That's it I am really pissed about Obama

[grantcart]

TO:MSM

FROM: ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE LUNATIC LEFT

RE: OBAMA MOVES TO THE CENTER AND PISSES OFF THE LUNATIC LEFT.


First in order to establish my credentials of the lunatic left I support vacuuming up all of the hand guns and non hunting guns in the country and having hunters keep their guns at hunting clubs. Then I support disarming the local police on the beat and equipping them with non lethal tools. National Health Care without profit (kind of like how we handle the fire department). Against the death penalty for all cases (with the possible exception of those that continue to violently attack others in prison). Elimination of nuclear weapons (foreign leaders know that we will not wipe out entire cities because of the actions of a single leader or their elite they are much more afraid of the smart bomb coming down the chimney - just ask Ghaddafi).

(Of course if you apply these standards to Europeans or Aus/Can/NZ/Japanese you could agree with all of these and still be in one their conservative parties. And because I don't think that corporations are inherently evil and can, in the right political environment be good citizens, just like good unions, might not make it into any of the liberal parties outside of reactionary America but I digress.)

In any case I have just been made aware that after this primary season Senator Obama must now venture out into a General Election campaign and that in addition to the 18 million voters he has to persuade another 50 million voters to vote for him or none of this counts at all.

And I am shocked absolutely shocked that Senator Obama must now actually move on to more centrist issues to attract those 50 million votes.



So now he has forgotten us, the true believers, and has reached out to people that think its ok to own guns if you do so legally, follow the rules and keep them safe. The gall of the man.

And he wants to make a nuanced legal argument about capital punishment.

Reaching out and nuanced statements - well why didn't he tell us he was going to do that at the beginning.

Too late, MSM are you listening? Another of the lunatic left is expressing their deep personal disappointment in being jilted by Senator Obama.

And here is what I am going to do about it.

I am no longer going to contribute money to the campaign fund. From now on I am going to wait until they have those nifty shirts and stuff and then contribute.

I am no longer going to canvass for Senator Obama. In California it seems like it would be a better use of my time to canvass for Nick Leibham trying to oust the idiot Bilbrae http://www.picknick08.com/.

I am no longer going to drive around with a big Obama sign taking over the center of the back of my car, I added a Leibham sticker.

I am not going to bring up Senator Obama the first thing in random conversations with people I meet. From now on I will wait until the obligatory laugh at how bad the Padres are doing and how sure the Chargers are going to win the Super bowl and then jump in.

So MSM please understand how disillusioned I am report that at least part of the lunatic left is stomping its feet (stomp stomp) about the fact that Senator Obama appears to have moved closer to the middle in order to secure the best possible chance for a landslide victory and build coattails for huge gains in the Senate and the House and the greatest peaceful transfer of real substantive political power in world history.

If Senator Obama had intended to not run a super hyper partisan race he should have given us some indication that he was going to try and reach out to other parts of the country. If he was going to take on these complex issues and give them substance and depth he should have the courtesy to let us know that was the way he thought. He might have even written a book or two on the subject.

Anyway I am pissed and please tell all those in the middle that are warming up to him that voting for him doesn't mean that they are going to get somebody held captive by the lunatic left. And I am really really pissed about it.

[rug]

1. I expect you'll enjoy this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Politickles-Limericks-Lampooning-Lunatic-Left/dp/0936783257

Amazon encourages you to leave a comment.

[grantcart]

2. I didn't think Amazon even knew I was alive

thanks for the tip

[The River]

3. How Dare He Indeed

Doesn't he know he owes everything
to the lunatic left? He must give
us everything we want.
Woe is us.

[DLnyc]

4. "He might have even written a book or two on the subject."

Touche!

[melody]

5. And as usual, it's the extremist left that will sink us

Just like they did in 2000. The extremist left is every bit as crazed and irrational as the extremist right.

[grantcart]

7. except this time we aren't going to let it sink us.

