Losin' My Religion
Once upon a time there was an extremely attractive presidential candidate that actually sounded like he understood both the importance of the US Constitution and the massive damage that's been done to the document by vicious Neo-Con and Corporatist Thugs, and the quivering Thug appeasers that style themselves as the Democratic Leadership.
The young heir apparent looked and sounded so good, that a lot of us were having a really hard time retaining our cynicism. I am sad to report that my Road to Damascus moment arrived on Thursday, when Obama said that he'd work hard to strip Telcom immunity from the steaming pile of dog guts called the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, that's being charcterized as a compromise by Steny, Nancy, and Harry, but if he couldn't Git 'er Dun, then he'd support the entire stinking mess in the interest of keeping us safe from the Terriss. Ain't that a Republican, or maybe a New Republican line?
Some of us ancient reactionaries were pretty pissed back in '78 when the Fear Card of the day was Organized Crime and the FISA Court was designed in a manner that made none of their decisions reviewable by a higher court. To Crazy People this sounded like a violation of the Constitution. Still does. But getting out of the Wayback Machine..........
This is the same Obama that said a couple of months back that he'd filibuster if it came up, but hey, that was weeks ago, and he's all about Change, right?
Also, last week, Obama asked Move On to fold up their 527 (which can receive unlimited donations from a single donor), and fall back on their PAC (which cannot take contributions above five grand from any individual). Move On was happy to oblige, because the bottom line is that they're a grassroots org and like to work close to the ground. You know, kind like the Obama camaign.
Move On, however is no more amused by Obama's wobbly legs and spinal decay than I, or some of my fellow travellers here on the Big Blue O, and they are out there demanding that Obama keep his damned word.
Now we are going to see if having a support base of 1.4 million small donors is going to make this guy more responsive to our concerns or not. It ain't our job to blindly ride the train while it sails off the rails into the gorge. Nope. Our job is to hold our leaders responsible, sorta like if this were a republic or something. Yeah, we get it that it's all theater, and that guys like our own Earl Blumenauer and Ron Wyden, have gotten permission to oppose this crap just like the so-called Blue Dogs have permission to support it. We're also informed in a patronizing way that we radicals need to understand that prosecution could theoretically still occur in some future Bizarro World.
The Fix is in and the Deal is done.
Doesn't make it stink any less.
|
June 23, 2008 |
Pat Ryan | Comments (155 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 23, 2008 11:05:31 AM
Pat, I have heard that MoveOn (to which I belong and work in the local Council) has called on Obama to stand by his filibuster word.
But MoveOn.org has not yet tried to mobilize its 2 million plus e-mail network to bring pressure on Obama to do that. I am going to be using what few contacts that go up the MoveOn food chain to press for that.
You write: Now we are going to see if having a support base of 1.4 million small donors is going to make this guy more responsive to our concerns or not.
This is the territory of Frederick Douglass' famous quote,
"Power concedes nothing without a demand."
All of us who think this is unacceptable need to be calling the Obama campaign at all levels to demand the Obama filibuster and support other filibustering. And we need to let them know that our piece of the millions of small donations are at stake over whether he makes such an effort.
He may not win. He doesn't have to. But he has to damn try.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jun 23, 2008 11:11:26 AM
If the disappointment about Obama and FISA is so obvious here, think about what it's like in the blogosphere that was generally pro-CLinton. Better yet, have a look. It's UGLY.
I never had any blinded-by-the-light moments either getting on or off the Obama Express. He has never been more than my preferred candidate. So I don't particularly feel betrayed. But I am very unhappy.
Posted by: Eddie | Jun 23, 2008 11:32:20 AM
The reason for Obama’s position is clear: It’s an election year and he wants to win.
Lets assume he did what us progressives wanted and stayed pure and true to the cause. Meaning, he tries to strip out immunity, loses, and then votes against the bill based on that. Even with his vote against the bill passes and the president signs it into law
Now let’s look at what’s already going to happen: he will try to strip out immunity, he will lose, and then vote for the bill with his objections notwithstanding. the bill passes and the president signs it into law.
Either way this is going to become law. Obama can’t change that. So he is making this move to inoculate himself against election year attacks. The whole “he’s a secret Muslim” whisper campaign will only be fed with a “see, he voted to weaken our abilities to fight terrorists, I bet everyone in Iran are dancing in the streets!’ And you KNOW that attack would happen. So yes, he is going to vote for it because, at least in my opinion, to inoculate himself from those attacks.
