onegoodmove

This reminds me of a Bill Clinton rant about "this [Obama] is the biggest bill of goods..." The word change will come back to bite Obama. We will have to wait and see. I remember when the campaign began that I was seriously considering pushing for a stealth campaign to write in Al Gore. I mean he's already won once.

So, uh, what's Hillary's position?

Seriously, dude, this is disappointing, but I think you're getting into a bit of a huff.

What is up with all the bile directed at Obama? Is it just because he beat your girl?

Umm, are we a little bitter?

I'm still reading here, but frankly I've started to hold my nose a bit when I do.

Thanks for recommending that "Democrats" vote Obama, but what about others? Surely he's better than the other guy for everyone.

I slowly came around to supporting Obama (after hoping Feingold would run and then supporting Edwards), but I think (once again) Glenn Greenwald has stated the correct position:

It isn't that difficult to keep the following two thoughts in one's head at the same time -- though it seems to be for many people:

(1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;

(2) I support Barack Obama for President because he's a better choice than John McCain.

He continues:

As but one example, John Cole was a vehement supporter of Barack Obama throughout the primary. He viciously criticized Hillary Clinton on a regular basis and raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaign through his blog. But this week alone, Cole lambasted Obama for what he called Obama's "total collapse and a rapid abandonment of principle" regarding FISA and pronounced as a "pathetic performance" Obama's refusal to be photographed anywhere near Muslims or to meet with Muslim leaders. Despite that, just yesterday, Cole said:

"No, I don't have buyers remorse. Yes, he still is better than Hillary or McCain. No, I am not disillusioned (I never thought he was a flaming liberal in the first place). I am, however, disgusted, and I will caution the Obama campaign that "better than McCain" is not much of a rallying cry. We all remember how "anything is better than Bush" turned out in 2004."

That's called being a rational adult who refuses to relinquish one's intellectual honesty, integrity, and political principles in order to march lockstep behind a political leader. Those who think that Barack Obama should not be criticized no matter how wrong he is -- or those who justify anything that he does no matter how craven and unjustifiable, including things that they viciously criticized when done by Dick Cheney or Harry Reid -- are no different, and no better, than those who treated George Bush with similar uncritical reverence in 2003 and 2004.

I think Greenwald's last sentence resonates particularly clearly. I used to think I was a slightly left-of-centrist, until the GOP went insane. My feeling about 2006 and 2008 is that while the Democrats have done little to deserve to win, the GOP deserves complete and total electoral humiliation. George Bush failed this country in just about every conceivable way. He was incompetent, immoral, and totally corrupt - and by 2004 that was completely clear. And yet an overwhelming majority of Republicans went to the polls in 2004 and voted to reelect him - I doubt I'll ever respect a Republican who did that. I'll be damned if I will refuse to criticize Barack Obama when he's wrong - and he is WRONG on this issue.

Norm, How did you forget to remind us (as several of my former friends have) that Obama has a phony birth certificate, he's not even an American since he was born in Hawaii.

As for the private financing issue, anything any one can do to insure that Bush-lite doesn't get into office is quite o.k. with me. In this case, the ends do not only justify the means, they beg for it.

Jerry boskolives.wordpress.com/

I don't want to be confrontational, but it is no stretch to imply you favor Clinton over Obama. I think that your preference has been made very clear over the last few months.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion (and perhaps you don't think she is perfect) but I think it is disingenuous to try and deny it. Of course, if you can maybe point me to a post about Clinton that is half as vitriolic as this one, then maybe I'd be inclined to change my mind.

What I really don't understand about both Obama's and Clinton's capitulation on FISA is why they are doing it. I wouldn't think they are gaining any McCain tilting voters, certainly not enough to warrant the resentment they are generating among their supporters and um, the 73% of Americans who are fed up with this kind of crap.

Ah, Washington. Hell, I LIVE here and feel powerless, I can only imagine what the attentive in Montana feel like. Did bump into Janet Reno one time. All I said was "excuse me" though.

Come on, Obama is just another politician, and like most (if not all) politicians, he makes his decisions based on self-interest and not principles. If you really think that he is "the one" and would run the campaign based entirely on the magnificent rhetoric that comes out of his mouth, then you are really cute...

In my humble opinion, the only public figure that comes close to running a campaign that is based on principles is Ralph Nader, but we know the American public will never vote for him...

If you really think that he is "the one" and would run the campaign based entirely on the magnificent rhetoric that comes out of his mouth, then you are really cute...

Norm never believed that. That's what makes this all so terribly ironic.

Senator Russ Feingold on the FISA bill if you haven't seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX20bsBpTEI

To quote the recently passed Gorge Carlin,

"...Politicians represent the best of what the Public has to offer...If our Politicians Suck, then what does that say about the Public? I say the Public Sucks!!"

R.I.P.

To quote the recently passed Gorge Carlin,

"...Politicians represent the best of what the Public has to offer...If our Politicians Suck, then what does that say about the Public? I say the Public Sucks!!"

R.I.P.

Sorry that's spelled GEORGE Carlin...Sorry about that GC! :P

I made my own point though. lol

Norm, for someone who so ardently supported Clinton, I really think you're being huffy. Her silence on this speaks volumes, and based on her votes and speeches, I doubt she'd have a different take on FISA at all. All the more reason I wish Edwards had been the winner after all, but despite this I still think Obama's the next best choice.

To this end, I'm with Tim (and Greenwald, and Cole). In the meantime, fuck you, Barack, you unprincipled ass. No matter your reasoning for this bullshit, you are wrong. VERY wrong. And your forte is Constitutional Law! WTF??!?! And you had better pray you don't backtrack or change your mind on other aspects of your policies, or we'll do our best to get you unelected, after we work our asses off to get you elected in the first place.

Norm, for someone who so ardently supported Clinton, I really think you're being huffy. Her silence on this speaks volumes, and based on her votes and speeches, I doubt she'd have a different take on FISA at all. All the more reason I wish Edwards had been the winner after all, but despite this I still think Obama's the next best choice.

To this end, I'm with Tim (and Greenwald, and Cole). In the meantime, fuck you, Barack, you unprincipled ass. No matter your reasoning for this bullshit, you are wrong. VERY wrong. And your forte is Constitutional Law! WTF??!?! And you had better pray you don't backtrack or change your mind on other aspects of your policies, or we'll do our best to get you unelected, after we work our asses off to get you elected in the first place.

