Daily Kos

And I've been labelled in various incorrect ways because I don't think it's time to call Obama morally DOA or anything, though I wouldn't be posting in these diaries if I didn't think it wasn't an important issue.

However, what KO actually said:

....he will have to forgive us if we invest less in his assurances and listen less closely to his words and instead attend more closely to the possible sound of other shoes dropping.

I actually agree with that, for the time being. He's not saying "invest nothing in his words" just "less." How much "less" is a matter of opinion and, let's be honest, our mood at the time. But I do know he has lost at least some amount of credibility with me personally of this -- no idea how much or how permanently.

Of course, we have to wait for the other shoe. Personally, I've got an open mind to a certain extent that this may not be playing out exactly as we think (wmtraillawyer's diary bring up some interesting, though not really exculpatory, points), but we'll see. I'd like to see all of us try to keep an open mind on this important topic. The other shoe may be a pleasant surprise...or there may be lots of conflicting and contradictory shoes, or....

I am going to copy and paste it into a text doc and save it for future use.  It sums up what many of us are trying to say.

I agree, but I'm still not convinced that some of this stuff is actually Obama's doing. Someone has him nailed with something to where he has no real good choice otherwise.

Oh, you know, extraordinary claims? I don't care at this point. Flame away--I've never been an ardent Obama supporter, but I can't believe anyone is A) that good an actor or B) a flip-flopper this quickly.

I would characterize your comment as "calling out" (hence my rec of it).  But I've seen a few people here already "bashing," which is what I was referring to.  Much more than just the Keith-type of calling out, I mean people who are starting to view Obama as just another Republican who duped us all into voting for him.

I was merely adding to your comment.  I completely understand your frustration and was just saying that I hope that if Obama gets a second term, he can fix what is making a lot of us here disappointed.

I am hopeful about this.  A heckuva lot more hopeful than if a Rethug was elected in 2012.

He needs to make us understand the "underlying reasons for his actions."

in many branches of government - eight years of hiring their friends

so they may not be as helpful as they should serving Obama - which to my mind is treason -but to have some time to reshape these departments might be what Obama needs.

sort of live to fight another day

I thought I was the last person around who still used that saying.  Mugs are awesome!

Bush:

http://chris-floyd.com/...

http://chris-floyd.com/...

http://chris-floyd.com/...

. . . rights to detainees? Are they extending arguments of legal immunity that even the Bush Administration didn't try?

Yes on both counts.

I understand your frustration and disappointment, but we must be careful not to overreact.  Barack Obama is a politician, not a savior.  He's going to do what politicians do, which is often not pretty.  

We must still hope that he is amenable to public pressure and that we can exert some influence over his administration.  It was always true that the success of Obama's presidency would depend on whether he could change Washington before it changed him.  He needs our pressure and, yes, our full-throated criticism if he stands any chance to succeed.

This is still our country, and we must fight for it.  That fight didn't end last January 20th.

as politicians are wont to be, allowing some wiggle room for juggling national security concerns with civil liberties concerns. He, of course, agreed that protecting civil liberties was necessary. Here is a response from the Obama campaign last summer rearding his FISA vote It talks about oversight, but doesn't really assure much more than that. You can read it and judge for yourself.

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year 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.

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.  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. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.  

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses.  Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful.  But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.  So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

...Presidents have USA Patriot Acts & "sovereign immunity". Kings rule subjects. Presidents who act like kings forget that resurrecting the dead bones of monarchy does not make them kings, but tyrants!Any nation that forgets the lessons of history is doomed to repeat it.

Every word of our Constitution, every right and freedom enumerated in that living document was written in and by the blood of true patriots who loved liberty so much they unselfishly sacrificed all towards those ends!

Are we the living descendents, the progeny of those freedom fighters, only to see everything they fought for, bled for, and died for, all be washed away by sleight of hand and by a dictator's pen? Or by another king? Or by a president who has inherited kingly powers only to reward us with the bonds and shackles of slavery afresh? Is it slavery we truly want? If so, then I would rather die a free man while I still remember what freedom means!

If so, if we take our freedom so lightly, then maybe we deserve the fate of slaves. Seeing these ends, maybe it had been better for them & us had the Founding Fathers never been born! Better for us that we had never tasted the fruits of liberty, only to lose them all over again to unanswered tyranny!

if the "priorities" don't change:

http://www.dailykos.com/...

Dude - I just had my morning coffee.