You guys in the ivory blogging tower can afford to remain ideologically pure of heart, and that’s great. But I’d rather not spend the next 4 years bitching about President McCain ebcause my candidate refused to amke plitically smart election year decisions. I want to win. It’s one thing if Obama was the deciding vote. He isn’t. This will pass no matter what, and the leadership needs to be taken to task for caving. But Obama has to worry about the election. SO I for one don’t hold this against him one iota.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jun 23, 2008 11:45:26 AM
Harry Reid isn't fussed about FISA, but golly gee, he thinks senators do need to make full disclosure of their
home loans.
Pathetic.
Posted by: registered republican | Jun 23, 2008 12:00:31 PM
And the Obama justifications begin...
Posted by: Chris #12 | Jun 23, 2008 12:16:19 PM
You're right, Eddie--the rage should not be directed against Obama, but against the whole Democratic Party, especially the leadership. Caving in on FISA and the war funding--giving Bush MORE than he requested--shows that the change everyone voted for in 2006 is still a long way off. And I believe that it's thinking like yours--voting for the lesser of two evils, the politics of compromise and moving to the center--that got us to this place.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 23, 2008 12:19:17 PM
Eddie, I just disagree with your political analysis.
Obama has succeeded so far by distinguishing himself from McCain and on identifying the unreasonableness and destructiveness of things flowing from the Bush "commmander-in-chief" doctrine.
I think if he took a prominent role rallying support against abuse of the constitution it would strengthen, not weaken him. Congress' low favorability ratings are comparable to Bush's and partly that's because they've caved and caved and not fought despite the clear character of the 2006 elections as a referendum on Iraq and related abuses.
In his approach to FISA, Obama shows himself to be a candidate of the party of Reid, and not to stand for change at all on a huge issue.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Jun 23, 2008 12:24:30 PM
You guys in the ivory blogging tower can afford to remain ideologically pure of heart, and that’s great. But I’d rather not spend the next 4 years bitching about President McCain ebcause my candidate refused to amke plitically smart election year decisions.
I'm going to argue that my tower is not Ivory. In fact, it's not even a tower.
Obama is not going to lose any more votes to the Smear Machine, one way or another. They will use all of the same lies regardless of his actions, and their target audience is not prone to rational decision making.
When you are up 15% against your opponent, throw a bone over your shoulder toward Reality Land, or we might just wonder if you plan to stand on any principle at all. We will then wonder why we bothered to go through all of the effort to quash the DLC guys wherever they may lurk, if you look and sound just like 'em.
Of course we'll still vote for you, but the fabled Internet ATM just might come up with an "Insufficient Funds" notification just when you really need it, and the Fabled Grassroots will not continue to flourish into a lovely green lawn in the absence of basic lawncare principles.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jun 23, 2008 12:31:48 PM
Thanks, Pat. But...
Re: "...vicious Neo-Con and Corporatist Thugs, and the quivering Thug appeasers that style themselves as the Democratic Leadership."
Here's a question I've been wanting to ask you Dems for a long time: Why is it that DP politicians are believed to be "weak and quivering", while RP politicians are assumed to be "strong and thuggish"?
DP presidents have been just as willing as RP presidents to enter into wars of choice and to attack defenseless nations militarily, economically and politically during my lifetime (I hope I don't have to list the examples for historically challenged BO posters).
Calling Dem non-representatives weak gives them an out: if only we can support the poor dears so they can get some backbone, the story line goes, then they will act on their real values and save us from the ugly, vicious Republicans.
Well, I don't buy it.
When I spoke to Nader last month, he also was talking about "spineless" Dems, and I asked him, "Aren't they not spineless, but rather complicit?"
His answer: "Pick your poison."
Posted by: Urban Planning Overlord | Jun 23, 2008 1:06:06 PM
It's always interesting to see a secret Republican operative invade Blue Oregon's turf.
Because that's what Pat Ryan appears to be.
Obama Left-wing purity = John McCain as President of the U.S.
The last time that logic was used by Ryan's ilk (2000), we ended up with "Tweedledum" George W. Bush as President instead of "Tweedledee" Al Gore. Great track record there, Pat.
As for the actual issue, I personally think we can have a FISA bill that meets our security and freedom needs without opening up the courts to a lot of tort and civil rights lawyers salivating over contingency fees shimmering in the sky like golden rainbows.
Posted by: LT | Jun 23, 2008 1:29:29 PM
How many people here agreed with every single policy action of Pres. Clinton? (Welfare reform, telecom bill, etc.)
If you disagreed, would you have preferred he lost in 1992 to GHW Bush?
Some people here have not always been impressed with Wyden's voting record. Would a Republican in that seat have been better?
Disagree on issues, but eyes on the prize, folks. Much as I admired certain things done by Gerald Ford of my native Michigan, I'm glad Jimmy Carter was president in the late 1970s. For one thing, that gave many people the opportunity to work in the White House or federal agencies.
Jump on me if you wish and say I should be a purist. But I think one issue is not enough to derail my support for John McCain's opponent.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 23, 2008 1:30:02 PM
Lets assume he did what us progressives wanted and stayed pure and true to the cause. Meaning, he tries to strip out immunity, loses, and then votes against the bill based on that. Even with his vote against the bill passes and the president signs it into lawNow let’s look at what’s already going to happen: he will try to strip out immunity, he will lose, and then vote for the bill with his objections notwithstanding. the bill passes and the president signs it into law.
Obama is the head of the Democratic Party, and the odds-on favorite to become the President. If you think his firm, loud objection to immunity would not pull Senators with him, you're missing the same point that is causing capitulation in the first place--fear. Democratic Senators may fear Bush and Republican backlash, but they surely fear being left on the outside of an Obama presidency even more.
Furthermore, the idea that Obama's position is the slightest bit politically necessary is absurd. There is no popular clamor for FISA, and Republican attempts to use it against Democrats so far have failed miserably--see Bill Foster's special election earlier this year. In fact, Foster made running against FISA capitulation a part of his campaign.
No one (unfortunately, god bless him) gives a rat's ass about Chris Dodd pulling a filibuster on FISA. You put the Democratic nominee front and center on it, the game changes. Instantly.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 23, 2008 1:32:19 PM
"I personally think we can have a FISA bill that meets our security and freedom needs"
We already HAVE one. It's the existing law on the books, passed earlier this session.
And no worries, LT--you're right, just a single issue. That issue is the defense of the 4th Amendment and the rule of law, but hey, don't give it a second thought.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 23, 2008 1:38:12 PM
If a guy with a VERY good chance of becoming the US Rep from WYOMING can take a firm stand on FISA capitulation, there's no reason Obama can't do so.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 23, 2008 1:42:03 PM
O.k., now it's definitive, the UPO is a dope.
He also appears to live in an alternate universe connected tenuously to ours by means not understood to science, if he thinks Pat Ryan is a Republican operative, or that what Pat has written remotely resembles the Naderite "tweedle-dum/tweedle-dee" rhetoric of 2000, much less that it somehow represents Pat's track record.
Supporting Obama doesn't mean turning in our critical faculties at the door.
Posted by: Larry McD | Jun 23, 2008 1:42:12 PM
Our household has put over $2,500 into the Obama campaign so far and we'd planned to match that in the general. I doubt that we will now. There's no question of who we'll vote for but this change on Obama's part is such pure political pandering that it will add to an "I was against it before I was for it" onslaught from the Republicans and it will have merit.
When Senators like Leahy, Biden, Dodd, and Feingold are providing him cover, for Obama to buckle on this is inexcusable- not necessarily unforgivable- but inexcusable.
If Bush were so determined to offer immunity to the telecom giants, he had only to promise them a blanket pardon on his way out the White House door. Obama should have made at least an effort to force that hand.
"Disappointed" is an understatement of what I'm feeling right now.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jun 23, 2008 1:48:03 PM
Re: "I think if he took a prominent role rallying support against abuse of the constitution it would strengthen, not weaken him."
One thing I would never say about Obama is that he is stupid. Isn't it obvious that your statement is true, i.e., that playing a progressive role would strengthen him in the eyes of the public?
So, if he gains nothing politically from it, why do you think he is supporting the Bush doctrine?
Apparently, Even Barack Obama Thinks You're Stupid:
"I'm not sure which frightens me more, the thought that the people leading my nation could be so damn gullible, or the thought that they aren't -- but they're counting on us to be."
