FISA: Clinton Stands Up; Obama Caves July 9, 2008
Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, FISA, Hillary Clinton, flip flop.3 comments
By Taylor Marsh; taylormarsh.com; July 9, 2008
Senator Hillary Clinton voted against cloture on the FISA bill today AND against the final bill.
Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, voted for cloture and for the final FISA bill, which legalizes warrantless eavesdropping, with the bonus that it immunizes lawless telecom companies, too. Mr. Obama continues to be the exact type of nominee I predicted he’d be after 18 months of coverage of this man.
Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com):
“The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill — approved last week by the House — to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President. The vote in favor of the new FISA bill was 69-28. Barack Obama joined every Senate Republican (and every House Republican other than one) by voting in favor of it, while his now-vanquished primary rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, voted against it. John McCain wasn’t present for any of the votes, but shared Obama’s support for the bill. The bill will now be sent to an extremely happy George Bush, who already announced that he enthusiastically supports it, and he will sign it into law very shortly.”
What a pitiful collapse from the Democratic nominee. Of course, Obama will “work” to get the telecom immunity stripped from the bill, he says, but right now it’s in there. No doubt he’ll get the approval of Bill O’Reilly and all the wingnuts on this one, which no doubt was his purpose.
Clinton continues to prove what a leader she is and why when it comes to not having to simply show her strength by trying to gain approval from the right, she actually demonstrates it instead through action and purpose. It’s why she was my candidate and remains the leader I trust in the Democratic Party.
That Barack Obama voted with the Republicans should put to rest any idea whatsoever of his alleged “progressive” bonafides or his ability to stand up to knee jerk charges that inevitably come at Democrats. The fact that he likely voted the way he did in order not to be tagged as being “weak on national security” actually illustrates his vulnerabilities more than prove his strengths. Because you can’t posture that you’re strong on matters like these, you either are or you aren’t.
As an aside, it also proves that on Iraq, if Obama had been in the senate, he’d likely have voted for the AUMF, just like Hillary and all the other Democrats. But that’s moot now.
Hillary Clinton is not worried about being called weak, because she isn’t. Obama seemed to have to prove his strength by caving to wingnut talking points because he was afraid of being tagged “weak on national security.” The difference between them today was starkly drawn.
UPDATE: Clinton’s statement on FISA vote:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
ON THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
July 9, 2008
One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. I believe strongly that we must modernize our surveillance laws in order to provide intelligence professionals the tools needed to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. However, any surveillance program must contain safeguards to protect the rights of Americans against abuse, and to preserve clear lines of oversight and accountability over this administration. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues who negotiated this legislation, and I respect my colleagues who reached a different conclusion on today’s vote. I do so because this is a difficult issue. Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form.
The legislation would overhaul the law that governs the administration’s surveillance activities. Some of the legislation’s provisions place guidelines and restrictions on the operational details of the surveillance activities, others increase judicial and legislative oversight of those activities, and still others relate to immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the administration’s surveillance activities.
While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration’s surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government’s targeting and minimization procedures.
But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.
What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.
Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.
Obama gives GOP flip-flop ammo July 6, 2008
Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, flip flop.2 comments
ANALYSIS | Iraq, gun, financing positions revive attacks that helped defeat Kerry
By Jennifer Loven; Chicago Sun-Times; July 5, 2008
BUTTE, Mont. — Is Barack Obama close to being shadowed by giant flip-flops and, worse, having the image stick with people all the way to the voting booth?
Four years ago, Republicans branded as a ”flip-flop” even the slightest rhetorical or policy change by John Kerry and sent huge replicas of the casual sandals to bob around the Massachusetts Democrat’s events, feeding an image of him as a wishy-washy panderer.
Fair or not, Kerry never recovered and lost to President Bush.
It’s now the Republican weapon of choice against Obama.
The Illinois senator has excited many with the notion that he is a new, transcendent type of politician. But he is giving the GOP effort ammunition and endangering his ”Change We Can Believe In” motto with several shifts to the center, most recently on the Iraq war, his campaign’s defining issue.
General election campaigns invariably find candidates fine-tuning what they said during primaries.
