Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007
That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-Sept. 11 eavesdropping.
...
The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. "He does what politicians do," explained Jeremiah Wright.
When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.
I mean, as hard as it is to even read Krauthammer, I ummm, actually agree with this. To reiterate, this type of political maneuvering will never gain you the votes of people it is intended to reach. Charles Krauthammer or anyone who reads him and takes him seriously will never vote for Obama. But it certainly will reinforce their narrative and characterization.
These kinds of policy changes are always attributed to some kind of political strategy designed to woo voters. Isn't it really that Obama is now getting all the corporate money the "triangulating" Clinton was getting? Especially given the fact that Obama's two flipflops happened virtually simultaneously: opting out of public financing, support of the FISA bill. It will actually be surprising if he doesn't soon spin some rationale for not "rushing" the troops out of Iraq too quickly or too soon. I'm starting to see this as another one of those media blind spots. Everything is always framed in terms of how things will sit with voters, or which demographic the candidate is trying to appeal to, when all along it's really the bankroll all these politicians are performing for.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
