Jul 07 2008
Can Barrack Obama Survive His FISA-NSA Flip-Flop?
Barrack Obama is about to test the patience of his liberal base. Of his many flip-flops, none is generating more of a backlash than his surrender on the new FISA-NSA rules, which give Bush and the administration all they wanted, and more. This week the Senate is going to vote on the making the new FISA-NSA laws permanent for the next 6 years, and all indications are it will pass.
But Obama is facing an insurrection among is most ardent followers over this issue – and it could fracture his base:
The largest group on Obama’s own website now goes by the moniker: “Senator Obama–Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity—Get FISA Right.” The group comprises 18,000-plus Obama-ites. Its membership is mushrooming. Most who join do so in frustration with their candidate for switching positions on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill, or FISA. Senator Obama at first opposed the bill that grants sweeping powers to the federal government to surveil its own citizens. Now, he says he’ll support a compromise version.
Note this post on Obama’s website from a self-identified former supporter who writes under the name “Terra.” It’s headlined, “I’m out.”
Obama needed his supporters to win the election. We could have done it for him, with him. His position on the FISA bill—destroying the 4th amendment—could lose this election for him because he cannot get his excited supporters to happily share the good news. It’s over. We would have gladly shared our support with any undecided voter. Now, we’re left with 3 choices… 1-disappointment, 2-McBush, or 3-not voting. I haven’t made up my mind, but it’s a close tie between 1 and 3. Regardless, I won’t be the enthusiastic supporter I once was. Sad, sad day.
This is not an isolated report, but one of many covering the shock, disappointment and anger at Obama for turning his back on an issue held dear to many on the far left. Â First here:
Are we experiencing a genuine shift in Obama’s issue positions and campaign strategy, or just a self-perpetuating media narrative? Obama’s position on FISA does appear to represent a real capitulation.
The man is not even elected and he is backing down. That can only demoralize his base and create the valid impression the man does not stand for anything, he just panders to his audiences and says what he thinks will get him to the next stage on his quest for power. Second example here:
Obama’s recent rightward moves—concerning BushCo’s faith-based programs, and the FISA bill—have both been loudly justified by commentators who would certainly deplore them if it weren’t Obama who had made them.
The thinking goes like this: “Obama’s our guy, and he’s really cool, the candidate of ‘change,’ so we should cut him all the slack he needs, so he can get elected president. In any case, this recent stuff is not so bad. So let’s all lighten up—or else. Because he has to make such moves, or he will lose; and those who criticize him now are only helping the Republicans.”
That view is wrong on every count. Obama’s moves are notmerely pragmatic gestures, like Bill Clinton’s “Sister Souljah moment” (to which they’ve been compared). While “standing up to Sister Souljah” (!) was purely a theatrical display, meant to “send a message” to particular voters, these shifts by Obama have serious consitutional implications, regardless of his good intentions or hisrare skill at finessing what he’s done.
What Obama has done here is not a “refinement” of a policy position like he recently suggested concerning Iraq. It is an about face. Imagine how different next week would play out if the presumptive Democratic nominee was joining a filibuster on the floor of the senate, standing up for the constitutional rights of all Americans. The contrast between what would happen if Obama followed through on his promise, and what will happen if he doesn’t, is night and day.
Obama is facing a test of confidence with his liberal base, a segment of voters he must have to win in November. Â But as Obama moves to echo McCain’s positions on many issues (Iraq comes to mind), there becomes no reason for the liberal left to get out and vote. None. Will Obama survive turning on his base and dumping them on one of the deepest held convictions, one they have long demanded ‘no compromise’ on? Let’s look at one more article today and a key observation:
In announcing his support for the bill, Obama said the legislation is “not all that I would want” but added that “given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.”
That decision by Obama, which was widely seen by political strategists as an attempt to move to the ideological center, represented his first major break with the liberal left, a group that sustained him financially and organizationally throughout the primary season.