That's what happens when you vote for a personality and not the issues...

Kucinich was a much better choice if you wanted who had principles.

of course, as far as his stance on the death penalty is concerned, thats nothing new. so including that in your indictment of him as a "sellout" is inappropriate. i disagree with him about the death penalty, i find that it accomplishes nothing except for an unhealthy feeling of revenge, and just costs a lot of money and puts people through (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL) anguish. but that doesn't make him a sellout -- it just means he and i disagree about that issue.

the FISA thing, on the other hand... well... i'll get back to ya on that one.

Senatorial Oath of Office:

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.

Barack Obama's Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will do anything and everything in my power to get myself elected President of the United States of America: So help me God.

I think I am very liberal. Some issues I support include gay marriage, women's right to choose and abortion etc. But on this issue I think I have to stand with Barack. I have a 8 year old daughter and if anyone raped her, I would want him dead or any punishment worse than dead. I do not think we should see the judgement here as being liberal or conservative. The judge's simply said that we need to follow the constitution which states that execution is not allowed for rape. I disagree. They also made a ruling that a hand gun ban is unconstitutional. I disagree. Both rulings were made on the basis of the constitution. One can be seen as a win for conservatives and the other for liberals. But I think in the first case there would be a lot of emotion involved. I think as a father of 2 girls Barack was a bit emotionally involved. As for the other issues including FISA that was a dissapointment. I thought Barack would have more of a backbone and make a stand instead of agree to this bill. The way things are going I think we are going to see the same kind of politics. My hope is that he will change and bring abt change AFTER he gets elected when he does not have to please everyone for votes

Anu, one (solid, IMHO) argument against the DP for child rape is that it levels the field between rape and murder. A consequence would be that once a rape has been committed, there's no reason not to kill the child too... it would be too risky NOT to kill the child.

Insitutionalize mandates for DP for child rape, and you will see the predicted increase in child murder... so the argument goes. Doesn't mean most of us don't want to see child rapists dead.

The other argument is that we already have the DP for child rape. It's called "putting them in the general population" in prison circles.

I wonder if Norm remembers Michael Dukakis? Dukakis had a fourteen point lead in June over Bush Sr. and then someone asked him if he would still oppose the death penalty if someone raped and killed his wife. Dukakis said that he would still oppose it and watched his lead evaporate as the right wing nailed him to the wall. By the time he got the ridiculous picture taken in the tank he was already trying to rehabilitate his image as a pansy which began when he said he wouldn't want the man killed who raped and murdered his wife.

So do you really think Obama should come out and say that he doesn't think baby rapers should be killed? Or should he look soft on security just so we can have an inevitable ten years of class action lawsuits against the phone companies only to have the Supreme Court strike them down for lack of standing? Are these really the issues where you would like Obama to draw the line in the sand?

For me I'm glad that he drew the line in the sand by opposing the Iraq war from the beginning. I'm glad that he drew the line in the sand by saying he would communicate with Iran rather than obliterate them. Those are the things I expect from a progressive candidate. But maybe that's just me.

Obama is incredibly wrong on this issue. What hurts more than being wrong on the issue is how he lied about how he stood on the issue (against amnesty for the telecoms) before stating his wrong position (ok with amnesty). This decision taints Obama for me. This is why people donate money to 527's. A 527 will stand for a principle and stick by it. They won't lie to you and then switch positions when it is politically more advantageous.

If you look at Barack's proposed energy policy it includes huge stacks of money for biofuels, which is just a suck up to Iowa. Yes McCain's 300 million dollar cash prize for a better battery is a bad idea, but at least it's not pandering to corn farmers. These moves just show that the change that Obama has been talking about is just a change of party and not a change in politics.

Yeah I voted for him when I couldn't vote for Edwards. Unfortunately now I'm not voting for Obama, I'm voting against McCain.

Would he have voted against the war? Or would he have done the most politically expedient thing. I'd like to think that he still would have voted against the war. This does make me wonder though.

I'm not going to argue about the egregious, Bush-line-spouting by Barack on FISA. I'm still furious over that, and if I vote for him, will have to hold my nose.

I do think, Norm, that you're misrepresenting his comments on the Supreme Court ban on the death penalty for child rape. Here is what the man said. Barack's point is purely technical: that the court made a blank judgment that outright prohibit the death penalty for certain crimes, when it ought to have set narrow conditions of applicability within which states are to make their own assessment.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said, “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, that the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”

I happen NOT to agree, but given that several states do have such laws, although with narrower standards of applicability than LA, it seems to me neither unreasonable to grant state courts and legislatures a certain degree of autonomy withihn well-define conditions. But that is an old debate about Federalism, not specifically child-rape.

I live in NY. Apparently Schumer and Clinton both plan to vote against the expanded FISA bill. We'll see if they stick to that promise.

I'm not going to argue about the egregious, Bush-line-spouting by Barack on FISA. I'm still furious over that, and if I vote for him, will have to hold my nose.

I do think, Norm, that you're misrepresenting his comments on the Supreme Court ban on the death penalty for child rape. Here is what the man said. Barack's point is purely technical: that the court made a blank judgment that outright prohibit the death penalty for certain crimes, when it ought to have set narrow conditions of applicability within which states are to make their own assessment.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said, “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, that the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”

I happen NOT to agree, but given that several states do have such laws, although with narrower standards of applicability than LA, it seems to me neither unreasonable to grant state courts and legislatures a certain degree of autonomy withihn well-define conditions. But that is an old debate about Federalism, not specifically child-rape.

I live in NY. Apparently Schumer and Clinton both plan to vote against the expanded FISA bill. We'll see if they stick to that promise.

Dukakis had a fourteen point lead in June over Bush Sr. and then someone asked him if he would still oppose the death penalty if someone raped and killed his wife. Dukakis said that he would still oppose it

Yeah, because Dukakis gave the WRONG answer. The totally honest I would give is:

HELL NO! And if either of my daughters were raped when they were eight years old - or now, at the ages of 21 and 31, for that matter, and I was at the scene watching the bastard walk away, unarmed, I want to kill 'em - no doubt about it. But then, we don't make laws based solely on the entirely understandable emotional response of the victim. If we did, they maybe we'd cut a hand off the asshole who stole the laptop right off my desk in my office when I was two doors away. We make laws with other considerations in mind.

The reason Dukakis's response got him nailed to the wall was that it was passionless, bloodless - not so much that he opposed the death penalty - but that he seemed robotic about contemplating the death of his wife.

The, I was against the war from the beginning thing is not Sen. Obama's strongest argument; especially if he can't maintain a position asserting the public's right to privacy.

OT - I had to endure an hour of Rush today and loved how he was so happy about the Supreme Court's 2nd amendment decision. Funny how the SP is 'activist' only when the Republicans don't get their way.

The, I was against the war from the beginning thing is not Sen. Obama's strongest argument; especially if he can't maintain a position asserting the public's right to privacy.

OT - I had to endure an hour of Rush today and loved how he was so happy about the Supreme Court's 2nd amendment decision. Funny how the SP is 'activist' only when the Republicans don't get their way.

SC, not SP: thinking faster than I type…

Hey Adam,

Is there a source for Schumer and Clinton voting against it? I actually thought she would vote with Obama to avoid calls of dividing the party and undermining Obama. Or at the very least avoid the vote...

One (solid, IMHO) argument against the DP for child rape is that it levels the field between rape and murder. A consequence would be that once a rape has been committed, there's no reason not to kill the child too... it would be too risky NOT to kill the child.

I agree - this seems like a very solid reason. Another that I read from a group of people who deal with such cases is that most child rapes are committed by a family member of close family friend. They're worried that when molestation is discovered, the death penalty may reduce the chances that the molester will be reported to the police at all.

no.

Is there a source for Schumer and Clinton voting against it? I actually thought she would vote with Obama to avoid calls of dividing the party and undermining Obama. Or at the very least avoid the vote...

I called their offices.

Perhaps I'm just missing your point. It seems to me that the supreme court is saying we as individuals have a constitutional right to not suffer cruel and unusual punishment. And is further defining the death penalty as cruel and unusual because it isn't proportionate, and by definition can't be proportionate. Barack is apparently arguing that in theory there ought to be some wiggle room. On what does he base that conclusion?

I agree (mostly) with your view. I also wish to emphasize, again, that I think there are special considerations that make the death penalty for child rape a particularly ill-advised policy. One is that children do not always give reliable testimony. Another, which Tim pointed out, is the possibility of underreporting, due to the fact that most abuses take place within families. Another, also pointed out here, is that it may motivate child murder.

Note, however, that these are all pragmatic objections, not of principle: they centrally concern the consequences of such a law, not its principle. The dissenting opinion offered the first two of these arguments, in addition to the claim of principle--which does not strictly depend on them--that it would be cruel and unusual because 'disproportionate'. Since I know of neither a common nor commensurable measure for assessing whether death or child rape is worse, or even whether that question makes sense, simply insisting that they are disproporitionate doesn't help. Rejecting these metaphysical subtleties, my own argument is also pragmatic: that the consequences of extending such a punishment beyond brutely literal and strict proportionality--a death for a death--renders ambiguous under exactly what circumstances the punishment can be applied at all, in addition to the other complicating factors already mentioned.

Evidently, Barack finds that more debatable than you or I do: the problem with the decision, in his view, appears to be that several states, not just LA, have such laws, although the conditions for the death penalty in the case of child murder are much more strict than LA for them. And faced with such existing laws, he thinks it was the duty of the court to specify what those conditions of application ought to be, rather to deny the right of states to determine their own punishments with a broader national framework. By analogy, there are certain forms that the death penalty may take--injection, electricution, and yes, firing squad--and other that it may not. The court has creating a broad framework that would render some methods of execution unconstitutional, and other not. But the states decision, within that broad framework, which method to use.

In any case, for Barack's reasoning on the child rape issue to be convincing presupposes that if said conditions are defined by the court and met the states, the punishment would not, in his view, be cruel and unusual. I see no way to settle that claim either on our side, that it is, or the other, that it is, without begging the question of what standard for 'cruel' and 'unusual' or 'disproportionate' is. This is why I believe there is room for reasonable disagreement, and it is also why I disagree on pragmatic grounds with Barack, but find no deep flaw in his reasoning at the level of principles.

I called their [Senate] offices.

Incidentally, if you have a Democratic Senator(s) from your state, and wish to contact them, see a list with contact information here

I'm not sure how Obama's statement indicts him. Consistent with his performance since he took the stage, it is reasoned, reasonable, moderate. Ultimately nothing will be gained by ragging the telcoms into court where they will plead, and and be VINDICATED on the point, that they were following the directives of law enforcement (DOJ) and doing so in good faith.

If the greater point is to nail the Bushies for illegal acts, suing the telcoms will not accomplish this. This is better done through a direct pursuit by the next administration with a fresh, clean, honest Justice Department.

If the point is to re-instate some or all of the functions of the FISA system, has this bill failed to accomplish some of that?

We've had seven years of conservative idiots governing from their Gut instead of making a case for a reasoned position. Liberal idiots governing from their gut can be no better. If nothing else this position and his stance on the court's death penalty ruling position Obama as a solid moderate liberal. Far-lefties will certainly be disappointed in this, but nothing in Hillary's performance or her record indicate that she is to the Left of Barack.

fp

First some good news:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/housing-bill-fisa-delayed-until-after-july-recess-2008-06-26.html

Three cheers to Russ Feingold; the senate vote on FISA will be pushed back until after the July recess.

Not a "victory" by any stretch of the word, but it buys us some time. Hopefully Feingold & Co. can keep postponing the vote until after the election. The fight continues.

Now for some cold hard facts:

Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states (in part):

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Define: ex post facto law-

"An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "After The Fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law."

The "immunity" clause of the new FISA bill is a TEXTBOOK case of ex post facto law, and ABSOLUTELY unconstitutional.

To anyone defending Obama's recent flip-flop, consider for a moment the following hypothetical:

1. Thanks to Obama's support, the FISA immunity clause passes, despite the best efforts of Dodd, Feingold and others.

2. Having betrayed his base in a vain effort to appease racist xenophobes who will never vote for the black guy anyway, McCain is elected the 44th President.

3. February 1, 2008, President John McCain launches a full-scale (blatantly illegal) invasion of Iran.

4. 2012- as articles of Impeachment are drafted against McCain, a new bill offering to retroactively declare war against Iran is drafted, and history repeats.

Not vile enough? Try this:

I am President. I kick in the front door of your house, rape your wife, kill your son, and urinate on your floor.

I then pass a law which makes said attack retroactively legal. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The FISA bill is not only a violation of the U.S. Constitution, it violates a keystone of western law, and it even goes so far as to violates the 4th dimension.