[madfloridian]

9. You are really surprising me.

You know perfectly well this is not a left right thing.

[Hissyspit]

11. Um, I thought it was the election theft that sank us.

And the corrupt Supreme Court.

And the media lies.

And the...

[jgraz]

16. Shhh... blame it on the loony left. God forbid we ever learn anything

That might lead to us actually winning an election. :scared:

[PassingFair]

47. The "mushy middle" sunk us in 2000.

NOT the "extremist left".

It was "Reagan Democrats" and their
ilk that sunk us.

Running to the center has "wimp" written
ALL OVER IT. People would rather vote for
a real Republican than a Democrat that
acts like a Republican.

Buy a clue!

[Indenturedebtor]

53. I agree. People respect conviction

That's why the "flip flopper" label is so damaging.

But Obama isn't that left. We get a chubby here on the left sometimes because he supports something like actual Diplomacy, and fiscal and environmental responsibility that we also support. Aside from Clinton he was the least liberal of our Primary candidates.

But anyone who is not completely insane, greedy, short-sighted, and flat out STUPID is labeled a liberal nowadays by the idiots out there.

Really he hasn't done almost anything inconsistent to date. I'm not as excited about him as I was a few weeks ago, but I'm not surprised. The few donations I've been able to make, I give right after he makes a speech about environmentalism, poverty assistance, etc.

[nc4bo]

6. gee, i always thought extremism on either side......

was not always for the best. That would go for repugs and dems. Maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time .:silly:

[stimbox]

19. The op's childish display of extreme centrism is not too bright either. n/t

[jgraz]

8. Please stop this, grantcart

You've been a pretty reasonable member of the board and made some incredibly valuable contributions here. You're smart enough to know that this kind of broad-brush smear of progressive activists does nothing to help anyone.

Very few DUers conform to the kind of caricature you're painting. Yet your smear attack will just add to the pile of fear and hatred against anyone who voices dissent over the rightward lurch of Mr. Hope and Change.

What you seem to forget is that over the past 8 years, we on the "lunatic left" were RIGHT. We were right about Bush's 9/11 power grabs, right about no WMDs, right about torture and black site prisons, right about Joe Lieberman, right about domestic spying, right about John Kerry's weak-ass candidacy and right about impeachment (among many other things). Every time we were dismissed as the "lunatic left".

Now many of the people who supported the Bush enablers in Congress (and Bush himself) are coming back with yet another attack on the people who have been right all along. And, surprise, it's the same old straw-man bullshit that it's always been. They won't address the real issue of the Democrats' betrayal of the base and their colossal political miscalculation, so they need to somehow create an ultra-left boogeyman to support their basic "dissent equals disloyalty" jingoism.

I didn't expect that you would be one of the people playing into this. I guess we on the "lunatic left" can't be right on everything.

[grantcart]

25. The critisim of the FISA act has taken on a herd mentality so that anybody

that steps up and says

well wait a minute, its not good and there are things that need to be addressed but to call it a wholesale attack on the constitution is silly.

Am I for it, No.

But even with it we still have substantive more protections than European countries do http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/.

So if it is such a calamity how can it be that even with it the average American has more protection than the average European.

The discussion on the FISA has been over heated, confused and emotional. Many of the criticism of this bill have to do with people who disagree with the FISA system which has been functioning since 1978.

Can you tell me what the one change that this legislation actually makes in requiring warrants by the Government?

[HousePainter]

51. I have asked jgraz the same exact question

perhaps you'll get the same answer I got which was :
Do I have to do your homework for you ?

You have hit it square on - most of this heat and emotional ranting about stripping the 4th Amendment and selling out the Constitution is coming from people who really can't answer that basic questio

[Peacetrain]

10. I don't know if this is off topic or part of it

But this is what is getting my goat.. the lack of support for Obama.. seriously..There are some in here, who take every opportunity to kneecap the canidate..and if they ever say anything it amounts to "I will hold my nose and vote democratic" or worse case.. "I will not vote at all".. but not a word of support for the canidate.. and if when you stand back at them.. oh my GOD, you are trying to take away their right to speak.. hells bells..

[madfloridian]

12. I gather you want people like me who speak out about FISA to hush.

Is that really the kind of America you want to live in?

[jgraz]

14. Well, we'd also like you to shut up about torture, impeachment and the war.

If you wouldn't mind. We're trying to win an election here. God forbid we let a little democracy fuck that up.

:P

[madfloridian]

15. There you go. Hit the nail on the head.

If we don't talk about it all will go away.

[grantcart]

20. and you have illustrated my point perfectly

It has become almost impossible to have a rational discussion of the issues because the issue involved in the FISA legislation simply did not result in the catastrophic changes that hysterical posters indicated.

You have taken it further and it is not only a destruction of the 4th ammendment but also of the war.

If you think it is now reasonable to start impeachment with 4 months left until the general election is to be held you are entitled to your opinion but nothing would be more beneficial to bring up impeachment at this time. Everyone would wonder, if we had evidence for impeachment why are we waiting to start it right before the election. Yes delaying impeachment has killed impeachment.

If you don't understand that then you have no grasp on how we are going to communicate with the other 50 million moderate folks that we have to get to look past all of the racism, hate, smears and feel comfortable with taking a chance on a one term senator who has what some call "the most liberal voting record in the Senate".

[madfloridian]

22. Hysterical posters? Thanks so much.

What has happened to you?

[grantcart]

26. well whtat the fuck happened to you

when you try and have an intelligent discussion about the technical aspects of the FISA procedure a poster says well "now we can't even criticize the war".

That is what I meant about hysterical posting.

I have asked several posters what is the one change in warrants that this legislation actually does and not one single person has been able to respond.

[madfloridian]

27. I have 5 posts in my journal explaining it.

So quit trying to put me down.

[grantcart]

30. I am not going through and reading 5 articles

My question is very simple and I have repeatedly asked it of many of the folks who are most agitated about it.


What is the one change from current procedures that the new law has on warrants?

[madfloridian]

Then don't. I took the time to research....you are too lazy to read it.

Not my effing problem.

[madfloridian]

31. Dupe.

.

[mtnsnake]

32. grantcart, you are recognized as the most miserable condescending poster on this board, bar none

Who the hell quit and left you as boss of DU?

[grantcart]

37. do you have a point a fact or an argument

remember ignore is your friend

[mtnsnake]

39. 14,000 posts in less than 6 months. Maybe that's why you don't have time for commas. lol

[grantcart]

41. let me know when you have a fact, an argument, or an opinion.

and a health problem left me stranded in front of the computer for 5 months but you will be happy to know that I am only here a few hours a week now.

[jgraz]

45. I strongly object to your characterization of grantcart

I have been far more condescending for far longer. How dare you give away a distinction that I've worked so hard for! :grr:

[mtnsnake]

50. lol

:evilgrin:

[grantcart]

58. yes I am more often considered the ranking gadfly lol

[jgraz]

28. And you are missing the point entirely

You can't beat Republican bullshit by buying into the bullshit. You can't win on the issues by being afraid of the issues. And you can't build a movement by lying about the actual goals of the movement.

In case you haven't noticed, the center in this country is somewhere to the left of Obama. Most people oppose domestic spying. They want single-payer health care, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy and they want the fucking war ended yesterday. These people were enthusiastic for Obama because they thought they finally saw a politician who understood these basic facts and was willing to stand up for them. Even people who disagreed with Obama's politics were supporting him out of respect for his reputation as a principled leader.

With the FISA capitulation, Obama is putting that reputation at risk. He will not win 50 million votes by granting the telecoms immunity. He won't win 50 million votes by expanding Bush's warrantless wiretaps. But he WILL LOSE those votes by acting like the same kind of weak-kneed, ineffectual, flip-flopping wussbag that the Democrats have put up in previous elections.

