The Odd Assity of Hope
I agree with my man Thoreau that telecom immunity is a genuine test of Barack Obama’s bona fides on civil liberties. It’s also a genuine test of the liberal side of any liberal-libertarian fusionism.
I think it’s very possibly a test that Obama has already failed. I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two. Nothing stopped him from dragging Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid into the same corner where he buttonholed Joe Lieberman. If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. Except if he either doesn’t consider it important enough to be worth his time and credibility, or if he’s just as happy that the measure might pass.
UPDATE: All FISA-blogging is but footnotes to Sanchez, who wrote, a good hour before I independently posted the above, “And I’d be surprised if Hoyer hadn’t at least sounded out Obama in advance in hopes of preventing just such an awkward moment.”
Meanwhile I think the above post passes the “no liberal Jesus” test.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 19, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
You might be right, Jim, but I’ve taken hell on this forum for not giving Democrats any benefit of the doubt.
Let’s see what happens in the Senate. If Obama doesn’t fight this fight, well, then I’ll say the sorts of things that will give our commentariat a collective hissy fit.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 19, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
EDIT: Certain elements of our commentariat…
I love most of you guys.
Comment by Tony P. —
June 19, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Jim:
You left out the part about how John McCain is exactly equivalently situated vis a vis Boehner and McConnell, as Obama is vis a vis Hoyer and Reid. This is understandable: Obama still has the power to disappoint you; McCain is way past that point.
The only question, if THE president’s power is aggrandized by this “compromise”, is whether President Obama or President McCain, having that power, will use it to screw you less.
– TP
Comment by joe —
June 19, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
Check this out, and the comments.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/19/172928/234/413/538615
Comment by Thoreau —
June 19, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
Which is why I’m not ready to agree with Jim’s speculation.
This is the test. For all I know, he might yet pass it.
Comment by joe —
June 19, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
Barack Obama is a Senator. A junior one.
Do you think Ted Kennedy, Robery Byrd, and Jay Rockefeller are going to let a n00b push them around just because he’s running for president? Especially a showboating pretty boy.
It’s the SENATE!
I don’t buy the idea that of course the Democratic Senators will do his bidding, or clear their actions with him beforehand.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 19, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
OTOH, he is also a Senator, a member of a body where somebody can pull out a rule book that hasn’t been opened since a debate in the British House of Lords 400 years ago and invoke some arcane rule and mess it all up.
I’m inclined to believe that Reid et. al. didn’t consult with Obama. I’m also inclined to believe that if Obama enters this battle on the side of The Dodd he can muster some powerful forces. He might not get the respect of Byrd, Reid, and Rockefeller, but if he plays his cards right he’ll be more than just one extra vote against cloture.
Comment by Doctor Memory —
June 19, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
Thoreau: speaking as a certain element of your readers, if Obama doesn’t invest some political capital here, he’ll deserve every bit of abuse you throw his way.
Comment by Anon —
June 19, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
A commenter on Sanchez’ post beat me to it: It’d be awesome of Senator Clinton decided to raise some hell over this issue. It won’t happen, but damn, how many minds would that blow?
Anon
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
June 20, 2008 @ 1:29 am
This is the sort of moment that makes disengagement seem very plausible emotionally. It isn’t, approached in purely rational terms, insofar as the argument is (and mine is) that there will always be a vector of state action and each bit of difference matters. But damn it’s hard to care sometimes.
Comment by Barry —
June 20, 2008 @ 7:29 am
“OTOH, he is also a Senator, a member of a body where somebody can pull out a rule book that hasn’t been opened since a debate in the British House of Lords 400 years ago and invoke some arcane rule and mess it all up.”
Incorrect – the Senate is a place where any GOP Senator can do that.
Democratic Senators, not so much.
Comment by Greg —
June 20, 2008 @ 7:50 am
Yeah, what Bruce said. While the way this is shaping up explains why Obama was my second-to-last choice among the Democratic nominees, the time for getting rid of him in place of someone better passed around the New Hampshire primary or so.
The choice these days isn’t, someone who supports telecom immunity vs. someone who doesn’t support telecom immunity. It’s someone who supports telecom immunity and war with Iran vs. someone who supports telecom immunity and now war with Iran.