This is where the conversation has lost all legitimacy - it isn't about FISA (or even more importantly the torture memos) any longer.

I'm gonna say this with love in my heart: grow up.

gold for quite a while. Guess they know something we don't.

but with the massive spending it will be unsustainable shortly.

The wars, the Justice Department, FISA, the bank giveaway, busting the unions, The Patriot Act are all way more important, and Obama falls with Bush on all of them. Except for in his rhetoric, naturally.

SCHIP passed both houses of Congress last year, so it was a bit of a no-brainer that it would come up again early in this term.

Speaker Pelosi shepherded this one through - all the President had to do was sign on the dotted line.

And has EFCA been passed and signed into law? Or GCC legislation? It's great to propose changes, but the measure of the man will be what he can actually implement. (And yes, cajoling Congress is part of the President's job.)

I agree that appointing Hilda Solis was a masterstroke, but if we don't see actual reform of labor laws and practices, then it's for naught.

I hope you know I respect your opinions, gh, so please take this in the spirit in which it's intended.

Focus on the things you CAN change instead of on the things you can't.

Every heard of the "serenity prayer?"  That's a good place to start . . . .

It is not necessary to hope in order to persevere.

It shows the little people affecting change.

Of course there are tons of horrible incidents and situations that light is shown upon, but the focus on the little people that made change happen is very powerful.

Read it. It's good stuff!

Did the Stevens case have to do with state secrets?
Did I miss something?

bet your life, your family fortunes, and your future on something like that?

You better HOPE the courts reject this kind of power. Again.

(again being a key word....)

I think you're not grasping the overall concept here--do you think that, for example, the Founding Fathers said "well, I'll only do this 'revolution' thing if I can see if it's worth it or not up-front...". How the hell do you think America even came to be?

I'm sorry, but that's just such a sad cop-out...You, one of The People (assuming you live in the US) are just as responsible to your nation and your fellow Americans as the Congress or the White House is, especially when neither of these entities will do things which clearly need to be done.

who had dogs set upon them or were beaten by the police just how non-violent the civil rights movement was.

Tell that to Martin or Malcom who if they were still alive would laugh. Tell it to the Panthers who were the subjects of a sustained campaign of violence and disinformation culminating in a full blown paramilitary attack upon their head quarters by the police state.

I'm not suggesting that violence is necesarily the best strategy at this point but to pretend that there is not a place in the struggle for violence is naive in the extreme and is in many ways a part of the efforts to disempower the left.

We have been trained to believe so strongly against the use of force that we've allowed ourselves to be disarmed and disempowered.

The powerful have never willingly surrendered their power.

Further the labor movement in this country was most certainly about more equitable distribution of wealth and they definitely succeeded.

What do you think all that striking and fighting was about (and don't fool yourself there was plenty of violence from both sides our side gave as good as it got.) it was about economic equality. It was about getting the workers a fair return for their labors.

And while certianly they did not manage to create a leveled workers paradise the definitely improved the situation through their efforts.

Our generation needs to remember that FDR had to be forced to do the New Deal because at that time he was only thing standing between the elites and the pitch forks.

Yes everyone would prefer to achieve a bloodless victory but the reality is that you have to have the resolve to bleed to win.

One of the biggest problem faced by the left today is that for the most part it is made up of a bunch of rosey eyed idealists who have spent too much time reading the propaganda of the establishment rather than the real history.

So we get this nonsensical idea that the elites will just roll over and give up all their power if we just explain the situation correctly and ask nicely.

Still that was not the point of my comment which was merely to point out that over the longer course of history progressive idea's always emerge victorious.

it's all about your expectations.

Your overinflated sense of self-importance is showing again, DH...

from this "can't walk and chew" argument (quoting again):

How Many People...
...were brought in to or kept out of the middle class because of FISA?

How many people lost their houses because of FISA?  

How many people went bankrupt because of FISA?

How many people went without health care because of FISA?

it appears, at least on its face, that you don't mind the current spying program (of wiretapping millions of people, and potentially every American) being continued. If not, what exactly is your position on FISA?

Do you agree with what I wrote above about returning the FISA statute/program back to where things were before Cheney/Bush?

What are your positions on:

1. Obama administration's motion to dismiss Jewel vs NSA

2. the blatant claims of privileges (including the new "sovereign immunity" one, which has the smell of "unitary executive" nonsense we used hear during Cheney/Bush) the Obama admin is making in their motion to dismiss the case.

Do you oppose or support them?