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

[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.