Less thrilling than the first choice, but it still seems pretty significant. Anyone who was expecting better of Obama hasn’t been paying attention. Anyone who would expect better of McCain really hasn’t been paying attention.
Comment by joe —
June 20, 2008 @ 8:38 am
“Wait and see” is rational, mature skepticism.
Shouting “we’re doomed” without bothering to find what he’s actually going to do is just posing as rational, mature, and skeptical.
Comment by mds —
June 20, 2008 @ 9:35 am
Yeah, well, the House vote is today, and Reid is all set to fast track it in the Senate, so “wait and see” isn’t worth shit once the bill has actually passed, joe. Or is it rational, mature skepticism to presume that Obama could pop up at the last moment and singlehandedly stop this, after spending the week not doing anything? Oh, wait, no, he took time to cut a campaign ad for Rep. Barrow of Georgia, who supports telecom amnesty, and who is being primaried from the left. So at least there’s that.
If this were going to be stopped, there would have had to been some public speechifying from the nominee to lay the groundwork for it. Calling the leadership out publicly would put the pressure on. Though I’m sure that if he’s there, Senator Obama will vote “no.” Hooray.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 20, 2008 @ 9:40 am
I think Joe just failed to learn the lesson of Michael Dukakis.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 20, 2008 @ 11:07 am
I think there needs to be a formal organization of Obama-bashers for Obama. OBFO for short, or maybe just OBO. I’ll be the charter member.
Comment by joe —
June 20, 2008 @ 11:11 am
mds,
Didn’t you write exactly the same comment just before Congress DIDN’T pass an immunity bill a couple months ago?
Why, yes you did.
Comment by joe —
June 20, 2008 @ 11:15 am
Comment by mds —
March 4, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Um, that was the argument for 2006, when somehow Senate Democrats couldn’t stop anything, not even judicial nominees. Now they’re in the majority, and they can’t stop anything, either. Noticed all those procedural roadblocks Senate Republicans have used, that didn’t just get created in January ‘07? Did you ever notice how Tom DeLay used “majority of the majority†to shut House Dems out completely, thanks to his puppet Denny’s control of the gavel? Did you notice that when Bernie Sanders gained support of enough Republicans to pass an anti-Patriot Act measure on a majority vote, the Rules Committee simply threw the result out because they could? Now show me how the Dems have used their majority control to push back against liberty-gutting demands by a President whose approval is in the toilet. Elect more of them? Twenty-one House Democrats have been clamoring since January to give the telecoms retroactive immunity, and the House Intelligence Committee Chair has just said he’s willing to capitulate. Nineteen Senate Democrats already voted to capitulate on immunity, along with making the odious aspects of the Protect America Act (â€Suck it up; it’s just temporaryâ€) permanent. So how many more do we need, Frank? Rough figures will suffice.
Comment by joe —
June 20, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Man, that March 4 capitulation sure was rough, huh?
Comment by Frank —
June 20, 2008 @ 11:19 am
I’m getting some questions about why the blogosphere is so obsessed with FISA and the civil liberties stuff when it’s clear that both sides are equally corrupt. Evidently, it’s a silly waste of time to even think you can change anything until the whole edifice of our political system is reduced to rubble and we can begin anew. Viva la revolucion.
Here on planet earth, the civil liberties issues, along with torture and Guantanamo and the entire GWOT legal regime is a central concern because I have watched a very ruthless and cynical right wing show themselves to be bent on rebuilding the police state of J. Edgar Hoover and the imperial presidency of Richard Nixon. I don’t think it’s a good idea. It’s not that I don’t realize that the Democrats have an equally awful history or think they are the exemplars of all that is true and good, it’s just that in recent years the Republicans have shown they have a real fetish for undemocratic authoritarianism, and in a complicated system, you have to focus on those who are creating the most obvious and immediate threats.
Democrats have certainly enabled them over the years and will likely continue to. They are politicians, after all, not comic book superheroes. But there should be no doubt to anyone who isn’t wrapped up in immature freshman dorm cynicism, that there is a distinct difference between those who believe in the concept of an imperial presidency and those who are simply weak and corrupt. They both undermine freedom, but the first is many orders of magnitude worse than the second.