Time-traveling legislation is not legal.

Until today, I whole-heatedly acknowledged that Obama was the superior candidate to McCain. I no longer feel that way.

Conspiracy theory: if I was in line to be the next President, would I be willing to give back some of the powers accrued by my predecessor? If power is the motivation for politics, isn't that akin to arguing for my own pay cut?

Obama has now supported an illegal invasion of Pakistan, the renewal of the Patriot Act, and ex post facto immunity for gross violations of the 4th amendment.

McCain has supported an illegal invasion of Iran, the renewal of the Patriot Act, and ex post facto immunity for gross violations of the 4th amendment.

Are there key difference between the two? Yes.

In my mind, all I see is the following:

Potential lawless dictator #1 prefers Pepsi, whereas potential lawless dictator #2 prefers Coke.

A key difference to be sure, but not a difference that is going to sway my vote.

Ethics/morality:

Hypothetical: you ask to borrow $100 from me because you want to buy a gun and rob a 7-11. I loan you the money, you buy the gun, and go and kill an innocent shop clerk.

I am now an accessory after the fact, am I not?

Your candidate has explicitly stated a disregard for your Constitutional rights. You support them anyway. Does this not make you an accessory to evil?

I wash my hands of this entire process. Like Norm, I will be voting 3rd-party this November.

To those of you who will stick by Obama, I strongly suggest you raise hell between now and November. Remind Obama that your vote MUST NOT be taken for granted.

If you cannot reign this guy in now, do you expect to keep him in check after he is President, tapping your phone and planning an invasion of Pakistan?

Is McCain worse? For the sake of argument: yes. That said, is asked to vote between Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer, what do you do?

Me? I clean my guns, and start looking for land in South America.

""

If the greater point is to nail the Bushies for illegal acts, suing the telcoms will not accomplish this.

Yes, it will: we have little to no idea, including most members of the Senate, what the Bush administration has been doing, what kind of information they have been collecting, on whom, and why, in part because there has been no oversight process. The legal discovery process alone--the formal investigation before trial of interviewing witnesses and collecting evidence and documents from the opposing side--would provide a lot of this information. This is not about getting revenge. It is about setting a precedent for both the government and telecom companies that it is not OK to break the law, and determining whether they did do so. And only a court, not Congress, can determine that.

Ultimately, though, emphasizing the telecom immunity issue, while important, is misleading if it is exclusive. The new FISA bill also allows for broad warrents covering multiple parties, instead mandating individual warrents for each (Imagine: the government claims to have grounds to investigate someone at your work or school. And rather just monitoring that one person, they get a warrant covering, not just that someone, but potentially any or even every individual at that business or school under one broad warrant). It also authorizes warrantless spying--without oversight--if the alleged "target" of an American communication is overseas.

Obama put a nice spin on it--but it's the Bush/Cheney spin that this is necessary for national security. And that's a distortion: the argument is about oversight, not whether the government can conduct surveillance.

This is better done through a direct pursuit by the next administration with a fresh, clean, honest Justice Department.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Although, a federal court is reviewing now whether the administration can simply reject subpoenas from Congress. That we're even having that conversation should be an embarrassment, and they should have impeached this scoundrel long ago--but no, no, let's vote away any possibility of gathering evidence to find out what he's been doing.

I then pass a law which makes said attack retroactively legal. Wash, rinse, repeat.

This is almost accurate. You left out the part about your sitting in on the secret negotiations with the legislature whose task it is to create this magical, ex-post facto law for you, to tell them exactly how you want your crime to be excused after the fact.

Look, I sympathize immensely with your posting. I even recently said that constitutional issues like FISA and habeas corpus are different by orders of magnitude than ones like health care, Iraq, and much else, because the former involve protections so basic that democracy and the rule of law are themselves compromised if they are not upheld, and as you note, a dangerous and corrosive precedent created. I even said that a candidate unwilling to stand up for our Constitution, to which as a Senator he is sworn to protect, MIGHT be unworthy of my vote. But, still, I think you're levelling a bit...

Potential lawless dictator #1 prefers Pepsi, whereas potential lawless dictator #2 prefers Coke.

OK: Health care, the environment, the tax code, (and closely related: the national debt), the economy, the war in Iraq, a potential war with Iran, foreign policy generally, poverty, education, energy, and much else. Not quite the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

Obama has now supported an illegal invasion of Pakistan, the renewal of the Patriot Act,

Do you have links for these claims? (Your other link was hugely appreciated, btw, although it's bad news, to my mind, that the housing bill was also held up).

Adam:

I spun the Pakistan issue a bit. A fair statement would be: "If there is actionable intelligence that there are Al Queda (Osama) in Pakistan, he will act unilaterally to destroy them".

Link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uTwUAAmRuNM&feature=related

My take:

This is a wholesale endorsement of the "Bush Mandate" (unilateral, preemptive war).

Bonus points: he uses the phrase "the long war against extremism" in the above clip.

Regarding the renewal of the Patriot Act:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama:_U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008/On_renewal_of_the_Patriot_Act

Lots of good stuff there. My summary: Obama spun this vote as a "compromise", as is being done now with FISA.

Health care, the environment, the tax code, (and closely related: the national debt), the economy, the war in Iraq, a potential war with Iran, foreign policy generally, poverty, education, energy, and much else. Not quite the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

If you were offered free healthcare, withdrawl in Iraq, a balanced budget, etc. etc. in exchange for waiving your Constitutional rights, would you take the deal?

I would not take this deal. Why? Let's use healthcare as an example. Say I am injured as a result of doctor negligence, and seek resolution via the courts. If I have no constitutional right to a civil trial, or if a new "retroactive immunity" is offered to health care providers to keep costs down (for the greater good), what have I really gotten?

Cows in a dairy factory have universal heathcare too. I'm not interested in that deal, are you?

To reiterate:

I totally understand why you will vote Obama. I don't disagree with your decision. But make him WORK for that vote. If the left starts giving "free passes", just as the right did to George Bush, an Obama Presidency is doomed to become another Reagan Administration- lots of fantastic patriotic rhetoric, but long-term, incredibly damaging to the fabric of America.

I don't disagree with your decision. But make him WORK for that vote

I agree with all that you've said Zaphod.

Remember back when the last Democrat was president? Remember Bill clinton? Remember how much more conservative he became when he was a presidential candidate in the general election?

