Where’s Waldobama?

4 comments June 19th, 2008at 09:29pm Posted by Eli

I’ll just link to Glennzilla’s post, since all the relevant info is there.  Basically, the Democratic “compromise” FISA bill is every bit as bad as we thought it would be, and probably even worse.  The “judicial review” over telecom complicity basically amounts to, “Did the Bush administration tell you it was legal?”  No determination of whether it actually was.

This is like those slasher movies (think Halloween and Friday The 13th) where every time it looks like the baddie is dead, he keeps coming back to life again and again again.  Only in this horror movie, the monster keeps coming back to life because the people who are supposed to be the good guys keep giving him CPR.

Glenn has the best argument yet that the “compromise” is, as Russ Feingold calls it, actually a capitulation:

And isn’t it so odd how this “compromise” — just like the Military Commissions Act, the Protect America Act and all the other great “compromises” from the Bush era which precede this one — is producing extreme indignation only from those who believe in civil liberties and the rule of law, while GOP Bush followers seem perfectly content and happy with it? I wonder if that suggests that what the Democratic leadership is supporting isn’t really a “compromise” at all.

Yes, funny how whenever the Democrats enter into a bipartisan “compromise,” that conservatives are pleased and progressives are pissed.  Perhaps conservatives just have a milder, more accommodating temperament than we do, and aren’t as accustomed to always getting their way…

But here is the $500 million question: Where’s Obama?  Isn’t he the standard-bearer and de facto leader of the Democratic party now?  Shouldn’t he have something to say about the FISA compromise?  Does he really expect anyone to buy his lame excuse that he hasn’t had a chance to read the whole thing yet?

The fact that the Democratic leadership is trying to push this abomination through with only 24 hours for review is a disgrace in itself, but it didn’t take individual liberal bloggers very much reading time to spot the problems with the bill… but I digress.

My fear is that this may be the dark side of the strong-on-national-security pitch that Wes Clark was making on Obama’s behalf – that this is Obama’s way of showing that he’s not afraid to… give telecoms immunity and let Dubya spy on people whenever he feels like it in order to fight terrorism effectively.

Either that, or he’s another corporate sellout, hiding behind a mask of changiness while doing the telecoms’ bidding.

If Obama has a good reason for playing Moody Prince Hamlet and being unable to make up his mind or lead on this, I would sure love to hear it.

Also, oh-by-the-way, Nancy Pelosi continues to be completely worthless.

Entry Filed under: Bush,Constitution,Democrats,Obama,Politics,Wankers


  • 1. Cujo359  |  June 20th, 2008 at 12:15 am

    Where has Obama ever been on this issue? He’s avoided controversy like the plague his whole political life. He had to be begged (as did Clinton) to come out with the tepid statement of support he gave Sen. Dodd the last time telecom immunity was brought up in the Senate. Why would he change his behavior now?

    I’m just astonished that, once again, we seem to have gone through an entire group of candidates and somehow chosen the one least likely to do any good for us. I’m even more astonished when people lecture me about how I ought to be giddy about this state of affairs.

  • 2. Eli  |  June 20th, 2008 at 12:21 am

    No, I think it was pretty close to a dead heat between Obama and Hillary, and Biden probably would have been worse.

    Either Dodd or Edwards would have been a huge improvement, though. Or Gore, if he had run. Perhaps I’m just credulous and gullible, but when Dodd dug in on FISA, when Edwards talks about the Two Americas and crusades against poverty, when Al Gore talks about the environment and what Bush has done to our country, it looks to me like they’re speaking and acting out of passion rather than calculation.

    Obama is playing some kind of wishy-washy passive-aggressive avoidance game with this FISA “fix”, and it’s the opposite of leadership. Not altogether surprising, but still very discouraging.

  • 3. Cujo359  |  June 20th, 2008 at 2:58 am

    Gore was out of politics before that passion started showing, at least for me. Would it have been there if he’d gotten back in? That’s the question for me.

    I saw Obama as Clinton without the experience, and maybe a little dodgier. Neither struck me as the sort of leader who would actually, um, lead.

    Forgot about Biden, as did most folks, I guess. Not sure if he’d have been worse or not, to tell you the truth. That’s mostly because I’m not sure what Obama’s positions will really be. Biden has a record, and on many domestic issues, it’s not a good one. He’s way better on foreign policy, and on that Obama’s already starting to worry me a little.

  • 4. Eli  |  June 20th, 2008 at 7:00 am

    Agree on Biden, and I always had a nagging worry that Al Gore would revert to that maddening focus-grouped creature he was in 2000 if he had to start worrying about getting votes again.

    Which is ironic, because I think Angry Gore is so much more appealing.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




June 2008
« May   Jul »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *