He doesn’t look a thing like Frodo
By Thoreau
But he talks like a gentleman, like you imagined when you were young (and dumb).
Greenwald explains it better than I can–Obama broke his promise to support a filibuster of immunity. As commenter mds noted in another thread, rather than gaining some sort of electoral advantage for supporting an allegedly “anti-terrorist” bill he got attacked by McCain as a flip-flopper:
“A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program. Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he’s willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office.â€
Good job, Obama! You sure dodged the Republican attack machine on that one. Yeah, appeasement is sure working for you, you goddamn Defeatocrat. And yes, I will call him a Defeatocrat, because he rolled over and played dead rather than fighting on an issue that counts.
OK, Team Blue fanboys, here’s the moment you’ve been waiting to flame me for:
Not.
A.
Dime’s.
Worth.
Of.
Difference.
“What?!?!?!?!”, you ask, “How can you say that? McCain is so much worse!!!!! Surely you don’t mean that!!!”
On one level, of course there are differences. However, let’s look at the issue on the table: The issue on the table was whether or not companies should face legal liability for helping a President do illegal deeds. The person who is campaigning for that office broke a promise to fight the good fight, and voted in favor of a bill that would provide protection for people who help Presidents break the law. This is no small matter. This is an issue that goes to the very core of executive power and how Obama approaches governing. Greenwald has been blogging quite a bit lately about how there’s little popularity advantage to be gained from aiding abuses of power. This isn’t 2001–people aren’t nearly as scared as they were. Obama would not have paid any significant political price for opposing immunity. Yet he supported immunity, in the end, by voting for cloture and voting for a bill that included immunity oppose it he did[EDIT] How can we read this as anything other than an endorsement of “The Decider Decides”?
Obama may not wear the same iron glove, he might turn out to be a softer Decider. But he has nonetheless endorsed the basic concept of The Decider. Screw him. No fucking way am I voting for him.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
July 9, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Candidates Refine Iraq Stances…
McCain, Obama scramble to clarify their visions for Iraq in the face of changing events on ground.
…
Comment by Tony P. —
July 9, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Fine, don’t. You can always
o vote for McCain
o vote for Barr
o write in your own name
o stay home on election day
But do ask yourself this question: why are you pissed off at Obama BUT NOT McCAIN? Did McCain stand up for your civil rights all of a sudden?
– TP
Comment by Thoreau —
July 9, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Being pissed off at McCain is just a given. I’ve been pissed at him for a while. Being pissed at Obama is a new development.
Comment by joe —
July 9, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
I think there is a difference between a candidate who opposed telecom immunity and one who supports it, even if the former didn’t make it as big deal as I would have liked.
You’d prefer some political theater that wouldn’t have made a difference? Me, too. I still don’t think that’s the most important question here.
One of these candidates worked to deny civil immunity to the telecoms, and failed. One of them actively supported that proposal. I know which one I want setting the national political agenda.
Comment by Brian Schmidt —
July 9, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Not a dime’s worth difference on this vote, but that’s not the same as the overall FISA issue. There’s a chance (if only a chance) Obama will support reforms later.
More important, this is just one issue. McCain was better than Obama on ethanol even before this – let’s suppose Obama stood firm on FISA and I said screw it because of ethanol – would that make sense?
Look at all the issues and probabilities, and make your pick.
Comment by joe —
July 9, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Dodd:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00164
Specter:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00165#position
Bingamen:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00166#position
Comment by joe —
July 9, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Yup. He did. See links.
Comment by John Cole —
July 9, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
I am sure somewhere someone can make an interesting post on why there is no viable libertarian party anywhere in the United States.
BTW- I bet the Iranians can detect a dimes worth of difference. Personally, I fucked up and supported the current Republican war in the Middle East. I hope you have as much fun supporting the next one under President McCain. Because, you know, there is no difference between the two candidates.
Comment by Mona —
July 9, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
joe: I’m still voting for Obama simply because he MAY end war-mongering in the Middle East, and his SCOTUS appointments would almost certainly tilt less autoritarian than McCain’s. But it is only hones to admit it: Obama screwed the pooch on this one, flip-flopping on an issue very important to some of his base, and to Americans in general.
He broke his word on a crucial bill. Period.
Comment by Tony P. —
July 9, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Mona, the reason Obama is a national politician and you and I are not is because ‘Americans in general’ do not, in fact, give a damn about FISA — and politicians know it.