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 23, 2008 1:54:02 PM
UPO: "without opening up the courts to a lot of tort and civil rights lawyers salivating over contingency fees shimmering in the sky like golden rainbows."
Now whose talking points does that sound like? Which party sets up with pavlovian-reinforce howling at the very words "tort lawyer"? And just who sees civil rights lawyers as the enemy?
Hmm, Pat Ryan as covert GOP operative: projection much, UPO?
To reinforce what TJ said at 1:30, Obama and the Congressional Democrats should be running on confronting and differentiating from Bush on this stuff, and using it to make the McCain-Bush continuity clearer.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jun 23, 2008 2:06:01 PM
I'm willing to wait and see on this one.
Legislative bills are almost never all good or all bad. Even the 2001 Patriot Act was largely filled with uncontroversial stuff. Only about 20 pages of that massive bill was unconstitutional. But had those 20 pages been stripped, I would have had no problem with it.
So here we are now with Barack Obama saying he supports the new FISA bill, except for retroactive immunity - the heart of the capitulation. To me, this is kind of like saying you're for Saddam being overthrown, except the U.S. shouldn't use any of our own military to do it. Small difference in words. Big difference in policy.
Who knows? This could be indeed Barack Obama making his first major move "to the center". Or instead, you all could be bitching about his seeming to fall down, when it is simply the first part of a political Sumi Gaeshi. He has enough sheer political talent, I really wouldn't put it past him either way.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23, 2008 2:57:26 PM
Democratic Senators may fear Bush and Republican backlash, but they surely fear being left on the outside of an Obama presidency even more.
I'm no Senate scholar but the history of the institution doesn't seem to reveal much in the way of fear between Senators and a President of their own party. In fact, a Veep candidate who can help keep Senators in line is usually one of the qualities looked closely at when selecting a Veep.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Jun 23, 2008 2:59:52 PM
As Kershner likes to bring up Ralph Nader, got a question: are you implicitly flogging a Nader cult of personality? Is Nader himself flogging a cult of personality? Because despite all the intelligent things he has had to say over the years, I'll be damned if I've ever seen him to show the least interest in either governance or party building. His runs for president seem to be all about him, quite frankly: he climbs onto the national stage for awhile and then climbs down again, and seems not to care about what happens in between times.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jun 23, 2008 3:05:07 PM
Who knows? This could be indeed Barack Obama making his first major move "to the center".
Except even the center doesn't support telecom immunity. As far back as January, a poll showed a majority of voters against a plan to give legal immunity to telecommunications companies that facilitated the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping.
The poll also found 57 percent of likely voters opposed telecom immunity, compared to just a third who supported it.
Posted by: Miles | Jun 23, 2008 3:08:54 PM
Furthermore, the idea that Obama's position is the slightest bit politically necessary is absurd. There is no popular clamor for FISA, and Republican attempts to use it against Democrats so far have failed miserably
I couldn't agree more. Which speaks to the ugly possibility that we're all sort of dancing around: What if Obama actually doesn't think telecom immunity is so bad? It already seems obvious that he doesn't think warrantless wiretapping is so bad. On telecom immunity, he's giving a head nod to the left while making it clear to everyone else that it's not an issue he's going to fall on his sword for.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that Obama is no raging liberal. While many of his supporters seemed drawn to him as the great liberal hope, others were instead drawn to his ability to speak to progressive values while avoiding liberal excesses. It's his lack of experience that allows each of us to paint the picture we want on the blank Obama canvass.
On the general issue of domestic spying, he favors it. So do most Democrats and all Republicans. On the smaller, less important issue of telecom immunity, he's sort of against it, but not enough to spend political capital on it. So let's just admit that, and realize that NOTHING will change until we convince the American people that they shouldn't trade their rights for increased security. But I'm not holding my breath that the citizenry will sign up for that radical notion anytime soon.
Posted by: paulie | Jun 23, 2008 3:16:22 PM
Put me in the "wait and see" column. The move Obama made on FISA on the face of it doesn't seem to sync with other information we "think we may know" but don't really know about Obama.
I'm finally getting up off the floor laughing over Paddy Boy being called a Republican troll. Thanks for making my day!
