Glenn Greenwald vs Keith Olbermann on Obama and FISA
By John Amato Saturday Jun 28, 2008 4:30pmGlenn Greenwald writes a post called : Keith Olbermann: Then and now.
Olbermann responds to Glenn here. 'Well, You Stumped Me'
Markos joins in Countdown:
MOULITSAS: Well, if that's the strategy, he has said nothing to indicate that and this is not the sort of thing that I think you have to keep quiet and secretive. I mean, if that's his strategy, he can say, "This is a bill that's flawed," but, really at the end of the day he has a chance to stand for the Constitution and to show that he will protect it against forces that seek to undermine it and he will show that he has, like I said before, that he is a leader and will take the mantle of leadership on this issue and take control of the Democratic Party.
Glenn then continues:
Markos -- who observed: "I don't think he's going to lose any support, I mean, let's be honest. I mean, it's either Obama or John McCain" -- nonetheless added:
I think what's at stake, though, is a lot of the intensity of support for Barack Obama. And he spent the last two years telling us how he's going to be the leader of the free world, not to mention the Democratic Party and this nation . . . . I don't want to hear him talk about leadership. I don't want to hear him talk about defending the Constitution; I want to see him do it.
That is precisely the point, and of course those who believe in defending core constitutional liberties shouldn't remain quiet when any politician -- including Obama -- takes actions to erode them
John Dean clarifies a statement he made on KO's show here....
I gotta go with Glenn on this one...And Jane follows up with this:
It's also interesting to note that the tools created to help organize Obama supporters against his opponents are now being used to organize themselves to communicate with him. There's a new group on "MyBarackObama.com" called "Senator Obama -- Please Vote Against FISA." Stop by and tell the Senator that you'll be voting for him in November and hoping that in the meantime, he does the right thing.
Login or Register to post comments.
.
Glenn Greenwald = Constitutional Scholar
Keith Olberman = Not so much
Need I say more?
.
Obama has exactly one vote in the Senate, and he is not responsible for FISA, it's a constructed argument, and I am highly suspicious of the right wing when it comes to dissing the Dem candidate.
Ruth @ 2:
confused: are you saying that greenwald is of the rightwing?
I love Keith, but he aint no Glenn Greenwald! Keith is about the only newsman that even gives Democrats credit for anything, and he is our #1 on T.V. But you want to know constitutional law or what Bushspeak means in real English, Glenn is the man on our side of the Constitution.
My real disappointment about this flap is that Keith had no idea of who Glenn was; I really thought his daily reading would have included Glenn!
I have a favor to ask. I was banned by the moderator at Jane Hamshers place when I would not back down on an Aipac issue. This was last year (no offensive language just challenging the blog clogs on this issue at Jane Hamshers house) Emptywheel did not ban me.
Anyway Congressman Wexler is over there and I hope someone ask him why he is a co-sponsor to H Con Resolution 362. The new warmongering legislation that Aipac pushed hard for after their last conference in D.C.
Someone needs to ask him why he signed onto this legislation?
Here is the link
http://firedoglake.com/
I now plan on voting for Socialist (Life of) Bryan (Dennis) Moore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tr_jjs2LKQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH5OnkzI6fo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnf2aRCYRSI&feature=related
It's pretty bad when you have to remember a couple of Monty Python bits to remember the name.
obama is the democrat and I can't blame him whatsoever, yet. dems need to keep pushing, but leave the Obama attack to the right. there's plenty they've done and continue to do. so I'm not going to attack KO or Obama. If this were just criticism, then well..... But if we're on the same side, there's a better way than this.
I agree that some will feel apathetic for the Barak Obama campaign now and quite a few democrats. If I continue to support candidates with donations then I want some reassurances ........ the ActBlue etc. seems a safer way to go but nothing is guaranteed.
Ruth @ 2:
Ruth, as the presumptive head of the Democratic party, Obama could have gone to the House leadership and say that he did not want this to come to a vote now. Likewise, he could signal to the Senate that he does not favor immunity and/or the filibuster and the Democrats would have to more or less get behind his stances.
That's why we're looking for Obama to show some leadership here.
I spoke with my Congressman face to face last night about this bill and he told me that this FISA bill does not protect anyone in this adminstration from criminal charges. That's what he told me.
Here is the warmongering H con Resolution 362
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.CON.RES.362:
Here is the co sponsors list Congressman Wexler is on the list
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HC00362:@@@P
here is some coverage of the legislation over at Professor Juan Coles
http://www.juancole.com/
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Paul: Iran and Energy Crisis
Sunday afternoon viewing:
Ron Paul on Iran and the energy crisis. He argues that speculation about a US or Israeli strike on Iran is driving some of the increase in oil prices.
The OPEC president should know a thing or two about what drives oil prices and he agrees.
THIS IS A GREAT CLIP OF RON PAUL ADDRESSING H CON RESOLUTION 362
Samson- @ 3:
what IS greenwald's history? Is he one of those former raygun republicans like Kos? Why is it necessary for KO to do what Greenwald wants?
Cats r Flyfishn @ 10:
I bet he lied.
kathleen @ 5:
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 13:
I don't think he lied to me. We have had several conversations face to face and he had been right upfront with me and others even when asked uncomfortable questions. I'm not talking about a stump speech. I'm talking about sitting around and having beers and talking issues in a relaxed environment. I've worked closely with many politicians and I can tell the difference between their "stump" response and their more personal response.
Nope, that is the argument that is being used by Dems who are for this bill. Dean said something about this on Countdown and people are hanging their hats on this. Now Dean has clarified his remarks to say something like he hasn't finished reading it.
The POINT is: if telecoms get a free pass from civil lawsuits through the bill and bush pardons them before he leaves office, they get off scott free. I don't see anything wrong with letting the telecoms prove in court that they did nothing wrong. Why is this even an issue?
Ruth @ 2:
I have heard Barack Obama speak. He is a persuasive orator and if he stood up for the Constitution he could speak not only in the Senate. He could speak to people across the country about why this bill should not pass. He could speak at Georgetown University Law School. He could speak at a July 4th celebration (hmmm, might find a connection there, somewhere). He could launch a campaign so eloquent and so important and necessary about where this country is going that it would no longer be one vote in the Senate because people across the country would be galvanized to pressure their Senators to vote against this heinous bill.
Instead, Barack Obama, the man i will vote for in Novemeber; no longer as my hope for the future, but the lesser of two evils has decided to shirk his responsibility.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 15:
is he a politician, a lawyer?
kathleen @ 5:
Interesting. I just had an FDL mod remove about half of a comment of mine earlier in the week (eviscerating the point I was making), and then did not respond when I griped about it.
I've not been back.
trevjr @ 16:
because something is needed to divide progressives on the way to the election.
