MyDD :: Another perspective on Obama's FISA motivations

Another perspective on Obama's FISA motivations

by Falsehood, Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:25:44 PM EST

Howdy folks,

There's been a lot of talk about Obama's statement on FISA - here's my perspective.

Obama is running for President, and his agenda in office will require congressional cooperation. During the time we were all waiting for Obama to say something, my bet is that his staffers were talking to a whole bunch of Congressional types about how and why various leaders (especially Pelosi and Hoyer) took this position.

I think Obama realized he couldn't bring Pelosi and Hoyer against FISA, and made a decision to generally preserve party unity at this stage of the race.

Note his statement: he's very clear that he doesn't think the bill is perfect by any means. Something is acting as a countervailing pressure here to make him accept the "compromise." That pressure is the need to preserve bonds with the House leadership.

It would not do well at all to start an Obama/Congress conflict, causing quotes like "Obama is so far left, he's left of Pelosi." To do so would be an error in strategy, which is very unfortunate.

Instead, Obama picked a fight with Retroactive Immunity - by far why most in the blogosphere are upset about, but look at hos he spun it. His stateent barely mentioned that aspect.

Instead, the emphasis was on his shared support, because Obama doesn't want a story about his conflicts with Congress. He doesn't think we're stupid, and I don't think he likes the bill. I think he's recognizing the limits of his own Congressional influence.

Thoughts?

Tags: Obama, FISA (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Another perspective (1.66 / 3)

"This is not the pelosi or hoyer I knew " :)

Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!

by aliveandkickin on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST

heh (2.00 / 1)

that was actually pretty funny.

by JJE on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How is (1.00 / 2)

recycling a lame FreeRepublic/NoQuarter wash rinse repeat line used EVERY time Obama says something they disagree with funny?

This incarnation is a perfect example of the density of those employing it.

The original reference was Rev Wright. And it was a perfectly acceptable response to having watched your pastor decide he cared more about his ego than helping fix a broken country.

Since then, every time Obama's camp responds to some specious claim or another, or takes swift and appropriate action when required, the troglodytes throw out this lame ass line.

by Is This Snark on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How is (2.00 / 1)

wash rinse repeat line used EVERY time

Is this a snark?

by soyousay on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 07:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

relax (none / 0)

it's harmless snark. Leave the umbrage-taking and self-righteousness to the PUMA crowd.

You of all people should be able to tolerate a little harmless snark, unless this earnest outrage coming from you is actually ironic meta-snark. If that's the case, you've just blown my mind!

by JJE on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 01:15:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Same perspective (1.00 / 1)

"This is the aliveandkickin I have always known"

by Is This Snark on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:41:05 PM EST

Re: Another perspective (none / 0)

This sounds entirely reasonable.

As much as I'd like to see him - or for that matter, any candidate as a white knight of all great causes, there will always be some limitations within the party.

by candidate D on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST

Re: Another perspective (none / 0)

Would that guile was not a prerequisite for a successful political career.

by Falsehood on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:53:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another perspective (none / 0)

I think James Madison was the last to wholly lack it. Probably the first one, too.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another perspective (none / 0)

I don't think you could say the Alien and Sedition acts were guileful - can we include Adams?

by Falsehood on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:06:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Another perspective on Obama's FISA motivation (2.00 / 1)

I think if Obama wanted he could have made sure that this bill would not come to the floor. Dems control House and Senate.

In fact, if Reid wants he can still refuse to take up the bill in the Senate. But that is clearly not what he is going to do. They are playing the liberal blogsphere. They want your money and your volunteer time but dont worry they wont push through your agenda or care for what you have to say.

by ajain on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:16:09 PM EST

Re: Another perspective on Obama's FISA motivation (none / 0)

I'm fairly certain the Dems don't want this hanging over anyone's head come November, especially if something were to happen.

There are other proposed, more nefarious motives, but I don't know enough to claim anything specific.

by Falsehood on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So... (2.00 / 3)

Who's running for President of the United States, Pelosi and Hoyer or Obama?

Why all of a sudden is Obama so weak that he has to compromise the Bill of Rights to other Democrats to get elected?

And if he is so weak, how is all this change going to happen?

by MediaFreeze on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST

Re: So... (none / 0)

That kind of mindset is what got us into so much trouble in the first place, when Congressional Republicans rubber-stamped everything Bush wanted.

Obama doesn't have much legislative clout, and his position as leader of the party is about 2 weeks old.

The biggest obstacle to change is the veto pen.

by Falsehood on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's FISA motivations (2.00 / 3)

Here is why Obama has missed the point; change does not mean we as a nation place blind trust in a Democratic politician instead of a Republican one. Real change means we have leader that does not demand blind trust in the first place.

Real change would be supporting a framework that allows for checks and balances to remain in place regardless of which party is in control, regardless of the security threats facing us, regardless of any consideration. Real change is the restoration of transparency and accountability.

I'll still vote for him, but Barack Obama is blowing it on this issue. He still has time to lead a filibuster. That would be one flip-flop this voter would welcome.

Take out the trash. Down with Saxby Chambliss!

by CLLGADEM on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 05:54:05 PM EST

Re: Another perspective ..... (2.00 / 1)

Simple.

As POTUS, Obama will have the power provided by the bill to weild.

Simple as that.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 06:36:25 PM EST

Indeed... (none / 0)

I'd wondered about this as well. If this were about something political (and simply trying to keep out the story about Obama vs Pelosi might well be correct), we'd never know.

We will see what he does on the Senate floor.

"Tell me about your work ethic." "Well, I don't think ethnics do no work. I mean, that's they problem, really." "Overt racial prejudice. Impressive."

by vcalzone on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 12:44:03 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.