Senator Obama ENDORSES the FISA bill. Yes, ENDORSES.

[solarbird]

Senator Obama has issued a statement endorsing the FISA capitulation (a term I use reservedly), using the same language as the rest of the Democratic Party leadership. Reported by Glenn Greenwald here, the full-text link is to Mr. Greenwald's documents-archive blog.

ETA: Democratic Senator Majority Leader Reid says he'll try to get a vote on it. We've been here already; this will fail, and it will fail because Senator Reid and the Democratic leadership wants it to fail, and the entire farce is pure theatre to give Senator Obama cover for his "yes" vote. Even Bloomberg calls this an attempt to "provide political cover for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama."

This is your Democratic Party at work, people. This is happening because it's what they want to do. Figure that out.

Comments

[darkphoenixrisn.livejournal.com]

I'm not at all surprised.

[solarbird]

I'm not either. Well, maybe a little, I figured he'd duck again instead. But mostly, I'm just angry.

[darkphoenixrisn.livejournal.com]

It's like I keep saying, both parties ultimately serve the same interests, and Obama, while a sincere reformer on some issues, isn't someone who will challenge those interests.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

It's moments like this when my misgivings about Obama feel entirely justified. :(

[solarbird]

Yeah, I think it's less "feel" and more "are."

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Unfortunately, I suspect that we're probably going to see more votes like this in the future, since I think it's inevitable that he will attempt to be reclassified as a moderate. His current idealistic campaign certainly won't fly with most moderate Republican voters, so he's going to have to prove he can be a pragmatist if he wants their support. (Not that this particular statement would make him any sort of pragmatist, per se. But it does send that demographic the message they've probably been looking for from him.)

[solarbird]

I reject the use of the term "moderate" here, as a side note. I guess. Or maybe it's the entire point.

I don't even recognise this country anymore.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Well, moderate in relation to the rest of the Republican party, assuming the mostly-silent majority are moderates. Of course, the far right has polarized the party pretty drastically at this point.

I don't even recognise this country anymore.

Perhaps the country has collectively drunk the fearmongering Kool-Aid. But while I'm disappointed in our politicians, I also realize that they only ever care about covering their own behinds. So, I'm honestly not overly disillusioned by their spinelessness. As for Americans, there's always been a significant segment of our population who regressively yearn for "good old days" that never actually existed outside a fictious Garrison Keillor radio show. They are religious, racist, misogynist and intolerant as the day is long. And they've always been an outspoken voting bloc.

[solarbird]

It's not spineless to vote for the things you actually support. I do not think they actually oppose this. I think they are for it. I think they use rhetoric counter to that point to string followers along.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Of course, it's perfectly possible that you're correct.

Worth noting that this would mean most of them are going against the desires of their constituents. (Not that doing so has ever stopped them before.) A majority of Americans has consistently said in polls that they oppose warrantless eavesdropping, often by a more than 10% margin. Pluralities in 37 out of 50 states say they think Bush broke the law.

[solarbird]

Of course, it's perfectly possible that you're correct.
What other explanation fits the history on the ground? Assume they aren't particularly stupid and/or particularly untalented, or, at least, are no worse in these regards than the GOP. Given that, what other explanations fit at least as well?

Worth noting that this would mean most of them are going against the desires of their constituents. (Not that doing so has ever stopped them before.) A majority of Americans has consistently said in polls that they oppose warrantless eavesdropping, often by a more than 10% margin. Pluralities in 37 out of 50 states say they think Bush broke the law.
Irrelevant, as we both well know. Clear majorities support impeachment of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, and that's not happening either.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

I think that fear is their primary motivator, and their biggest problem. The Democrats have consistently lost elections that they should have won by wide margins, including the '04 general election. They have found it impossible to effectively counter b-s attacks by pundits and 527's that never should have been a threat. With few exceptions, they've collectively shied away from deflecting ridiculous, easily-countered accusations and rhetoric. It's as if they've suddenly become the glass-jawed party of American politics.

I think they were demoralized by the Clinton impeachment, further shocked by Gore's loss in 2000 and at a complete loss on how to take a stand after 9/11. And I can't figure out if they've all lost their shiny idealism at the threats, tactics and manipulations of operatives Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich or if they are simply so afraid of losing again that they can't manage to muster an adequate defense against the dreaded "liberal" moniker.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I do think it perfectly possible that you're right. I'm just more cynical.

[solarbird]

I wasn't being sarcastic. I do think it perfectly possible that you're right. I'm just more cynical.
I didn't think you were; I wasn't either. I just mostly think that it implies too much stupidity and/or lack of political talent and/or savvy on their part.

But maybe they really are just a party of monumental incompetence.

[solarbird]

I mean I see things like Senator Obama's endorsement of one of the biggest pro-war authoritarian Democrats over a primary challenger, and I really gotta think that this is on purpose.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen that.

I wonder just how much he has to toe the party line. I mean, he's still a relatively new Senator without a ton of political experience or clout -- the nomination notwithstanding. Is it difficult for him to obtain support from his fellow Dems without making compromises?

[solarbird]

Is it difficult for him to obtain support from his fellow Dems without making compromises?
I dunno. I really just don't. I spent the morning wasting money and time sending faxes to Senators and hoping for a miracle I know I'm not going to get.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

I know that a majority think Bush misled us into the war. But does a majority truly support impeachment of Bush? Cheney wouldn't surprise me.

I ask because I honestly don't know, and 'm not at a computer tonight -- just my phone.

[solarbird]

I've seen polling to that effect within the year. That polling could be wrong.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Maybe not. I suspect that it depends on the group of people being polled and what's in the current news cycle.

I found a formal poll from 2006 (http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2) that supported this, and one (http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm) from this time last year that didn't.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

I can't link to it using my phone, but Wikipedia's "movement to impeach George W. Bush" page says polls in 2007 were 39-45% in favor with 46-55% opposed. No idea what poll sources they used, but a *huge* number of people want him out, obviously. But not a clear majority. This could have changed in the last 6 months?

[solarbird]

Okay. Right now I'm too tired to know, I could be full of it. Sadly, I am not also drunk.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

Well, I hope you got a drink, at least.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I am a moderate. What Obama did is in no way moderation.

It may be capitulation. It may be an attempt to cash in. I don't know. It just doesn't make sense to me. But nothing about this situation makes sense to me.

[zarq.livejournal.com]

I used the term to refer to the vote as a move away from the left and towards the right.

What he's done is take a position on a national security issue that will play well with the segment of the right-wing authoritarian crowd while it throws his core supporters under the bus. I suspect he's done so in the hopes that such a stand might mitigate some of his other positions in the eyes of authoritarian followers, such as the Iraq War and being pro-choice.

[cafiorello.livejournal.com]

FSCK!

Cathy

[solarbird]

Even Bloomberg News calls the "immunity removal" attempt political cover for Obama's yes vote. This has all been worked out and it's just theatre at this point.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

This might have just cost him the election. Just yesterday, he opted out of public financing of his campaign in favor of unlimited donations, many of them from online fundraising. The online donors tend to be from the liberal, activist demographic within the party--and that demographic strongly opposes FISA and telecom immunity. Sure, most of them (including me) will still vote for him, but without the money to compete Obama's unlikely to win as many votes in swing states. That transforms him from someone who was threatening a landslide to the next iteration of Mondale/Gore/Kerry. McCain's the next iteration of Bob Dole, so Obama might win anyway, but it's still a stupid fucking move, even aside from the merits of the issue on its own.

I notice that Obama does say he'll try to strip the immunity provision, but that seems like a big plate of bullshit.

[solarbird]

This might have just cost him the election.
I was, past tense, willing to consider supporting his campaign. But I will not be forced to choose one of two candidates of lawlessness. It has cost him at least that little. I'm sure he has anticipated that reaction and made his decision accordingly.

I notice that Obama does say he'll try to strip the immunity provision, but that seems like a big plate of bullshit.
It most certainly is; few if any people are pretending otherwise.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of the progressive wing of the party and now he's triangulating in an attempt to grab up the conservative white Democrats Clinton got in the primary. Expect more disappointments to come.

But I really don't think it's going to cost him the election.

[solarbird]

The few people who will hear about this may find it rather shattering of his image. But that will be few enough, and I could be wrong about the result. It is, though, very much a return to politics as usual.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I think he needed the progressives early on, but now that he's the Democratic candidate the usual suspects will line up behind him. He's going to get plenty of money from businesses, unions, and everyone else that wants to be in good with the candidate that's probably going to be in power next January.

