The man of Change is saying and doing all the right things to get him elected. He gets angry when questioned about these issues stating he has not reversed his positions. He has reversed his position.. He is not the MAN we believed in from the beginning.

Whut? The far left getting a little taste of real world politics? Oh cry me a river.

I was totally going to vote for Obama but then he tore the head off of the Statue of Liberty and launched it into Manhattan.

I'm politically opposed to the fonts he uses.

sepuku2:Whut? The far left getting a little taste of real world politics? Oh cry me a river.

It's telling (and pathetic) that you ask so little from your candidates. It's that kind of ambivalence that brought us the current Failure-in-Chief.

Yesdog:It's telling (and pathetic) that you ask so little from your candidates. It's that kind of ambivalence that brought us the current Failure-in-Chief.

No. What's telling and pathetic are people that haven't learned what politicians will do in order to get elected and become disillusioned when their candidate fails to meet their high standards and unrealistic beliefs. That's why people go to the polls year after year holding their farking noses and not jumping up and down with enthusiasm.

Obama is the best politician running for president this year.

he's a bit different than a lot of your standard issue politicians out there today, but he's not completely different.

I remember how shocked some fellow obama supporters were when I pointed out that obama intends to expand the military.
it's been on his website for months, yet they were shocked.

my point? I think some people were making assumptions about obama that were off base.

so Obama backers have a mind of their own and will get pissed off when they disagree with Obama's actions. So can retards stop using the phrase "obamabots" now?

If you read Obama's books and really listen to his speeches he has never been a radical. His "change" is not like Neocon change, that says "Here is everything we disagree with. Let us destroy it". His is a more fundamental "change", not of a few policies or a few laws but of the entire system and of the entire conversation and debate.

To be radically partisan as many of his ardent supporters want would be to become no better than a Democratic version of Bush, concerned purely with addressing the perceived wrongs of the past than uniting and moving together to a better future.

Obama is in many senses and idealist, but in "The Audacity of Hope" he repeatedly makes clear his belief that idealism is useless without realism and that in every movement and important decision there is compromise.

If you want a leader that never compromises, never backs down, never changes his position until hes forced into a corner (and often not even then) and who will happily ignore the common good or the Constitution to do what he personally thinks is best then you should be voting for a Bush third term.

If however you are sick of this kind of artificially created controversy driving people apart, then it is time for change. Nobody these days asks "Does immunity for telecommunications companies that were acting in good faith with the government really affect my life?" No they either see it as a point for Republicans or a point for Democrats and winning is everything. Its time to focus on what really matters, and in so doing all these side issues will generally resolve themselves. That's what change is.

Why would he make promises if he had no intention of following through with them?

BECAUSE HE WANTS TO WIN!

unexplained bacon:Obama is the best politician running for president this year.

he's a bit different than a lot of your standard issue politicians out there today, but he's not completely different.

I remember how shocked some fellow obama supporters were when I pointed out that obama intends to expand the military.
it's been on his website for months, yet they were shocked.

my point? I think some people were making assumptions about obama that were off base.

You've been paying attention.

Welcome to the club, snacks are to the left.

generalDisdain:that's SLOTEO*!

*Senator Lesser of Two Evils Obama!

How DARE they say he's the LESSER of two evils? It it because he's BLACK? He's clearly the better candidate, so he's MORE evil. So there!

/Believe in hope and evil for the future!

Count me in that group. If he back pedals from the stance I'll just sulk like a biatch at how much of a political whore he is and not vote for him during the election.

Good. I hope he gets the message. When you've got a clear choice between right and wrong policy, trying to appear centrist by supporting bad ideas does not make you 'bipartisan' it makes you complicit.

good, the telecom immunity thing is a betrayal to people who supported him on those issues.

Although the companies were in a position where they could have and would have been bullied by the government if they refused their requests, the constituents should focus their pressure completely on every last douchebag who pushed the illegal program from inside the government.

