I know that this is an emotional issue concerning FISA, and there is a battle within our family (even, maybe, within ourselves) about the correctness of the issue vs. support for our candidate.
I, like a lot of you, am eager for an Obama presidency. Be it his ability to possibly unite an America torn apart by the division of this country by Boomers who haven't agreed on anything since Vietnam, his ability to restore America's reputation among the nations of the world, what it would mean to the black community to finally see someone of color being voted to the highest office in the land, or just finally having someone with half a brain and some integrity back in the office, there are a lot of reasons to support Obama. This is especially true in light of the other alternative, John McCain.
However, the FISA issue troubles me.
As much as we like and want Obama, the truth remains that he is human and by that very nature, fallable. He will have moments of weakness, like all of us, and wish to take the road more travelled. During these times, it is up to us to take a stand and show Obama that while our love, support, and excitement for his candidacy runs deep, it is not unconditional.
The problem with the new bill is not just that it contains the retroactive immunity, a section which would absolve private companies' illegal actions without even an investigation into what illegalities were even committed, but that it also expands and attempts to legalize warrantless wiretapping, which is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution. Obama, being as intelligent as he is, an attorney, and a professor of consitutional law, would undoubtedly know this.
Throughout the Bush administration, there has been an attempt to cirmcumvent the judicial branch from review of these activities. Even Congressional leaders that have balked at the assertions of Executive Power still have been appeased or have even pushed the answer as being for legislating more Congressional oversight. The question is: Which branch is better equipped to deal with whether a law complies with consitutional mandates such as the Fourth Amendment - Congress: which is a political body and may have a majority which is the same political party as the President and may have written the law they are questioning, or the Judiciary: Which is insulated from political retribution and are actually trained to deal with consitutional issues? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
The arguments in support of Obama are fairly specious. We must support Obama at all costs say many, but look at how that type of blind loyalty has been detrimental to the country under Bush. We may feel more comfortable with Obama at the reins, but there is no guarantee that he will win. Would you feel good about this if McCain were given this type of power? In any event, Obama can only hold the Presidency for 8 years tops, so we would have to worry about setting this type of precedent for the future.
Also, more would point to the fact that the Senate has yet to vote on this, so that criticism of Obama is moot. While this is true, the fact that he has said he supports the bill, and that if anything, his only target for removal is retroactive immunity section, renders this argument moot, not the criticism.
Some have blamed the Republicans for forcing another issue in which the Dems will be seen as weak if they oppose the bill. That will be true forever until the Dems change the equation. Too often we blame the Republicans for our own shortcomings. Why do our reps and Senators continue to allow them to be defined by Republican terms and politics? How much more unpopular do Bush, Republicans and their policies have to be before our team has the spine to oppose them? True, there are going to be smears on Obama if he opposes this bill, but those smears are only going to appeal to those who are rah-rah for circumventing the judiciary's "activist judges" and greater executive power. We know who that group is, and we know who they vote for. They will never vote for Obama. Dems, progessives, libertarians and independents all despise warantless wiretapping and the expansion of executive power outside of the Consitutional framework. Principles aside, these are the people Obama will need to get elected, so why are we still afraid of those whose support we will never get?
The point being, if the actions of Obama were relegated to someone else, like McCain, or for diehard Obama supporters, Clinton, we would be crying foul. Many are on the train of criticizing Pelosi for another capitulation to the minority Republicans for this vote, but why should she bear criticism and Obama be immune to it if their votes are the same?
With any politician, our support should be dependent upon how well he or she serves the country. I will always vote for Obama and support his campaign, b/c even should he capitulate on this issue, he is still head and shoulders above McCain as a candidate. But why would we support this vote when all the other people we have come to rely on, such as the ACLU, Russ Feingold, and now Wexler oppose this. They are in the right and we know it. It also begs the slippery slope question: If we capitulate on this out of political expediency, when will it stop? There will always be Republican criticism, so when are we going to say we are willing to face it? If the Fourth Amendment isn't important enough to stand up for, what other issue will be?
I have been crying like a little girl with a skinned knee for almost 8 years about the blind loyalty of the Bushies. I'll be damned if I become the next generation of enablers just b/c I like the next guy more.
Obama is a great leader, but from great people, great things are expected. He is wrong on this issue, and it is up to us, his supporters, to tell him so. We have all seen how wanting to be seen as tough on terrorism one day can lead to being wrong the next day. If you don't believe me, ask HIllary Clinton.