I think it was obvious that Obama wasn't going to be as good and pure as a lot of people believed, people like that don't go into politics. I'm sure he's doing to disappoint us a lot during the next few years. But I also think he's going to be a huge improvement over recent presidents, probably including Clinton.

[solarbird]

I think he needed the progressives early on
I find it so deeply appalling that Constitutionality and rule of law is a fringe issue that I have no words. Centuries of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition flushed down the toilet.

I think it was obvious that Obama wasn't going to be as good and pure as a lot of people believed
I did not buy in. But I was hoping to be wrong about that.

But I also think he's going to be a huge improvement over recent presidents, probably including Clinton.
He'd better be better than President Clinton, for one because I can't take any more knifings, and for two because at this point all the tools are in place for a despot and all that's left to make worse is the actual execution of those power domestically. We're down to "rule of men" in place of "rule of law," and at that point, all bets are off.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Watch and see how many progressives/Democrats stop complaining about wiretapping and other nastiness once Obama gets into office. Just like we've hardly heard a peep about Obama and public financing.

Sometimes I think there are only about 200 people in the country that are willing to judge an action based on its merits and not which politician/political party happens to be doing it.

[solarbird]

Watch and see how many progressives/Democrats stop complaining about wiretapping and other nastiness once Obama gets into office. Just like we've hardly heard a peep about Obama and public financing.
I've fought many, many wars about that. And gotten nowhere, as far as I can tell.

Sometimes I think there are only about 200 people in the country that are willing to judge an action based on its merits and not which politician/political party happens to be doing it.
This is what I'm talking about when I talk about tribal politics.

(frozen)

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

Question. In the US you can't make something illegal after the fact (yeah, I know, it's another thing often ignored). Can you - under the letter of the law - make something currently illegal legal after the fact by passing a law?

(frozen)

[solarbird]

ex post facto law has traditionally been taken to refer to additions of penalties, rather than relief from the same, so I don't think the act is unconstitutional. It's merely unconscionable.

(frozen)

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

There is nobody for us.

(frozen)

[solarbird]

Oh, there's never been anyone for me in politics, and I'm well used to the betrayals. I've got enough knives in my back to set a fucking state dinner. I'm just a little less alone in that now.

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

So it's a choice between Obama, who it turns out is actually Bill Clinton.

And a semi-senile death addict with no other positions aside from creating more death.

Well, I guess the upside is that I'll study more on my Spanish classes. Spain has, like, a democracy. Argentina too--there's even special parts of Buenos Ares set aside for protests.

Which, of course, accomplish little, but at least I won't have a NYC cop beating my head in for not falling in line.

[solarbird]

I think Senator Obama has made a mistake, tipping his hand this early. That'll give the semi-senile death addict a little bit of an opening, horrifically.

Good luck with the Spanish classes.

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

Spanish is both easy and hard.

Interestingly, it's helping with my English and writing in some arcane way.

[solarbird]

Studying Latin and knowing English let me read French magazines. That was funny.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of liberals in the US have a really skewed view of European freedoms, focusing on style over substance. For example, in many European countries the governments still have much greater control over the media than anything you'll see in the US.

The Spanish government has closed newspapers that it believes had ties to ETA. You can be put in prison for slandering the royal family (some cartoonists last year were fined). They've also cracked down on journalists reporting on environmental affairs in a way that embarrassed the government.

and so on...

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

Well, obviously, in Italy you're 100% Berlusconi-fucked.

But the soft censorship here has the same results--see Murdock's gutting of the WSJ.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm not arguing that the US is better, I'm simply arguing that Europe isn't nearly as good as a lot of people think. For that matter, many Europeans criticize the US for things their own governments commonly do. Case in point are warrantless wiretaps, which are widespread in Europe.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/

[emrecom.livejournal.com]

heh--new USA slogan "Welcome to America! Not as bad as some places!"

A friend moved t the Netherlands. I asked how it was. "Some things are worse, some things are better."

Good summation.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Heh, sorry, hadn't seen this post yet when I wondered why you hadn't commented on this in your *other* posts; I read my f-list backwards while doing other things sometimes and don't always get to everything in a timely fashion.

[solarbird]

np. I posted a lot yesterday.

I should say

[(Anonymous)]

I agreed with you