Cyborg77:Nobody these days asks "Does immunity for telecommunications companies that were acting in good faith with the government really affect my life?" No they either see it as a point for Republicans or a point for Democrats and winning is everything. Its time to focus on what really matters, and in so doing all these side issues will generally resolve themselves.

What a load of crap. That's like saying "If the government bans dissent against the President, will it really affect my life? No they either see it as a point for Republicans or a point for Democrats and winning is everything." When you're talking about one side trying to deny fundamental rights and subvert the constitution it's no longer about 'teams', it's about calling a spade a spade. Trying to appeal to a bunch of people who can't be bothered to pay attention as they gleefully watch our rights be wittled away by expansive and intrusive government is fine, but you don't have to do it by joining in and encouraging it. Fark the Democrat party and fark the Republicans. I don't give two shiats about 'teams'.

depmode98:so Obama backers have a mind of their own and will get pissed off when they disagree with Obama's actions. So can retards stop using the phrase "obamabots" now?

Sorry, if you support Obama, you're a cultist. That's the talking points and they're sticking to it.

Far left and far right don't truly care about politics. They want to be pissed off at everyone. It's not about meeting their demands, since at every corner they are looking for a mistake. Being on the far ends is just about hate.

Firemarshalbill:Far left and far right don't truly care about politics. They want to be pissed off at everyone.

I'll agree with that - they don't care about politics, they care about policy and issues. They are probably the most informed out of anyone but they don't want to be beholden to 'the game'.

I wasn't happy where he landed on the telecom immunity.

I was disappointed.

that said, he's still the only candidate who will move toward the goals I want to see reached.
I think he's still someone who will roll back the over reaches of the "terrorist surveillance program", though now I see he's not about punishing the companies who violated the rights of their customers. I can live with that backpeddle to some extent.

McCain is much further into the shiat than obama.
the libertarians would burn the house down to get rid of the garbage...the green party gets into areas I'm not comfortable with too.

so what's left? obama.

I've been here many times, and I can say when I vote for obama he'll be closer to what I actually want as a president than anyone I've cast that vote for in the past.
I'm actually gonna vote for obama, rather than against someone.

Cyborg77:If you want a leader that never compromises, never backs down, never changes his position until hes forced into a corner (and often not even then) and who will happily ignore the common good or the Constitution to do what he personally thinks is best then you should be voting for a Bush third term.

This is a really good point. Well-said.

I may disagree with you on the importance of the telecom immunity (my concern is the separation of powers, not the political teams) I do take to heart your overall point.


Shaggy_C:Fark the Democrat party and fark the Republicans. I don't give two shiats about 'teams'.


Shaggy, when you say "Democrat party", you sound like a doofus. It's, as you know, a meme started by right wingers because they felt it sounded uglier than "The Democratic Party".

FTFA
The controversy centers on modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the government's quest to monitor suspected terrorists that civil libertarians worry could infringe on the privacy rights of others.

Obama had pledged earlier this year to oppose--even filibuster--legislation that would immunize telecommunications companies against lawsuits that challenge cooperation with federal authorities in warrantless wiretapping.

But with that immunity now part of compromise legislation, Obama has softened his stance and suggested that he will back the bill. At a Chicago news conference on June 25, he said the proposal was a "close call" for him.

WHAAAA?! When did this happen?! This is terrible if true. I have been playing WoW too much lately to have missed this one!

So it would have been better for those turn-coats had Obama just issued a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" command? What a bunch of crap.

Politics is a fluid situation; the rules change, amendments alter legislation, and compromises are reached.

The Greens, the Libertarians, the Sheehans and the Mckinneys of the world have it easy. They shout at the rain and call down the thunder to seem cutting edge, or to appear revolutionary because they have nothing to lose. Anyone can fake righteousness and indignation when they don't have to actually deliver.

Do I like it that Obama changed his mind or altered his position? Shiat no, hell no. On the other hand, if you want a politician to do just as you would do then you need to CYA down to the board of elections and run for an office.

Shaggy_C:Firemarshalbill:Far left and far right don't truly care about politics. They want to be pissed off at everyone.