For Olbermann, as well as many on the liberal end of the political spectrum, Obama has backed himself into a corner. Regardless of how the FISA vote shakes out next week, they argue, Republicans will continue to paint Obama as soft on terrorism and not sufficiently prepared to safeguard the country.
Forget what the GOP will do, what incentives are left for his far left base to organize, donate and fight the fight when Obama has already capitulated? My guess is Obama will not survive this turn on his base. My guess is he has removed all reasons for the far left to even go out and vote, now that he has flipped on so many key issues to that part of the base. This is the neophyte in Obama, the untested and inexperienced candidate who started to buy into his own inevitability. In his mind he cannot make a mistake – which is the first step towards making some really big ones.
I noticed Terrye ducked my question “Please tell me the top 3 ideas of McCain that excite you.”
Also I should note that McCain was at the top of the line to undermine Bush’s 2nd Term. Interferring with Detainee Treatment and Interrorgation bills.
Creating divisions in the Republican, allowing the Democrats to demogogue.
ive: To add onto your find from the past, I have this from 1955/Time Mag about Saudi Arabia:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,861742-3,00.html
All the rest of the oil wealth, a billion dollars or more, has gone down the drain, he says, in “vast private fortunes accumulated and invested safely beyond the borders . . . vast expenditures by princes and officials on the lighter side of life . . .” The Police State. As the profligacy of King Saud’s household has increased, says Philby, his tyranny has tightened. Whenever his subjects, usually students and other sons of traders enriched by his extravagance, have shown signs of political restiveness, the King has invoked his father’s stern Moslem laws to repress them. To Philby, who saw Ibn Saud’s tribesmen sweep the deserts in their puritanical Wahhabi zeal and fury, this is the surest sign of the regime’s decay and advancing doom.
Says he: “The fountain of Arab chivalry has been fouled with oil; and the mouths of the preachers and the prophets have been stopped with gold . . . Where virtue reigned on a scale which some may have thought exaggerated, wealth has become the only criterion of merit . . . The common thief still forfeits his hand, the common adulterer his head, but the higher spheres of society, where speculation and vice are practiced on an impressive scale, live their lives in their own way with complete immunity from censure or sanctions.
In a recent case, indeed, a respectable member of the [Moslem] Virtue Committee was consigned to prison for daring to criticize the laxity of the regime. Laymen have suffered similarly for the same offense, and foreigners banished. Almost imperceptibly a police state has usurped the functions of the sovereign Islamic law.”
Large private oil companies “own” about 5% of all oil on the planet. 95% is owned by governments such as in Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, etc. In these countries, the oil companies are little more than contractors who perform work for a fee. The oil is owned by the government.
As seen at Sweetness and Light, this article illustrates the problem. The major oil companies are going broke because countries allow them in to develop fields at great cost and then seize the finished production facilities preventing the oil companies from realizing a return on their investment.
Nationalized oil is driving up prices and discouraging exploration. When a country nationalizes its oil fields, production generally drops because they don’t have the experience or talent or will to invest in keeping production up. They simply milk the cash cow until they kill it. Venezuela is the latest example.
I will answer the question about the top 3
1. McCain has held the same positions for decades in public service. We KNOW where he stands.
2. He has been successful at something other than winning elections at some point in his life.
3. McCain sits down and talks with reporters and bloggers and common citizens nearly every single day. The Obama campaign is more about shielding Obama from un-rehearsed questions. McCain welcomes out of the blue questions from the common people. Obama allows only friendly questions.
4. I have trust that McCain is going to tell me what he believes. I have trust that Obama is going to tell me what he thinks I want to hear.
5. McCain has a history of being able to make deals with both parties. He has a clear voting record. He has passed legislation. Obama has done practically nothing in his entire career and has not voted at all in more votes in his life as a lawmaker than he has voted one way or the other.
6. McCain is not afraid to take an unpopular stand if it is the right thing to do. Obama always has his finger to the wind. Change for Obama is a daily thing.
7. McCain is liable to create a more stable world and a stronger defense and better economy for America. Obama is liable to create a situation that causes more death and destruction while destroying our economy while he raids the treasury to pay off the people he made promises to in order to get elected.