Posted by: darrelplant | Jun 23, 2008 3:29:44 PM
As Kershner likes to bring up Ralph Nader, got a question: are you implicitly flogging a Nader cult of personality?
It's funny, because with my memory extending back more than a couple of months, I remember stories like this from ABC:
Obamamania: WIll He Turn 'Believers' Into Voters? Some Observers Liken the Passion of Obama's Supporters to a Cultlike Following
Or The New York Times' Paul Krugman:
I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.
Or any number or other outlets via Raw Story.
Personally, I don't think the charge was warranted in either the case of Nader or Obama, but alleging someone is the leader of a cult is a lot easier than dealing with any points they might make.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 23, 2008 3:39:45 PM
"I'm no Senate scholar but the history of the institution doesn't seem to reveal much in the way of fear between Senators and a President of their own party."
Put down the history book and review the last eight years. You don't see any fearful maneuvers by Republican Senators afraid of going against their President? Yah, sure.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 23, 2008 4:00:52 PM
Miles,
In October 2007 Obama promised to support a filibuster of any bill with telecom immunity. I believe it was in a context of just having done so. Guess that could be compatible with not really caring and recalculating political advantage between then and now, but it's harder for me to see as compatible with actually supporting immunity.
The focus on the immunity and not the weakness of the underlying bill on the part of advocacy groups has long puzzled me. It's actually just yesterday that it's started to come clearer. The argument is that if there are trials, it will bring out more information on the scope of the violations, that otherwise will remain secret.
I agree that it still is disappointing that there has not been a lot more scrutiny and debate over the claims about "tools law enforcement needs," from the advocacy groups or others.
I'd like more clarity about whether this "reform," had it been in place, would have prevented either Bush's actions or the telecom cooperation, or facilitated court challenges or prosecutions. It seems to be mostly a restoration of the status quo ante of FISA warrant requirement, which existed but Bush just ignored. If so, what's to prevent a repeat? If not, what has changed to hamper or prevent new violations?
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jun 23, 2008 4:52:50 PM
Well personally I see what the issue is. You have a whole host of Blue Dogs terrified at the prospect of a terrorist attack being pinned on them, and us.
Their nightmare scenario is this: some idiot shoots up east podunkia, West Texas. This would not be news, except that the media discovers he's not the usual gang banger, he's an Arab. Frenzy time - TERRORIST ATTACK!!!!!! And of course, since this happened with no law in place to give telecoms immunity, McCain and his media fan club whip up a story of "If ONLY we'd sold out ALLLLLLL of our freedoms, then this wouldn't have happened." (Well, they spin it a different way, but that's the gist of it.) A lot of GOP operatives pretending to be security experts pop up on all the networks claiming that terrorists make phone calls saying, "Hi Mamood Ramadan, who lives at 1531 Sagebrush avenue, Apt 13. Please be a good Al Quaeda, and start shooting up the local Taste-Y-Freeze at 12:45, on Wednesday, August 13. Let us pray, by Allah, no one listens in on this conversation".
And, in the BlueDog's nightmares, this works for the GOP. The dumbass knuckedraggers they have to appeal to suddenly flip, in the same way that now 65% of the U.S. public now supports offshore drilling because they can't drive their 8MPG hemi pickup like they used to. So the idea is to preemptively cave, as if such inoculation would work (it doesn't).
But still, it puts Obama in a tough spot, because when you're filibustering a bill that even nearly half your own damned party has betrayed you on in the House, it doesn't lend to the perception that you're all nice and moderate. Worse, filibustering such a bill right now gives political cover to the Senate GOP to filibuster just about every new initiative Barack Obama comes out with at the start of his new term. And if he goes along with the cave, he loses a lot of his grassroots fundraising base.
So he's in a really tough spot right now. Just like he was right after the Wright controversy first aired.
But given how he handled that one, I'm not too worried.
Posted by: naschkatze | Jun 23, 2008 5:24:06 PM
I almost didn't read your post because of the title but am glad now that I did. I have e-mailed both Obama and the DNC and warned that if the Senate Democrats don't get this abortion tabled again until after the election, I will stop donating and redirect my money back to the ACLU because they have been more effective in challenging the Bush assaults on the Constitution than the Democrats. I will still vote for Obama and agree with the person who wrote above that this should not all fall on his shoulders. Reid and Pelosi should have kept it from coming up in the first place, and although Obama is the presumed nominee, I don't think he has the power to imprint himself on the party until he is actually nominated. Then he'd better show them who is boss.