Nicole, yes, Obama could have called in a favor in advance on FISA, but no way would he have the votes. And a single Senator can put a hold on a vote, but that is a really bad tactic when that has been time and again by the occupied WH and minions. I particularly hate the hold on release of presidential papers.
Samson, that was a tad unclear, and no, rightwing doesn't describe either of the two combatants here, but I am highly suspicious when escalation occurs, and it's a Dem candidate, that the right wing is doing everything they can to make it vicious and destructive.
Over at Firedoglake congressman Wexler is ignoring the findings of the latest National INtelligence Estimate on Iran. He voted for the H Con Resoltution 362
Cats r Flyfishn @ 15:
He is correct. FISA protects the telecom industry from criminal charges for colluding with the administration to provide illegal wiretaps and other surveillance without warrants. The officials who ordered said illegal wiretaps could still be prosecuted... but we all know the history on that one.
To me Obama has made three bad choices lately - all three scare me. On FISA, on the Supreme Court ruling on extending the death penalty and on gun control he comes down on the wrong side - IM(H)O. If he appoints judges who support extending the death penalty and reducing gun controls will these guys (gals) protect Roe v Wade? I'm not so sure.
Bottom line - do we have a choice? We know for sure we lose everything if McSame is elected. I don't see his support falling but I do see the enthusiam of his followers declining. Looks like he's not exactly the leftist virgin prince we've been waiting for. Mind you, by skewed American political standards he's still a raging lefty.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 13:
Most of the time these lame brains don't know what their voting for. A staffer has to explain what position he should be taking and if there's any money to be made.
BobbyG @ 19:
They have been hammered by folks if they write negatively or honestly about the Israeli lobby (I know this for a fact). Would you be willing to go over and ask Congressman Wexler why he voted for H Con Resolution 362 and why he is willing to ignore the latest findings of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran and has resorted to these warmongering pieces of legislation promoted by Aipac?
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 18:
He has never given me a reason not to believe him when we have conversations. As I said, he is not always comfortable with the questions and I'm not always pleased with his response. He said that the bill does not provide immunity from criminal charges to anyone in this administration or the telecoms. We were discussing criminal charges and not civil charges. I don't hold much hope that anyone will be brought up on criminal charges unless the judiciary committee grows a set and stops acting like fainting goats.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 10:
How would he know? Most members of the Congress have not been allowed to see all of the bill. Some of those who have claim it makes all members of the Adminstration immune from prosecution.
i really enjoy KO, one of the only msm'ers i tivo
that said, greenwald's integrity is pretty top-notch. if you haven't familiarized yourself with his writings do yourself a favor and check out his blog
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
i think greenwald's critique of KO, on this topic, was spot-on
Comrade Rou @ 25:
I have to worry about Monsanto with my Congressman. He gets oodles of money from the Agricultural business. There's little if no telecom money going to my Congressman.
Overly simplifying events in a world this complex, by pointing to one man or force like AIPAC, is a RW flaw. Why in Hell are so many on a liberal blog falling into that trap? Obama voting against FISA alone won't change much, Hell Obama and Hillary and Kennedy and Cayazoux and Boxer and Pelosi and Reid all voting wouldn't change it, if no-one else does, you need at least 60 Senators to do that.
This sort of black-and-white thinking will produce the same evils as the GOP did, as it's what motivates them. The world is an endless shade of gray, some darker, and some lighter. Acting as if a gray world is clear black and white produces evils, whether it would be the C&L crowd or the Stormfronter crowd doing it. Let's leave Dualism to the Parsis, shall we, and focus on the more complex nature of things, and how nothing can ever be black and white?
"...and of course those who believe in defending core constitutional liberties shouldn’t remain quiet when any politician — including Obama — takes actions to erode them"
Right on, Glenn. I hope that I hear lots of noise.
.
I learned early in life what apathy meant.
I was about the age of 13 or 14. Our football team was behind by a few touchdowns. We all knew the game was over(last quarter) when one of the players in the huddle cried, "Let's just let them win".
Was he correct?
When out manned, give up?
Was he playing for our team when he suggested that we let the other team win?
But now a days...
... Everyone gets a medal for effort. Even when that effort is to let the 'other team' win.
Barack Obama either stands FOR the Constitution, ready to support and defend OUR Rights, Freedoms and Liberties or he does not.
Barack Obama either has mental reservations about standing up for OUR Rights, Freedoms and Liberties or he does not.
Barack Obama either purposefully evades this obligation of defending and supporting OUR Rights, Freedoms and Liberties or he does not.
Barack Obama either took that Oath of Office in true faith in allegiance to defend and support OUR Rights, Freedoms and Liberties or he does not.
Barack Obama either is in a position NOW to act against such egregious transgressions or he shirks away from that responsibility.
Sure, one man alone can not, a defense make. But one man less does not make for a good defense.
Only 15 Senators voted to NOT bring this legislation to the floor for either discussion OR a vote.
Barack Obama... ABSENT from such vote.
Dear Obama,
Words of HOPE, CHANGE, and UNITY are meaningless when ACTION is void.
The time to walk your talk is passing.
.
kathleen @ 5:
I cant register there. maybe that's a good thing.
access apparently has it's price. people are fawning over this mutt.
I can't take it.
General_Rennenkampf @ 31:
Not when it comes to the The United States Constitution.
xoites defends Constituion @ 35:
Not when it comes to the The United States Constitution.
Shades of shredded.
Ruth @ 21:
It's not calling in a favor, Ruth. As the presumptive presidential nominee, he is effectively the head of the Democratic Party. He sets the agenda. If he says, 'don't put this up for a vote until after November,' the leadership really has to show unity and listen. That's how it works on the Hill. He no longer can sit on the "single Senator" excuse. He sets the agenda for the Democratic majority. They wouldn't have needed the votes in the House if he had simply asked the Democratic leadership to table this (as had been the plan) till November.
Right now, he won't even stand up for what he said he'd support before the primaries. Now Olbermann may be right and he has some super secret plan to fix this, but as Greenwald has pointed out (and Dean confirmed) that's giving him quite a bit of benefit of doubt, something --given his evident shift to the center on other issues since locking up the nomination-- that he might not have earned.
kathleen @ 14:
Out of respect for my fellow bloggers, I don't go over to their sites and ask questions that have gotten others banned. Rep. Wexler will be on C&L in the coming weeks for a chat here, feel free to ask him when he is.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 27:
I sincerely hope that your faith is justified. I apologize for being so cynical.
Instead of shades ranging from black to white, how about a functional model-- like is a light switch on or off?
