Senator Obama - Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right
This is a group on My.BarackObama.com which has become the fastest growing with more than 1,500 new members in the last 2 days.
I became an Obama supporter because I believe in PEOPLE-Powered politicians. If you're an Obama supporter, I'm more for you than I am for him. The point of this backlash is that he must listen to us, because this bill is far worse for me and you than it is for him. It's up to us to remind him of this.
Criticism is the only antidote to error. It is the soul of democracy.
Below the fold is my first post to the group followed a few of the dozens of letters that have poured across the group in the last day. You won't find one person who isn't committed to getting a Democrat elected, what you will find are citizens who demand that their views be represented by that Democrat. Unity is not conformity.
You MUST do anything possible to prevent telecom immunity from being allowed. For me this is a moment of truth, Obama. While I will support the democrat no matter what in November, I will work harder to focus on local politics than your campaign if this issue is tossed aside. The popular support for telecom immunity is ZERO. Opposition from the public appears to be undeniably strong, not counting the yawning traditional media.
These telecommunications companies that have gone along with an unconstitutional scheme must face the music just like the rest of those who have abused their power over the last 8 years. There is ample evidence that the NSA was conducting warrantless surveillance outside the FISA court prior to 9/11, so they are not really concerned with updating a law they have never respected. That is the trojan horse to conceal what they truly require to cover their own asses: telecom immunity. Without that, there's no way they can hope to keep all the dirty laundry from coming out. The point is that it NEEDS to come out if we are to truly move forward and acknowledge how deeply the rule of law has been damaged in recent years.
Please take some time and listen to your critics on the left regarding this issue. I am not afraid of terrorists at all, they can't take away our freedoms, only the law can do that. All they can do is scare us.
Brian Douglas
Sen. Obama,
I recently contributed $2300 to your campaign. I have never
contributed to a political campaign in my life.
I want you to do the right thing, even if it costs you votes. I want
you to oppose granting any immunity to the telecomm companies for
breaking the law.
I want to live in a country governed by law, not by men. I want no one
to be above the law. If the telecomm companies did nothing wrong, then
they will win the lawsuits against them. If they did things which were
wrong, they will lose. Either way the public will finally learn what
the Bush administration and the companies were up to.
Under NO CONDITIONS should the telecomm companies be granted any legal
immunity. I implore you to stop this so-called "compromise" FISA bill
from becoming law.
Jim Reese
Keyser, WV
This has really been a painful week. Thanks to everyone on this list for being here.
Oh, we'll get him elected, but seeing this clearly, who would we be if we didn't feel the way we do? Americans, still? I don't see how.
PHIL :)
I'm thinking that there are three reasons why the majority of our representatives in Congress are sympathetic to the proposed FISA "modernization" bill. First, many of them (including the Democrats) are up to their eyeballs in the Iraq / War on Terror / FISA mess. They failed miserably in their oversight role during the reign of the Bush administration, they repeatedly voted to fund the War in Iraq, and they lost sight of the values enshrined in our Constitution. So, to the extent that they can give the telecoms immunity and prevent anyone from looking under the rug, it serves the personal interest of many of our congressional representatives. They want this thing to go away just as bad as the telecoms do.
Second, I think many in Congress fear that those of us who are expressing concerns about FISA are determined to see a witch hunt, and they probably have concerns that the circus atmosphere created by investigation and prosecution of the various crimes of the Bush administration would lead to governmental paralysis and a derailment of the Obama agenda should he become President. I believe that our Senators and Representatives are so fearful of these potential short-term consequences that they are willing to support the dreadful new FISA legislation, thus abusing the Constitution to save themselves.
Third, I doubt that many in Congress actually understand the contents of the bill. The participants on this e-mail loop probably have greater expertise on the particulars of FISA than our Congressional representatives. The leadership has told them that it's a good 'compromise' and thus they are more than happy to vote 'yea' and put the whole thorny issue behind them. No doubt the average Congressman spends more time negotiating for a new highway or football stadium in his/her district than he does examing FISA legislation, which is considered arcane and complex by most of them.
Hate to say it, but I have very little hope that we are going to influence Congress on this bill by appealing to high-minded Constitutional values. They have already sold their souls down the river so many times that I just don't think it is realistic to expect them to take the high road on this issue. I think the only winning strategy is to put so much pressure on our representatives in Washington that they finally conclude that the politically safest thing for them is to oppose the new FISA legislation. With the exception of stalwarts like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, they are always going to take the path of least resistance, so it's our job to obstruct that path.
Peter Jung
Hudson, NY
I have written a post on my blog asking my readers to do everything that they can to convince Senator Obama to change his position on the FISA capitulation bill that will grant immunity to the telecoms that enabled the Bush regime's illegal, wireless wiretapping program. Here is a link to my site, http://www.arguewithmydad.com/... Thanks to all of you for your efforts to correct this unnecessary "compromise".
