Yep, Obama is already acting like the president…sigh
very, very, very disappointing. Basically, if the President breaks the law, asks a corporation to break the law and then says I know I broke the law but I’m the president and I can do what I want for security reasons. Wow, Crown the King baby, our democracy just ended.
Ask Juan Cole, dimwitty. Maybe Obama was just “mistranslated.”
Oh well. Say good bye to the republican form of democratic government. Kind of makes you feel like spreading democracy is not such a good idea when we cannot maintain it at home.
http://tinyurl.com/3kujco
It’s all in how you read it. When they say “compromise” legislation they mean “compromise our principles”.
Trashing the Fourth Amendment this guy is making it tough to support him
you are absolutely correct TT
don’t get used to me saying that thoiugh đ
Am I disappointed? Yes. That said, I’m not devastated. I’ve consistently said that Obama is a politician. Below is a comment I posted yesterday in response to Dominique and Marie/Melissa. It still applies today, because, well, I am timeless. đ
“Hereâs honesty⌠I fully intend on holding Obama accountable after he wins in November. BTW, I would have granted HRC the same courtesy. Intellectual honesty? Howâd that work for Gore and Kerry?
Hereâs what I do know⌠Obama is a million times better than McCain. Does that mean I approve of all things Obama? Of course not. What it means is that this entire conversation is for naught if Obama doesnât win.
Thatâs where Iâm coming from. Others may feel differently. I learned my lesson four years ago, and still feel guilty over all that âintellectual honestyâ I threw in Kerryâs direction. Look where that âfairnessâ got us.”
Okay, I’m hardly idealistic. I use to be, but then I suffered through eight years of Bush. I hate the FISA compromise, that being said… I’d hate living under President McCain’s “plan” for this country even more.
Don’t you all remember when Dems selected Obama over Edwards because Obama was the “unifier” who could work across the aisle? And Edwards was saying no, you have to confront the corporations head-on and take their power away, no compromise? And Edwards supporters were quietly pointing out we don’t need another accommodationist? Oh well.
It would have been nice to see Obama stronger on FISA. But in Obama had little chance of turning the whores in Congress into virtuous citizens (assuming he wanted to in the first place).
But there is a silver lining. From AP:
The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.
Therefore, if a lawsuit is dismissed, that means the telcos have produced a smoking gun document proving Bush ordered illegal wiretaps.
Remember, the telcos were never the target. The idea was that civil suits could be used to pry open the information about the extent of the Fourth Amendment violations.
But now it looks like the telcos are going to rat out Bush to save their own asses.
So all the civil suits should be re-filed naming Bush.
The next step is to pressue Obama to pledge to appoint an AG who will support such a lawsuit, and pursue criminal charges where appropriate.
Of course IANAL and there are probably giant loopholes covering those scenarios.
More to the point: The civil lawsuits against the telcos were intended to produce information leading to Bush/Cheney as authorizing the Fourth Amendment violations.
But now, the telcos are going to hand the proof directly to the court.
So the question is, with multiple smoking guns in hand, what is Obama going to do with this information about proven Fourth Amendment violations?
Keep in mind, TT, Obama is the only one with whom we had even a hope of getting what we want. Some of us supported Obama because we knew Clinton would be OK with it.
I agree with anon — the real question is what will happen to the BushCo. Administration’s don and capos once it is out of office. Unfortunately, I suspect Obama will let them all slide, just as the more established candidates would have. I was hoping that, as a constitutional lawyer, he would have more respect for the document.
The politcal corruption of the Dept of Justice is a BushCo crime that can’t slide.
Obama’s take on that will be telling.
As for FISA – he is running to the center and everyone knew that was the game plan (but democratic chicken little’s need to yelp about something, and the Dr. Pavlov MSM is ringing the bell ). The fact that McCain has already cheated and has gone back on his word is mysteriously absent in coverage of this. Oh well…
Bottom Line: I’m with Pandora. A Barack Obama in office is worth much more than the satisfaction of my sense of liberal purity.
This has nothing to do with liberal purity. You either put the constitution back at its rightful place, the center of our political culture, or you view it as a guiding document that can be ignored every time the occupant of the White House decides to declare “war” on another society that dares take corporatism to task. It should be noted that the groups aligning to protest and fight this are from both the left AND the right. This is not a partisan issue.
This doesn’t mean you should vote for McCain. But if you accept this from Obama, the “compromising” will never end. His campaign has been informed that the donations from my household will cease unless he comes out forcefully against this. I have a hunch I’m going to be saving the money set aside for the general election.
Jason, MSM my ass. Find a mainstream outlet that doesn’t back up the DLC position, that this giveaway is a “compromise.” Good luck.
From a HuffPo story:
—Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president’s Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.
“Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it,” Specter said. —
As I contend, it’s not partisan. Specter might end up voting for it, but at least he’s speaking out against it. I’d respect Obama more if he would do the same.
There are only 3 hero’s and patriots thus far: Dennis Kucinch, voted (by me) Best Patriot of the year. Robert Wexler, and Barbara Lee those who signed onto impeachment. Kucinch and his constitutionl lawyers writing up the next 35 articles on Bush his agents and surrogates.
Its interesting the Blue Dogs (neo cons of the democratic party) Pelosi, Hoyer, etc. want to keep the articles from hearings. Why, because it would be revealed they “were and are willing, faithful enablers” of what the Bush regime has done. In effect they would be impeaching themselves. To bring out all the garbage they have already (brings majority of republicans and many democrats) under the rule of law, back under the consitution. That is why is so very important we the people push the Congress and now John Conyers to do the right thing. There will be no restoration of the Consitution without it. In fact, whoever becomes Prez next, will be able to claim the precedent set by the Bushites, their agents and surrogates, as the new law of the land. Thats why some like that horrid Scalia call the Consitution a “living document”, so they can abuse it at will, at anytime.
Maybe he just doesn’t want to seem like he’s “taking sides!”
“Thats why some like that horrid Scalia call the Consitution a âliving documentâ, so they can abuse it at will, at anytime.”
Hahahaha! Are you serious!?
I swear, Liz, I am convinced that there is something really, really wrong with youâŚother than your obvious total lack of knowledge.
Scalia is one of the strictest constructionists that has been on the Court in many years! He believes that the Constitution should only be interpreted as it was originally written you dolt! He does favor a stronger national government than some other SCs. However, after the Articles of Confederation failed, that was one of the main goals of the Founders-to strengthen the national govât.
Once again the commenter /contributors on this site prove just how truly intelligent liberals really are!
Thank you, Liz.
I’m afraid Bundy is right on this one, Liz — Scalia vehemently opposes the “living document” doctrine.
Bundy, just as we don’t judge all conservatives by you, don’t judge all liberals by any single person. Liz has fallen into the habit of saying “we the people” when she means “I.”
Al- “Find a mainstream outlet that doesnât back up the DLC position, that this giveaway is a âcompromise.â ”
Fox News.
Got a link? I went to their web site and found no story at all.
Jason –
Let me get this straight; Hillary’s centrist politics were unacceptable, but Senator ChangeMyMind’s bait and switch is just fine. Also, the MSM is supposed to pounce on any McCain flip-flop, but sit silently by as Obama shows the world how loosely he defines ‘change’. Just making sure I understand the rules.
Actually, Dom, neither is fine. However, I’m going to say this one more time. In November we have a choice between candidate A and B. Candidate A (whether it was Obama or Clinton) equals a change from the last 8 years. Candidate B equals more of the same. I’m going with A even if he is imperfect.
Right now everything is about the general. I refuse to take my eye off the ball. Been there, done that.
As far as Hillary… she simply started competing in the general election too soon. HRC started as a centrist which left her no where to run.
YET AGAIN… I was voting Dem in November, no matter what.
From where I’m sitting, Obama’s votes so far haven’t been too far off McCain’s. Just sayin.
AL
I agree with your comment ” You either put the constitution back in it’s rightful place as the center of our culture.”
Why go Thur all the trouble of putting it back in it’s proper place when it’s there already and the members of the Senate can keep it there by voting NO.
There are several Senators who have the balls to stand up to Bush on this on unfortionally Obama is not one of them.
And i am really not interested on how Hillary votes on this after all she is not our parties leader.
I guess there is one thing we can all agree on Bush is at his lowest level of approval and a lame duck at that yet he manages to get his way you have to hand it to the jerk for that
I am hearing that Obama is trying to remove the immunity for telecoms.
Where are you hearing that, Nancy? Is there a link?
Over on Eschaton. A commenter, Old Man From The Sea, was saying it. I can go back over there and ask him for a link.
Just saw something on CBS about stripping immunity.
Nancy
The Immunity issue is only one part of it The tapping of phones and e- mail without probable cause reviewed by an uninterested party ( in this case a judge or the FISA court) is a direct violation of the 4th amendment of the constitution something that Thomas Jefferson fought for before he would sign that document. Therefor it’s a right given to us by our forefathers and we shouldn’t piss on it now by saying we will correct it later.
And For Heaven’s sake should Obama not win the election he would have loss his chance to stand up for freedom now
“Why go Thur all the trouble of putting it back in itâs proper place when itâs there already and the members of the Senate can keep it there by voting NO.”
Wrong. Bush has acknowledged that he has been violating the constitution on this since 9/11.
“There are several Senators who have the balls to stand up to Bush on this on unfortionally Obama is not one of them.”
Yeah, and neither was Hillary. Don’t pretend you’re all about the constitution all of a sudden; if she had gotten the nomination she wouldn’t have said a thing in opposition.