Keith Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald Exchange Accusations of Wiretapping Each Other
We are hypocrites if we do not demand that Barack Obama meet the criteria for good governance we have accused others of violating. The Hoyer/Bond bill is a bad bill, a rubber stamp piece of legislation that caves completely to both special interests and the Bush White House while trampling all over the Fourth Amendment. It's not OK for someone to abridge the Constitution just because we think he's nice or because he's "our guy." Barack Obama must be held to a consistent standard.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 34:
Thanks for trying. Wonder why you can't register? Wexler is going to get away without being asked this difficult question. It is all hugs and kisses over there. Will someone please step up to the plate? It is a valid and very important question
Why did he co-sponsor H Con Resolution 362? Which is clearly more warmongering legislation towards Iran.
Why is he going along with the Bush administration and the Israeli Lobby who are committed to ignoring the findings of the latest National Intelligence estimate on Iran. Why?
Oh my, this is troubling... from Firedoglake.
Apologies, it is OT however, it is just as troubling as FISA. If we can't grow food, well, I guess it will be give me liberty or give me death.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 38:
I know he is not the best but it he is what there is for 2008. There is a candidate that I am going to encourage to seek the nomination in 2010. Thanks for the apologies. I have to keep some faith and some hope.
Obama absolutely could have stopped this debacle dead in its tracks if he wanted to. He could have objected to the ridiculous Senate "tradition" of requiring only 60 votes to end debate on a filibuster, and then gotten on the Senate floor and talked it to death. He could have used his political power as the Democratic nominee and strong-armed the rest of his causus to vote against this. He could have gone on national TV and explained why the FISA revisions and telecom amnesty are wrong.
This thing about criminal prosecution of the telecoms under an Obama administration is wishful thinking because Bush will most likely pardon them on his way out.
Obama has proven himself to be yet another common politician who will do and say whatever it takes to get elected. He wooed the progressives with his principled stands during the primary, and now he has thrown us all under the bus to woo the "centrists" and the "independents". Or, he was bought off by the telecoms with lavish campaign contributions. Or, he really wants the power that Bush has had. Take your pick.
Sorry, will use more traditional form here;
Ruth @ 21:
Nicole, yes, Obama could have called in a favor in advance on FISA, but no way would he have the votes. And a single Senator can put a hold on a vote, but that is a really bad tactic when that has been time and again by the occupied WH and minions. I particularly hate the hold on release of presidential papers.
Samson, that was a tad unclear, and no, rightwing doesn’t describe either of the two combatants here, but I am highly suspicious when escalation occurs, and it’s a Dem candidate, that the right wing is doing everything they can to make it vicious and destructive.
It’s not calling in a favor, Ruth. As the presumptive presidential nominee, he is effectively the head of the Democratic Party. He sets the agenda. If he says, ‘don’t put this up for a vote until after November,’ the leadership really has to show unity and listen. That’s how it works on the Hill. He no longer can sit on the “single Senator” excuse. He sets the agenda for the Democratic majority. They wouldn’t have needed the votes in the House if he had simply asked the Democratic leadership to table this (as had been the plan) till November.
Right now, he won’t even stand up for what he said he’d support before the primaries. Now Olbermann may be right and he has some super secret plan to fix this, but as Greenwald has pointed out (and Dean confirmed) that’s giving him quite a bit of benefit of doubt, something –given his evident shift to the center on other issues since locking up the nomination– that he might not have earned.
Obama needs all the support he can get for the nomination, which sorry, but I consider highly important, as FISA is already being contested by the ACLU - and is not a big issue with the public at large.
How things work on the Hill, (since I have worked there in the legislative office of Sen Ralph Yarborough), is not always about throwing weight around, but quite often about using power wisely and well. The move to central positions is not something Sen. Obama will relish, of course, and is making a stew here - but does not undermine the constitution. That is being done by the right wing in the occupied WH, and we desperately need Sen. Obama in that WH to end the damage that has been done. No FISA law enacted by this congress will be followed by the war criminals in the executive branch, it is Potemkin legislation.
As I suspected it hasn't taken long for OBAMA to reach the "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils category"...and just think, if we weren't all so easily manipulated by the likes of KO/Matthews/et al in the MSM we might have had both Hillary and Obama as "two lesser evils" against that creepy (but a HERO) McCain...
kathleen @ 41:
it's called collusion. they are blatant now where they used to take measured steps.
tballou @ 44:
It's a rare politician that would shrink their offices power and control over the lives of others. I hope Obama is such a one.
What troubled me about Obama was his position on child rape and the death penalty. I consider incest to be child rape and I consider pedophilia to be child rape. Just think what would do to all those priests and parents and uncles and aunts and cousins and siblings that touch a child in an inappropriate manner. In the case of incest, these children are raped by people they know and trust.
Dancer @ 46:
You're being divisive.
Nothing would make the freepers happier than to see us faction into squabbling tribes before Obama is elected.
Samson- @ 3:
right,, one vote Obama could do something useful with, the only one who looks "Rightwing" in this issue is Obama.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 43:
we do have some things in common.
The dems as a whole could have stopped this by NOT BRINGING IT TO THE FLOOR IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!
I joined the MyBarackObama group and posted this today...
Senator Obama,
The day you made your statement supporting the FISA capitulation I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach.
When your wife said, "I am tired of being afraid", I wept like a child!!
When they questioned your patriotism and loyalty you said, "All I am is because of this country," I felt like a new man!
Your and your wife's eloquence, your message, your WORDS made me believe, made us believe!!
Now it's about action.
You say your a leader...lead. Lead the congress against the FISA capitulation!!!
You took an oath to protect and defend the constitution...defend it from shortsighted encroachments by an administration gone wild and a Congress gone soft.
You promised this great nation you would not be a tool like the elected officials that are robbing us and killing us and making us lose our way.
I feel lost again. I bought in! I really felt hope. Now I don't trust you, and the worst part is you don't have to play any insider political games. All you have to do is what is right. You know what that is.
Please be the leader you promised you would be.
Cal @ 50:
exactly. they probably welcome the greenwald/KO flap.
Brad @ 48:
maybe he needs that power to clean things up and to find where the bodies are buried, literally and figuratively.
obama's decision regarding FISA was a necessary evil
i really believe that...the state of mind that many americans are in makes them vulnerable to linguistic gop strategies....if he voted against it ..that had the potential to be the beginning of the end.......it's the one area were americans are being told that's obama's weak spot
remember i'm saying were being told that...part of the
propaganda machine......he would not have voted this way if many in the party didn't think it was the correct strategy for now...i'm not saying i can't be wrong i've decided to look at it this way.....so i can focus on the main objective instead of being diverted
Cal @ 50:
Good point. The MSM is already yapping about the "split" in the Democratic Party. They would love nothing more than to see us become divided. What the MSM doesn't understand is that we ARE Democrats and that in itself makes us squabble amongst ourselves. It's not a bad thing. Democrats are just more open to differences in opinion. This is something that Republicans just don't understand because they are predictable and come from the same mold. Sometimes I wonder if Republicans are really human or just clones of each other or robots.