[grantcart]

33. It is not about buying into anyone's bullshit

FISA is neither a new or republican creation.

It has been working well under Democratic and Republican Presidents since 1978

Bush, has abused it and in a stare down with the Congress has let it lapsed.

So the constituional authority to review secret material for warrants that has been in place for 30 years no longer exists and that is Bush's fault because he has insisted that the telecoms get immunity (they would have a reasonable shot for it anyway in court)there were also some procedureal changes made.

There was one significant change in the use of warrants but it is a funny thing I ask all of the people that are most upset about this terrible challenge to the 4th ammendment and I have yet to get one that can tell me specifically what in fact is getting changed.

Even with the change Americans will still have greater legal protection from electronic survelliance than anyone in the world

http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/.

Would I prefer that one change not be made? yes


Do you even know what it is?

[jgraz]

44. Not up to your usual standards of accuracy, I'm afraid

Bush, has abused it and in a stare down with the Congress has let it lapsed.

No, the FISA law never lapsed. What lapsed was the so-called Protect America Act passed in 2007. If Congress had taken no action, FISA would still be the law of the land today.


There was one significant change in the use of warrants but it is a funny thing I ask all of the people that are most upset about this terrible challenge to the 4th ammendment and I have yet to get one that can tell me specifically what in fact is getting changed.

There are several significant expansions of the President's power to wiretap citizens. Here's a summary of the changes from the ACLU:

• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

You may be thinking of the one actual loophole in FISA that acted as the trojan horse for all of these changes. And that was the fact that international communication routed through the US was not covered by FISA and, as such, still required a "traditional" warrant. Congress used this as the "crisis" to excuse their wholesale sellout to the administration.


Even with the change Americans will still have greater legal protection from electronic survelliance than anyone in the world

Do you really want to make this argument? Really? Other countries suck worse than us so we should be happy for the freedoms we still have?

I hear other countries torture a bit more than we do. Perhaps we should be grateful for the Bush regime's restraint here as well...

[grantcart]

56. I had a longer reply lost by a misclick - please accept a more modest effort

1) The main change - according to the ACLU and other critics seems to be the issue I outlined.

here is ACLU's statement on their home page
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35786prs20080626.html

She said, "It allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The court's role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on Americans' communications even after the FISA court has objected.

or here is Slate's
http://www.slate.com/id/2194254/
You see, the new law goes a lot further, basically doing away with warrants altogether in the domestic-to-international context. Under the proposal, the NSA can engage in what David Kris calls "vacuum cleaner surveillance" of phone calls and e-mails entering and leaving the United States through our nation's telecom switches. Provided that the "target" of the surveillance is reasonably believed to be abroad, the NSA can intercept a massive volume of communications, which might, however incidentally, include yours

2) Some of the other points you bring up are not considered that substantive even by critics - for example changing exigent from 72 hours to 7 days.

Is this bad legislation

clearly it is:

To be fair, wiretapping is so classified, and the language of the bill so opaque, that no one without a "top secret" clearance can say with any authority just how much surveillance the proposal will authorize the government to do. (The best assessment yet comes from former Justice Department official David Kris, who deems the legislation "so intricate" that it risks confusing even "the government officials who must apply it.")

anytime people cannot even agree with what is being covered or what the main issue is then its poorly written.


The ACLU is an important and good friend to the constitution. The ACLU doesn't win elections and that shouldn't be their mission.

I do not find the evidence compelling that many posters have made that this is a wholesale sell out of the constitution. Senator Obama's ACLU rating of 89% is one of the highest in the Senate. I may be wrong but I am willing to guess it is the highest ACLU rating any successful Presidential candidate has ever achieved.http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard&congress=110&location=S&lcmd=prev&lcmd_cf=

If Senator Obama states that this unhappy compromise is a bitter pill we have to swallow then I trust him on it. He has indicated a lot of other constitutional issues as important (like the reviewing every single one of Bush's cosigning statements)that he is going to address and I don't think he gets much credit for it. I think the left takes these issues for granted.

