If Obama Voted Against FISA it Still Would Have Passed, So The Question Becomes, WHY DID HE DO IT?

[peoli]

Go forth and think deep thoughts. What purpose would a yea vote serve?

[Lasher]

1. He is courting the political Center.

And has thrown the Democratic Left (significantly represented here at DU) under a bus.

[NattPang]

6. He clearly understands the power of the media

that I think we sometimes underestimate,
Since many stayed glued to their Television
and believe everything we hear and see,
including many here.

Obama realized that he must bring a gun
and some armor to the knifefight.

Symbolism is nice, but it won't win the war.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. Does the Center support this bill?

[Lasher]

13. I don't know but the Left doesn't.

And the Right sure as hell likes it. Not one single Republican Senator voted against it. Democrats who voted for it can say they're all bipartisany and everything.

Nomination in hand, Obama dumps the Dem left on FISA vote

That Barack Obama jog toward the political center now that he's won the Democratic nomination appears to have turned into a full-fledged dash today. And there's a lot of folks on the left side of his party that are unhappy.

But, to be Chicago kind of candid, whatcha gonna do about it?

Today, the freshman senator from Illinois voted in favor of the FISA bill that provides retroactive legal protection to cooperating telecom companies that helped the feds eavesdrop on overseas calls. Up until a few weeks ago -- let's see, that would be shortly after the last primaries settled the Democratic nomination and terminated what's-her-name's once frontrunning campaign -- Obama adamantly opposed the bill. "Unequivocally" was the word his people used.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-fisa.html

[NattPang]

18. No, the middle had no opinion on it, but

they do believe most of what the media says,
and if the media says that Obama is a scary
Muslim in cahoots with the terrorist that
can't keep you safe, than that is what
they will believe.

Why do you think that Hillary Clinton
campaigned as a gun toting wiskey drinker
in Pennsylvania and Indiana?

Because the middle believes in the war on terror
and they believe that the 2nd amendment is their right,
and that drinking hard alcohol makes you tough.

[Median Democrat]

19. Were Hillary and Obama courting the center with the Patriot Act?

In 2006, Hillary and Obama both voted in support of the Patriot Act. They both expressed reservations that were virtually identical. Many folks on this board opposed the Act.

So, were they courting the center? Or, were they voting because they believed the Act was necessary?

[MonkeyFunk]

35. What's this got to do with Hillary?

:shrug:

[Median Democrat]

38. She and other Democratic Senators Provide Perspective

I would imagine that most of the folks that are outraged over FISA were also outraged over the Patriot Act. Yet, both prominent senators voted for it. Are we going to say that all of the Democrats in the Senate who voted for either the Patriot Act or FISA are doing it for cynical political purposes? Because, then where are we left as a political party if all of our top three candidates caved in on such issues, since Obama, Hillary and Edward voted in favor of the Patriot Act.

This is why I think that the FISA bill is being magnified as a wedge issue, because if the FISA Bill is so important, then shouldn't we be throwing the top 3 Democratic candidates under the bus?

That is why I think that many folks are improperly exploiting this as a wedge issue in support of candidates they supported in the primaries by ascribing political motive to Obama, becaue to do so, would require everyone else to be thrown under that same bus.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. It's not being magnified as a wedge issue

it's a real issue.

If Obama had voted no, people would be singing hallelujah's to him, and praising him for understanding the importance of this issue.

Instead, people who opposed this stupid bill for a LONG time are now twisting themselves into knots trying to defend Obama's vote.

[Median Democrat]

41. Not Defending It,Disagree With It, But Disagreed With The Patriot Act Too

So, I don't readily ascribe political motive on this issue. I disagree with Obama. I disagreed with Hillary, Edwards and Obama as to the Patriot Act. However, it is possible that I am wrong, and that they may actually be voting their conscience. Wouldn't you agree?

[MonkeyFunk]

42. OK, I tried to resist pointing this out...

the Patriot Act was a few years before Obama was in the Senate. He never voted on it.

[Median Democrat]

57. 2006 It was Re-Authorized - Obama and Hillary Voted The Same Way

They both issued similar explanations regarding their votes.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

9. Absolutely

I concur.

I just had to talk my husband down. He was about to go rip the Obama bumper sticker from our car. He is livid.

I am sick of being told to "get over it" I am disgusted.

I feel like I have been run over by a bus. Yes, thrown under it is a good way to say how I feel.

[Growler]

12. Yup

Since his vote wouldn't have made a difference _either way, he clearly did it just to piss off the Left! That's the only logical answer!

:sarcasm:

[Lasher]

25. Nope.

He's trying to show the Center (independents and moderate Republicans) that he can cooperate with the folks across the aisle. In this he wasn't particularly concerned about how the Left feels about it. After all, he's got the nomination sewn up.

[cookie monster]

23. Correct

Although I disagree with you that the center is not the place to be. Clinton won by moving to the center. Bill, that is.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

30. I wish you would reconsider.

The only other real choice is much worse.

[eridani]

53. The "center" doesn't give a flying fuck one way or the other

However, apoliticals and independents don't like wusses.

[terryter1]

56. BINGO!

I think your right.

[Bluerthanblue]

2. plenty of intelligent thoughts

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6477014

[AtomicKitten]

3. Inoculation.

The FISA bill sucked ass but, it was going to pass anyway. I let some expletives fly and pouted for a bit, but then I realized he made a good move, a smooth move. He can fix it when he's in the White House. But we can't fix a botched election. We've waited eight long-ass years for this election already in progress.

[MarjorieG]

5. And I'm sure the fear attack ad was ready to go.

[AtomicKitten]

8. You're right. No doubt about it.

IMO he made the smart move under the circumstances.

[LVjinx]

46. Now the "Obama lies about everything ad" is being prepped.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

62. There's no way they could make a coherent ad out of his Yea vote

They can't do it. "Uh...Barack Obama said that he was FOR stripping telecom immunity before he was FOR stipping it...oh wait...and then he voted FOR the bill with the immunity on it...oh wait..which all the Republicans voted for too...except for John McCain who didn't vote...."

I got into an argument with another DUer about this very thing. He seems to think they're going to play Obama promising to filibuster the bill and then voting for it to prove he's a flip flopper. I told him it would be utterly ineffective because the average American has no idea what a filibuster is. We have a wager on it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

60. Damn straight it was.

Cue the ominous music: "Barack Obama voted against allowing law enforcement personnel to protect you from terrorists!"

[MojoMojoMojo]

21. Obama being the head of the party should have backed the fillibuster and used his political skills

to rally support.Hes in control now.

"The FISA bill sucked ass but, it was going to pass anyway."

[AtomicKitten]

26. The math made that impossible.

Even though some are projecting their anger and disregarding the logistics of this bill, all things considered he made the smart move within the confines of this campaign. It can be reversed. Losing the election cannot. So, I'm good with the smart move at the same time being appalled by the bill. A nuanced opinion perhaps, but that's how I roll. Your opinion may vary.

[chimpymustgo]

48. Where are Obama's much vaunted skills at bringing people together? Barack just showed

his hand. Leadership?

:puke:

[janet118]

50. Obama is at a disadvantage . . .

The Democrats (and Lieberman, Sanders) may hold a slim majority in the Senate, but they are not united behind their candidate or their leadership. A substantial number of Democrats vote with the Republicans much of the time. On the other hand, the Republicans rarely split ranks. They vote as a bloc. Whether this is out of fear or loyalty, I don't know. I do know the Democrats have no such team spirit. Perhaps, a progressive majority large enough to carry the day without the votes of renegade Democrats would break the standoff.

The trouble with the idea of "centrist" Democrats is that the so-called center, as defined by the media, is so far to the right that very little progressive legislation has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. I disagree with Obama's vote on FISA. My theory is that he just wanted it out of the way for now and realized that nothing better was going to pass. A single terrorist attack during the campaign period could be blamed on the Senate by lying about foiled attempts to get wiretaps. And we know this administration has no problem with making up cinematic lies and feeding them to the waiting media (see Colombia hostage release).

I want Obama to be elected. Right now, in my heart, I know there is no acceptable alternative. I will gladly hold Obama's feet to the fire when he is president. I am certain that Obama knows the Constitution and knows that the Patriot Act and FISA are both devastating to right to privacy. But he needs a position of power to fight for it. I too am disappointed in the FISA vote, but I do not hold Obama solely responsible for the outcome. If we had a real Democratic majority, the FISA bill could have been amended to include Constitutional protections for Americans and accountability for the telecom companies and the Bush administration for their past crimes. But we don't.

Besides working and voting for Obama this fall, we should all be supporting real progressive Democrats to replace the Republicans and the Democrats who vote with them. A President Obama and a real Democratic majority is our only chance to pull this country out from the hole its in.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. One thing is for sure, if mcain were to somehow win, the FISA thing

sure isn't going to help matters no matter what Obama's strategy was.

[NattPang]

24. But Obama couldn't stop the bill from passing

So if McCain or Obama were to somehow win,
the FISA thing would still be there.

But Obama had less of a fighting chance
with the RNC and Swiftboats being played
for free on the Cable TV and the media
going crazy about some terror "scare"
and that vote.

The media didn't bother to mention
that McCain didn't vote on the measure.

Obama knows darn well,
he's running against
not only McCain, but also
the corporate media.

[Joe Fields]

10. Two hundred-eighty-five thousand dollars in telecom PAC money, maybe?

[PM7nj]

14. That is a lie and you know it.

Obama does not take any money from any PACs. He has raised $220,289 from EMPLOYEES of telecom companies.

[Joe Fields]

22. check out open secrets. You may be surprised at what you find.

One of his largest corporate contributors was Time Warner.

[PM7nj]

40. Are you kidding? This is campaign financing 101.

At the very top of this page: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Okay, so either all that money came from employees or PACs. But if we look at the http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638#bli">Source of Funds we find out that Obama has taken absolutely no money from PACs. It has all come from individuals.

[Hoof Hearted]

11. Or he could have just had a campaign event to do today and not shown up.

He didn't have to vote no - and he sure as hell didn't have to vote yes.

[democrattotheend]

63. That's what he probably would have done if it hadn't been for us

Kicking and screaming about his position on FISA. He probably would have just skipped the vote, just like McCain did. But then we would have attacked him for breaking his promise to vote to strip immunity from the bill, which he did yesterday, 3 times. We would have attacked him more if he skipped the vote.

[Median Democrat]

15. Why? Why Did Hillary and Obama Reauthorize The Patriot Act?

Why did so many other Democracts vote in favor of the FISA Bill? Is it possible that they actually do believe that it is necessary? They may be wrong. However, there is also the possibility that for whatever reason, they think it is needed. Afterall, FISA existed before the new bill, and Bill Clinton did not make any attempt to repeal it.

Obama sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Homeland Security Committee and Government Affairs committee. He is in a position to be very familiar with the bill. Yet, rather than stalling or simply avoiding a vote like McCain, Obama announced his support very early and did not get much political mileage out of it. Perhaps Obama actually believes the bill is needed.

Also, look at Hillary's comments regarding her no vote. She did not unconditionally reject the bill. She rejected the bill as currently written, which suggests that she is open to the bill in some form, perhaps with immunity stripped out.

Why?

This is a political board, and we tend to attached political meaning to everything, but it is possible that Obama simply believes that FISA is necessary. He may also be wrong.

[karynnj]

55. On the re-authorization of the Patriotic Act,

it was because the earlier bill that was still in effect was worse - the new bill corrected meny but not all the problems. The true situation was not NO patriot Act vs the new one, but continuing to work on the new bill while extending the old one. In December 2005, the Democrats won a filibuster to stop the vote on the new one. This lad to more work on the bill. In February they lost a filibuster vote (Obama was still a no on cloture) and the bill came to a vote. Many who had been strong advocates for the filibuster voted for the bill then - as the best they were getting. They then almost immediately introduced an amendment to fix the remaining problems - saying that it would be pushed in the future when the support - that wasn't there then- existed.

The truth was that, even Feingold did not agree with many major parts of the bill. It was that there were some provisions that he defined as deal breakers. His no was a protest vote because of them.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Asked and answered. Do you have a new question, counsellor? nt

[DogPoundPup]

17. For a certain, certain foreign interest?

One that bush has givin' to hand over fist while our infastructure decays and our ability to buy our basic needs is getting to be unaffordable?

Another hint ... it also has a very, very, very influentcial and powerful lobby.

[NYC_SKP]

31. I was going to ask what their interest in FISA would be...

...then it dawned on me, I think.

[Muttocracy]

34. hmmm. have they made public statements about it (the PAC) nt

[seriousstan]

20. 527's. Yeah right, Lack of balls is how I am calling it.

A gelding.This really pisses me off.

[NattPang]

28. You control the media or something?

[scarletwoman]

27. Obviously, you are very concerned.

[Imagevision]

32. The question should be turned into a statement saying, "get over it"! (Scalia)

[Blue_In_AK]

33. Political expediency.

He knows (or assumes) he won't lose us -- he's trying to look "tough on terrorism" so that those bad Republicans can't say mean things about him.

[Imagevision]

36. If Obama seems like a disappointment to you? --> think of McCain...

[Blue_In_AK]

43. Oh, don't worry...

McCain would NEVER get my vote. I'm voting Democratic, for the Supreme Court if nothing else.