John advises us to, "Stop by and tell the Senator that you’ll be voting for him in November and hoping that in the meantime, he does the right thing."
I will be stopping by and telling him that if he doesn't do the right thing, he can kiss my vote goodbye.
I think Olbermann needs to back off a little here. Instead of getting all defensive he should step back and think about what he said, what Greenwald said and what Dean said. Instead of hearing what he wants to hear he should think about the possibility that he may not have heard what the people (Dean and Greenwald) were actually saying. It happens all the time to all of us. Don’t get your panties in a knot because you misunderstand something or if somebody else shows how you could be wrong and gives examples. Glenn Greenwald is not Bill O’Reilly!! Glenn Greenwald laid out his argument very well and it makes sense. Olbermann is a very smart man and has a huge following and he should realize that it is not weak to rethink something from another perspective. He should not get so bitter.
Just my two pesos worth.
Glenn sounds childish in his first paragraph, citing Olbermann's apparent "substance-free invective."
I read both men's accounts in full.
I take them both at their word, as I do Obama.
But for a guy hoping to eschew a "spat," Glenn does a bang-up job.
Cats r Flyfishn @ 30:
I live in Missouri and Monsanto certainly has quite a few former employees in the EPA and FDA. Go figure.
karl @ 57:
You're right. The Left can hate it all they want, but had Obama voted against the bill, he'd have just invented his "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" moment. The GOP would have run it in ads in constant rotation (or at least 527s would have) and Obama would have been stuck trying to explain what is to most Americans a highly nuanced and nebulous argument.
republicans often keep it simple as in black and white thinking.....liberals/progressives are more of the grey
area thinkers.....this one the reasons the gop is successful selling their belief......they have been successful with their linguistic strategy
obama votes against FISA........weak on terror.....with a possible attack against iran.....that might push vulnerable americans over the edge.....told he is weak on terror
effect fear.....they are setting it up iranians are contributing to killing americans and that could be
Hey, keep pushing for Obama to take "noble" stances that WILL LOSE HIM THE ELECTION.
KEEP IT UP.
Another thing that I did not agree with Olbermann with is the way he handled the Supreme Court gun case. There are many left wing liberals who thing the supreme court made the correct decision here. There are many liberals who think owning a gun is a right that should not be infringed upon. I am one. I understand others who do not agree and I understand their reasoning but I disagree. Just because the right wing side of the Supreme Court made the ruling does not always mean they have to be wrong. I just think that Keith was a little over the top with the gun issue. I guess I’m glad that Greenwald didn’t take that on as well. Keith really would have been bitter.
Point 1: Olbermann is going to speak to the issue of Obama and FISA on Monday's broadcast. I want to wait to hear what he has to say. It is a little troubling though that he admitted he hadn't read all of Greenwald's piece before criticizing him. I enjoy Olbermann's schtick, but I hope he's not going to end up jumping the shark eventually.
Point 2: I haven't investigated this issue enough to feel informed yet, but here's Wexler's response about the resolution:
The resolution you cite is a non-binding resolution which is only a statement of Congress without any force of law.
I am not willing to give President Bush congressional approval for the use of force in Iran. This resolution could not be clearer on this point and it is one of the main reasons I cosponsored this resolution.
The goal of the resolution is to place additional economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran instead of giving this President any authority to use force. Given my distrust of the President I am also a sponsor of another resolution (H. R. 3119) which if passed into law would prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran unless authorized by Congress.
barkleyg @ 4:
Yes, I was also very surprised that "[Keith} don't know much about Mr. Greenwald". It is a bit disturbing.
Joanie @ 65:
no disrespect don't be fooled yourself.....his strategy changed and the (R) made a big deal out of this.....he decides to use public money instead and (R) cry foul
it's much about nothing for the most part many intellects are saying good move...they are trying very hard to deflect from mccain's flip flopping trying to dilute it with he's no different than me theme
mccain has been in/out on his campaign financing
again no disrespect this is small potatos to people keeping the real score..the (R) doesn't want people empowered
Stranded @ 68:
How do you know this?
Obama did drop the ball on FISA. As the key democratic figure and presumptive nominee for prez, he could have rallied the party to block this crap legislation. Instead, Obama chose to sit on his thumbs rather than rally the troops. I'm sorry, but he failed his first leadership test on an issue critical to defending civil rights and the rule of law.
More action, less lip service. Obama showed he is a pandering politician first and a defender of the Constitution (when convenient) second.
Cal @ 50:
Oh, I think they'd be happiest with telecom immunity guaranteed, not Obama's supporters conflicted about it.
Someone finally challenged Wexler on his support for H Con Resolution 362. he gave lame answer about using sanctions etc instead of force.
The big question is why would we consider any of these things? What has Iran done? And why are those who have signed this resolution, the Bush administration and Aipac IGNORING THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ON IRAN?
anyone willing to ask
http://firedoglake.com/
Captain Self Centered Bitter Hussein Kangaroo @ 71:
He's right. There's a Special Comment scheduled for Monday. My sources have already alerted us for video capture.
BlueKnuckle @ 66:
It's not a "noble stance." Supporting and protecting the Constitution is part and parcel of being not only president, but senator, and Obama has already sworn an oath to that effect. Further, as Greenwald points out in his column today, working against abridgment of the Constitution is, in fact, a WINNING political issue, not a losing one.
If we don't demand that Obama avoid actions that we have criticized George W. Bush for taking, we're just another special interest.
BlueKnuckle @ 66:
BlueKnuckle,
... Because nothing says noble like the usurpation of what it means to BE an American... NO?
.
Funny how I had my checkbook waiting to make another donation to both Obama and the DNC. The DNC check has been torn up and Obama will have to give me some shred of evidence that he supports and defends the 4th Amendment. Waiting here. So far no luck. And yes, I've called and emailed and called and emailed. I am tired of trying to be a good citizen. They don't give a crap.
This is simply choosing a presumptively lesser evil for a known greater one. The fact that Sen. Obama would even consider voting for telcom immunity makes me stop and wonder.
Are we voting for this guy just because he is intelligent and has dark skin? If so, let's get someone else in this race. I don't vote for white people because they are white. And I don't vote for black people because they are black. Marion Barry was a perfect example of race bating gone horribly wrong.
If Barack is simply going to be a status quo kiss ass, then I can do without him. I really want someone who is going to erase, eradicate, reverse, annul, vanquish and destroy all traces of the last 8 years of felonious despotism. If he isn't up to that, then f him. Seriously, F&^ him. He is only part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'm voting for the person that is going to save this country; I'm not voting a guy because he happens to be black.