Finally, my brother is a Judge and he issues warrants. From my distant observation I offer the following - you can have all of the systems in place for judicial review and warrants in place and they can appear to be "ACLU proof" but there are two key issues - are the prosecutors hands clean (has he stated all of the information truthfully and completely and included any contra information that the Judge should know?) and is the Judge lazy - does the Judge ask the right questions and keep the prosecutors on their toes. Most Judges have a prosecutorial bias - do they just ok the warrants or do they keep the prosecutors on their toes.

The next President of the United States will have more impact on the quality of prosecutors and judges he appoints than the ammendments that are passed. I could be wrong but I see that as being even more important than passing the 'correct' legislation. Of course the next president will also be appointing the key officers of the intelligence agencies as well.

Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful reply. We are probably not as far apart as it may appear and I know that you feel very strongly about these issues and while I am an enthusiastic if not able Obama apologist I would prefer to have this kind of criticism of him than the kind the other side faces.




BTW

Unrelated to our discussion I found this comment by the Andrew McCarthy of the National Review. I find it interesting to note their criticism of the "compromise".http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTM1MjU4NjI0M2JiMjg2YmYxNGYwN2FiODg4NmZiOTg=&w=MQ==

quote
Congress is throwing down the gauntlet. Foreign intelligence collection is part of the foreign-affairs power designed in our system to be a plenary executive responsibility. Moreover, the federal appellate courts — including the FISA Court of Review, the highest court created by Congress specifically to rule on surveillance matters — have uniformly held that, regardless of FISA, the president is vested by Article II of the Constitution with the power to order warrantless surveillance against foreign threats to national security. Yet, Congress is hellbent on grabbing this authority, despite the fact that constitutional powers cannot be reduced by statute.

This is the price extracted by liberal Democrats. They know the administration wants immunity for the telecoms, which will be a boon for the country but a blow to the pocketbooks of their trial lawyer benefactors. To make the deal, they want President Bush to cry “uncle” — to concede that presidents act illegally if they direct eavesdropping that does not hew to restrictions prescribed by Congress. And given that they have been willing for months, in a time of jihadist war, to expose the nation to the dangers of degraded intelligence capabilities, the administration knows the Democrats mean business. This is their line in the sand.

unquote

From their point of view that while the specific issues fell for Bush, Congressional authority to decide who has the authority to outline these powers now clearly resides in Congress.

[dflprincess]

46. Issues?

We don't need no stinkin' issues. What kind of "far left lunatic" are to try and bring issues into the campaign? (One a lot like me, that's what kind.)

[Eyes_wide_ open]

62. I tried to say this earlier elsewhere

You did a much better job of it than I :applause:

And I'm not from the loony left, hell I'm not even a democrat! I'm one of those rascally independent types that refuses to be pigeonholed. You know, one of the folks that vote for a person, not a party line. One of the majority of Americans who

"oppose domestic spying. They want single-payer health care, higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy and they want the fucking war ended yesterday. These people were enthusiastic for Obama because they thought they finally saw a politician who understood these basic facts and was willing to stand up for them."

Those are the big issues that the "mushy middle" are so inflamed about that they are considering someone they've seen painted as a radical liberal. He MUST stand up for these things if he hopes to win their vote. It would be sad indeed if he loses them by positioning himself to the right of those who have so recently woke up. I don't give a fig whether he's left or right or central as long as he doesn't back down from the things that will destroy this country if McSame is allowed to continue down Bushes path.

There are a lot of extreme reactions around here to every move Obama makes that steps on someone's toes, I'll give the OP that, and it is not helpful to the campaign. But it is no more helpful to dump ALL concerns into the same kettle and give them the label of lunatic fringe either.

