MoveOn To Obama: Keep Your Word, Filibuster Telecom Immunity

[seriousstan]

Source: huffington post

MoveOn.org has launched a new campaign pressing Sen. Barack Obama to honor his pledge to filibuster any legislation that gives immunity to telecoms that spied on Americans:

Here's an excerpt from MoveOn's letter:

Dear MoveOn member,

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation." Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/22/moveon-obama-must-keep-hi_n_108514.html

---

MoveOn link...

http://pol.moveon.org/immunity/080621obama.html

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1
This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3
Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.
Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]

[Just-plain-Kathy]

1. Oh please Obama...we need someone on our side. ...K&R

[msongs]

2. guess the bloom is off the rose. what did moveon expect anyway? nt

[ben_meyers]

13. Seems it would be more like

What did Obama expect? Embrace the support from Moveon/Soros and they are going to expect something in return.

[ekwhite]

41. Expect something?

Like supporting the Bill of Rights, maybe?

[pacalo]

3. This should be interesting. If he does, I'm expecting that it will have already been decided which

way the Senate will vote & it'll have no negative consequences for Obama. Been there, done that.

[UTUSN]

4. K&R big #5, for, MoveOn pisses me off from time to time!1 n/t

[bjobotts]

20. For holding Obama to his promises?

[stillcool]

5. a little petition running around..

http://www.petitiononline.com/bo90210/petition.html

[Seabiscuit]

30. Just signed it.

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. This is a win/win for him.

Which would make it all the more disturbing if he doesn't keep his word.

[Gman]

7. This would have been nice to have happened in April

or even March... after Super Tuesday...

But I won't go there.

[LVjinx]

21. There's still a couple months before convention. Plenty of time for someone to decide to lead.

But I'm not hopeful.

[Patchuli]

8. I am really wondering if, as another DUer

explained it, the reason Obama wants to let it lie for now is that the Republicans want to start a big stink before the election and get people all riled up. Obama knows this and will see that the issue is re-visited and resolved *after* the election to remove this tool of trouble from the trouble-making Republicans.

[Skittles]

12. uh huh

so when Obama does "whatever it takes to win", that's just strategy but when Hillary did it it was because she was a conniving bitch. Right.

[Zhade]

15. No, she was a proven liar. Try to keep up.

NT!

[Skittles]

22. I keep up very well

very well INDEED

[Windy]

29. How about her vote for Kyl/Lieberman and the new agreement

the US is trying to force on Iraq that would allow them to attack other countries from inside of Iraq.

Please. If Hillary, win at all costs Clinton was the nominee, she would vote for the bill and would not even hint at wanting to strip telecom immunity.

She voted for the war and for Kyl/Lieberman for that exact reason... so that the repubs couldn't use it against her.

Wake up!!!! Take off the rose colored glasses!

[Jakes Progress]

43. Don't have to take them off,

Barack just ripped them off when he decided to throw the Bill of Rights under the bus.

[Jakes Progress]

42. That would be because she went back on her word

by saying she would do something like, oh say filibuster a bill, and then duck her responsibility?

Deja Vu all over again.

[cliffordu]

17. "Whatever it takes to win..."

Wasn't that the phrase repeatedly used to describe Obama by Lindsay Graham this morning???

[Patchuli]

24. You were reaching for an argument there

No, thank you.

I wasn't referring to Mrs. Clinton in any way and don't know :wtf: you're talking about or while HRC came into it at all.

[Skittles]

25. not reaching

reading all the spinning on this Obama FISA thing just made me shake my head

[Eric Condon]

27. We're still talking about this?

Also, you and you alone are the one who brought the b-word into this discussion, not any Obama supporter.

[Skittles]

28. you know there is a world outside of DU

don't you?

[redqueen]

32. It's not that... it's a different approach altogether.

I'll post the explanation I saw John Dean give after the transcript is online.

[NashVegas]

52. Obama's Choice

If that's true, then one must weigh the "riled up" right against the leftists who blindly threw their support to the guy who gave them "hope."

If Obama gives more people a reason to vote for him instead of voting against McCain he'll have the vote.

If he blows off the outraged, radical middle, Repukes will continue to hold power.

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Do you really think most people out there have paid much

attention to this issue?

I don't. So it's a matter of his way of explaining it vs. there's. I think he and his people are quite capable of handling that, myself.

This election will be about the economy and Iraq - especially if things don't really improve there. Otherwise, I think we're in a bit of a bubble here - I don't think most people give this all that much thought, TBH.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Obama actually promised a filibuster? Wow.

I'm not saying this should be a "test" of his promise-keeping abilities, but DAMN it would be electrifying should it really happen.

Paging Senator Reid......

[seriousstan]

11. You mean, if he really kept his word. Let's wait and watch.

[Zhade]

16. As I said below, note that he said "support", not "begin".

NT!