Perhaps that’s not much to work with, but it’s all we’ve got and in the end there will be no one around to acknowledge the intellectual superiority of those who sat on the sidelines, starry eyed and impotent, railing about third parties and revolution, while the world went to hell. (See: Communist Party, Germany, 1932) But hey, everybody has a right to their own kind of therapy and ineffectual whining is as legitimate as anything else. Whatever gets you through the night.
Borrowed from Digby who has patience and writing skills I lack.
Comment by joe —
June 20, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Jim Henly, another so-much-more-wordly-than-thou pundit who just knew they were going to pass telecom immunity three months ago, shouldn’t condescend to anyone on this.
Maybe it will pass. Maybe it won’t. Pretending the answer is 1) a foregone conclusion and 2) obvious is a pose.
So, anyone else written their Congressman? I wrote Nikki last night, but then, I already know she’s one of the good ‘uns.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 20, 2008 @ 11:52 am
Wow, joe. You’re so misreading last night’s post – somehow turning “it’s very possible” into “shouting ‘we’re doomed’ ” – that I’m inclined to doubt your interpretation of what I wrote in March too. I mean, you could be right. It’s just not the smart way to bet on this issue.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
I think there needs to be a formal organization of Obama-bashers for Obama. OBFO for short, or maybe just OBO. I’ll be the charter member.
Count me in. We can call ourselves “Obies,” like the NYC theatre awards.
Me, I’m trying to maintain my emotional equilibrium with this mantra: “I’m voting the Court.” I don’t know whether Obama will really get us out of Iraq. I don’t know whether he really won’t get us into Iran. I do know with a reasonable amount of certainty that he will not appoint another Tony Scalia to the Supreme Court. A wishy-washy, business-friendly DLC type, maybe, but not a Scalia. As a gay man, that’s enough for me.
Beyond that, I’m not “counting on” Obama for a goddamn thing. Been burned too many times by too many Dems. Today’s just one more example.
Comment by Dave W. —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
There will be more wiretapping if we go to war in Iran than if we go to war in Africa.
Comment by joe —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Actually, Jim, I was accurately reading your 9:40 AM comment.
You might have noticed, I didn’t accuse you of condescending and pretending to know more than you did until you actually condescended and pretended to know more than you did.
I mean, you could be right. Right about what? That we don’t know enough to say one way or another? No, it’s not “I could be right” about that. It is a certainty that I am right about that.
It is not I who has attributed a position to someone who didn’t take it, but you. My position is “wait and see.”
Comment by Thoreau —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
I suspect that immunity will pass. I don’t expect that Obama will be able to stop it. But I do want to see him stand shoulder-to-shoulder with The Dodd (The Dodd abides) and try.
If he does that, I will vote for him, I will donate to his campaign, and I will volunteer for his campaign. If he doesn’t, I will take massive amounts of drugs and hope that they dull the pain that comes from pulling the level for the lesser evil.
Comment by mds —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Yeah, I was astounded and gratified that Pelosi and Hoyer were so offended that their prerogatives were being stepped on by a last minute bill that they flip-flopped on it. Yet today a bill that gives the administration every fucking thing it wants is on the floor, being debated as we speak. It’s expected that the votes are there to pass it. The bill was negotiated by the Majority Leader. It was just praised and endorsed by the Speaker on the House floor a few minutes ago. The RESTORE Act is nowhere to be seen. The Senate already resoundingly endorsed telecom immunity and gutting of FISA once, with the active support of the Senate Majority Leader. So don’t give me a load of smart-ass sanctimonious bullshit about how House Dems inexplicably and temporarily found a spine back in March. Come back if they vote this bill down. I’ll love being wrong, just as I loved being wrong back in March. But speaking as someone who has Obama ‘08 desktop wallpaper right now, I’m going to remain disappointed that our candidate hasn’t considered this important enough to speak out about. And I’m going to remain furious that a bill which the White House and congressional Republicans are already crowing about being a total victory has even been brought to the floor. And based on the vote count going up right now, this baby is on its way to the Senate.
So, you know, joe, fuck you and your endless substance-free cheerleading. Feel free to add that to your smug little quote file.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Let’s wait to see what happens before we unleash the curses, mds.
Believe me, if this passes and Obama wasn’t in there fighting, I’ll be right there with you.
Comment by mds —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Um, you do realize you’re talking to mds, right?