I'll agree with that - they don't care about politics, they care about policy and issues. They are probably the most informed out of anyone but they don't want to be beholden to 'the game'.

This is probably true, a far left knows illegal wiretapping well. A far right knows gay marriage and religious issues extremely well.

Neither will ever be happy as they are completely unbendable in their desires for outcomes though. And as you said, in your previous post, centrist is not ok.

I'm sure Obama knows and is not too worried about the far left, the same way McCain is not loved by the far right for being too moderate. It's a pissed off minority who, in the end, votes party or votes for another unelectable candidate and cancel each other out.

Shaggy_C:Cyborg77:Nobody these days asks "Does immunity for telecommunications companies that were acting in good faith with the government really affect my life?" No they either see it as a point for Republicans or a point for Democrats and winning is everything. Its time to focus on what really matters, and in so doing all these side issues will generally resolve themselves.

What a load of crap. That's like saying "If the government bans dissent against the President, will it really affect my life? No they either see it as a point for Republicans or a point for Democrats and winning is everything." When you're talking about one side trying to deny fundamental rights and subvert the constitution it's no longer about 'teams', it's about calling a spade a spade. Trying to appeal to a bunch of people who can't be bothered to pay attention as they gleefully watch our rights be wittled away by expansive and intrusive government is fine, but you don't have to do it by joining in and encouraging it. Fark the Democrat party and fark the Republicans. I don't give two shiats about 'teams'.

Am I missing something on the limited immunity bill? It was my understanding that the bill proposes that if the telecom can provide proof that the taps were ordered by the government then they were immune to prosecution. This seems reasonable to me considering that the telecoms could be prosecuted for not agreeing to these taps if they were consented to by the DOJ, which they were.

If this is indeed the case then shouldn't we all be pulling for this bill since it requires proof that these taps were ordered by the current administration, which could then in turn be used to prosecute the administration?

Obdicut:Shaggy, when you say "Democrat party", you sound like a doofus. It's, as you know, a meme started by right wingers because they felt it sounded uglier than "The Democratic Party".

Ah, true. I'm going back to calling the parties the 'Religion, Oppression, and Greed' Party and the 'Excessive Taxation, Vote-buying, and class warfare' Party.

If you think any Democrat really wants to help you or do anything different for this country, let this be your wakeup call:

Rather than use the vast power they had to end the war, Democrats devoted their energy to making sure that "anti-war activism" became synonymous with "electing Democrats." Capitalizing on America's desire to end the war, they hijacked the anti-war movement itself, filling the ranks of peace groups with loyal party hacks. Anti-war organizations essentially became a political tool for the Democrats - one operated from inside the Beltway and devoted primarily to targeting Republicans.

fark 'em.

I think some people were making assumptions about obama that were off base.

As long as that unicorn he promised me shows up, I am cool.

Obdicut:

Shaggy, when you say "Democrat party", you sound like a doofus. It's, as you know, a meme started by right wingers because they felt it sounded uglier than "The Democratic Party".

Can't you privately dislike it from now on? I don't think anyone else cares, or really even knows it's a meme. I know you might have to hold out for another 5 minutes in order to throw out the phrase "right wingers" though

yeah i never expected Obama to be a radical on everything, i expected him to have a very different attitude from the current politics in washington and that alone would be the thing that makes him radical

i mean, opposing the war in Iraq is not radical, it's common sense, but i can't say i'm surprised at all from his recent positioning which should come as a shock to the short-sighted and ambivalent, for example i expect that his 16 month policy of withdrawing is A) to actually end the war and B) to motivate the Iraqi gov't... i mean they have to control the country, and our policy over there has been that we'll stand guard as they get prepared, but if we never make a move to get them there then we'll never leave, and once we get them there we can leave Iraq and be victorious at the same time... let's just hope it isn't a Nixon

but that said, who didn't think that when Obama said he was going to work with both sides as president that he was going to be some lefty socialist who only listened to the left? yeah doesn't really make sense either as a politician or as a good president, how often did Bush listen to the left? would him not listening to the right be just as good? there might be unintended consequences for such an attitude, such as the isolationism that Bush's loyalty policy which created a vacuum in which every idea was a good idea

Firemarshalbill:Neither will ever be happy as they are completely unbendable in their desires for outcomes though. And as you said, in your previous post, centrist is not ok.