Can't we please just work together to fight the asswipe who is McCain?

[grantcart]

18. Well I gather that you also believe that the 2nd ammendment is related to

individual ownership of guns when it obviously isn't.

The problems with the FISA bill are significant but do not sigficantly change the scope of domestic electronic interception.

I think that your broader point that it has greater significance because it goes back to a history of congressional inaction back to 2003 is absolutely on the mark. I think it is completely unfair to expect Obama to try and carry that burden during the Presidential campaign.

The FISA bill is flawed. The compromise is not the one I would like to have.

I have news for you any of the proposed solutions would have found criticism but in the end we have to have a way to use confidential information for survellience and much of the criticism of the bill is inherent criticism that some like the ACLU has against FISA and the entire system.

I thought I saw you quote from the very good slate article which had a very reasoned and measured criticism of the "compromise".

Did you also see this slate article that argues that even with the compromises the United States still has more protection against electronic interception on terrorist suspects than most European countries?

http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/

Simple question what is the one thing that the law actually changes regarding warrants from the existing The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)?

[madfloridian]

21. I don't care about gun laws....I do care about privacy issues.

I don't think our party had to bring this up for a vote. Did you see my post about Mark Klein?

Guess you think that's screwy as well. I am a moderate in all things, but I get really pissed when my party is screwing me.

[grantcart]

24. You have written numerous articles about it

there have been hundreds of posts about it.

there have been cries that Obama is tearing apart the constitution.


I now ask you again - can you tell me the one substantive change that was made in the FISA system regarding warrants?

[madfloridian]

29. Gives courts less power.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2276

Expands length of time the govt can spy without going to the court...then the court can't really stop them from spying.

[grantcart]

34. the law always has allowed 7 days for them to apply after the fact

that has never been contested.

No the one major change is that government is no longer required to get warrants for domestic to foreign communications.

I don't like it but it is not worth the level of acrimony that has been displayed. It is not a complete capitulation of the 4th ammendment. Warrants will still be required for all domestic intercepts.

Much of the ACLU criticism of the bill has to do with their criticism of the whole structure of FISA going back to 1978.

[madfloridian]

36. 72 hours previously.

.

[grantcart]

40. I thought that the 72 hours was already changed in the previous

authorization but you are probably correct.

A change of 72 hours to 7 days is probably not needed but it is not a major constitutional issue either

[madfloridian]

38. Glad you are so on board.

Good for you.

[HousePainter]

52. Keep speaking, it's your right

But tell me, exactly which revisions of the previous version of FISA are you specifically outraged by?
And why ? What will the impact be ? And why do you think they'll be impervious to legal challenges ?

Because if it's issues that you're discussing let's discuss them in detail.
But if it's "Champion of Freedom" posturing you're really interested in
then Yeah, Hush.

[NorthCarolina]

13. Not much of a discussion board if nothing is allowed to be discussed

eom

[grantcart]

23. Discuss what you want. What I am discussing is that Senator Obama

still has to secure 50 million people to vote for him that haven't done so, so far.

We all have issues that we care for very deeply.

I have lived in countries where no one ones a gun and it provides a much greater sense of personal safety than

95% of the issues that are brought up in this forum but I also realize that we are never going to get the American people to buy into it. Obama's agreement that it was written for individual rights is laughable and unsupported by the evidence. But I am glad he did it because in order to win the election you have to make the case to people that don't share a lot of things that are important to us.

The criticism that Obama has sold out the constitution is ridiculous blather.

[stimbox]

17. Keep it up and we'll vote for McKinney. n/t

[RichardRay]

35. Since when is ANY version of FISA acceptable?

Ten or fifteen years ago the very existence of the FISA court was taken as the end all and be all evidence of the perfidy of the US government - it was damned as a Star Chamber of the worst kind. Now all of a sudden FISA is a sacred law of the land that has to be protected. What happened?