[AllHereTruth]

23. Leaders...

For Obama to prove himself as a true "Leader," not just a "Speaker" to the American people he has to step up to the plate and Begin

[redqueen]

33. First he has to get in office.

He is a skilled politician. He has my trust.

[Jakes Progress]

45. I think John Adams had it right.

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."

This bill will gut the right to privacy guaranteed by the fourth amendment. It is not a good thing. This is not an issue that should be used for political trading. The Bill of Rights ought to be off the table. I would rather he trade the immunity for telecoms than our Bill of Rights.

[redqueen]

47. Why assume it's about "political trading"? Here's Dean's take...

DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option opened.”

OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know - we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25332028/

[Jakes Progress]

50. In the long run,

I don't give a flying shit about the telecoms. So we fine them some money. This law makes it possible for presidents to do exactly what george did with the telecoms and the web hosts and the hospitals, but this time it's legal. It's not the retroactiveness of the bill, it's the bill itself. It make is legal for presidents to require companies to give over information about private citizens and not have to answer to anyone but themselves as to why.

Look at this clip from CountDown and see if this seems like a trivial matter to you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv6PkNzriFI

[redqueen]

51. Never said it was trivial. WTF? (nt)

[Jakes Progress]

58. You can WTF all you want.

Your post was all about just sitting back and seeing what happens. Just trust that the big boys will be nice to us and take care of us. If you think that trading the fourth amendment for some political hay is okay, then you indicate that the matter is not really important - hence trivial.

He is wrong here. Letting it pass is wrong.

[redqueen]

65. You're putting words in my mouth in order to go on a rant fest.

Good work... I guess. You really accomplished a lot.

[bean fidhleir]

64. Tort claims that siphon off a few billion dollars in damages into OUR pockets

would be (imo) much better than some cheapjack criminal prosecution in which some low-level manager gets sacrificed as the Designated Badguy.

Obama is saying "trust me! Don't make this a spine check for me. First reward me by putting me into office and then I'll do a Criminal Prosecution. I promise. Reely reely cross my heart."

What we're hearing but he's *NOT* saying "the CEOs will go to prison for long terms of hard time, bells will ring, and the Constitution will be restored".

What he's saying, and we're not hearing is "I'll get the AG to do a little legal theater, a few low-level telco managers will do a Libby-style perpwalk, and then everyone will be happy except the people who understand what really happened"

[redqueen]

66. Nice work reading Obama's mind there.

:eyes:

Trust some theatrical people on DU... or the guy who's trying to get into the WH & John Dean.

Hmmmmmm

:think:

[bean fidhleir]

68. Not mindreading, precedence-reading. His record is not impressive

Or certainly not in any positive sense.

If you find his record rather than his rhetoric impressive, could you let us in on what you've found?

[Raksha]

54. THIS is how he gets into office!

He can either increase his grassroots support by standing up for the Bill of Rights...or he can lose a big chunk of it. Doing the right thing, and doing the "politically expedient" thing are one and the same. Obama has got to know that better than anyone.

This is indeed the litmus test. Either he's a real leader, or he's just another politician. Either way...WE'LL KNOW!!!

[redqueen]

55. Yeah!!!! It sure worked for Kucinich! (nt)

[woundedkarma]

10. read somewhere that without this the old senate bill

will pass.

I have no idea if I understood that correctly.

Supposedly the old bill is worse than this current bill.

D -oom- ed if you do D -oom- ed if you don't.

I'd prefer to see him fight but I don't want anything to stop him from getting elected. After the election he can fix this stuff. If Mccain wins... we're all in for 4 more years of the horror we've been living through.

[redqueen]

34. Interesting... I hadn't heard that before.

If you remember where you saw that I'd be curious to know. I'll do a little looking on my own of course...

[Zhade]

14. Note the wiggle room inherent in "support".

NT!

[bean fidhleir]

69. Yep. Room enough to have ten Morris sides plus a square dance (nt)

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. And what about Chris Dodd?

He made same pledge, back when he was sorta running for something.

[seriousstan]

19. Chris Dodd?? Can you reach any farther?

This is about Obama.

[Hydra]

36. Dodd did block it back in December

Reid was furious.

[SwiperFox]

26. Enablers spinning the issue: DISGUSTING!

To think I had actually a glint of hope, but noooo...he seems to be a holow-promised Republicrat just like the others. Stuipid of me, I know, to hope. Come on, "GOBAMA", fulfill your promise and dont insult our intelligence with that "support" loophole. Ridiculous of the, probably paid, zombies giving him the pass on this issue.


WHEN WILL YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULLS?

HE IS ENABLING THE CRIMINALS BY NOT ACTIVELY OPPOSING THEM! WAKE UP!:banghead:

[redqueen]

31. Does the method discussed by John Dean make sense?

Allow the bill, then approach the issue later from a different angle later?

I'll post the explanation he gave after it's up on line.

[Amonester]

62. The other question is: if Diebold & Co "select" mcWorse, what's up?

Or, rather, in such a case, what's.... down?

[lonestarnot]

35. K & R

[sourmilk]

39. I'm a little disppointed. I'm getting used to it, though.

http://www.disinfo.com/content/story.php?title=Dennis-Kucinich-on-New-FISA-Bill

[lonestarnot]

60. kick!

[Hydra]

37. This will be a good first test for Obama

If he doesn't(and there is little political risk to him if he does), he'll have a LOT of explaining to do.

[placton]

38. My Friends

Here is the reality: by the time Obama wins the presidency (with our help), we are gonna be holding our noses voting for him. He is using the same old "campaign to the left in the primaries, run to the middle for the general" that has served us so poorly for decades.
That said, we need to support him.
We don't need to roll for him though. We need to hold his feet to the fire. For you see, Obama needs us more than we need him. No internet, and he is the inexperienced senator from Illinois. If he feels he can toss us aside, then he is in for some really bad news.
Yeah, we gotta elect the guy, and hope for the best. But, as with FISA and his health care stand (sucky), we need to see if he will hear our voices.

[Jakes Progress]

46. Well put. nt.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Angry Clown to MoveOn-dot-Org:

Don't

**EVEN**

Go

There.

The LAST fucking thing we need is to have the left attacking on points the right won't.

What the fuck do you want? A candidate under siege?

Note to those who would knee-jerkedly call my exhortation to MoveOn the rantings of an Obama cultist, forget about it. I was among *the*very*last* to embrace his candidacy. I'm simply sick of losing and ANYthing that attacks our candidate is taken by me to be real personal. I want to WIN. Once we win, then have at him all you want.

[ekwhite]

44. There are other ways to kill the bill

It will have to go to committee first. Unless Obama is on the right committee, this will not do a lot of good. The best strategy is to tie it up in hearings and let it die a slow death.

[The Stranger]

48. That little Nazi devil Lindsey Graham sure got the better of Dodd on Meet the Press, I hate to say.

[redqueen]

49. Read this before reacting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25332028/

OLBERMANN: Senator Obama‘s position on this confuses me. He loathes the telecom immunity, he says that he would fight it immediately and he would monitor it carefully as president. The vote though is next week. He better do that part of the fight quick.

If this gets in through the Senate, there‘s no way to get it out again, is there? I mean, the history of this nation in terms of lost civil liberties is pretty bad about restoring them.

DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, “I won‘t do that.” And that might be why he‘s just sitting back saying, “Well, I‘m going to let this go through. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m going to give the telecoms a pass.” I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, “I‘m keeping that option opened.”

OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who‘ll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, “You know - we just didn‘t think about this issue.” So, as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama‘s got a shot to take, you know, a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass that they think they‘re getting.

[snappyturtle]

53. If Sen. Obama holds to his promise it would do more for him than

any fund raising campaign stop he could make....show us the "Change"....be a leader! If not, the repukes will add this to their list of promises broken, i.e. public campaign financing.

[chknltl]

56. Tell Sen. Obama to filibuster, DU thread link here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3506704&mesg_id=3506704

[JerseygirlCT]

57. So who do we have?

I'm hoping Dodd's still fighting this one - a very recent op-ed here seemed to indicate that.

I think it would not only be the absolute right thing to do, it would be a boon to his campaign.

[Usrename]

61. It's time to stand up!

:kick:

[THX1138]

63. K&...

"Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"

This is an important issue, don't listen to the bot. I recommend anyway! :evilgrin:

There is only one US Constitution folks, don't let these cretins fuck it up! The time to speak up is NOW!

:kick::patriot::kick::patriot::kick::patriot:

[mdmc]

67. moveon should only support democrats

whatever the democrats want to do.

DU and moveon should stand behind Obama no matter what he does.

[bean fidhleir]

70. You're so cynical!

I'm with you.

[mdmc]

72. God Bless!

Peace and low stress to you, Miss.

[ryanmuegge]

71. Ironically, this gives him political cover to go back on his word.

Which, of coures, I'm sure he is wanting to do anyway (judging by the spineless performance of most Democratic senators lately). This will be spun as him "standing up to the MoveOn crowd," and, "rising above partisan politics." As the election draws closer, it will be reanalyzed as him flip-flopping by the corporate media. He knows that Democrats aren't going to vote for McCain because of this, so he'll probably go back on this to try to "reach out to 'independents' and 'conservatives'" because he has nothing to lose. The people who are going to vote for Obama are going to vote for him no matter what because of the economy.