When I think 'centrist' I think someone who picks the good policy points from each side - neither party platform is 100% correct. That doesn't mean the same thing as muddling a good policy with absolute crap just to please the other side's sycophants and ignorant masses. So, I don't think being centrist is wrong at all. I think appeasement is the problem.

there is a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of the group on obama's site and the views of those in it. it isn't a group protesting his view on the dc gun ban, or his view on faith based initiatives, or his view on the death penalty, or his supposed view on iraq. i've read all those things in news stories about it, but none of that is true.

it is simply a group protesting his vote on FISA. but more than that, it is a group that is trying to organize opposition to the bill, donating to sens. feingold and dodd, calling their congressmen, etc. a lot of people in the group, myself included, are simply trying to get the message to the campaign that a lot of the true independents that they can gain will not be wooed by a vote for this bill. most of the independents are libertarian leaning, which means that the FISA bill is about the exact opposite of what they want. if he would maintain a more libertarian stance, he would probably grab up some of those independents that don't feel like voting third party. but as it is, he seems to be gunning for mccain's base, which he will not get.

the group is big, but for the most part it isn't people threatening to vote for mccain or anything like that. there are, however, a lot of independents who are telling him that he is losing, not securing, their support with moves like this.

Shaggy_C:If you think any Democrat really wants to help you or do anything different for this country, let this be your wakeup call:

Any Democrat? There are actually quite a few good people in each party. Care to climb down from that totalist rhetoric, or have you decided to fully transform into canyoneer-lite?

And hell, I was hating Pelosi and Feinstein before it was cool, man.



Firemarshalbill:Can't you privately dislike it from now on? I don't think anyone else cares, or really even knows it's a meme. I know you might have to hold out for another 5 minutes in order to throw out the phrase "right wingers" though

It's because a lot of people don't know it's a meme, and don't understand why it bugs some people, that I am bringing it up.

But to your credit-- I did loosely use the phrase "right-wingers", which is a silly phrase. There isn't really a "right" or a "left" wing, and by stating it as I did, I engaged in partisan rhetoric as well. I apologize for that portion of it.

Excerpted from Obama's response to critics of his stance on this issue:


"The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down."

The highlighted section reads to me as "give the baby his bottle and we will get this straightened out when I am in charge". Pretty much makes this a non-issue-for me anyway. Seems some people are so butt-hurt over this that they would rather see a continuation of what has happened to this country over the last 8 years, and would prefer a SCOTUS that is overwhelmingly right leaning. Dumbasses.

Stepqhen:Am I missing something on the limited immunity bill? It was my understanding that the bill proposes that if the telecom can provide proof that the taps were ordered by the government then they were immune to prosecution.

That's not a good thing at all. If a cop gives you a gun and tells you to murder someone, should you be held responsible? Face it, there is a reasonable expectation of legality that you must maintain in order to 'get off' by claiming that the mean old government told you to do it.

Though maybe someone can explain to me - I thought I heard somewhere that there was a version of the bill that would provide civil immunity (as in, they can't be sued) but would leave the door open for criminal prosecution. Is there any truth to this? And is Obama on board?

No. What's telling and pathetic are people that haven't learned what politicians will do in order to get elected and become disillusioned when their candidate fails to meet their high standards and unrealistic beliefs. That's why people go to the polls year after year holding their farking noses and not jumping up and down with enthusiasm.

What is really pathetic, is that we as Americans have reached this stage, have happily let it happen, and no one does wants to do anything about it.

I'm sure Obama knows and is not too worried about the far left, the same way McCain is not loved by the far right for being too moderate.

Problem is those wingnuts are the ones who do lit drops and make phone calls and drive to swing states and volunteer for things in droves a month before the election.