As for pissing on the 4th amendment, we’ve been doing that ever since we allowed the cops to seize money and property for mere suspicion of a link to drug dealing.
BREAKING NEWS AL
Hillary lost so why do you keep bringing her into this discussion get over her you side won
I just went to his Senate website and sent an email telling him how disappointed everyone is with his FISA stand. If you want to tell him, go to http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
Bundy: Scalia was just on Charlie Rose this week. Rose asked him about his vote to overturn the election of 2000, why not let the votes be counted! He remarked that “he believed in the Consitution as written by the founders…when Rose pressed him, then why did you vote to end the vote count, he laughed and said, “well some say its a living document”…Rose asked him, “then why did you vote to stop the vote, the founders would not have approved”….Scalia was taken back and said, “as I said, some “believe it to be a living document’, and I don’t want to discuss the issue further. Right, its a living document when he is caught disregarding it, but 99% of the time “claims he believes in the founders version”. I call that a flip flop.
Al –
I wish all these people who are so concerned about how Obama would act to protect the Constitution were half as concerned when Bush made it the mission of his Presidency to wipe his ass with it. (Present company excluded.)
How many times over the past eight years have I said to myself, “okay, this is it…people will certainly be outraged over this!” ?
Too many times to count.
Again, my point is that Obama is the acting President and we all have high expectations for him. Menawhile, Bush is everyone’s retarded brother-in-law. We are just hoping he does not crap his pants….again….even thought we know he will…at just the wrong moment.
Thanks June. I will post this link over on my blog too.
TT the immunity part of it is the most grating.
The rest of it is best covered by Hunter (Daily Kos). Click onto my name here and read it on my blog.
Jason
You are correct that folks stood by when bush wiped his ass with the Constitution, however, the Repuk’s were in charge for the first 6 years. So when the Dem’s took over 2 years ago Nancy and company had the chance to stop his trashing of it and to hold him accountable for his abuses. So what have our Brave Leaders done so far Nothing!! ( Except for Dennis) all others aided and abetted him in his evil ways
Here is another place (probably better) to make a comment to Obama — on his website. I got it this morning from his Campaign when I signed a petition to him and the other presidential candidates to support a ban on cluster bombs. Go to: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/contact/
On second thought, forget it. Probably no one has the time to read all the messages he gets from his website.
June: Thanks for the link. I called instead because my wife has donated a good bit of folding money, and I wanted his campaign to know I wasn’t BSing them.
TT: OK, then, if your complaints about Obama aren’t meant to induce buyers’ remorse, I’ll leave her alone.
Liz: Thanks for recounting that. It emphasizes what an unprincipled sleaze Scalia is. His real giveaway on that was his speech at Princeton, in which he defended the ruling by saying that SCOTUS ruled as it did because “we were the laughingstock of the world, the world’s greatest democracy that couldn’t conduct an election.” If he dies before me, I’m going to spray-paint those words on his gravestone.
Mr. Al…I’ll buy the spray paint đ
Al
No I don’t have buyers remorse look I truly loved Hillary and was disappointed by the outcome ,However, being born and raised in the old 10th ward in Wilmington you had to be one of two things one was Catholic and the other was Democrat they would forgive you if you happened not to be a Catholic. So being raised and voting Democrat all my life i will always support the parties choice
That’s a sad story, TT. You have my condolences.
Why, TT? Why would you blindly support a party that is so meek in terms of fighting for their convictions and that consistently fails to deliver what they’ve promised?
Citizens United Productions examines the phenomenon that is Barack Obama. HYPE: The Obama Effect examines the Junior Senator from Illinois and his record. Is he the new Kennedy or recycled Jimmy Carter? Is he the one who will finally change Washington, or will challenges like the Tony Rezko trial reveal politics as usual? Is he the uniter the country begs for, or a liberal divider? HYPE: The Obama Effect seeks the answers.
Including interviews with political leaders, media experts, and social commentators, HYPE provides the in-depth analysis that can only occur in a full-length feature documentary. HYPE goes to Illinois and interviews those who know the Senatorâs record as a state legislator. Go on the road with the campaign and experience the enthralled crowds as they are consumed by the HYPE. Washington insiders analyze Senator Obamaâs Senate record, his views on abortion, his statements on the second amendment, his plan for a troubled economy, and his foreign policy-will the US be safer or will the US become a bigger target? Will Senator Obamaâs actions match his eloquence in the toughest job in the world, or will his rapt and motivated crowds be left with little substance at the end of the day? HYPE: The Obama Effect lays out the truth.
“Again, my point is that Obama is the acting President and we all have high expectations for him.”
Interesting reasoning Jason. Obama’s the “Acting President” without even being elected. I suppose only The Messiah could pull of such a feat.