On the issues, I'm with Glenn. But I have to admit I didn't like the way he wrote off Keith's positions as coming out of "blind allegiance" to Obama. Glenn's a super-smart guy, and he's above these glib generalizations. It's clear that he was making the point of "Keith is a blind apologist for Barack Obama" in that article, and should know better than to attack Keith or his motives, rather than his arguments.
Seems like I keep seeing the same meme repeated over and over, and now it's coming from Keith Olbermann too: Obama can't be elected president unless he tacks toward the center.
But as many other readers have pointed out time and again, defending the Constitution is not a left/right issue, nor should it ever be. It is, rather, the solemn and sworn duty of every elected officeholder to support and defend the law. Obama's vote for FISA may actually do more to shoot his own election campaign in the foot with this issue than any damage the Republicans could do, because he risks the enthusiasm of his support for his candidacy.
The new incarnation of FISA seems to be less concerned with upholding the law than rewriting it to protect those who have broken it, and that's just plain bad for the nation and the Constitution.
And while I respect and admire Keith Olbermann's passion, I disagree with him: Obama's vote in favor of FISA will do absolutely nothing to quell Republicans from accusing Obama of being 'soft on terror'. There is no magic moment for the Republicans when anything a Democrat does on the hotbutton issues will yield their praise. I'm so over expecting that; I think most of the nation is, and I don't understand why Olbermann doesn't seem to grasp the idea yet.
The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Senators take the same Oath of Office as everyone else mentioned above:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Still waiting for the perfect candidate. Not surprised Obama is shading right, as that's what's necessary to get elected. This country seems split 40-40, with 20% undecided. Whoever garners enough of the 20% wins. Thus shrub's "uniter, not a divider" and "compassionate conservative" BS, and Obama's pandering to the Israeli lobby, wearing his faith on his sleeve, and now backing a seriously flawed bill because, IMO, he wants to build national security cred.
Yes, we should hold Obama's feet to the fire concerning constitutional integrity, but let's keep our eye on the prize.
It's politics. Same as it ever was. But there is NO doubt about who I support for POTUS. To me there is no choice. Unified, the Dems roll come November.
GOBAMA!
enough @ 78:
see what happens if a smart person as your self gives
up..........that's what they want...they are trying to put obama in a no win situation here.....this is what they do they know we want to follow the constitution...look at ron paul's following all about the constitution...now nowhere to be found.....i actually like much of his message....bush and his people made it so it would be a difficult transition for a democrat to become president
this is what scott mcClellen told us the perpetual propaganda
obama can do the right thing as you want and he will get beat up they wanted him to vote against FISA.....we have to see the big picture....trying thinking contrarian
which something people aren't comfortable doing...i mean no disrespect
I am not giving Obama a pass on this. Do I need forgiveness for pledging NOT TO VOTE for ANYONE who seeks to deprive me of my Constitutional rights. Or limit them.
Not the way I see it.
1 - The Telecoms illegally spied on us. I want to know what they did. There was absolutely no public interest in giving them retroactive immunity. NONE
2 - The Bill further erodes the fourth amendment. I am not for anyone who allows the erosion of the bill of rights. That said, Barack Obama stated specifically that he would 'work' to strip that provision from the bill. That was last week.
It would have meant something.
He is making application with me for the primary leadership position in the country.
Up until now it has been Government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations… and their buddies.
We know more about who are their buddies.
Is this change that I can believe with Obama? It doesn't look like it.
In my little neighborhood area of about a square mile, the ethnicity is 50/50 black and white. To the east and west the black percentage increases, to the south and north the white percentage increases. At a point there are areas of Arab extraction and Hindi extraction. I don't usually reference white and black because the language can become silly. I have said repeatedly that from a scientific the term race is outmoded. I doing so here as a attempt for clarity.
Economically the area is lower middle class.
I went to an Obama meeting yesterday, mostly black folks in attendance, they are my neighbors. People that can sit with me on my porch or I can sit with them on theirs. I was surprised that there were not more whites. This is Michigan and we have been pummeled, we all have that in common. This issue was not raised directly.
Time will tell if I can forget and forgive this transgression. I think not.
As for Greenwald on this, he is in fine form, Olbermann is not.
As for prosecuting Bushco. W will pardon everyone in sight, including the Telecoms. Who will prosecute him? Much of his illegalities have been made legal. I don't see it happening.
Fearmongers 1, Constitution 0.
BlueKnuckle @ 66:
I have yet to understand this idea. Exactly what votes is Obama trying to get here with this flip-flop? If you capitulate, the other side knows you're weak. John Kerry showed his weakness and look where it got him. Do you really think that taking the Republican position on these issues will get him Republican votes? A pipe dream! Instead, he's losing votes among people like me, who would have voted for him. If he won't keep his word now, he won't keep it as President. So why should I bother making the effort to vote for him? If he's going to turn into a big wimp, he's going to get his ass handed to him. The same old sh*t about "national security" and "listening in when Al Q calls" will come out again, and he'll get slammed on the issue because the other side smells blood.
I'm not going to rationalize or excuse this behavior. It's cowering to the authoritarian right, and no one every won a fight by cowering. "I'm sorta for civil liberties and the Constitution as long as the Republicans say it's ok."
karl @ 84:
I find it difficult to believe that a Presidential Candidate standing up for the Constitution is a no-win situation. The country wants it's Constitution back. Make no mistake about it. If we get a Democrat into the White House by denying the Constitution i fail to see the point.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory Over SCLM and DIEBOLD! @ 55:
Not only will they welcome it they'll do whatever they can to make it a central wedge issue if we continue to show it can be used to divide us.
Disagreeing is fine but Olbermann and Greenwald need to sort this out in private. As for Kos he and all other third parties need to keep out of it all together unless they intend to mediate.
BlueKnuckle @ 66:
i'll take the constitution over a democratic victory any day, thank you. i am not willing to sacrifice any constitutional rights to any political party for any reason. their job is to defend this document. i don't get why this is so difficult for so many to comprehend. if the constitution is a "noble stance", then the damage to this nation my be irrepairable.
it seems more a choice between the evil of two lessers at this point. nobody wins if a loser is elected and this applies to both presumptive candidates.
"freedom of choice is what you got, freedom from choice is what you want" DeVO
If the Democratic Party is divided over the Constitution of the United States then the question i have to ask myself is: Is this the Party for me?
I want a political party that understands why this country exists and why it can't without the Constitution.