Remember when he had a mentally retarded man subjected to the death penalty?

Remember his "sista soulja" moment?

There is a significant majority of Americans who are very very conservative and we all have to deal with that, like it or not.

The United States is not at all like Europe. The so-called centrists in the U.S. would be considered conservative in Europe. Hell, most of the Democrats here in the U.S. would be considered to be conservatives in Europe.

Whether we like it or not, those of us who are concerned about the death penalty and FISA and other issues have to come to terms with the fact that most Americans don't agree with us on these issues.

I'm extremely disappointed with Obama, just as I was disappointed with Bill Clinton way back when. But then I do understand that they're attempting to be president of the U.S. It's not the same as running for a particular district or a particular state. The presidential candidate has to attempt to please the majority of people in this very very conservative United States of America.

The United States is not at all like Europe. The so-called centrists in the U.S. would be considered conservative in Europe. Hell, most of the Democrats here in the U.S. would be considered to be conservatives in Europe.

Whether we like it or not, those of us who are concerned about the death penalty and FISA and other issues have to come to terms with the fact that most Americans don't agree with us on these issues.

I'm extremely disappointed with Obama, just as I was disappointed with Bill Clinton way back when. But then I do understand that they're attempting to be president of the U.S. It's not the same as running for a particular district or a particular state. The presidential candidate has to attempt to please the majority of people in this very very conservative United States of America.

The United States is not at all like Europe. The so-called centrists in the U.S. would be considered conservative in Europe. Hell, most of the Democrats here in the U.S. would be considered to be conservatives in Europe.

oops sorry.

Posting here has become difficult... all kinds of errors and shit.

JoAnn, Adam:

Confession time: in all likelihood, I'm blowing off steam, and I will vote Obama while holding my nose come November. Barr sucks. McKinney is a lunatic. I might write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "No Confidence", but I'm not sure the point of such protest. And if I stay at home and pout, the world will continue to march over me anyway.

But- we cannot offer a free pass on this. And as a "very very conservative" American, let me say, there is nothing more conservative than the U.S. Constitution. That's the very purpose of this document- to conserve the rule of law, and to make sure that any changes to the rule of law require the cooperation of 3 balanced branches of power.

FISA retroactive immunity should be sent to the SCOTUS. Period. Congress is overstepping its authority. Perhaps this is revenge for the Bush v. Gore decision? Who knows. Both are disgusting examples that violate the very function of our republic.

And the one thing I've ALWAYS admired about Bill Clinton- he balanced the budget. If you want to demonize him, look no further than Waco. However, credit where credit is due, Clinton did what a generation of "small government" CONservatives couldn't- and left a surplus that was to be tragically squandered by another fraud in sheep's clothing.

I think Obama has the potential to be another Clinton- a beloved, competent executive.

That said- NOW is the time for us to "steer this ship". If we can course-correct before November, the next 4 years could be remarkable.

Bush drew a line in the sand. He said- this is how I'm doing things, either support it, or go to hell.

And the strange thing about the bible thumpers is that they love authoritarianism. They really, really love it- be it a king, or man in the clouds, or a spouse.

I think Obama is playing this all wrong. I think he needs to take a page out of Bush's book and draw his own line in the sand.

"On the Obama side of this line lies the future, and on the McCain side lies the past. Make your choice."

America is embarrassed and enraged by its "spineless", "weak" and "Bush enabling" Democrats. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, while expecting different results.

So Obama, stop being weak and spineless. Stop enabling Bush. Grow a pair, rise to the occasion, and you might just be amazed at how the "Bible thumpers" respond.

I hope Clinton sticks to her pledge to vote against telecomm immunity. It is the right thing to do and since it potentially benefits here politically I suspect she will. Some will argue that the political considerations are they only ones she ever considers. I think that is often the case, but also thinks she has some core values where she'll bite the bullet and vote against her political interests if the issue is important enough. I hope this is one of those occasions. I don't think Barack is any different in that sense, but I must say I was surprised that he bailed on the issue this time. Perhaps at some point he'll prove that he really does have values on which he'll refuse to compromise.

A candidate for a particular state (where there is often both a Democrat and Republican) and a candidate who running to be the president of the U.S. is not the same thing.

Obama has become as much of a turncoat as Hillary was in many many circumstances. And Bill Clinton was no liberal. You know as well as I do how conservative he had to be to please the majority.

So Obama, stop being weak and spineless. Stop enabling Bush. Grow a pair, rise to the occasion, and you might just be amazed at how the "Bible thumpers" respond.

I agree Zaphod. I guess that Obama feels that he has to pander in order to be elected.

If you were offered free healthcare, withdrawl in Iraq, a balanced budget, etc. etc. in exchange for waiving your Constitutional rights, would you take the deal?

Did I not explicitly say that the two sets of issues are incommensurable for precisely the reasons you suggest? Still...McCain and Obama are different.

I totally understand why you will vote Obama. I don't disagree with your decision. But make him WORK for that vote.

Actually, that's up in the air, how I will vote (although the fact that my state is going blue by a huge margin, most likely, has some influence). But I agree with making him work.

in all likelihood, I'm blowing off steam, and I will vote Obama while holding my nose come November.

. Me too, probably.

There is a significant majority of Americans who are very very conservative and we all have to deal with that, like it or not.

I am skeptical about the "significant majority" part--most of the polls I've seen show the majority being for healthcare, getting out of Iraq, and against 'Reagan' trickle down economics.

Adam said:

I am skeptical about the "significant majority" part--most of the polls I've seen show the majority being for healthcare, getting out of Iraq, and against 'Reagan' trickle down economics

Exactly- I am one such person, and a self-described conservative. The brand-name of "Conservative" is COMPLETELY misrepresented and misunderstood by mainstream press and polls. Why people who oppose welfare support Reagan's mandate of corporate welfare simply astounds me. It is hypocrisy supreme.

After reading OGM for a few years, it is clear to me the same is true for the brand-name of "Liberal" or "Progressive".

These labels are extremely destructive, and I must remind myself to stop using them so often.

JoAnn wrote:

I guess that Obama feels that he has to pander in order to be elected.

I understand this is the prevailing logic over at the DNC, but it is a fundamentally flawed logic.

The bible thumpers view the Dems as weak. Not just "weak on terror" but generally weak. Attempting to appease a foe who has already labeled you as weak is simply foolish.