I don’t know anybody, off-line, who is worked up about FISA. I don’t know anybody, in real life, who would not tune out if I started talking to them about the issue. And yet, for better or worse, all those people VOTE.
Given that elections are decided by the wishy-washy barely-informed middle of the electorate, the best we can ever do is elect the lesser of two evils. The best the lesser of two evils can ever do is pick his battles carefully — and maybe, just maybe, not abuse the powers of his office as much as the greater of two evils would.
– TP
Comment by Thoreau —
July 9, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
joe-
He could have voted against cloture after the amendments to remove immunity failed. He didn’t. He voted for cloture, and he voted for the bill. Yes, the bill would have passed with or without his vote, but that just makes it all the more difficult to rationalize his vote. He could have voted against this, but he voted for it.
John Cole-
OK, maybe there is a difference between them on Iran. That’s a possible point of significant difference. I’ll think about that. Still, failure to support Obama is not the same as supporting whatever McCain does.
Comment by joe —
July 9, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
When you have a two party system, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between “failure to support” Obama and supporting McCain.
Comment by Travis —
July 9, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Focusing on the presidential race is starting to seem more and more like a waste of time. I’ll vote for Obama because he’s the lesser of two evils, but I’m done expecting much from him. No candidate is going to punish a third party for giving the establishment the benefit of the doubt.
Obama might not ask Telco’s to spy illegally, but chances are he’s going to want something at some point, and when he does he’ll be happier if the corporate lawyers don’t push back too hard.
Comment by Travis —
July 9, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
To follow up on the pres. race being a waste of time, its pretty clear neither of the candidates is going to restrain their power, so maybe its time to start looking looking for some congress peeps who will.
Comment by joe —
July 9, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
I think just the opposite. I don’t care what he does on votes that don’t matter. The amendments, though – he might have actually succeeded in stopping telecom immunity there. Those are the votes that matter, the ones that aren’t foregone conclusions.
He didn’t engage in some political theater that I would have enjoyed watching, but he did take substantive actions that might have made a difference. I can live with that level of disappointment.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
July 9, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Given the semi-democratic way in which US presidents are elected (i.e., the electoral college), Thoreau can certainly sit this one out, or write in “none of the above”, without worrying about “supporting” McCain. Ain’t no way McCain’s going to win California’s 55 electoral votes.
.
If my state looks safe enough (and it likely will), “none of the above” is my choice for president. Races that might be close are another story.
.
In the meantime, look for national races that might be close, and send money.
Comment by b-psycho —
July 9, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
That’s the problem.
Barely informed people need to realize they’re barely informed and not bother voting until they are informed, and the election system that encourages “lesser of two evils” contests needs to be thrown out.
As it is, the point of our political system is not for serious consideration of anything, but to allow an uninterested, willfully ignorant populace to be led around by the nose by an elite that serves their own purposes no matter what they say to us commoners. What little fuss is ever raised is overwhelmingly about tiny issues that, regardless of ones talking points on those, lead to unknowingly co-signing damn near anything.
Like I’ve said before: beyond a local, decentralized scope, “representative democracy” is a myth. Such government rests on the assumption that distance between the ones that make the decisions and the ones that are expected to abide by them doesn’t matter, therefore it’s built on a lie. I can’t help but chuckle a bit when people act shocked that their favorite politician fucked them, it’s like being surprised that a scorpion stings.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 9, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
joe-
A simple “no” vote on cloture and another “no” vote on the legislation wouldn’t have been political theater. It would have been a simple statement that wouldn’t have required any prolonged drama.
He couldn’t even make a symbolic gesture. Screw him.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 9, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
1) He wasn’t my favorite.
2) I wasn’t the least bit surprised. I’m merely pointing it out in hopes of opening a few eyes.
Comment by joe —
July 9, 2008 @ 9:08 pm
No, but he could and did make actual, substantive acts that might have not only made you feel better, but actually remove the offending legislation.
Your priorities are whacked here. “He couldn’t EVEN make a symbolic gesture…” would be a fine statement, if he did nothing, but he didn’t do nothing; he did something that went quite a bit beyond a mere symbolic gesture. Meanwhile, you’re more concerned about the symbolic gesture?
Comment by Thoreau —
July 9, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
He voted for some perfectly good amendments. But when those amendments were defeated he voted for the bill.
If his votes for the amendments are meaningful, why isn’t his vote for the unamended bill meaningful?