Posted by: Douglas K. | Jun 23, 2008 5:40:20 PM
This ain't rocket science.
Move to strip the immunity provisions from the bill.
If that fails, vote against it on the floor.
I really don't see a huge political risk in taking a stand against corporate crime.
And I really can't believe the Democrats can't figure out how to make political hay out of Bush's threat to veto something he claims is critical to national security. This also should be a no-brainer: strip telecom immunity from the FISA bill, send him the rest of it, and if he vetoes it, attack him for playing politics with national security.
That way, if some middle eastern guy shoots up East Podunkia and Republicans start blathering of how we could have stopped if only there was more wiretapping, Democrats can point out the way Bush vetoed the last FISA bill, and how he's not serious about protecting us from terrorism yada yada yada.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23, 2008 6:03:49 PM
Put down the history book and review the last eight years.
Hmmm... Disregard history in order to review history? Um, wasn't that trademarked by the right-wing like 20 - 30 years ago?
You don't see any fearful maneuvers by Republican Senators afraid of going against their President? Yah, sure.
By the large majority of Republican Senators? No, not at all. What I see from all but a small minority of GOP moderates during that timeframe is sheer unadulterated political opportunism.
Tom DeLay and Dick Cheney or even Karl Rove they may have feared. But Emporer Bush? They knew as well as anyone that he was stark naked.
They were willing participants in the masquerade, not fearful victims.
Posted by: wikiwiki | Jun 23, 2008 6:38:23 PM
I completely understand your sentiments, Mr. Ryan. I've been screaming at my walls for the last couple of days, too.....
What makes this even more depressing is that Obama is, reputedly, a constitutional scholar, so it defies belief that he is ignorant about the underlying issues that are involved.
From the accounts of it I've read (sorry, don't know how to do that link thing), this whole thing was undertaken by underlings on the relevant committees, and completely bypassed the heads of said committees, which in and of itself makes it seem extremely fishy. My impulse is to hold Pelosi and Reid primarily responsible for this to come back up, because they have (or should have) direct power to keep it off the floor. That they have not exercised it suggests that their leadership positions should be challenged when such things come up to their internal votes. They seemingly believe that their job is to pretend to compromise, but to actually capitulate to much of what the opposition wants. We should expect more than that.
Regarding Obama, Douglas K's solution sounds quite attractive to me. Long-term, Obama and the Democrats will probably have the presidency, and hopefully a 60-plus-seat majority in the Senate, to push back on this and all the rest of the last administration's criminality. If they choose to sweep it under the rug, or if they alternatively make clear that they are not interested in taking such action in the campaign before November, it's hard not to conclude that Nader was right when he advised whoever asked him to "pick their poison."
Posted by: steve | Jun 23, 2008 6:58:20 PM
Let's be honest. Obama is NOT the reincarnation of RFK. This became abundantly clear to me when he didn't even bother to show up at the Scalia confirmation hearings. This would have been an ideal opportunity to demonstrate some real leadership, and use his golden oratorical skills for more than just posturing. Still, he is the only chance we have for affecting some real change, and I am hoping for the best. Still, my friend Pat has every reason in the world to be disillusioned.
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jun 23, 2008 8:41:21 PM
Let me get this straight: Barack Obama is deeply opposed to a significant part of the bill, but if he can't get that part separated out, he decides to vote for the whole bill in order to inoculate himself against the political risk associated with voting no.
So how is this different from Jeff Merkley's vote for HR2, exactly?
Posted by: colin maloney | Jun 23, 2008 9:13:45 PM
I'm wondering if all of the hype around Barack Obama might be a bit overblown.
I won't make the obvious joke that's just dying to be made, but I certainly hope people are rethinking their "outrage" that was generated during the Senate primary about the audacity of one of the candidates who dared criticize Obama.
Seriously disappointing.
Posted by: LT | Jun 23, 2008 9:36:38 PM
Take it from a 61 year old----Bobby Kennedy was a lot more complex than the RFK legend. He waited until Eugene McCarthy showed LBJ could be seriously challenged before running for President. The famous speeches where he talked about poverty and when he announced the death of MLK to that crowd in Indianapolis were inspiring because they were brave but also because they were not in tune with his reputation.