[Q3JR4]

37. I must admit,

at first I was pissed. So completely angry at the complacency shown by those "leaders" in congress who decided to roll over and let this steaming pile of crap through both chambers. When you really think about it, though, you begin to see that maybe it's not as bad as it seems. First of all the "bad" version of the bill passed the senate with majority approval, why would the "good" version of this bill be any different? One or two more "no" votes wouldn't have meant anything, and it would have given the republican party ammunition against Obama in their attempts to influence the vast population of this country who don't understand what's going on. Given that 70% of congresspeople didn't know what they were voting for, is it any stretch of the imagination to think that the average Jane and Joe would have any inkling?

Second, Obama votes for the bill and what does the left do? We hold our noses and vote for him in the next election, we don't vote at all, or we vote for a third party candidate (which is about the same thing). He gets the left's votes, and he gets votes from people people in the center who don't know anything about FISA other than the insane proposition that it's a tool to combat terrorists.

Finally, with enough votes Obama will be the next POTUS. That means that this surveillance program will be directly under the control of whomever he appoints to the various positions overseeing it. It is a fact that the democrats are going to pick up at least three, possibly more, votes in the senate. An Obama presidency may, therefore, have the necessary support to overturn the "bad" parts of this bill.

It could be a win-win situation.

Or it's not and Obama sees the new FISA law as a way to vastly increase the powers he'll have as president (which admittedly wouldn't be a very good idea, but will give the conservatives a taste of their own medicine for a change).

Q3JR4.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Juuuuust to piss you off.

[MrSlayer]

45. The whole problem lies with playing the same game the Neos do.

If you refuse to do something that's right just because the RW or whomever will say you are a wussy for doing it then you are a fucking wussy. However the Obama camp calculated it, it came up "yes."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. Because the alternative is actually worse, most likely.

This is the problem with nominating Senators for the Presidency. They actually have to vote on things, and sometimes you're not gonna like how they vote.

[quaker bill]

49. Because it takes a pointless issue

off the table. Bush is not about to start complying with the law. If the law is a threat, he will simply veto it or signing statement it away. The question was never about restoring the 4th ammendment, as to the extent it interferes with what Bush is about, he will simply ignore it. We already know this. There never was anything to be gained in regard to civil rights by passing a law Bush would either veto or ignore. There simply is no upside.

However, being portrayed as "weak on terrorists", even when entirely bogus, has had a consistent downside of late. Taking this talking point away from the lunatics is entirely the point and a very good thing.

Bush is running out the clock, and fortunately the number of days left is rapidly shrinking. The FISA bill, all critics aside, provides less power than Bush has already taken, and will likely continue to take until January 20, 2009.

[ProSense]

52. That's a decent argument except on one point

There never was anything to be gained in regard to civil rights by passing a law Bush would either veto or ignore.

Neither of those let the telecom companies off the hook permanently. Their immunity will now be signed into law along with the other bad aspects of the bill.

Interesting argument by Sen. Feingold, basically saying this is moot under a Dem president, but as much as I believe Obama will win, the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

To your point about being portrayed as "weak on terrorists", not sure what the impact will be of Bush thanking some Democrats, including Obama, for giving him everything he wanted.

[quaker bill]

59. The point

of suing the telecoms, as best as I can tell it, is to get more evidence on the extent of Bush malfeasance. If we were ever going to do anything with such evidence, we have plenty already. While I dislike Bush as strongly as any here, nothing will come of any of this. He will leave office on January 20, 2009, and head back to Crawfish, Texas.

If you truly want accountability, hand the Republican Party, which Bush clearly drove into a ditch, a truly historic defeat. There is no office in this land which is sufficiently unimportant that it would or should be acceptable to leave a Republican in it. Defeat them all, or at least, absolutely as many as possible.

We already dislike the man fully, it is time his friends and supporters truly recognize him for the failure he is. Done right, it should be bad enough that he will go into hiding on his own.

Not that I think the Dems have, but if I might ask, exactly who is the available alternative who hasn't given "him everything he wanted"? Nader perhaps? I guess Nader never had the power to give Bush anything, so perhaps, he is the one.

I can't see how this costs the Dems anything as McCain not only gave Bush what he wanted, but fully intends to keep the party going and take it a few more steps.

[DevonRex]

51. He gave his reasons for supporting this bill. nt

[Butch350]

54. So it won't be said that the Dems are Weak on Security?????

?

[Marie26]

58. Maybe he liked the bill. nt

[BlueStater]

61. Because he's a political coward

And the posts excusing his actions because it would haved passed anyway is the lamest fucking defense yet.