When politicians compete against others in their party, they must appeal to the most partisan, who tend to make up the majority of enthusiastic voters at that stage. But general elections require a broader appeal, particularly to the vast center of the nation’s electorate.
So it’s not uncommon as spring fades and November approaches to see candidates de-emphasize or even cast off some of their most extreme positions in favor of policy more palatable to the middle. They mostly do it quietly, or try to.
And though there can be criticism about shifting positions, voters usually forgive and forget.
For one thing, a willingness to hone policy, add nuance or even change one’s mind — especially when new information comes to light — is not a bad quality in a leader. For another, those partisans who supported a candidate in the primaries are not likely to switch parties. Often the worst that can happen is they stay home on Election Day. Politicians are usually willing to risk that for the chance to court the center.
Hence Obama has been highlighting positions anathema to the left on several issues, though some have long been part of his policy.
On Iraq, Obama said Thursday that his upcoming trip there might lead him to refine his promise to quickly remove U.S. troops.
He now supports broader authority for the government’s eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, supporting the bill after some protections were added.
A handgun control proponent, he reacted to the Supreme Court overturning the District of Columbia’s gun ban by saying he favors both an individual’s right to own a gun as well as government’s right to regulate ownership.
Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.
He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush’s program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.
He objected to the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, drawing attention to his support for the death penalty if used only for the ”most egregious” crimes.
The GOP increasingly has sought to take advantage of any opportunity to permanently pin the flip-flopper label on Obama, with all its unappealing associations, and strip him of the shiny-new-penny one he has cultivated up to now.
”There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party.
It might be working. Despite disarray in Republican John McCain’s camp, Bush’s dismal approval ratings and just 17 percent of the public saying the nation is moving in the right direction, recent polls show Obama unable to build a solid lead over his GOP rival.
Mr. Obama’s Waffle February 16, 2008
Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, John McCain, flip flop, public financing.add a comment
His commitment to pursue public financing for the fall campaign suddenly looks soft.
Washington Post – Editorials – Saturday, February 16, 2008; Page A20
AS RECENTLY as November, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was unequivocal about whether he would agree to take public financing for the general election if his Republican opponent pledged to do the same. “If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” the Midwest Democracy Network asked in a questionnaire. Mr. Obama’s answer was clear. “Yes,” he wrote. “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”Or maybe not. Mr. Obama deserves credit for obtaining a ruling from the Federal Election Commission that allowed him to raise money for the general election campaign but reserve the right to return the funds if he were to win the nomination and manage to arrange a cease-fire with the other side. That outcome, once improbable, is now within reach. The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, agreed long ago to Mr. Obama’s deal, back when his prospects for securing the nomination seemed slim. Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, reaffirmed that pledge this week at a lunch with reporters sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor.
But Mr. Obama’s campaign, which has been raking in money at an astonishing clip of more than $30 million a month, is starting to hedge. Speaking to the Associated Press, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, downgraded the Obama plan to “something that we pursued with the FEC and it was an option that we wanted on the table and is on the table.” Asked about the campaign’s earlier position, Mr. Burton said, “No, there is no pledge.”
It must be tempting for a campaign that has reached dizzying new financial heights to give up the guarantee of $85 million in federal funds for the prospect of being able to rake in even more — and to get a financial edge over an opponent whose fundraising has been lackluster and whose party seems dispirited. It must be chastening to think about the financial advantage that Mr. McCain will have in the months leading up to the convention, when Mr. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), his remaining Democratic opponent, may still be battling for the nomination while Mr. McCain is spending “primary” money to build the necessary architecture for the general election.
But this kind of backtracking and parsing isn’t what the millions of voters who have been inspired by Mr. Obama are looking for. It’s not befitting Mr. Obama’s well-earned image as a champion of reform. Instead of waffling, Mr. Obama should be pushing Ms. Clinton to go beyond her spokesman’s statements that she would “definitely consider” forgoing public financing.
Why not let the candidates raise as much cash as they can and save the taxpayers’ money? Because it’s better for voters if candidates spend more time talking to them and less time cozying up to donors. It’s better for democracy if candidates are less indebted to big bundlers who have raked in six- or seven-figure amounts for their campaigns. Mr. McCain seems to understand this. What about the Democrats?
