Back on 2/26, Sen. Obama said the following in his remarks accepting Sen. Dodd's endorsement of his prez campaign:
We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.
The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law.
This week, Sen. Obama's tune on this subject clearly changed. According to Greg Sargent at TPM, Obama said the following about telco immunity yesterday:
The bill has changed. So I don't think the security threats have changed, I think the security threats are similar. My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people."
As Sen. Feingold noted on Monday, the most recent amendments are a fig leaf. Like Sens. Dodd and Leahy, he understands the following about the currently pending bill:
Sen. Dodd and I and Sen. Leahy are going to do everything we can to stop this mistake," Feingold noted, referring to fellow opponents of the bill. "But I’m extremely concerned that not only virtually every Republican... but far too many Democrats will vote the wrong way."
....
[D]espite containing less than a handful of narrow improvements over the February amendments, the new legislation has much wider support among Democratic leaders. Many of them claim the bill represents a worthy compromise.
"That’s a farce and it’s political cover," Feingold said, "Anybody who claims this is an okay bill, I really question if they’ve even read it."
"Democrats enabled [this]," Feingold went on. "Some of the rank and file Democrats in the Senate who were elected on this reform platform unfortunately voted with Kit Bond who’s just giggling he’s so happy with what he got. We caved in."
I understand that compromise is an essential part of politics. Conviction and consistency, however, are essential parts of it, too. If you take a public position on an important bill in February, you should be willing to stick w/ that position in June.
President Obama will face vastly more difficult challenges next year than Sen. Obama is facing on telco immunity this year. While the telcos are lobbying fiercely and giving generously now, imagine what Big Oil and the Big 3 automakers will be doing when energy legislation is offered next year. The Cliton/Gore BTU tax suffered an ignominious demise in a Dem-controlled Senate in '92. Does Obama think he'll have an easier task in passing much more comprehensive legislation next year?
None of us would consider voting for McCain even if we were waterboarded on election day. Few of us would consider voting for Nader, Barr, or any other 3d party candidate, either. The last 7.5 years have made the stakes of this election obvious to all of us.
Those size of those stakes, however, apply to our nominee as well. Business as usual will not work for our party or our country in this time of great peril. Our national economy, our constitutional system of govt, our international standing, our planet's future health and many other vital things are all at risk now.
Actions like abandoning one's prior position on telco immunity out of fear of GOP campaign smears have been, sadly, business as usual for Dem nominees. It's also counterproductive. The people who would be upset by Obama opposing telco immunity are, for the most part, not going to vote for him anyhow. The people who are upset by his 180 degree turn are the ones who will provide the labor, the $, and the energy that will fuel his campaign.
He made a huge mistake here.