Annnnd the House vote is complete. 293 Yea, 129 Nay. One Republican voted against (Yes, it was Dr. Paul). On to the Senate, which has previously voted for immunity and gutting of oversight by filibuster-proof margins. But I’m sure the current de facto leader of the Democratic Party will join Senators Dodd and Feingold in giving a pretty speech that doesn’t affect the outcome.
Comment by Jon H —
June 20, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
While The Dodd gets some points for opposing this, let’s not forget that he expects us to believe that he honestly thought it was just empty flattery when his mortgage lender put him in their VIP club.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 20, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Uncle Kvetch–That’s exactly the spirit that I want to see in our organization. And everywhere else, come to think of it. Facing reality even while voting for the lesser of two evils is the first step towards recovery.
Well, actually, I don’t know how that recovery part is supposed to work.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
June 20, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Well, actually, I don’t know how that recovery part is supposed to work.
I think Thoreau’s on the right track with “massive amounts of drugs,” but that’s just me.
Comment by joe —
June 20, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
But speaking as someone who has Obama ‘08 desktop wallpaper right now, I’m going to remain disappointed that our candidate hasn’t considered this important enough to speak out about.
Let’s not forget, this hasn’t gone to the Senate yet. Obama HAS spoken out on the issue, but I imagine he will have more to say about a Senate bill than a House bill.
I think Reid and Pelosi are working a back-door scam on this. One house passes it, the volume goes through the roof, then the other house kills it. No, not kills it – passes an incompatible bill, then the conference fails, so they extend the current law an kick the issue down the road a ways. They know this is a great issue for them, and want to keep it boiling.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 20, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
I hope you’re right, joe. I hope you’re right.
I have to admit, I thought this would pass last December, and it didn’t. So I’m not willing to predict doom…yet. But if it falls, I’ll be right there with mds for the cursing.
Comment by mds —
June 20, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Correction: Paul didn’t vote on the bill. The single Republican Nay was Johnson of IL. Did Bill Foster’s upset have an impact?
Anyway, I am impressed with the way Pelosi got 105 Democrats to vote in favor just to lull Republicans into a false sense of security. A lesser champion of the rule of law might have made it narrower than that, or regretfully voted Nay instead of Yea, but that Speaker P is a wily one. Wait until Reid lets the other shoe drop, having already agreed to bring to the floor a bill whose provisions previously passed by a filibuster-proof majority.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 20, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
I think Pelosi and Reid’s clever plan is actually:
1. Pass bill giving the White House and generous contribution-making telecoms exactly what they want.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Comment by Avram —
June 20, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Jim, Step 2 is clearly Have friendly Democrat in the White House next year.
It makes lots of cynical sense to boost government power if you expect to control the government soon.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
June 20, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Avram: I’m not sure I believe this any more. I have a crazy theory that Congress is literally going senile.
In the last twenty to thirty years, medical science has gotten a lot better at treating the physical infirmities that tended to force Congressmen into retirement. As a result, the average age of Congressmen has gone up — for example, the average age in the Senate is something like 62. However, doctors have not yet started to be able to treat age-related mental senescence nearly as well, so the result is we have a bunch of Senators who really aren’t at their sharpest any longer.
They seem dumber and easier to railroad than their historical predecessors because they are more senile than their predecessors.
Comment by Nell —
June 21, 2008 @ 12:28 am
FAIL.
Comment by Nell —
June 21, 2008 @ 12:39 am
Jim’s post is exactly right.
@joe: Only because I’m so angry and sick right now that I don’t trust myself will I refrain from saying what I feel like saying to you. It wouldn’t be as polite as mds.
Comment by Thoreau —
June 21, 2008 @ 3:25 am
Eh, it wouldn’t shock me if the Democratic Party is a sufficiently dysfunctional institution that the Senate leadership decided this without any consideration given to Obama.
If, hypothetically, he’s the real deal, that may be all the more reason for them to try to rush this deal through before he wins.
I consider that scenario unlikely, but we don’t yet have the information to say for sure. We will have that information within a week, when the Senate takes up this matter.
Obama’s statement is quite politician-like: He begins by saying that he’ll go with the majority on a matter of security. Then he says that he opposes one key measure in that deal, and that he’ll work to get rid of it next week.
He never says what he’ll do if the bid to remove immunity fails.
I have a hunch about what he’ll do, but it’s only fair to wait and see.
We’ll know in a week.