Obama Flips for FISA

[Doug]

DOUG writes:
Obama flip flops on a major rights issue.

==== Then (10/24/07) ====================
Obama had backed a filibuster of any FISA renewal that contained retroactive immunity for telecom companies.

It's official: Obama will back a filibuster of any Senate FISA legislation containing telecom immunity, his campaign has just told Election Central. The Obama campaign has just sent over the following statement from spokesman Bill Burton:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

As we reported here yesterday, MoveOn and a dozen top liberal bloggers were preparing to wage an aggressive campaign today to pressure Obama and Hillary to say that they'll support Chris Dodd's vow to filibuster any Senate FISA bill containing telecom immunity. And late yesterday both Obama and Hillary put out statements saying that they'd back Dodd's threatened filibuster of the current legislation that's just come out of the Senate intel committee.


See here.

===== Now ==========

In a press conference on Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama explained his support for a compromise on FISA legislation, saying that concerns over American security trumped, at this point in time, objections over immunity for telecommunications that participated in the previously illegal program.

...Obama's support for the compromise legislation, which includes a sweeping overhaul of the nation's electronic surveillance laws and grants conditional immunity for telecommunications companies who participated in the previous program, has effectively cast him against prominent members of his own political party...

For Obama, however, the trickier aspect of this debate is explaining why, during the Democratic primary, he promised to defeat any FISA compromise that included telecom immunity and now, in the general, he is seemingly hedging on that pledge.

See here.



A different Internet site had this letter sent in about the FISA flip-flop:

I have to admit, I was pretty pissed when you went for Hillary.
I even stopped donating to your site because of it.
Now here I am eating dirt.

Obama is a total sell-out with no spine.
There is no "hope" or "change". It was all a load of crap.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

That's one of the problems with deifying a political candidate - the fall is pretty hard. Obama is change but Obama is a politician. If John Dean is correct, Obama can play for the center & P.O.'d Rs by backing - or at least accepting - this FISA bill, and then when he gets into office have his AG go after them in criminal court. (Again, according to John Dean, who isn't exactly a slouch in finding the weasel room, the law is so badly written that it only protects the telecoms in civil cases, not criminal ones.)

I've thought all along that Obama figured he might need those "unitary executive" powers at first, considering the multiple crises he'll be facing once he gets in. (You know, the accusation the Obama people kept making about Hillary.) My only hope is that, like Winston Churchill, he plans on giving them back once the "emergency" is over

[Betsy]

You neglected to mention in the post that the bill had been revised and rewritten. So his position changed, but so did the bill.

His explanation is okay but he needs to explain it more specifically and explain it in a way that the general population (who isn't smart enough keep up with the plot of LOST) will understand it. Of course, maybe he did explain his reasons more thoroughly and it just wasn't in this article.

I didn't think the campaign financing flip was a big deal, because technically it wasn't a flip and really, he had to make a good business decision. We don't want a president who will say "I must stick with what I said I would do a year ago, even though circumstances have changed and I'd be making a poor business decision to do it that way."

But, if he starts flipping on major issues, that's going to erode his credibility. Obviously from the post Doug copied into his own, the knee-jerk reaction of people is not good. Too bad they won't take the time to research how the bill changed or what Obama's reasoning was for his change.

[Doug]

You neglected to mention in the post that the bill had been revised and rewritten. So his position changed, but so did the bill.

DOUG
Yes, but the part he had objected to, the immunity for the telecom companies, was still there. It was a big flip flop.

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

— Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007

His explanation is okay but he needs to explain it more specifically and explain it in a way that the general population (who isn't smart enough keep up with the plot of LOST) will understand it. Of course, maybe he did explain his reasons more thoroughly and it just wasn't in this article.

DOUG
He didn't have any reasons so they weren't in the article. If you find his reason for the flip flop, please post them here.

I didn't think the campaign financing flip was a big deal, because technically it wasn't a flip and really, he had to make a good business decision. We don't want a president who will say "I must stick with what I said I would do a year ago, even though circumstances have changed and I'd be making a poor business decision to do it that way."

DOUG
His stated "reason" for flip-flopping on campaign funding is just bullshit. Everyone knows he rejected public money so he could use his private collection, which is 3 times what McCain has been able to raise. The system is not "broken," as he claimed. Or if it is, he should not have said he'd abide by it in the first place. Obama just opted out of public money so he could use the larger amount of money. His "reason" is a lie. He should have just been honest about it.