Comment by b-psycho —
July 9, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Didn’t mean you, Thoreau. Was addressing the ones using collective ignorance as an excuse for what Obama did.
I wasn’t going to vote anyway, would be pointless since I oppose the entire premise behind it. Haven’t even entertained the thought since 2000.
Comment by Timothy —
July 9, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
“Well, it’s going to pass anyway so I might as well vote for it to get along” isn’t exactly a high-minded principle. It’s student politics but on issues that actually matter, not just whether or not the chess club deserves a special allocation to order pizza. I mean, way to be Mr. Hope-and-Change. “Yes we can roll over for a lame duck president nobody likes because we were lying about not liking overbroad executive authority!”
As for thoreau’s nonbama position I can say this – how would you feel if he voted for McCain knowing that California is a safe blue state and his vote doesn’t make a difference? Would you not care how he voted on an issue that didn’t matter?
Comment by Erig —
July 9, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
It would appear we are in need of a 1850’s Republican Party. They replaced the lying Whig’s. Certianly the lying Democrats are deserving of replacement.
Comment by Jason Sonenshein —
July 9, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
Heck of a job, Barry!
Comment by Happy Jack —
July 9, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
OK, maybe there is a difference between them on Iran.
Obviously. McCain cackles when he talks about killing Iranians. Obama is more serious when he talks about killing them.
Comment by Phaedrus —
July 10, 2008 @ 12:07 am
I don’t understand why people get mad at us who won’t vote for someone who broke his word and the constitution all in one vote.
Two people to be mad at – Obama and the sheep who insist on voting for him anyway. If everyone who said “a vote for a third party is a vote for McCain” would vote for… say Clark… then suddenly Clark would be a contender. This two party crap is a self fulfilling prophecy.
Comment by Mona —
July 10, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Tony P. sez:
1. I agree that the average American does not understand the importance of Obama’s treachery on the FISA vote, or much else about FISA or telecom immunity. It isn’t a sexy issue; only supremely important to freedom and the rule of law, which is hard for busy people with families and demanding jobs who are not political junkies to grasp, until the inevitable abuses of today’s bill occur.
2. Given that this bill wasn’t on anyone’s radar except for (a) important civil libertarians in Obama’s base, and (b) the Republicans and telecoms who wanted the immunity and warrantless authority, why did Obama vote for it? It would not have hurt him, and many of us would have deep, rather than grudging, support for him — which matters for campaign donations, GOTV and all sorts of other things.
Comment by BubbaDave —
July 10, 2008 @ 2:04 am
and (c ) important Democratic Congressional leaders whose cooperation Obama will need to realize his legislative agenda. That’s the constituency to whom he was pandering with this vote. I don’t have to like it, and I don’t; but let’s be real here. The Carter presidency began its death spiral when a Democratic Congress decided that the guy who’d spent the presidential campaign running against them (well, against Washington, but at the time they were Washington) would have to do without their support. Obama is working very hard not to alienate Congressional Dems, even odious ones like Hoyer, because he will need their support if elected. Personally, I wish he’d chosen this as a battle he needed to fight; practically, I can see all the pressure for him to go along. I don’t have to like it– I won’t ever forget it, or fully forgive it. But in spite of that, President Obama will be infinitely better for the nation than
re-re-electing Bushelecting McCain. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good here…Oh, right. Libertarian. My bad, carry on.
Comment by Hal —
July 10, 2008 @ 3:18 am
No fucking way am I voting for him.
Saw this movie in 2000. Had a really shitty ending. GW II, Electric Boogaloo was even worse – hard to believe, but it was.
Anyways, have fun with all that righteous furry. Grab the black beret and hang out at the coffee shop doing the beat poetry. Worked like a charm in the past, and I’m sure it will be just as effective today.
Seriously, though, it pisses me off something fierce, too. But he’s a politician and understands the calculus that given the choice of the lesser of two evils, guess which one I’ll pick. He scores points on what would have been the same result anyway. That’s unfortunately what politics is all about.
Still, let me know how you like the third movie in the series. I hear the nuclear bomb effects they have are almost unbelievable.
I’m sure it’ll be well worth the price.
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
July 10, 2008 @ 3:32 am
Thoreau,
Glad you finally saw through Obama … but it’s not like Obama breaking his word is anything new.
He campaigned against the war on Iraq in 2004 when he was running for US Senate; since entering the Senate he’s voted to continue that war by funding it every time the matter has come before him. Now that he’s running for president, he’s against the war on Iraq again.
Obama is the Democratic Party’s Mitt Romney. He’s a cheapjack opportunist who will say absolutely anything he thinks he has to say to get you to vote for him. Then he’ll screw you hard for three years before he’s back to his “who, me?” smile and his sweet talk again.
Comment by Hal —
July 10, 2008 @ 5:30 am
Then he’ll screw you hard for three years before he’s back to his “who, me?†smile and his sweet talk again.
Let me know how that works out, bokay?
Comment by dhex —
July 10, 2008 @ 10:10 am
Anyways, have fun with all that righteous furry.
i’m sure thoreau and the guy dressed up like tony the tiger will have a great time at the cafe.
also you guys should stretch before doing such intense aerobics.
Comment by dhex —
July 10, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Seriously, though, it pisses me off something fierce, too. But he’s a politician and understands the calculus that given the choice of the lesser of two evils, guess which one I’ll pick. He scores points on what would have been the same result anyway. That’s unfortunately what politics is all about.
i’m going to make a wild prediction: if the subject at hand were a republican candidate, you’d have the opposite response.
it’s ok to like the taste of bootblack and require strict discipline in one’s life, kids. we cannot change what we are. but these futile attempts to top from the bottom are getting to be a bit much.
Comment by ChrisWWW —
July 10, 2008 @ 10:45 am
I’m not going to go as far as to say you shouldn’t vote for Obama because of his FISA, but it certainly proves he is no Leader of Change. Nor does he seem to be a Leader of any kind.
With the spotlight so focused on Obama (and Clinton for that matter), either of them could have made this FISA fight public and shamed the other Democratic Senators into standing up for the 4th Amendment and the Rule of Law. Neither of them did.
You can read more of my thoughts at Why We Worry.
Comment by DemocracyisCrap —
July 10, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Presidential candidates appeal to the lowest common denominator. No time for such esoteric side issues. Now then. What does Obama eat for breakfast?
He has a platform to appeal to the masses: He’s Obama. He’s a democrat. He wants change. Thats it.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 10, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Shorter version of the Obama apologists:
“If you don’t vote for the guy who supported telecom immunity and Iraq war funding bills, we might get a President McCain who supports telecom immunity and Iraq war funding bills!”
Are there differences? Maybe. But Obama tried like hell to blur them yesterday. As to the argument that he’s doing this for either electability or to satisfy Congressional constituencies: Yeah, you see, we libertarians spent decades listening to “Oh, no, the Republicans really do support your ideas, they just need to get more power first…” And after 2000, we saw exactly how that worked out.
2000 carried two sets of lessons: For those of you on the left, it may have carried some lessons about third party candidates, and I get that. But for us libertarians, the lesson of 2000 was that bad things happen when a party that’s been promising to reduce the power of government gets unified control of the government. So when I hear “Oh, don’t worry, Obama will restore your civil liberties, but first he needs to get power….” I think back to 2000.
Comment by ChrisWWW —
July 10, 2008 @ 11:59 am
It’s not just about his positions as President. It’s about the type of people that will fill bureaucratic positions in an Obama government. It’s about his judicial nominees. It’s about his priorities vs. a Republican president.
Think about how the EPA has been gutted, how the Justice Dept. has been shamed, how our energy policy is decided by oilmen, how the Supreme Court is packed with Scalia wannabes.
Minute differences can have huge consequences in such a powerful government.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
July 10, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
“When you have a two party system, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between “failure to support†Obama and supporting McCain.”
Nor is there a dime’s worth of difference between supporting McCain and not supporting McCain, because YOUR VOTE and “SUPPORT” WILL NOT MAKE THE LEAST BIT OF DIFFERENCE in the upcoming election. It’s about as relevant as whether you “supported” the Lakers or Celtics in the recent playoffs.
Comment by scott —
July 10, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Concerning McCain,if I heard correctly he didn’t even VOTE.Obama is bad enough but what does Gramps think he’s doing missing such an important vote?
Comment by mds —
July 10, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
He supported the bill and opposed the amendments. And since so many Senate Democrats were doing such a bang-up job agreeing with him, his vote wasn’t even remotely necessary.