IF, and this is a really big IF, obama has that much confidence in his campaign that he knows for a lead pipe cinch that he will be the next potus, and he is for it, at this point in time can any of us honestly say that he would not go after those people in criminal court? i think that we all know what would happen should we get a president mccain.
yes sometimes good people can draft and vote for bad legislation, but if the person in charge of enforcing that legislation acts in a !SHOCK! responsible manner, i don't think there is anything to worry about. should obama start venturing towards bushland, i think that we all, including olbermann, would be justified in blasting the obama administration for continuing the policies of the bush government which are horrendous now.
olbermann may be a liberal, but he does not toe the democrat(ic?) line. i think a wait-and-see approach may be the most prudent at this time.
and by the way, i think that obama is dead ass wrong on his opinion of the scotus death penalty case and olbermann is dead ass wrong on his opinion of the scotus gun case. it does not mean that i will not vote for obama or stop watching olbermann however. it is possible to disagree civilly and still go about our lives.
On Friday, I faxed and called the Obama campaign and his Senate offices and told them that though I had been supporting him and even sent him money if he doesn't vote No on any provision giving the telecoms immunity and/or filibuster as needed I'd be willing to throw away my vote and write in Wexler or Dodd or even Ron Paul. None of them really stands a chance of winning of course. I'm merely hoping the idea of losing some votes, much like Nader caused Gore to lose votes (which I mentioned) will scare them all into doing the right thing. Their house of cards can very easily come tumbling down and I think the only reason why they're acting like this is because they think "Well they're not going to vote for McCain so we've got it cinched no matter what we do so we might as well make some money off of the telecoms".
On matters of the Constitution I'm not going to reward someone for going against the people to support a bunch of fricken' phone companies who broke the law no matter how good i think the candidate is otherwise. George W. Bush does not have the authority to override the law, especially since the original FISA law had an exclusivity provision in it. If he doesn't have the authority to override the law, then it doesn't matter whether AT&T had a 'get out of jail free' card or not. It's not valid. If we then allow AT&T and the rest to get off Scot Free and strip the American citizen of his right to redress grievances then we might as well scrap the whole Constitution, throw ALL of the government out on their asses and start over.
I also sent similar faxes to the DNC chairman and my own Senators. I'm tired of this FISA bullshit. All of these Senators were elected by the people to serve the people and to protect and defend the Constitution and they're not freaking doing it.
Dr. Girlfriend @ 89:
you said it
extreme partisanship is bad, from either side of the aisle
from NAFTA to FISA, obama, coming from this independent, is flirting with losing my vote.
democratic politicians should put the country first, not the party. in other words, have the courage of your convictions.
bitter ctk hussein ky3 @ 91:
Fair enough...
xoites defends Constituion @ 90:
The funny thing about the constitution is two people can read the same thing and come away with two different understandings of it.
That McCain would be the oldest first term President ever is not a subject of debate though nor is there debate over whether or not Bush's relatively low IQ hurt the country.
Taking into account how much damage Bush has done via incompetence McCain (if elected) can be expect to do just as much if not more damage by virtul of senility.
xoites defends Constituion @ 87:
X i totally respect your comment here and comments of the past........i know this is very important issue to you i read many of your posts..........i still believe this is the obama strategy........bush and co.........set the trap
mccain is all about national security that's his brand
they wanted obama to vote against that measure so the can develop the cracks regarding an issue that many americans are vulnerable to.....fear has worked for 8 yrs.....for the republicans they're going to try the same strategy since nothing else is sticking...i think israel is getting anxious regarding iran...there is a lot of destabilization in the middle east they want more..if the drum beats louder we will be the war and they will try very hard to convince americans obama is too much of a risk.............i could be wrong but this is how i see it.
Obama didn't NEED to swing right on FISA or anything else. He was ahead in the polls before he did that, and time would ensure that the McCain campaign fell further and further into the sewer, the worst candidate the Republicans have put out there in decades. Now progressives are wondering if they've been betrayed by their trust in Obama and all their unstinting work that will result in his being declared the nominee in August. It sure seems like a slap in the face and a sudden return to "politics as usual" that Obama promised would not be part of his campaign.
Obama had better hope he wins more votes with this move to the right than he loses. I'm not sure at all that he will.
Hooray for Kucinich!
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/kucinich-wont-rally-for-obama-until-he-...
seevee @ 83:
karl @ 96:
I am not doubting that, but if Obama can't stand up to the Republicans how will that make him look stronger?
SlowBurn @ 99:
Too late . .. Obama played a lot of people for suckers (including me). Never will he get my vote. Feet to the fire? You are clearly deluded!
Obama will definetly be getting my vote. I am not an idiot. There is even more at stake than just the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Obama still needs to fight this. If he does he will win by a landslide.
seevee @ 83:
The Democratic Party name is a misnomer . .. they long ago have morphed into something unrecognizable; I'd rather have Hillary than the weakling Obama.
mrbadmood @ 81:
... More so, why the "pass" handed to Democrats( read Obama) that side WITH Republicans on issues like this?
I mean, that "pass" is given to Obama because there is a sense of redemption in the 'HOPE' that Obama will prosecute and 'CHANGE' laws and behaviors currently on his watch. However, if past history is an indication of future behavior, I 'DOUBT' Obama will ever lead a charge of 'ACCOUNTABILITY' as currently he's been recusing himself from ANY 'ACCOUNTABILITY' to his constituients and his State by being "ABSENT" when it counts. That fence post Barack sits upon must feel good.
Obama's "Not Present"(read absent) on the clotcher vote regarding the FISA legislation yet speaking and attempting to appeal to American principles...
... Is like Rocky not showing up to fight Apollo Creed when all he's been seeking is the belt.
QUESTION:
How could Rocky ever beat Apollo Creed if he had never showed up?
Yes,
Life imitates art.
.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 104:
movie metaphors are not the answer (and neither is obama); vote the green party if you can't stomach mccain . .. .as long as democrats keep making excuses for capitulation, we will continue to be lead by republicans (at least we know where they stand).
xoites defends Constituion @ 102:
too late! he's toast in november for this!
xoites defends Constituion @ 102:
you mean he'll get your vote even if he doesn't fight it? your standards are very low . . .america cannot afford obama
SlowBurn @ 105:
As an ex member of the Green Party i urge everyone to vote green on the local level but not for POTUS. We need John McCain like we need dismemberment without Anesthesia.
SlowBurn @ 103:
that's what they want slow buzzzzzzz.....it's not ideal so they will divide themselves....i don't like it either
this is real life where people cheat ,set traps ,lie and make unpopular compromise(s)....these elements of life are the real enemy.........ron paul tried the idealism theme...and the NEOCONS & wall street took care of that.they laughed at him....they don't want people empowered we need to make this sacrafice to get the presidency...the change empowering people the republicans are afraid of that they don't want change
hey don't fall for this trap
SlowBurn @ 107:
If you are willing to have seven conservative Neo Cons on the Supreme Court and a war in Iran vote for Mickey Mouse for all i care. We can compare standards after World War III is over.
