I Never Said He Was Liberal Jesus

-->
Bush Administration, Civil Rights, Congress

I have a big day going on and will link to McJoan and Greg Sargent for commentary on Obama and the FISA bill rather than write commentary myself. We’re all disappointed.

Republicans, of course, have an entirely different view on FISA, because they want an America in which security is paramount. I bet I know where they’ve been looking for inspiration.

Share
14 Comments

14 Comments

  1. Orin T.  •  Jun 21, 2008 @2:22 pm

    Given his first chance to begin limiting the power of the Presidency Obama reacted like any traditional politician. His action showed an unwillingness to give up any of the levers of Presidental power. Instead he says “trust me” I will not abuse the powers that have accumulated in the White House. This is troublesome. But he is still better then McCain.

  2. felicity  •  Jun 21, 2008 @2:58 pm

    What’s the difference between granting amnesty and granting retroactive immunity from prosecution? Anybody know? It’s particularly galling that there are about 40 cases pending before the court which will automatically be thrown out with that amnesty provision. Since Justice isn’t screaming bloody murder, can we assume that it’s fully politicized like we’ve all suspected for years

  3. joel hanes  •  Jun 21, 2008 @7:10 pm

    The surveillance state is not actually making us more safe.
    It’s not actually even about making us more safe.
    It serves a different purpose..

  4. Donna  •  Jun 21, 2008 @8:49 pm

    To even begin to understand this situation, it would be good to realize that those forty pending cases and any other investigations would probably uncover Democratic leadership collusion in allowing the spying on Americans from the very beginning. That is the only thing that makes sense to me……and I suspect that Obama also realizes this probability.

  5. maha  •  Jun 21, 2008 @11:04 pm

    joel — yes, I know.

  6. Swami  •  Jun 21, 2008 @11:19 pm

    felicity…I would assume that the difference is in the ability to find out the extent of the ease dropping. An amnesty might allow for an investigation even if goes nowhere, but the retroactive immunity provision puts the kabash on ever finding out how extensive the domestic spying was/is.

    I’m sure that part of the domestic spying program included massive data mining operations..What’s to become of all the information that was illegally obtained and stored that has no relevance to terrorist activities? Seems the government is in the habit of granting immunity without knowing the extent of the transgression…we’ve been here before,no?

    Something stinks in Denmark!.. and Obama lost a little of his luster.

  7. Shelly T  •  Jun 22, 2008 @4:30 am

    the only thing that makes sense is that people stop voting for Democrats every election and expecting a different result. Given what we now know about Obama, why would any liberal or Democrat or defender of the Constitution support him? He’s not just going to let this pass, he’s going to support it. That’s anti-constitutional. I don’t care how strategically smart it is, it’s a betrayal of the American people. How can anyone support this? I’m tired of the excuses for Obama every time he surprises us with another Republican-sounding idea. He already freaked me out with that AIPAC speech.

  8. maha  •  Jun 22, 2008 @6:10 am

    Shelly T — Show me your alternatives.

    I keep giving this speech, but here’s the short version — it’s going to take several elections. We’re only at the beginning of a long-term process.

  9. Bonnie  •  Jun 22, 2008 @7:46 am

    Obama needs to find out the extent of the surveillance because, like MLK, Obama has probably been a target. John Kerry was most likely a target in 2004. I agree with Maha, though, in that there are few alternatives. Our best chance for putting the Constitution back together lies with Obama NOT McCain.

  10. D.R. Marvel  •  Jun 22, 2008 @11:48 am

    Obama is gonna sell you out just as quick as Clinton would have done…

    As Ari Fleischer put it, so long ago: “Better watch what you say”…(Even to each other)

  11. joel hanes  •  Jun 22, 2008 @12:24 pm

    I think Obama already knows enough about the extent of the surveillance: he knows that Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel and Harry Reid are mortally frightened that the telecom cases will go to discovery, frightened enough to pull this piss-off-the-activists move right before a general election. They would not be doing this at this time unless their own asses were on the line.
    So whether he has been explicitly told or not, Obama knows that there is something in that information (which we will now never see) that threatens the political careers of the Dem. party leadership. It might be documents showing that they were themselves complicit in the illegal tapping program. It might be documents produced by the taps and in Rove’s posession that would destroy their political careers in other ways.

  12. felicity  •  Jun 22, 2008 @2:43 pm

    Yep, at this time there are no alternatives except one which I envision when I’m-out-of-my-mind-crazy with anger. Come election day in Nov. NOBODY show up to vote. I bet if we had a none-of-the-above on our ballets, it would get the ‘most votes’ -which may be why there isn’t one. I mean, how dramatic would that be, empty polling places. I can see the headlines around the world now…

  13. erinyes  •  Jun 22, 2008 @5:05 pm

    “He already freaked me out with that AIPAC speech”
    In my HO, he changed his name to “Ben Dover”, but all must appease the AIPAC in order to stay in politics, ask Speaker Pelosi.
    Two per cent of the population, and they’re the gate keepers.
    Go figure.I suppose this makes me an anti-semite?, gag.
    “It puts the lotion on the skin, or else it gets the hose again”

  14. Swami  •  Jun 22, 2008 @10:59 pm

    I guess it’s what you think you gotta do to get elected. I wasn’t too happy with Obama’s sucking up to AIPAC either, and was very disappointed with his Joshua Project.. Keep organized religion out of politics! Seems to me he’s courting a conflict in his message that translates into a conflict of his perceived sincerity. we’ll see…even if he turns out to be a smooth talking fraud, and a dud, he’s still better than the alternative.



    About this blog



    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me


















    Support This Site







    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile