Yes, the FISA bill stinks. No, we shouldn't protect corporations. I agree. Yes, it's not a "compromise" at all -- I agree, it's a capitulation to the White House and the Right Wing.
Of course it is. The Right Wing designed it that way. They set a trap. But it's not just the Democratic leadership that fell into it -- many of you all did, too, through your quickness to weaken your support of Obama, if not abandon him entirely.
See, the Right Wing's greatest success on this might not be letting the President break the law -- he does that anyways! -- but getting activists to think they're being betrayed, thus eroding one of Obama's biggest advantages.
A bit more on the flip, plus some added bad news as a bonus.
First off, let's be clear. This is a bill that our awful President wanted introduced, discussed, "debated," and voted on.
The Senate version was authored by Senator Kit Bond, Republican of Missouri. Kit is not up for re-election this year, so he is not one of the many Republican Senators who are wetting themselves at the thought of being de-elected. The "negotiations" were also led by him, and of course he's the one in the press trumpeting the "great deal" the White House got. Hmm. So we're stuck with the main narrative of this bill coming from the Republican hit-man who forced this crap bill together. (N.B., Harry Reid: Why is Bond in charge?) From the New York Times:
The bill cleared the House by 293 to 129, with near-unanimous support from Republicans and substantial backing from Democrats. It now goes to the Senate, which is expected to pass it next week by a wide margin.
"Our intelligence officials must have the ability to monitor terrorists suspected of plotting to kill Americans and to safeguard our national security," said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader. "This bill gives it to them."
So, we've got the same-old, same-old. Republicans in lock-step behind what the White House wants, Democrats scrambling to make sure that none of them get screwed by the Republicans' usual "you guys are wimps!" framing on National inSecurity. Gotcha.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are ready, bullhorns in hand, to start screaming at a "No" vote by Obama "He's weak on terror! He won't protect us! He doesn't want any national security!" Have you not noticed them doing this over the past two weeks already, twisting his words to suggest that Obama wants to "surrender?" Our lazy media is looking for a good divisive story since the Democratic Battle Royale ended: "Obama -- loves Osama?" it's only a matter of time.
I don't believe for a second that Obama wants illegal wiretapping. Remember: if he was President, this wouldn't be an issue. The man taught Constitutional Law, we know he knows what the document says. Furthermore, his own statements on the Bill confirm it:
I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
(snip)
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people.
(snip)
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.
Remember the Times quote above -- this bill is going to pass in the Senate no matter what. Whether he is successful in stripping immunity or not -- and it's unclear how much backup he has on that, other than from folks like Feingold, who have also spoken out against it -- this crappy bill will pass. Don't blame Obama on that one -- blame Harry Reid for letting Kit Bond lead the "compromise," and for not forcing the Dems to oppose. Hell, blame Dick Durbin, he's the Whip -- why can't he get the votes in line to block?
So, here are Obama's choices.
1.) Quietly vote "No" on the bill without making a statement, hoping that Republicans don't make too big of a deal over it, while also earning scorn from the lefty blogosphere for not "being a leader."
2.) Loudly vote "No," thus causing a spike in both victorious blog posts and t-shirt sales at RedState that read "Obama is a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey." Oh, and many nasty news cycles about how he's weak.
3.) Try his best to fix the bill with little help from his party, then vote "Yes" to avoid the Right Wing smear jobs that might turn this country back over to McCain for the next four years.
Oh, and he's got little-to-no back-up from his own party if he votes "No" on this.
See, it's a crappy choice. No matter what Obama does, he's going to get himself in trouble with some group or another. That's why I think his statement is so important -- he's saying to you all that he DOESN'T like the program, he WANTS to fix it, to stop it. But you're not listening to him. How many other Democrats are even trying to strip immunity from the bill?
Why not vote against it? My hypothesis? Because he's trying to take our country back from the vise grip of the Republicans and their accomplices, and this is one vote that might make it a LOT harder to do so because of how it would be perceived and reported on in the lazy media. Personally I'd rather have the clear statement calling Bush an illegal wiretapper (you caught that, right? The part where he clearly accuses Bush of breaking the law?) and avoid ten media cycles of "Obama -- Calling Osama?!" Because here's the sad reality: more people will be swayed by those media reports than by our collective blog posts.
Thankfully, on this issues, there is a difference between Obama and McCain on this issue. From the New York Times editorial page:
There are clear differences between the candidates. Senator John McCain, who is sounding more like Mr. Bush every day, believes the president has the power to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.
So. Now, on to the next part -- why all of this means folks are falling for the Right Wing's trap.
::
Turning Obama into Hillary?!
It stuns me how many folks have called Obama a "Hillary" over this. He would be clutching her chunky pearls if he read that one. See, what I always perceived to be Hillary's greatest weakness was the reluctance of activists to gird up her campaign through their time, effort, and money. (I might note that I wrote a diary proving this fairly conclusively -- check out that poll!)
Now, many of you are doing the same to Obama -- "I won't volunteer!" "I won't donate!" "I will hold my nose to vote for him!" I shake my head, I laugh. Obama's greatest advantage is the desire he inspires in supporters to help his campaign. The worst disadvantage of McCain is his inability to make anyone want to get up and help him. I've seen one McCain bumper sticker, it was very small, black, and had small white lettering. Hardly inspiring. So anything the Right Wing can do to depress Obama's very strong base of activist support is a good thing.
Maybe something like... forcing a FISA Bill that will embroil the left-wing blogosphere and activist community, and perhaps even foster a news story or two? "Activists Abandon Obama!"
Anyways. My point here is that the Right Wing has managed to convince you that Obama is just like Hillary and that you should abandon your fervent support of him.
Well, I think you should abandon any fervent, blind support you have of any politician -- that's just me. They'll all let you down. What'd you all say of Pat Leahy and Russ Feingold when they approved John Roberts on the judiciary committee? They will all let you down. They are politicians. After 1.) getting re-elected and 2.) representing those of you who agree with the politician, their third job is 3.) disappointing those of you who usually agree with the politician.
It's true.
So. To Sum Up.
The Right Wing laid a trap. They wrote a craptacular bill that the weak leadership of Reid and Pelosi let skate on by, then set it up for a vote where no matter what the Democratic Nominee does, he's screwed because he pisses off one group or another. He can either give the News Media fodder for dozens of vicious news cycles, or alienate a decent number of highly-attuned leftist activists.
Unfortunately, well... We don't come close to living in a country where that choice takes even a minute. Millions hearing that you're weak on terror for standing up for the Constitution vs. a few thousand people who might not donate or volunteer as much?
It sucks. But there it is.
The statement should tell you how he really feels, and if he manages to strip immunity, then the bill will die in committee because there will be no way to reconcile the House and Senate versions. So until Thursday, it's all up in the air. In fact, what it comes down to is how the Senate votes, so you might want to call your Senators and urge them to strip immunity from the bill. That has the potential to accomplish something.
::
Just for some perspective, and because I am a fan of Terrible News Stories, here's what's going on elsewhere in the planet where people are not fixated on telecom immunity:
Food Stamps Buying Less -- as food prices rise and gov't assistance fails to keep pace, low-income Americans are literally starving. Mothers are buying "bargain" expired food to feed all of their children. Luckily, the recent Farm Bill (passed by Congress over Bush's veto) will raise it in October. Hopefully no innocents perish from "food insecurity" beforehand.
Hundreds Die in Philippines -- the death toll from a typhoon in the island nation will rise sharply, due to a ferry carrying 700 passengers that capsized. Recently, scientists linked the more-extreme weather worldwide to global warming, suggesting that the growing spate of fatal weather conditions will only get worse and claim more lives, human, animal and plant alike.
U.S. Slow to Admit Iraqi Refugees -- while the US upped its Iraqi refugee quota to 12,000 per annum, processing has been slow. 12,000 is only a drop in the bucket:
Critics call the program miserly, particularly since the United States ignited the chaos that pushed an estimated 1.5 million Iraqis to flee, mostly to Syria or Jordan, where they often struggle to make ends meet.
12,000 is but a band-aid on the gaping wound of millions of lives destroyed by Bush's foreign policy.
--
Speaking of which, all of these problems -- U.S. poverty, global warming, and the occupation of Iraq -- have been vastly, rapidly accelerated by the Bush administration and his Republican cronies in Congress. So to hear those of you so fast to abandon our best opportunity to not just take back the White House, but to perhaps give up on electoral politics entirely? Well, all I can say is... The Republicans will thank you for your apathy on November 5th.