See also: Tsun Zsu's Art of War

Adam:

Did I not explicitly say that the two sets of issues are incommensurable for precisely the reasons you suggest? Still...McCain and Obama are different.

I am pretty sure we agree 100%. The significant differences between Obama and McCain are dwarfed by issues of constitutional authority.

Yes, there are differences. In my mind, the difference is: would you rather be smacked by a wood baseball bat, or a metal one?

I understand this is a gross misrepresentation on Obama's platform. It is a hyperbole designed to illustrate my anger and frustration.

Hey Norm ol Friend,

Just dropped by and saw this post. Funny, I've been defending Obama to a friend with your exact same viewpoint and feelings.

I was an Edwards supporter first, but have learned to accept Obama and actually get a little excited.

I think you (and my friend) are missing a BIIIIG picture here. Obama is a man of color, and as such, cannot appear liberal. He can by hung for this, and so during these next months, I predict he'll be burning some small liberal bridges to erect some new independant and moderate conservative bridges. This guy wants to win in a landslide.

Once inside, he'll probably stay centrist at first, to see if he can make America LOVE him. Once that happens, expect some cautious steps leftward.

Remember, we Dems eat our own, and so he can't do the Bushie cakewalk.

Trust me, everything's going to be okay.

Peace.

I really don't care much about what Obama votes for or against until he gets into the White House. Once he is there I am quite sure that he will be infinitely more responsive to the will of the American people than any Republican candidate. If you don't believe this then perhaps you simply don't believe in the Democratic party.

From the beginning, I have found the opposition to Obama on OGM to be childish and naïve. Obama is a politician; politicians make compromises to get where they want to go. I find it curious that on a page dedicated to the enlightenment of atheism, people seem to be waiting for Jesus Christ to run for president. If you think that Obama will be no better than John McCain as president, you can't call yourself a liberal or progressive. If you are not supporting the Democratic candidate, that makes you a Republican by default.

Bill Clinton did lots of things that I disagreed with adamantly, but that didn't keep me from voting for him...twice. If Obama has flip-flopped on this or any other issue, he is doing it out of political expediency (like why Hilary voted for the war). Even if I disagreed with Obama on 50% of his positions, that would still mean that I agree with 50% more than those of the Republicans. For things to get better in American, Obama not only needs to win but he needs to win by a landslide. Or are you waiting for Hilary to ride in on a white horse in 2012 and save the day? By then there won't be much worth saving if we have another Republican in office.

The United States is not at all like Europe. The so-called centrists in the U.S. would be considered conservative in Europe.

Do you know what I find ironic here (to spell out your comment): being a radical "conservative" in Europe means , pretty much, playing on xenophobic prejudices. But even most of the most 'radical' conservatives in Europe would not dare to touch universal health care. That would be like suggesting to an American that the police force and the fire dept. should be privately subsidized, because only the rich deserve police protection, and only the rich deserve to be saved from fire disasters.

Once he is there I am quite sure that he will be infinitely more responsive to the will of the American people than any Republican candidate. If you don't believe this then perhaps you simply don't believe in the Democratic party.

What reason have we either to believe that Obama is trustworthy or to have faith in the Democratic party? We are a nation of laws, not of men: the law is what I trust, not its corruptible agent. And Democrats more generally--(most of them) voted for the war in Iraq, they (most of them in the House) voted for telecom immunity, and pretty generally, they have let the fascists control the rhetorical terms of the debate, even when said fascists are dying in the poll numbers; they have not enforced their own subpoena's, they have not drawn up articles of impeachment, although I defy anyone to think of a case where it was more deserved.

The democrats are spineless cowards. My cautious hope, but not my faith, in Obama--based on health care, Iran, and his race speech, among other things--was that finally a leader would talk to us like GROWN UPS, whether we agreed or not.

What appalls me most is that he has been praised in the press for "standing up to his base". But his base is powerless--the real power, the thing to stand up to, was the lies told to us by Bush, Cheney, the Republican-Fascist establishment. And--he failed to elicit the slightest hint of backbone. When it comes to the constitution, 'it was an election strategy' is no excuse.

From the beginning, I have found the opposition to Obama on OGM to be childish and naïve. Obama is a politician; politicians make compromises to get where they want to go.

I in part agree. I find tiresome the caricatures that have been made here and elsewhere both of Obama and of his supporters. Indeed, one of the things I appreciated most about Obama was that he could be Machivellian when he need to be: cunning, cold, calculating, but for an aim I endorsed, and at least understood (e.g., his bullshit on NAFTA, etc.). But on this issue, I agree with Zaphod, completely: politics may be 'the art of the possible.' But capitulating on the U.S. Constitution and basic legal protections is of an entirely different order--ex post facto laws undermine the very basis of law because it simply collapses the difference between violating it and being simply excused from it. Unwarranted search and seizure is a warrant for tyranny. I think Zaphod, Joann, Tim, I, and others, see the matter of principle at issue that could create a precedent as to what is acceptable. And if violating the law, asking congress for immunity to the law after the fact, and negotiating--nay, dictating--the terms of one's own immunity to a legislature, are permissible, then there is no longer basic rule of law.

Obama's alleged "compromise" is not politics, it is duck and cover. There are compromises in politics that are necessary: but the basis upon which any such compromises can have any meaning at all--the rule of law, democratic decision making and will-formation, a constitution--cannot be negotiable, and not something one can 'compromise' on.

The United States is not at all like Europe. The so-called centrists in the U.S. would be considered conservative in Europe.

Do you know what I find ironic here (to spell out your comment): being a radical "conservative" in Europe means , pretty much, playing on xenophobic prejudices. But even most of the most 'radical' conservatives in Europe would not dare to touch universal health care. That would be like suggesting to an American that the police force and the fire dept. should be privately subsidized, because only the rich deserve police protection, and only the rich deserve to be saved from fire disasters.

Once he is there I am quite sure that he will be infinitely more responsive to the will of the American people than any Republican candidate. If you don't believe this then perhaps you simply don't believe in the Democratic party.

What reason have we either to believe that Obama is trustworthy or to have faith in the Democratic party? We are a nation of laws, not of men: the law is what I trust, not its corruptible agent. And Democrats more generally--(most of them) voted for the war in Iraq, they (most of them in the House) voted for telecom immunity, and pretty generally, they have let the fascists control the rhetorical terms of the debate, even when said fascists are dying in the poll numbers; they have not enforced their own subpoena's, they have not drawn up articles of impeachment, although I defy anyone to think of a case where it was more deserved.