Anybody who believes privacy actually exists anymore is fooling themselves badly. Unless you are making a moment to moment effort to retain it, and have been doing so assiduously for the last 30 years you have no privacy and you can't get it back. And that's why FISA suddenly looks so much like a Good Thing when it used to be clearly a Bad Thing: the modicum of process it provides is way better than what we will have 10 years from now, so we try to protect it.

I'm lucky - I'll be dead before this all comes to a head - but some of you younger folks may want to figure out the best deal you can get.

[grantcart]

42. It has been in existence for 30 years

There is a problem. When the government gets classified material and needs to use it for a warrant where should it go?

It seems like a reasonable way to let the government use material but hold it up to the scrutiny of an independent court.

Is there another system that you prefer?

It would seem that without the FISA system Eurpoeans have considerably less protection than we do.

http://www.slate.com/id/2136147/

[RichardRay]

43. Nope, I was just drawing the contrast.

My comment was meant to point out that the Left/Center/Right spectrum moves around quite a bit while the issues and institutions remain relatively fixed. I can get along with the idea that in today's world something like FISA is probably necessary; if someone is really concerned about their individual privacy they should be way more concerned about their credit card numbers and SSN's than about FISA and message interceptions.

This question, like most others, is subject to the rule that every complex problem has at least one solution that is simple, elegant and wrong. Any attempt to cast the issue in black and white terms that can be explicated in a few paragraphs on an Internet discussion board is doomed to failure. In other words, I more or less agree with you, and it doesn't worry or bother me that Senator Obama's position on this topic and many others can't be easily pinned down in simple terms. Trying to do so would require ignoring the inherent complexity of the problem.

[grantcart]

57. I thought that is what you might hve been saying

[HousePainter]

55. I would like to hear the argument against permitting any surveillance

of suspected terrorist or organized criminal enterprises.
I don't think a persuasive one can be made.
Nor can a persuasive argument be made for unlimited surveillance rights.
Hence FISA.

This is not an endorsement of FISA as it is currently constructed but a response to yuor statement about ANY version of FISA

But I'm willing to learn.
I'd love to hear your vision of how we protect our society from those who would damage or destroy it without trampling on the rights of the innocent.

[RichardRay]

63. It's not my position...

but only a few years ago it was the position of any self-respected left progressive that the entire idea of a secret court that could grant warrants for surveillance got a lot of criticism. The only point that makes sense to me is the fairly Utopian one that suggests that if the world were a better place we wouldn't need FISA and other such things. While I believe that's true, I'm not certain how we get there.

[RoyGBiv]

64. Ummm ... uh ...

You're aware, I assume, that the original FISA was enacted in 1978, no?

This is a total guess, but based on simple personal observation and experience, I'd bet that no one could have have told you what FISA meant prior to ... well, let's be generous and say 2001.

Funny thing ... the US didn't devolve into despotism between 1978 and 2001. It took a President who *ignored* FISA to bring us to that brink.

[RichardRay]

65. Excuse me?

I know exactly the history of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the court it created. The amendment to it by the Patriot Act is what brought it to the attention of the liberal left. But, prior to that there were all lot of folks who still considered the original Act to be anathema.

[RoyGBiv]

68. My apologies ...

I misread the meaning of your post.

My sincere apologies.

[HousePainter]

48. Thank you grantcart

I needed a chuckle after all of the hand-wringing, told-you-so, death- of-the-republic, kool-aid referencing BS that's been floating by here lately.

I enjoy your posts and appreciate your steadiness.

[Catherina]

49. Piss on the Lunatic Left. Way to go there Grantcart.

How's that mushy center working out for you? Do you see them working their ass off for Obama?

Way to go.

[HousePainter]

54. That "mushy center" is the majority of the American population

and is composed of hard-working honest people trying to have decent life themselves and a better life for their children.
People who are looking for a different direction but are understandably wary of too different a direction.
But thanks for the condescension it really helps to recommend your point of view.