How’s that for three?
Knowing where McCain stands *excites* you?
I know where he stands on a lot of things and it depresses me.
That McCain had another govt job before his current govt job *excites* you? Well Obama has had quite a few non-govt jobs. That doesn’t excite me.
That McCain talks to all these people all day and yet still believes in fictions like Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and comparing the moonscape of ANWR to the Grand Canyon doesn’t light a fire under me.
I fall asleep when McCain tells me how he believes that its my flipping concern that Mexicans are God’s children too. So are Wahabi Terrorists!
McCains history of bipartisan deals has deflated me time and time again over the past 10 years.
That McCain can hold an unpopular stand is a basic minimal requirement.
McCain is liable to create a more stable world and a stronger defense and better economy for America
How? By closing Gitmo? By worrying about what someone in Luxemburg thinks of the US? By advocating the current Israel-Palestinian Terror Talks conitinue?
By not militarizing and sealing the US border?
There aint a damn thing about McCain that excites me.
That Obama is a demagogeic (I can never spell this word) Marxist is the only compelling reason to vote for McCain. That at least McCain will treat our Military people with some level of respect.
“Well Obama has had quite a few non-govt jobs. ”
Can you name any?
“That McCain talks to all these people all day and yet still believes in fictions like Global Warming, Cap and Trade, and comparing the moonscape of ANWR to the Grand Canyon doesn’t light a fire under me.”
That is “less bad” than wanting to increase the capital gains tax, bring back “windfall profits tax” and the 55mph speed limit. Those are guaranteed an economic disaster. And don’t get me started on his promise to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
oops, hit submit too soon.
“How? By closing Gitmo? By worrying about what someone in Luxemburg thinks of the US? By advocating the current Israel-Palestinian Terror Talks conitinue?”
You have no idea of the Geneva Conventions do you? Illegal Combatant is not a US designation, it is a designation under international law. Illegal Combatants are traditionally shot on the spot. That they are even AT Gitmo says much. We would have been within the law to summarily execute them on the spot. A combatant in civilian clothes or one who targets civilians may be shot. Giving them access to US domestic courts is the most moronic thing ever done in the history of US jurisprudence.
You have no idea of the Geneva Conventions do you? Illegal Combatant is not a US designation, it is a designation under international law. Illegal Combatants are traditionally shot on the spot
We could do whatever the hell we want to do with them, for precisely the reason you stated.
“Well Obama has had quite a few non-govt jobs. â€
Can you name any?
His little Marxist-Community-Agiter collection of jobs and enpanelling of Boards, namely.
That is “less bad†than wanting to increase the capital gains tax, bring back “windfall profits tax†and the 55mph speed limit. Those are guaranteed an economic disaster. And don’t get me started on his promise to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
You’re missing the point. For one, I have already stated: That said… he (McCain) must be voted for. For the sake of our military people
Basicaly McCain could advocate banning air conditioning and central heating and I would still vote for him.
Terrye was going on and on and on on how great McCain is.. and the fact he won the primary is proof!
So I asked her to name three things about him that excites her… in other words..what are the things that made him rise head and shoulders above folks like Romney.. and bzzt. I get no answer.
I didn’t ask for every measely scrap of positives about McCain. I asked.. what really makes people ENTHUISISTIC about him.
The first answer I get, and I thank you for giving it and spending the time to talk about it (i am not being sarcastic), is “McCain has held the same positions for decades in public service. We KNOW where he stands.”
Color me totally unmoved by it.
I am not expecting anyone to be moved by McCain, really. I am expecting them to be moved by the possibility that someone like Obama could be President. I am not really voting for McCain, it is an “anybody but Obama” thing for me. He would possibly destroy the country … or at least get a lot of people killed.
Vince:
I failed to notice your question.
Drilling off shore.
Maintaining a strong defense.
Balancing the Budget {if such a thing is really possible.}
And McCain did not support the Boudemeine decision from the Supreme Court. In fact he supported the military tribunal plan that they struck down.