SlowBurn @ 103:
Isn't Hilary a Democrat? Wasn't her husband Bill a Democrat? You remember him, the one who, against MUCH wailing from the progressives, reformed (weakened) welfare?
SlowBurn @ 106:
Looks like SlowBurn is going for the McPoints.
SlowBurn @ 107:
oh he has to bat 100% or you won't watch the game
what's your alternative...maybe god will be on the ballot
SlowBurn @ 98:
I have ALWAYS admired Kucinich. In fact, I will ALWAYS support a man who has the vision and fortitude to know that the convictions and principles he stands for NEVER need to be defended because he's never had to apologize for doing the right thing. I mean, we're only discussing the fate of the Republic... NO? That's all.
.
SlowBurn @ 98:
I am a big Kucinich supporter. I won't be rallying for Obama either unless he changes his position on this. Kucinich will not be President this year. It will either be McCain or Obama. Given that choice there is no choice. I will vote for Obama.
SlowBurn @ 103:
RIP Democratic party. Now I read we've got ongoing operations in Iran and the DL looks the other way. What say you Obama?
Under the directive 54 initiative, spying during war times is constitutional. Mr. Olbermann had a great speech for Bush then and Greenwald is right in condemning the hypocrisy of Olbermann justifying the position of Obama.
Is it possible that Olbermann secretly desires the same fate on the republican targets while Obama is in the office?
Olbermann, this is not a good strategy. You have to be convincing to the public why Bush was wrong in using telecommunication networks to spy on the people. Are these people the mediamen or the selected few?
Barack Obama has lied to the Progressives who brought him to the dance.
He is another capitulating flip-flopper who is little better than McBush. You Dems can hold the love, even as he screws you up the ying-yang.
I'm voting Ralph Nader and Barack Obama can kiss my ass. The Lying Bastard.
I think the people who are members of the Democratic Party, as a whole should call thier Senators and Congress people and tell them point blank, "If FISA passes I am leaving the Party. I will register as an independant."
BuelahMan @ 118:
okay step away from your computer for a few minutes
go to your tool box grab a crescent wrench and tighten
some of those loose screws....take it easy...i think the bastard thing is alittle harsh.....unless of course you've never told a lie if that's the case i apologize
BuelahMan @ 118:
Don't kid yourself.
We're had a dunce in the White House for eight years we won't survive another four.
And no I'm not talking about the country surviving I'm talking about our hearts beating.
xoites defends Constituion @ 119:
is that lieberman's party......just asking??
karl @ 120:
nader is a punk
he proved that last week
obama is a punk
he proved that last week
maccain is a punk
he has been proving that since 1998
now what?
Olberman, who I still like, really leaned on John Dean's speculation of a flawed bill in his Kos diary. Here's my reply:
I'll see your John Dean with a Russ Feingold, and raise you my humble observation.
There is no uncertainty that the man who defied the odds to stand alone against the Patriot Act is now staunchly opposed to the new FISA "modernization" bill, and raising real concerns about it's lasting consequences. I, as you, defer to the expertise of a mind more involved than mine.
I'm never very impressed with photographic memories - that hardly signifies an analytic mind. I respect and listen with interest to John Dean, but keep in mind that his memorization skills did not keep him from finding his way to the defendant's table and multiple convictions for felonies. That's hardly what I'd call foresight.
In Mr. Alter's interview on your show, he claimed that the current FISA legislation , "restores the Constitution". And you made a complete miss on calling him to task for his fatally fractured logic.
If, as he claimed, "we've been operating in an unconstitutional environment", the only possible ways in which to change that environment would be either:
1. Change the operation.
or
2. Change the Constitution.
If "an unconstitutional environment" itself hasn't changed the operation, clearly, legislation allowing it won't. While Bush might have the will for a Constitutional amendment, he doesn't have the time. And this FISA bill cannot and will not accomplish either change.
If Mr. Alter's assertion that current operations are unconstitutional is true, and given that neither the operations nor the Constitution will be changed under the new FISA bill, reasonable logic must conclude that the bill, which allows the currently "unconstitutional environment" to continue, is itself unconstitutional.
That's actually good news to me, and perhaps thinking along the same lines as Mr. Dean. Unfortunately, both are just risky speculation, with Constitutional rights the object of the risk.
I'll cast my lot, Constitutionally speaking, with the good Senator from Wisconsin.
karl @ 122:
I would be all for creating a Constitution Party. Lieberman is a Republican.
xoites defends Constitution @ 108:
Who counts your vote...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wviWDGm9mNg
I mean, I don't know IF or NOT my vote will be counted at all. So I might as well vote for whomever I feel will bring the Nation together as I see it needs to be.
But to pressure other people, xoites, into voting for the person of your preference makes you no different than the Republican cry, "A vote for Obama = A vote for Al-CIA-duh" B.S.
We ALL should avoid resorting to behavior like that of our opponent. Instead, I prefer to stand FOR principles... American Principles that brought us Freedom, Liberty and the Right to pursue happiness. Truly, America has plenty to worry about THIS election... NO?
.
It is likely that Bush is spying on the selected few is because he is concerned that his plans might fail. The right has always religiously declared that the left has despicable agendas that might ruin the nation's interest. The war between the right and left has caused such havoc that we might eventually create an Orwellian society.
I think that it's a stretch to belive that Obama will do anything about stripping immunity if he becomes president. I do not think that will happen.
xoites defends Constitution @ 119:
That is exactly what I have done with my House Rep and BOTH Senators. I've returned the DNC envelope "EMPTY" with a note that said "This is what you give me... and I gladly return the favor."
.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 126:
You think expressing my opinion is putting presure on people? I guess i have to watch what i say...
EZ @ 127:
Eventually?
marko @ 123:
hey i would like to move to new zealand myself
i don't have the answer and i'm no smarter than anyone else here......this is a fight and fighting rarely is fair
if we get into the ideal and surreal instead of the real
i'm telling we're going to get fxxked.....these people the (R)'s don't care about the constitution they just want us to fight over it while their deciding how our lives will be lived.....another term of this dictatorsip type government is going to break this country.....the elites are afraid of this guy because he will empower people that usually means less control/manipulating so less for shareholders....they're like actuaries they want to know what they are going to get.they don't want change
they will try to prevent a dem. at all cost
xoites defends Constituion @ 125:
okay my bad i thought he had the letter(I) after his name
xoites defends Constituion @ 119:
Man, sure wish I had Democratic party representation in Washington.
Idaho, changing at glacial speed.