But, if he starts flipping on major issues, that's going to erode his credibility.

DOUG
He flipped on his promise to oppose FISA, on his promise on campaign money, on his statement that he could not disown his pastor, on his opposition to NAFTA, his statement to meet with certain world leaders in the first year of his administration, and other issues.

Obviously from the post Doug copied into his own, the knee-jerk reaction of people is not good. Too bad they won't take the time to research how the bill changed or what Obama's reasoning was for his change.

DOUG
I did research it. The part Obama and other Democrats had objected to, the telecom immunity section, is still there. Obama flipped on this in the most blatant manner.

"He does what politicians do." --Jeremiah Wright.

Top Obama flip-flops. (Somewhat dated list, but still true.)

[Betsy]

I think the jury is still out, but you make a strong argument and I will keep checking for a thorough explanation of the issue.

Does this mean you're going to vote for McCain?

[Guest]

Aaaarrrrghhhhh. I can't understand why I'm so cynical.

He's pissing me off Darrel. Get ready to roll your eyes.

Tony

[Doug]

Does this mean you're going to vote for McCain?

DOUG
No.

[LaWood]

Obama FLIPS AGAIN while moving to triangulate the GREAT CENTER

CHICAGO (AP) — Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say,
http://simplyleftbehind.blogspot.com/20 ... igion.html

[LaWood]

In Obama's defense I must add the following copy:

Faith-Based Initiatives Began with Clinton, Not Bush

Perhaps the greatest misimpression the media has fostered about the Bush Administration is this one: The Bush Administration marked the advent of the "faith-based initiative."

Not so. It was the Clinton Administration that opened the portals for federal money to flow directly into religious coffers for their mission work with troubled youth, drug addicts, and alcoholics. It was Clinton who opened this Pandora's box, not Bush.

Bush is only continuing the Clinton tradition. Like Clinton, he frequently refers to the Almighty, including in his speeches. And, more substantively, the Bush Administration has mounted an active defense of RLUIPA in courts across the country. In addition, it has made persistent attempts to extend what is, in effect, a federal welfare system for churches - the so-called faith-based initiatives system that Clinton already had signed into law by the time Bush took his first oath of office.


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030522.html

[Dardedar]

DAR
I really don't believe much of what politicians say, any of them (especially regarding the details) during the silly season. Obama's qualifiers/guidelines seem reasonable enough, if they were enforceable (and they probably aren't):

***
So what kinds of tweaking would Obama do? BeliefNet thinks that it’s ultimately positive for Barack, after the media scandals of Rev. Wright, to show his commitment to his faith. Obama’s campaign has sent out a fact sheet that does make the following promises:

Obama’s initiative will be governed by a set of core principles for federal grant recipients. In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations:

* Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction.
* Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve.
* Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.
* Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.
* Must prove their efficacy and be judged based on program effectiveness. They will be expected to demonstrate proven program outcomes to continue to receive funding. Obama will fund programs that work and end funding for programs that do not - whether they are large or small, well-established or new, faith-based or otherwise.

Link

[Doug]

So what kinds of tweaking would Obama do? BeliefNet thinks that it’s ultimately positive for Barack, after the media scandals of Rev. Wright, to show his commitment to his faith. Obama’s campaign has sent out a fact sheet that does make the following promises:

DOUG
Pandering to the religious interests is not good even if it is "positive" for Obama. That is poltics as usual, and it's not good for ya, as Carlin would say.

Regardless of the promises, it is the implementation of the policies that makes all the difference, and it is there that the political machinery will work against freethinker interests.

Some concerns expressed here. Includes:

In 2006 former White House Faith-Based Office staffer David Kuo wrote a tell-all book, which documented how the Bush Administration would funnel money to fly-by-night charities on the Religious Right, while more established, secular charities were left out. That policy, Kuo admits, was designed to win votes for President Bush and other Republican candidates.

“It is time to close the Pandora’s Box opened by the Clinton Administration and exploited by the Bush Administration. No future president should turn religious groups into political pawns in order to advance their own partisan ambitions,” said Rev. Gaddy.