The democrats are spineless cowards. My cautious hope, but not my faith, in Obama--based on health care, Iran, and his race speech, among other things--was that finally a leader would talk to us like GROWN UPS, whether we agreed or not.

What appalls me most is that he has been praised in the press for "standing up to his base". But his base is powerless--the real power, the thing to stand up to, was the lies told to us by Bush, Cheney, the Republican-Fascist establishment. And--he failed to elicit the slightest hint of backbone. When it comes to the constitution, 'it was an election strategy' is no excuse.

From the beginning, I have found the opposition to Obama on OGM to be childish and naïve. Obama is a politician; politicians make compromises to get where they want to go.

I in part agree. I find tiresome the caricatures that have been made here and elsewhere both of Obama and of his supporters. Indeed, one of the things I appreciated most about Obama was that he could be Machivellian when he need to be: cunning, cold, calculating, but for an aim I endorsed, and at least understood (e.g., his bullshit on NAFTA, etc.). But on this issue, I agree with Zaphod, completely: politics may be 'the art of the possible.' But capitulating on the U.S. Constitution and basic legal protections is of an entirely different order--ex post facto laws undermine the very basis of law because it simply collapses the difference between violating it and being simply excused from it. Unwarranted search and seizure is a warrant for tyranny. I think Zaphod, Joann, Tim, I, and others, see the matter of principle at issue that could create a precedent as to what is acceptable. And if violating the law, asking congress for immunity to the law after the fact, and negotiating--nay, dictating--the terms of one's own immunity to a legislature, are permissible, then there is no longer basic rule of law.

Obama's alleged "compromise" is not politics, it is duck and cover. There are compromises in politics that are necessary: but the basis upon which any such compromises can have any meaning at all--the rule of law, democratic decision making and will-formation, a constitution--cannot be negotiable, and not something one can 'compromise' on.

This is tangential to the main discussion and I might even be wrong about this, but my understanding of the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws/bills of attainder is that you cannot make a law to punish someone retroactively. A previous poster suggested that granting retroactive immunity to telecoms would be a Constitutional violation because it is changing a law that was in place at the time the telecoms violated it. I do not think that is correct. Were that the case then all grants of immunity from local District Attorneys in state actions all the way up to Presidential pardons would also be unconstitutional.

There is no Constitutional violation in granting retroactive immunity. Whether it is the right thing to do is an entirely separate question.

The primary, and saddest, question this raises is how does a candidate for office in this country get around such a thing? Whether any of us like it or not, I think we can all agree that Obama is doing what is politically expedient. How do you explain to the average American that a bill which ostensibly provides greater security is being thwarted simply because someone wants to sue telecoms who were just doing what the government told them to do? All they will hear is that Obama wants them to be unsafe because he is a leftist who hates big business. Hell, how many people do you think actually grasp the concept that someone can be breaking the law while doing exactly what the government asked them to do?

The sick sad truth is that if being right on every issue got you elected to the Presidency then Dennis Kucinich would win in a landslide. Obviously that's not going to happen. Expecting Obama, Clinton or anyone else to be right on all, or even most, of the issues is probably asking too much. Not because they are bad people who are owned by big business but because being right would also make them unelectable. We're not going to get someone into office who is much left of center. That has nothing to do with the candidates and everything to do with this country. That is where the fingers should be pointing.

If Jesus upholds the constitution he has my vote.

I don't just think Obama is making the morally wrong decision here, I also think he is making a bad political move. The democrats won in 2006 in large part to people wanting opposition to the Bush government and wanting to check their power and it has not happened. Ever since 9/11 the Democrats have seemed to cower every time a Republican says 'weak on terror' and cave in. McCain has been trying to do exactly the same thing and Obama is caving in. He is letting McCain set the agenda to seem 'tough'. He is reacting instead of acting and instead is looking pretty weak despite what K.O. thinks.

Obama won the high ground against Hilary by refusing to 'saber rattle' and trying to change the dialog from the typical tough on terror mantra. He was pragmatic about the issue and I think this resonated with many voters. I doubt by following McCain and Bushes lead he is going to win the center, because the center has moved away from them already. That is why the word of the year is 'Change'.

I honestly think anyone who believes Obama will get rid of this legislation once in power is kidding themselves. If he really is a politician that actually GIVES UP power, I will fully believe in this new politics, I will solely wear Obama T-shirts for eight years and I will even kill the little cynic inside of me and shout at the top of my lungs 'Yes We Can!' at any speeches he gives near me.

I don't think we should be aiming our ire at just Obama either, by the way. Nancy Pelosi is a joke right now and she is trying to sell this as a 'compromise'. We voted her in to keep Bush in check and I am simply not seeing it happen.

I still think Democrats should vote for you, but they'll have to hold their noses while doing it.

As long as they know they can count on you every 4 Novembers, nothing will change. How are you any different from the Nascar crowd progressives deride for voting against their interests.

I just love all the rationalizations that have and will come about Barack's positions and how he is just doing what he has to in order to get elected. This is Obama. Yeah, it would have been great if he would have received a little scrutiny before he was anointed presumptive nominee... Obama is a crass politician with no conviction other than self-promotion and with arrogance to match a Bush-Cheney duo. He is definitely not the guy you want in office to roll back the executive powers exercised in this administration. I won't vote for him; I would not have voted for Clinton. I didn't like Kerry as a candidate but thought he had sufficient integrity that I could cast my vote for him -not this time.

Of all of the numerous primary candidates, a more Republicanesque one could not have been selected.

Just want to say that when Dukakis was asked about his wife getting raped and murdered, that the question was foul. IMO Dukasis should have slammed the guy asking the question. It wasn't his stance that was the problem it was his wimpiness regarding his stance that was the problem. Also for a long time the republicans have been better at framing issues. To suggest that democrats "need" to follow along when the republicans are framing is certain failure. That Obama "needs" to say what he does because of politics is just falling into the trap laid out by the republican framers of the issues.

Anyway Obama doesn't represent the Change(TM) I am looking for.

This is tangential to the main discussion and I might even be wrong about this, but my understanding of the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws/bills of attainder is that you cannot make a law to punish someone retroactively. A previous poster suggested that granting retroactive immunity to telecoms would be a Constitutional violation because it is changing a law that was in place at the time the telecoms violated it. I do not think that is correct. Were that the case then all grants of immunity from local District Attorneys in state actions all the way up to Presidential pardons would also be unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional violation in granting retroactive immunity. Whether it is the right thing to do is an entirely separate question.