That is a lot of free labor to lose. Sure they will hold their nose and vote for a candidate but they won't be as gung ho and give as much free labor. That can sink a campaign fast. It means the candidate suddenly needs to pay thousands of people millions of dollars to do things he was counting on for free.

It isn't surprising the far-left is angry, Obama was genius in his "say things without saying things" and letting people read into it what THEY wanted. The far-left is so desperate for change that after throwing around words like "war crimes" and "immediate withdrawal" hearing anything else is like some sort of stab in the back for an emotionally charged audience to begin with.

Shaggy_C:Though maybe someone can explain to me - I thought I heard somewhere that there was a version of the bill that would provide civil immunity (as in, they can't be sued) but would leave the door open for criminal prosecution. Is there any truth to this? And is Obama on board?

That is this version of the bill. It only provides civil immunity, it provides no criminal immunity.

Still flawed, to me, but that's how it currently stands in the bill in question.

I no longer like Obama. That is all.

Shaggy_C:Firemarshalbill:Neither will ever be happy as they are completely unbendable in their desires for outcomes though. And as you said, in your previous post, centrist is not ok.

When I think 'centrist' I think someone who picks the good policy points from each side - neither party platform is 100% correct. That doesn't mean the same thing as muddling a good policy with absolute crap just to please the other side's sycophants and ignorant masses. So, I don't think being centrist is wrong at all. I think appeasement is the problem.

I used you loosely from your post, but I meant more generically, you are not extreme single party. I shouldn't have directed that to you.

I honestly agree with his current FISA plan, as I don't believe some of these telecoms should be prosecuted, especially if it leads to only prosecuting major companies with the government who were the real players in this getting away with nothing.

I do think they were bullied and I don't believe with slapping the more accessible wrist hard because you can't reach and really hate the bigger one.

Obdicut:Any Democrat? There are actually quite a few good people in each party. Care to climb down from that totalist rhetoric, or have you decided to fully transform into canyoneer-lite?

I don't trust the elite on either side. Sure, there are people who want to do the right thing - and they truly believe that is what they are advocating. But they're not the ones making the decisions. They get caught up in the system, and are left eventually to do nothing more than serve as conduits to rah-rah our team via electoral vote.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."
-George Washington

Eira:No. What's telling and pathetic are people that haven't learned what politicians will do in order to get elected and become disillusioned when their candidate fails to meet their high standards and unrealistic beliefs. That's why people go to the polls year after year holding their farking noses and not jumping up and down with enthusiasm.

What is really pathetic, is that we as Americans have reached this stage, have happily let it happen, and no one does wants to do anything about it.

And what do you propose we do to change it, when every person that's nominated on some vague, undefined optimism caves into the demands of some special interest or political expedience?

bwesb:So it would have been better for those turn-coats had Obama just issued a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" command? What a bunch of crap.

um... on the issues in this bill (the 4th amendment, the 1st amendment, separation of powers, and others) yes, he should have, and every member of congress should have, not supported the bill.

in the floor debate yesterday, it was pointed out that between two-thirds and three-quarters of congress haven't even been briefed on the wiretapping program for which they would be granting immunity. in other words, they don't even know what they're immunizing against. they are not qualified to make an intelligent decision on the matter, which means they are only making a political decision on it... with the american citizen's right to bring a constitutional dispute before a court. and beyond that, it is not the role of congress to interfere in the function of the judicial branch, which is unquestionably what they are doing.

as jonathan turley said last night about it, there isn't a single bit of public good in this bill, not a single bit of responsible legislating. this bill is riding a wave of pure political expediency because no one in washington wants to take up the task of holding the bush administration accountable for their crimes. and in the process, they are eviscerating the 4th amendment. he looked like he was about to cry when he said it.

Obdicut:That is this version of the bill. It only provides civil immunity, it provides no criminal immunity.

Ah, well that's actually a better compromise than when I'd first read the story about it. I can accept this, I think. Flawed, but better than the alternative.