Yes! Eventually, No. 131, in a massive scale, for example, the biochips, the satellites, the digital tv's, computers, the computers at the grocery stores, the banking, etc.
seevee @ 134:
Feel free to call and email them all. Why not?
karl @ 133:
Yeah, but if you ever see him naked you will see that he has Ronald Reagan tatooed on his chest.
xoites defends Constituion @ 130:
Anyone can express themselves however they wish as long as it doesn't cause physical harm to others...
I mean, just like the anti-impeachment group's meme, "We can't impeach Bush, we'll get Cheney instead."
... The principle of FEAR!
Think presentation...
However, here is some reality...
FISA legislation most likely will pass due to a craven and spineless Senate.
IF McCain wins the election, will he demand this legislation be revoked? ... most probably not.
IF Obama wins the election, will he demand this legislation be revoked? ... Possibly... means possibly NOT also.
At least we KNOW what McCain will do. Obama... not so much. Currently, he's got a fence post up his @ss.
The issue no one wishes to discuss is what do we get IF, once elected, Obama doesn't press for a retooling or revocation of FISA? ... A McBama?
... I'm just asking.
.
xoites defends Constituion @ 137:
nice come back
if you ever get a chance to watch the movie.. the Gladiator......there's a part where Maximus(russel crow) tells his fellow gladiators while they're in the arena "if we stay together we survive" and he repeats that a few times
xoites defends Constituion @ 136:
Good point, but I think they listen more when they think their constituants are not happy. Votes. Reelection.
For me, FISA isn't the straw that breaks the camel's back. This camel's been on a vent in ICU for years now and I don't see the Independents getting him healthy any time soon. I think a big dose of Obamacillin is his best hope.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 138:
My best answer to that is a movement to Repeal FISA which i am trying to start. I have already come to the conclusion that it will most likely pass at some point. We need to create a public awareness of the issues involved and fight to organize direct opposition to FISA and any laws that have been or may be passed that either allow the United States Government or its employees or contractors to violate the United States Constitution and any laws that pardon or give immunity to illegal behavior.
As the site says anyone and everyone is welcome to join and blog on this site. Just follow the instructions in "Blog Here."
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 138:
i like my odds with "possibly not" ....vs. "probably not"
seevee @ 111:
You're feeding a troll.
The Clintons were reptiles masquerading as liberals, briefly.
Instead of universal health insurance we got NAFTA, a reptile plan. Or SHAFTA as we say in Michigan.
Karl at 142. The response by xoites defends Constituion @ 130:
Anyone can express themselves however they wish as long as it doesn’t cause physical harm to others…
I mean, just like the anti-impeachment group’s meme, “We can’t impeach Bush, we’ll get Cheney instead.”
… The principle of FEAR!
Think presentation…
___
I agree. The fear of having Cheney instead is obstructing the impeachment of Bush is what --Propaganda: On the Formation of Man’s Attitudes writes: In this broad belt of unconsciousness, which is immune to conscious criticism and control, we stand defenseless, open to all kinds of influences and psychic infections. As with all dangers, we can guard against the risk of psychic infection only when we know that is attacking, and how, where and when the attack will come.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/06/jung-resisting-new-worl...
If Bush is impeached, Cheney will go down too. Perhaps, Pelosi might rule the nation.
As Jung calls, fear of the unconscious that hinders the progress.
It seems from the thread that Obama may have just re-invented the flip-flop (although somebody would have to call it something new and do some "viral marketing" to make it stick).
That sucks.
"Sandal" sounds more "elitist," but that doesn't really mean anything WRT to a political misstep.
There we go: "mis-stepping shoes." Maybe with a Monkees soundtrack ("Just not... ... ah ah ah ah").
As a Hillary and Obama supporter (first Hillary, but she didn't "get it" (the nom, that is) and so now I'm backing Obama, although not blindly, since I never got into "Oba-mania"), I gotta say that this is sometimes something a politician needs to do. That's no excuse, but he's no god, either; nor was he ever. If you were deluded enough, then you'll be really pissed, but...
A) This is about people talking about his decision, not him talking about it
B) Administration members who might (but probably wouldn't) be off the hook if this passes would be either pardoned or scapegoated
C) Item B also goes for the Telecoms
D) That makes this "politically-expedient," since the endgame would be the same, anyway
E) Someone was probably ready to pounce on it, and terror sells
F) Rock, meet hard place
G) Learning experience for everyone
H) This too shall pass
I) He had to come down from the mount, eventually
Unfortunately, he couldn't have "quietly" voted against, thus reassuring his base and not making a stir with fence-sitters, 'cause the McCain-stream-media would have been all over it.
Perhaps more unfortunately, he built (and let be built) such expectations that even a god couldn't have lived up to them.
So, while Greenwald explains the consequences of this decision and calls for people not to be blind to the Candidate that is Obama, I don't agree that this situation calls for a complete reversal of thinking along all courses. Therefore, the idea that this means Obama is "only" the better alternative to McCain seems vastly oversimplified. The abandonment of blind allegiance does not equal the abandonment of the candidate, in toto.
"In a contest between a republican and a republican the republican will win every time." Attributed to Harry Truman
I'm from Wisconsin, and proud as hell of Russ Feingold.
Brass balls.
Marty @ 147:
I am not from Wisconsin and i am proud of him too.
xoites defends Constituion @ 148:
I'm from Michigan and I would trade both our treacherous senators for Russ Feingold.
it seems to me that Greenwald is more interested in promoting himself, than he is advancing the progressive platform. If he disagreed with KO, it could have been done in a way that is not an attack. He seems to be ignoring a basic point here. Obama needs to get elected. Fighting off every urge to speak openly, or do anything the neocon slime machine grab on to, is a monumental task. Just look at the things they have, or are, using to attack him with. Things which are completely fabricated, or completely blown out of context. The 'success bump', when he crossed the threshold of delegates, became a terrorist's move, is probably the most absurd thing I have ever seen in a campaign. So far, Barack has given them nothing, nadda, nil, zilch to grab on to. It is really pissing them off. They are laying in ambush waiting to pounce on any miscue, real, or most probably imagined.
Voting against FISA, would be an early Xmas present for them. They would completely ignore the immunity aspect of it, and instead focus on the "Obama wants to leave us defenseless against another 9/11. They would link this to their attempt to portray him as a muslim extremist, supported by Hamas, wanting to negotiate with Iran, selling out Israel, and so on. This is not speculation. These talking points are already established.
Obama is trying to win the WH. Once there, he not longer has to 'toe the smear line'. But, until that time, he needs to stay with his game plan. he is wining, and he cannot afford a mistake. Many Democratic candidates have tried to campaign on issues, and been slaughtered. We have been critical of their campaign strategies. Well, now we have a candidate who is taking a completely new strategy, and is succeeding. Let's cut him some some slack. Greenwald, you want change right now, but you cannot have it. He must win first. That is what the price is for victory.
Login or Register to post comments.