[PassingFair]

69. Those people will vote, by your own definition, for McCain.

"but are understandably wary of too different a direction."

Just like they voted for Reagan.

There needs to be a STARK difference in policy,
or the masses will be manipulated into voting
for the former "maverick".

[grantcart]

59. actually those people cheering in the stadiums are clearly

made up of people who would consider themselves moderates.

BTW the term 'lunatic left' was meant to be a self depreciating jab, it wasn't aimed at you.


I think most people in the US would consider a proposal for picking up all of the firearms in the country clearly in the realm of lunacy. I have lived in such countries and have found it to be much more 'normal'.

[Catherina]

60. Found what to be much more normal? Not having guns?

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I lived in countries where people don't have guns and found it much more normal too but I shy far away from gun control in US politics because it's just used as a wedge to keep people from focusing on more pressing issues.

Thanks for explaining the other bit. Let me ask you directly, are you at all concerned that Obama is losing support from a very faithful Left that was prepared to go toe to toe on the ground with the mushy center for him? I'm very concerned because I want him to win and while I still think he will, I think he just helped McCain close the gap. Certain issues, like Palestine, could be chalked up to necessary political expediency but there are a few other issues that take the oomph out of people who don't want to rely on hope or better than McCain as selling points.

It's been apparent from the beginning the he appealed to moderates and we were happy to work with moderates but moderates like people who say "this is who I am and what I'll do" also. Obama's position is a lot trickier than Bush or Clinton's were when they ran because they had the lxury of being Governors who could make promises people couldn't check against a congressional record so it was easier to err on the side of belief.

I don't know if it was in a post to you but readmoreoften gave a good summation of how alot of us feel right now

it's unusual for a candidate to piss off the base BEFORE an election.
They usually wait until after fucking us and telling us they love us to call the cab. Now they're so brazen they tell us they love us to get us in the apartment. Then they say "look, you know how this goes: I fuck you. You leave. I'm going to call the cab before we start."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3524807&mesg_id=3527189

It's kind of hard to believe we're headed for real change anymore.

Most people on the Left knew Obama is center Right. Maybe we have no one to blame but ourselves for wanting to believe. Don't get me wrong, I still adamantly believe he's a better choice than Hillary and, God forbid, McCain but there's still the bothersome doubt that at least with Hillary you knew what you were getting. Thanks for responding and thanks for all your past posts that were very educational.

[grantcart]

61. We agree about the guns

Let me try and make my point from another point of view -


There are a lot of people that are still borderline on Obama.


The attacks that are going to be launched on him are two fold

1) not enough experience.

2) too liberal - highest liberal voting record
89% voting with the ACLU
McCain has his name on more bi-partisan legislation.

If Obama is perceived as being the darling of the left, that people like you and me are in 100% agreement with him then he is going to have a more difficult time winning.

I am encouraged that he is taking steps to be more independent. I absolutely disagree with saying the 2nd ammendment is an individual right.

But the fact that he has taken that argument is intelligent and necessary to become President.

He is making sure that he isn't going to get the kind of problems that Dukakis had (and Gore and Kerry too). So when I see him making arguments on issues that I disagree with I am more encouraged that he has the intelligence to position himself in a way that the far right cannot charachterize him as soft on terror or crime.

Yes I am against capital punishment. Obama is for it but he also wants to find a way to get guys out of prisons and back into society. So I will take the capital punishment (which we are going to have anyway) to get somebody who wants to find a way to reduce the prison population - it sure as hell not going to be John McCain.

[Solon]

66. There is no political left in this country...

So I don't know what the fuck you are ranting about. We have left leaning moderates, and right leaning moderates, and the country is much more conservative overall, so there are extreme right wing nutballs in this country, but no left wing to speak of.

[Arthurtheking]

67. I think Obama learned his lesson

He is deep inside a progressive who listens to us when when we complain. He will take the right path again.