There is a difference between a pardon and a law that grants retroactive immunity.

A pardon deals with the sentence after the conviction where as a law granting, retroactive immunity prevents litigation from even taking place.

I was wondering if someone could clarify something for me from this speech. Obama says that if prevented with two options, A: being telecom immunity and B: being laws put in place to ensure that telecoms are never again put in the position of being asked to break the law, that he would choose B:. My question is what makes these mutually exclusive options, and is his strategy for ensuring option B to simply make it legal for the government to do surveillance on its citizens?

I was wondering if someone could clarify something for me from this speech. Obama says that if prevented with two options, A: being telecom immunity and B: being laws put in place to ensure that telecoms are never again put in the position of being asked to break the law, that he would choose B:. My question is what makes these mutually exclusive options, and is his strategy for ensuring option B to simply make it legal for the government to do surveillance on its citizens?

There is a difference between a pardon and a law that grants retroactive immunity.

A pardon deals with the sentence after the conviction where as a law granting, retroactive immunity prevents litigation from even taking place.

This is exactly right. Also: pardons, precisely for the reasons you adduce, do not create legal precedents--if a thief is pardoned, thievery in general does not thereby become any more legal than before, and all and any thieves have no reason to hope to escape prosecution, simply because another thief was pardoned. For the same reasons, pardons typically--not always--concern the sentences of single individuals, not the law in general. By contrast, retroactive immunity would have to apply to anyone who violated a given law, for it is the claim that what was in fact a violation of law should no longer be treated as one. And that is why, as I said, it collapses the difference between violating the law and evading it.

In short, pardons concern the relationship between an individual and his or her sentence; retroactive immunity pertains to specific acts and the status of the laws which formerly apply to them.

this doesn't surprise me, and i still support obama with the same enthusiasm. why? because we will never (never) ever (ever) have a president worthy of the office. we need one who can complete sentences in english and isn't a mad sadistic sociopath. expect more and you court disappointment. unless you choose to run for office yourself. but most decent intelligent people have a million better things to do than run for public office. it is a trade that attracts jackals and mosquitos. obama is infinitely better than his opponent. he has my vote, this is all a yawner. i'd prefer to vote for kucinich. am i letting that ruin my day? heck no. as for ralph nader, there's your sellout. his recent comments about obama were plainly racist, and that's not a word i tos around for fun. he said obama seems to be trying not to be black. wtf? honestly the more hot air around all this i see, the more i support obama. he's a perfectly normal, average intelligent guy, trying to get the worst job on earth. he'll win, i hope. if he does, win, is failure will truly begin. i'll take his failure over McC@nt's failure, thank you.

Norm,

You never bought into the hype, and you are obviously the kind of person who distrusts politicians who make themselves out to be above the dirty process.

But I think you often overlook one thing about Obama:

His campaign.

This is legendary. Obama's campaign harnessed the power of the internet and removed moneyed interests from the political process.

Dean's 2004 campaign was only the beginning. The Clintons represented old money and old politics: get a small group of highly influential (rich) people to back you, and the presidency is yours.

Obama's campaigned CHANGED THE GAME.

And you of all people should be happy, because Barack Obama and his campaign has made our political process more democratic.

Norm,

You never bought into the hype, and you are obviously the kind of person who distrusts politicians who make themselves out to be above the dirty process.

But I think you often overlook one thing about Obama:

His campaign.

This is legendary. Obama's campaign harnessed the power of the internet and removed moneyed interests from the political process.

Dean's 2004 campaign was only the beginning. The Clintons represented old money and old politics: get a small group of highly influential (rich) people to back you, and the presidency is yours.

Obama's campaigned CHANGED THE GAME.

And you of all people should be happy, because Barack Obama and his campaign has made our political process more democratic.

Again - I don't get it. We have an administration that is destructive beyond belief - does anyone really need the tragedies, scandals, and the American downhill slide outlined? I realize there are so many you can become a little numb to them.

So OBJECTIVE NUMBER ONE: Get the Republicans out!

That means get Obama in. The majority voted him in as our candidate and that's who we have. He might be a huge disappointment - especially to people that were expecting a truly honorable politician like Feingold or Kucinich but HE IS ALL WE'VE GOT.

I believe any liberal not voting is actually giving a vote to McCain (the Republicans have admitted for a long time the fewer voters that turn out, the better for them). And, to be hardcore about it, I think using the one and only vote you get once every four years to show your disgust, disillusionment and/or strong disagreement with Obama is not strategic and actually pretty naive.

RedSeven had a recommendation about a funding protest that I thought was pretty smart. I think going after the money is something that is effective without cutting off your nose to spite your face. I donated a small amount to Obama's campaign. I'm going to see if I can get it back. I will vote for him but I will not help fund him.

" There is a difference between a pardon and a law that grants retroactive immunity.

A pardon deals with the sentence after the conviction where as a law granting, retroactive immunity prevents litigation from even taking place."

Pardon my density here, but when a District Attorney or Attorney General grants immunity to a criminal so that they can testify is that not retroactive? They are being granted immunity from prosecution for past acts that they may implicate themselves in by their testimony. It is specific to the individual and is not changing the law.

I believe the same to be true (roughly) of the FISA situation. They are not changing the law and saying that anyone who has violated it is now free to go - they would open themselves up to lawsuits like crazy from everyone ever convicted under the law. What they are saying is that the telecoms in this instance are being granted immunity for their acts. You may think it is an improper or incorrect decision, but it is not unconstitutional. We do it all the time. It is simply not the same thing as a an ex post facto law or bill of attainder. Those were intended to protect against prosecution for laws that didn't exist at the time of the act, not to prevent the government from granting immunity for having broken laws. We grant immunity at virtually every level of our legal system every single day.

This is a moral issue. This is a correctness issue. But it is not a constitutional issue - at least not in terms of granting immunity to telecoms. I just don't buy it.

They are not changing the law and saying that anyone who has violated it is now free to go - they would open themselves up to lawsuits like crazy from everyone ever convicted under the law.

So far as we know, the government has never conducted surveillance without a warrant before Bush. If they did, the parties involve should also be punished. But let me know if you have actual evidence of a counter instance. (Incidentally, the immunity provision is for civil,