“Senate bows to Bush, approves surveillance bill”
“Bowing to President Bush’s demands, the Senate approved…”
See? Senate Dems get to be called weaklings who don’t stand up to a ridiculously unpopular President. Why should McCain break a sweat for a party so willing to kneecap itself?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
July 10, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I’m actually going to disagree with Thoreau, here.
I didn’t much expect Obama to actually refrain from voting for the bill. I didn’t think he was all that serious in opposing the objectionable parts in the first place. Certainly not enough to delay passing of the bill.
On the issues of habeas corpus and torture, he does has an actual record of disobeying the secret rule requiring Blue legislators to vote against their claimed beliefs if they wouldn’t happen to win a vote. So, I’m willing to wait until he turns on those issues before jumping ship.
Comment by Fledermaus —
July 10, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
“When you have a two party system, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between “failure to support†Obama and supporting McCain.”
You know I’m really tired of attempting to save American voters from their own willful stupidity. McCain’s economic plans will bankrupt the federal government and unless they convince Halliburton to work pro-bono that’s the only way Iraq and future wars are going to be stopped.
Things are going to get so bad in the next few years that the crime rate is going to soar and no president is going to be able to avoid declaring marshal law at the behest of our elites.
But there will be pleanty of jobs for police officers, jail guards and probation officers. We’ll have half the county keeping the other half locked up.
Comment by gil mann —
July 10, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
I haven’t had an emotional investment in this election since Dodd bowed out, but you’re being fucking ridiculous, Thoreau.
What is it about blogging that makes people such face-spiting own-nose-cutter-offers? Yeah, Obama sucks in a lot of ways. For my money, this FISA shit ain’t even the worst of it. But I guess I’m a shitty libertarian because I don’t plan on tacitly supporting another Mideast quagmire or the overturning of Roe just to prove how incredibly principled I am.
Don’t like the 2-party system? Yeah, me neither. But I accept its premises because I don’t feel like devoting my time and energy to fixing it. A flaw, I’ll grant, but it’s still less of a flaw than if I wasn’t working to build and strengthen a legit 3rd-party and still throwing bitch-fits over every Dem betrayal.
Comment by Frank —
July 10, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
If you actually believe what you say here “But for us libertarians, the lesson of 2000 was that bad things happen when a party that’s been promising to reduce the power of government gets unified control of the government” then you should always vote Democratic until the party shows some chance of uniting. Right now Republicans actually control 7 of 9 supreme court slots and the balance of power in both the house and senate. And as many point out Obama has always been center right anyway. If he wins he will only slightly decrease Republican control of the government.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
July 11, 2008 @ 3:21 am
Obama is still, as of this moment, a lesser evil, so nearly as I can tell. But the worst thing about someone who so directly breaks clear promises is that you then lose rational grounds on which to assess their future prospects. I really don’t think, right now, that Obama can sink to McCain’s level in four months. But I have no argument to that effect. I can’t point at his history of accomplishments without keeping in mind that he’s now willing to toss over whatever seems inconvenient, and that he’s willing to adopt less popular positions when confronted with the alternative of doing the easy and honorable thing. This makes it hard to endorse voting for him in any but the most tepid terms.
The action for goodness really seems to be in independent groups, and I’m happy to see coalition-building. That’s where my money and enthusiasm is going now.
Comment by Thoreau —
July 11, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Exactly, Bruce.
For a while he said things that were different from (and better than!) what the leadership of the Congressional Dems was saying and doing. Then he jumped ship on FISA and immunity.
Comment by joe —
July 11, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Because the amendments had a chance of passing, while the outcome of the floor vote on the final bill, regardless of telecom immunity, was a foregone conclusion.
In fact, because the outcome of the vote on the final bill was a foregone conclusion, that makes the amendment votes even more meaningful.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 11, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
By what logic do you conclude that the amendments had a chance of passing, joe?
Comment by mds —
July 14, 2008 @ 11:47 am
The kind that makes me use “asshole” for him, Mr. Henley. If there were a chance in hell for Dodd-Feingold-Leahy to get a majority, there wouldn’t have been a unanimous consent agreement. Oddly, the leadership overestimated the appeal of the more modest Specter and Bingaman amendments, since they required sixty votes to pass. Apparently Reid and McConnell thought there was a chance of a majority on those, which is why the unanimous consent agreement made them completely impossible to pass. And even then they couldn’t get majorities. Because Senate Dems were pulling off some brilliant tactical maneuver known as grabbing their ankles for the Bush administration… again.