Larry Rafferty
Education Education Education
Those pesky voters
While sitting back and watching the significant and appropriate backlash
against Obama, I'm struck by the fact that Obama probably knew quite well
that this would happen but chose the path he did anyway. He's not stupid. He
weighed out the costs vs. the benefits and decided that screwing the
netroots would be less costly than creating a vulnerability among
low-attention TeeVee viewers.
He may or may not be correct in his assessment, but we'd be derelict in our
own efforts if we don't come away with a serious lesson about the limits of
our influence.
I think the ActBlue effort is important not only because I'm sure there will
be a measurable dip in Obama's fundraising efforts but because our actual
mission should be to reach the people who don't necessarily follow the
issues closely and teach them why it matters.
It remains an important mission.
http://phd9.blogspot.com/
Barack Obama and his handlers have made the decision that supporting this trainwreck of a bill is a good thing for him. Maybe the Clinton advisers have made inroads into his campaign. More so I think this truly shows the truth about Barack Obama. A lot of us got caught up in the excitement of his campaign. I myself was an Edwards supporter and when he withdrew looked at Obama as the non-DLC candidate. We were sucked in by the charisma. BUt we all knew and all know that he isn't really a progressive. The wingnuts try to portray his as some ultra liberal, but we know that is not true. If anything he is fairly conservative and reactionary. A hell of a lot better than Bush and McCain, but not a progressive.
His inaction on the FISA bill confirms this. More so than his inaction are the lies he told. He stated he would fight to strip immunity. If anyone can show proof he fought for this, I would love to see it. Immunity is only a part of the issue with this bill. This is the total abdication of our 4th amendment rights. The rightwing has won. The Democratic Party is synonymous with the Republicans when it comes to protection of civil rights. We needed a leader, we got politician that is fairly conservative. What is called republican lite.
All we can do is vote for him in November. I guess we can only hope that fascism under him will be a little less onerous than that under McCain.
Dear Senator Obama,
I support you as our Candidate for President and will vote for you in November. That said, I am unhappy with the policy, or positional changes, I see you making since you have become our presumptive candidate. These changes include your position on the ME, as you so forcefully expressed them when addressing AIPAC, as well as your stand on the current FISA legislation, among others.
I have read your explanation and your reasoning, regarding FISA, and what comes across to me is that your choice was made on the basis of politics, not what is right or best, or even what the public wants. It sounds and feels just like the politics the Democratic Party believed in, and lived, from the founding of the DLC in 1985 until 2005.
The ho pe you offered us, is a change from that. The hope of new leadership that will change the usual business of Washington, DC. Whether that be openness instead of secrecy, negotiation instead of pre-emptive war, or the strong commitment to bottom up democracy. And indeed your message was just that until, it seems, you clinched the presumptive nomination. Then, it seems, the changes began.
Now, I realize that CW says its smart to cater to the base in the primary, and then move to the center in the GE. This strategy does make sense, but it does put you on a very slippery slope. It necessitates changing your already stated positions, or at least modifying them. Th e problem with this, in your specific case, is the effect of changing your ideological message mid stream. Changing the very message that you originally campaigned on. That base message was, essentially, hope, but more importantly, trust. Trust in a different kind of man, and the administration he will bring with him. And from trust springs belief! And as you are well aware, belief is what you have spawned. It is what you will rise or fall on. When belief is questioned it evaporates and the support withers!
Now, John McCain can flip flop all he wants to, or change his announced ideology, and it will not really affect him, nor the view that people have of him. Neither trust, nor belief, is part of the message John McCain brings to the table. He is not, of the people, nor for the people, and I believe most Americans know that, even with the "media being his base." With you the opposite is true.
What I feel, is echoed by my friends. That feeling of hope, trust and belief in you is now in question. That question is: Is Barack Obama really the leader he originally promised? Are you the person you portrayed to us, or are you simply another politician who triangulates like the DLC has done all these years? Someone who does the "expedient" thing to satisfy a thirst, for the win at any cost, or power, or ego satisfaction? Whose ideology, as Emerson said, is put on and off as the wind blows or the newspaper directs?
As part of a discussion between Markos Moulitsas of the DailyKos and Keith Olberman, the other day, Kos zeroed in on the core issue involving you the FISA issue:
http://www.salon.com/...
MOULITSAS: ... at the end of the day he (Obama) has a chance to stand for the Constitution and to show that he will protect it against forces that seek to undermine it and he will show that he has, like I said before, that he is a leader and will take the mantle of leadership on this issue and take control of the Democratic Party.
(emphasis mine)
It is my hope, as I add my poor voice to the many others here, that you will rethink the values that underlie your decision to join with the Bush administration in support of FISA. We desperately need a strong leader of principal, in these deeply flawed and troubling times. A triangulating, as the wind blows President, simply will not do.
Sincerely
Paul E. Scott