And Vince it seems to me that the far right has done a bang up job of dividing Republicans without any help from McCain or anyone else.
As for Gitmo, all McCain said was that he wanted them held in military prisons and tried in military courts. At no point did he ever say he wanted them in American courts.
McCain and Graham did what Bush asked them to in 2006, they got the Military Commissions Act passed, and Bush signed it. It was that statute that the Supreme Court overturned.
And crosspatch is right. That designation predates the war on Terror and according to the Supreme Court we can not just do whatever we want with those people. The law says we can shoot them in the battle field, we can turn them over to local law, but once they are detained…that is when things change. That is not McCain’s fault, he is not on the Supreme Court.
I hear a lot of the same rhetoric and style out of Obama that I heard out of Jimmy Carter. Carter brought us the Islamic Republic of Iran which in turn brought us the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the establishment of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He also brought us Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the Sandanista movement in Nicaragua which they then attempted to spread into Grenada, El Salvador and Honduras.
9/11 was a direct result of Carter’s policies as was the bombing of the US and French barracks in Lebanon and the war a while back between Israel and Hezbollah. People are dying today in Zimbabwe thanks to Carter.
Carter also gutted the Human Intelligence capability of our intelligence community deciding to rely on “technical means”. We still haven’t recovered completely from that fiasco either.
I see Obama as a continuation of Carter’s failures that will likely result in more widespread death and destruction. Pacifism kills people. LOTS of people.
AJ,
the Bush-Kerry numbers that CP mentioned were after the bump Kerry got once announcing his VP. Obama will get a bump similarily, I would suspect (as will McCain). If you want to look at the entire trend of the Bush-Kerry poll numbers, you can still find the entire history at Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html
The one thing it doesn’t do is benchnmark the events that took place around these polling dates (major policy speeches, VP selection, Swift Boat effect, Bush National Guard Rathergate story, etc).
All in all, it hard to see much difference between Obama-McCain and Kerry-Bush poll numbers to date. Bush’s poll numbers didn’t take off until end of August/early Sept.
I’ve noticed something else about polls this year though.
There seems to be an even larger trend in the over-sampling of Democrats in polls this election year than in the past. I know it may be a Dem year, and all of that…..but, not 56% of the country as Dems (which is what some polls used in sampling data). So, I’ve concluded…..McCain may actually be doing much better than we think.
Hedgehog also has a post that compares various Gallup head to head presidential elections for this time of year you may be interested in:
http://www.hedgehogreport.com/?p=8276
He summarizes:
“…..Two things I get from this are that in four of the past five elections, Gallup’s poll at Independence Day has shown the eventual loser ahead in their poll. The only time it was right was 1996, when Dole never even put up a fight against Clinton. I will also note that excluding the earliest elections of 1948/1952/1956 and the 2000 election, Gallup has always underestimated the support of the Republican candidate. Every poll, the Republican candidate always wins by a bigger margin, loses by a smaller margin, or in some cases wins when trailing in the July polling.
By the way, the Gallup daily tracking poll released on July 4th claim Barack Obama would win by a 47%-43% margin.
For what it is worth….”
“By the way, the Gallup daily tracking poll released on July 4th claim Barack Obama would win by a 47%-43% margin.”
What’s the margin of error for that poll? If it has a 3% margin of error, we are talking about a statistical dead heat. After all the money Obama has spent, if he is still statistically even with McCain, his campaign people’s heads must be spinning 360.
Obama has outspent McCain something like 10 to 1 and he has the support of practically all the tingly-legged press and electronic media … and so far it really hasn’t got him much. He is JUST BARELY ahead of McCain.
[…] in the wake of 9-11 to rally his liberal base. Yet, when the hour to stand up and be counted came Senator Obama flip-flopped and voted to make the changes […]
[…] The White House has yet to say which type of gun they will use on Mohammed, though former presidential candidate John McCain advised using a “big-ass shotgun.” McCain added that he had been confident that Obama would back down on civil liberty issues like the KSM trial, as it’s been something he has done in the past. […]