[Doug]

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

OK - Obama going with the FISA thing is bad - it is a flip-flop. However, the worst damage done to the 4th Amendment was when the PATRIOT Act permited FISA wiretaps (legal or otherwise) to be used as evidence in court - the original FISA bill allowed the wiretap to be used to GET evidence for court, not BE evidence for court. If John Dean is correct, Obama is OK on this as long as he sic's his AG on the telecoms in criminal court (the FISA bill immunity is only for civil court). I don't like it, but it's not as bad as it looks.

Obama on the public financing isn't the deal it's made out to be. He originally said he'd do public financing if his opponent did. McCain got on public financing to back a loan, then got off it again. (For which he is currently being sued.) With that kind of opponent, there's no reason for him to hurt himself with public financing. (And yes, the system IS broken as long as 527s and other "non-connected" groups can raise unlimited money to attack while the candidate is restricted in funds to defend.)

Obama on the 'faith-based' will be like Clinton was - fed money can be used for public service that happens to be done by a church in the same way that the same service, if done by a non-faith-based organization, would receive fed funds. It's the same with things like school lunch programs in private schools, which may or may not be religious in nature - under certain circumstances (number of below poverty, minority, or "special needs" kids as a percent of school population) the private school can get fed money for that. The problem with the Bush administration and "faith based" is that Bush gives out money to church groups that donate to him and campaign for him, no matter what "service" they are supposed to be receiving funds for - and he gives it for proselytizing and to groups who only serve their specific "target" group.

[Doug]

DOUG
Now Obama is flipping on offshore drilling too. Didn't Democrats learn from the Kerry fiasco that they can't allow their opponents any room to label them as flip-floppers?

==============
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.

See here.

[Dardedar]

DOUG
Now Obama is flipping on offshore drilling too. Didn't Democrats learn from the Kerry fiasco that they can't allow their opponents any room to label them as flip-floppers?

DAR
I think he is doing the right thing here. He's a politician, his job is to represent the people after managing the task of getting elected by the people. Right now 80% think the band-aid of getting offshore oil is going to help prices. It won't but he doesn't help himself, and he doesn't help us from keeping another insane republican out of office by standing firmly against 80% of the electorate during an election. We are going to get the oil sooner or later. Later would be better but you can only hold the mob back so long. Obama will hold the mob back better than McCain.

So what does Obama do? He says something reasonable. The news summary is:

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday he would back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader energy package that attempted to bring down gas prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Obama dropped his blanket opposition to any expansion of offshore drilling and signaled support for a bipartisan compromise in Congress aimed at breaking a deadlock on energy that includes limited drilling."

If he thinks blanket opposition, in a political season, to something that has 80% support is a bad idea, he's right. That's just being a smart politician.

He's actual words were:

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,..."
"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama told the newspaper. --Link

Seems imminently reasonable. Pretty much takes the nuts off of the ill-informed republican position except for the cat calls about flip flopping. Better to flip on this than not and better to flip now rather than later. I think this just throws it back to the states anyway. California says no way. California is really long. If California says no way, I don't see it happening off of the coast of California. Florida may be similar.

So a question for you. You are Obama's campaign adviser. Your advice to him is to:

1) stay ridge on this, no increased off-shore oil drilling, no exceptions
2) say what he said above

I think the best advice is #2. You go with #1? Really?

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The worst thing Dems can do is keep using/falling for the "flip-flop" meme the Rs created in 2004. Obama didn't change his stance on offshore drilling - he's still against it - he just said that carefully planned not to do environmental damage offshore drilling was an acceptible price to pay for a package of stuff that really would bring down oil prices. (And remember, only Dems "flip-flop" - see media handling of McCain's contradictory statements. So please step away from that R meme.)

[Doug]

The worst thing Dems can do is keep using/falling for the "flip-flop" meme the Rs created in 2004. Obama didn't change his stance on offshore drilling - he's still against it - he just said that carefully planned not to do environmental damage offshore drilling was an acceptible price to pay for a package of stuff that really would bring down oil prices.

DOUG
Just the suggestion that he could support drilling after he was against it is enough ammo for the Republicans to label him a flip-flopper. It is an invitation to say that Obama doesn't really have any commitments and just goes with the prevailing poll numbers.

(And remember, only Dems "flip-flop" - see media handling of McCain's contradictory statements. So please step away from that R meme.)

DOUG
Call it what you will, if Obama goes against his own stated position too often, he's going to hand political ammunition to the Republicans and possibly hand them the election as well. He's already passed the ammunition.

[Doug]

So what does Obama do? He says something reasonable... That's just being a smart politician.

DOUG
No, he's being a stupid Democrat. It is an invitation to say that Obama doesn't really have any commitments and just goes with the prevailing poll numbers, as I told Barbara F. If Obama knows, as we know, that the drilling won't do any good, he should stand for that position. Changing his mind on drilling, or on any major issue, is just answering Karl Rove's prayers.

The flip-flop label worked against Kerry and he hadn't flip-flopped. Imagine how much more the charge will stick to Obama.

[Dardedar]

So what does Obama do? He says something reasonable... That's just being a smart politician.

DOUG
No, he's being a stupid Democrat... Changing his mind on drilling, or on any major issue, is just answering Karl Rove's prayers.

DAR
Standing rigid and unmovable on a position that goes against 80% of the populace before an election is answering Rove's prayers.

So do I understand the answer to the question I asked you above is, you would advise #1? Rigid unmovable, no drilling, no exceptions? It's pretty obvious that this is the stance the republicans, especially Rove, dearly hope he would take. Because then they can keep singing the same song. You don't see that?

As Pelosi mentioned on Snuffy this morning, this is a political decoy. A decoy that has fooled about 80% of Americans. So you can let the decoy keep working, and keep giving republicans traction on this (and hurt your own candidacy) by standing rigid and saying no way, no drilling no exceptions. Or you can take the wind out of their sails by saying okay, maybe we can consider it along with a whole energy package which includes ABC and XYZ.

Not that it matters very much what the politicians say during the silly season. Especially the details.

Truth is, we barely have the technology and certainly not the rigs to tap the outer continental shelf yet. Nothing would happen for years and probably closer to ten years. TIME had the timeline for this in a recent issue and it was all at least a decade out, and we don't know how much oil there is to get. Right now it is an election issue decoy and Obama needs to not be so rigid in his rhetoric that he needlessly pisses of the 80% get hammered at the pump and wanting relief (even placebo relief) by way of some future, potential, drilling.

D.

[Doug]

Standing rigid and unmovable on a position that goes against 80% of the populace before an election is answering Rove's prayers.

So do I understand the answer to the question I asked you above is, you would advise #1? Rigid unmovable, no drilling, no exceptions? It's pretty obvious that this is the stance the republicans, especially Rove, dearly hope he would take. Because then they can keep singing the same song. You don't see that?

As Pelosi mentioned on Snuffy this morning, this is a political decoy. A decoy that has fooled about 80% of Americans. So you can let the decoy keep working, and keep giving republicans traction on this (and hurt your own candidacy) by standing rigid and saying no way, no drilling no exceptions. Or you can take the wind out of their sails by saying okay, maybe we can consider it along with a whole energy package which includes ABC and XYZ.

DOUG
NO! That is typical, Democratic, wussy thinking.

A. Flip-flopping because of the polls is playing directly into the GOP-created stereotype of the Democrats. From there, they can just go with the standard Republican playbook and use slogans and images that they already have in stock. That is just what they would hope for.
B. To give in to a position that you know is wrong--as in knowing that drilling will not help us lower gas prices to any appreciable extent, and not for 8-10 years anyway--is not responsible government. Don't do it.
C. To change one's position to one that is inferior in order to take away a Republican "decoy" is to give the Republicans the upper hand. It is better to NOT let the Republicans determine the Democratic position. The Democrats should be in charge of the Democratic position, not the Republicans. To let the Republicans force the Democratic hand is to concede to them the power of policy, and that just won't do.

Stick with what is right to do. If 80% of the American public are too dull to understand, educate them. Use simple words for the simpletons. Slogans are tailor-made for this. T. Boone Pickens has a good line: "This is one crisis we can't drill our way out of." Stuff like that. Better to try to bring the public around to your position than to let the Republicans bring the Democrats around to their position.
D. If the Democrats change to the Republican position, then the Republicans can just say, "Well, why vote for the Democrats if they are just a watered-down version of us?" To change to their position is a sign of weakness. If you have the correct position, you should stay with it and in doing so show strength.