He worked for an Internal Security agency in the 1950s which investigated suspected Soviet spies. He once worked for Joe McCarthy, and he appears to have signed off on the wiretapping of MLK because they thought some of his friends were subversive.
So, be disappointed with Obama because he doesn't live up to what you expected. But like Bobby Kennedy, Obama is a "street fighter". Obama is someone who came from Chicago politics. This sounds like someone who chooses his battles--often a successful strategy in the long run.
And no, I don't think this is like Merkley and the 2003 resolution. No matter how many times someone says that, I think Novick would have been wiser to spend the energy he spent on that issue on something more recent--veterans issues, poverty concerns, something like that.
(I also think Novick would have had a better chance of carrying more than 3 counties had he put that excellent poverty video on the front page of his site rather than "flammable pants"---the poverty video sounded like RFK, the "flammable pants" video sounded like a juvenile taunt. If not voting for someone proud of a juvenile taunt makes me too centrist, I'd consider that a compliment.)
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jun 23, 2008 9:41:09 PM
This isn't about Novick's strategy, LT. It has nothing to do with Steve.
It's about the substance of Merkley's and Obama's decisionmaking.
How is it different?
Posted by: darrelplant | Jun 23, 2008 9:43:16 PM
Obama is NOT the reincarnation of RFK. This became abundantly clear to me when he didn't even bother to show up at the Scalia confirmation hearings.
Even RFK wasn't the reincarnation of RFK (see McCarthy, Joseph and War, Vietnam), but I don't think you can blame Scalia on Obama; he's been on the Supreme Court since 1986, twenty years before Obama got to the Senate. Alito, maybe.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Jun 23, 2008 9:48:59 PM
Well, Pat is nice to see someone old enough to remember the Mob and the 4th. I admit I read the gnashing of teeth and wonder, "Where have you been?" I'd like someone to point out the difference in rationale between this mess and the 2nd's problems. Maybe also the correlation between the loudest protestors and depredations on the 2nd which lacks weasel words like "unreasonable."
Sure, I'm unhappy, have been for some time. I'll wait to see what Obama and the Senate actually do.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Jun 23, 2008 10:00:19 PM
i'm not going to get into this discussion, but this post states a lot of what i feel better than i could.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jun 23, 2008 10:14:47 PM
I also think Novick would have had a better chance of carrying more than 3 counties...
Counties don't vote. I thought that was the lesson people learned after the proclamation of George Bush's red tide in the 2004 election map season.
The margin of Merkley's win was less than 3% and the 8,000 or so votes that would have had to swing the other way could have come from any combination of counties without necessarily changing the number of counties won. In nine of the counties Merkley won, his vote total was less than 500 (considerably less in most of them). In fact, the number of votes Novick received in Clatsop County -- the smallest of the three counties he won -- was more than Merkley received in those nine counties.
Posted by: Kevin | Jun 23, 2008 10:21:32 PM
Posted by: Stephanie V | Jun 23, 2008 8:41:21 PMLet me get this straight: Barack Obama is deeply opposed to a significant part of the bill, but if he can't get that part separated out, he decides to vote for the whole bill in order to inoculate himself against the political risk associated with voting no.
So how is this different from Jeff Merkley's vote for HR2, exactly?
I never cease to be amazed that you managed to get into law school much less graduate and pass the bar exam with such a deplorable grasp of the most fundamental terms used by our nation's law-making bodies.
What Pat referred to is an Act
act - Legislation (a bill or joint resolution, see below) which has passed both chambers of Congress in identical form, been signed into law by the President, or passed over his veto, thus becoming law. Technically, this term also refers to a bill that has been passed by one house and engrossed (prepared as an official copy).
HR2 was a Resolution
simple resolution - Designated "S. Res.," simple resolutions are used to express nonbinding positions of the Senate or to deal with the Senate's internal affairs, such as the creation of a special committee. They do not require action by the House of Representatives.
As for your oft-repeated insinuation that Merkley only voted for HR2 as an innoculation... it has been oft-debunked starting with the example of then-Governor Hatfield to Reps DeFazio et al and points inbetween.
Obtuseness doesn't suit you, Stephanie.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jun 23, 2008 10:46:27 PM
Stephanie V: Let me get this straight: [Barack Obama] decides to vote for the whole bill in order to inoculate himself against the political risk associated with voting no. So how is this different from Jeff Merkley's vote for HR2, exactly?
So let me get this straight: you're not only still spinning twisted GOP attacks against our Democratic Senate candidate - increasing "I'm-Democrat-really" Gordo's chance of holding on to the seat - you're also bashing Obama, our presumptive Democratic nominee, before we've seen the final resolution... all while being a pledged DNC delegate for him?
Words fail me, Stephanie.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 23, 2008 11:04:14 PM
Obama may deserve criticism but it isn't a done deal yet.
Stephanie, I do think it's different in another way. Jeff was responding to a "gotcha" trap concocted by Republicans who controlled the legislature. Barack Obama is responding to a cave-in by leaders of his own party who managed to stand up to this once before, and if he follows through in any way less than supporting a filibuster and voting no if that fails, breaking a promise he made last October.
As you know, I always thought R.2 was a weak issue for Steve.
Posted by: Calling them out | Jun 23, 2008 11:39:13 PM
Pat - you're point is right on about a real crisis of character in our Democratic Party that too many who call themselves Democrats share. (On balance, BO is a comprehensive example of that absence of integrity.)
Contrary to UPO's juvenile "purity" rant, Kevin's utter inability to grasp the point, and Maurer's "Blue Dog" hoax launched by the right wing press after the 2006 Republican collapse, what's really happening is even more disturbing:
For 8 years, a segment of incompetent and morally corrupt Democrats have happily played ball with Republicans and participating in attacks on our civil liberties, condoning torture, abetting predation on working people and our economy by business interests, and just generally accepting the utter criminality of the administration. Roberts and Scalia are on SCOTUS because Democrats like Wyden voted to put one or both of them there rather than filibuster like Republicans have done since 2008, not because they were nominated.
The real difference between Republicans and the kind of hypocritical Democrats that Merkley enthusiastically embraces as the kind of Democrat he has always been in Oregon and wants to be in DC, is that Merkley's kind of Democrats got elected by telling the big lie about how they stand against what Republicans have done to the country.
This has nothing to do with partisanism. This is simply about good old-fashioned lying by American politicians. The outrage is that it is politicians who opportunistically put a "D" after their name lying that they stand for genuine Democratic values to get elected because that is what the electorate wanted in 2006 and wants even more in 2008.
Posted by: Calling them out | Jun 23, 2008 11:42:07 PM
Clarification:
because that (genuine Democratic values) is what the electorate wanted in 2006 and wants even more in 2008.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 23, 2008 11:44:01 PM
"Well personally I see what the issue is. You have a whole host of Blue Dogs terrified"
stop right there.
Posted by: TR | Jun 24, 2008 12:03:10 AM
Oh, give the poor guy - strike poor guy - Obama a break. He is just trying to buy the Presidency like some hard core political lefties say big tobacco bought the election opposing a tax increase on cigarettes right here in Oregon. Blumenauer supports the guy because he sees dollar signs with more money extorted from taxpayers to subsidize his special legislative interests such as for the leechlike bicycling community and those creepy crawler money sucking juice mobiles on flanged wheels called streetcars. However, if Obama is elected and pledging to eliminate earmarks from congress, Blumenauer will have to do his share of sucking up too.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 24, 2008 12:24:59 AM
Stop and do what, TJ? Bluedogs in the House, like Lieberman in the Senate, are the difference between the majority and the minority for Democrats. That's not a "hoax". It's true.
And worse, they still have the ability to absolutely destroy our messaging. You know who is killing Jeff Merkley right now? It's not you, Stephanie, or anyone else still trying to pretend Jeff is a closet Republican. It's Elizabeth Furse helping Smith to lie about his record. Imagine if a group of bluedogs started pulling a Lieberman on us over this. Don't think Obama can win against that kind of crap and latent racism, especially since it would give the bipartisan veneer to McBush.
We can still lose the election. Voters may agree with Democrats - or hell, even be to the left of Democrats - on economic issues. But when they get into the ballot box, they still vote Republican because they hate and fear brown skinned foreigners. That's why the GOP is practically begging for Al Qaeda to stage a terrorist attack right now.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: darrelplant | Jun 23, 2008 10:46:06 AM
Sing it, Brother Pat.