"Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act," Or maybe not.

[MadHound]

Once again, as with issue after previous issue, we see where President Obama is radically different from Candidate Obama.

The above quote is from Candidate Obama, an answer to a question posed on a survey taken by NOW. But President Obama, eight years after filling out this survey, today signed the extension of the Patriot Act into law.

So tell me, why should I support Candidate Obama again, when President Obama continues to go against everything Candidate Obama stands for?

[SDuderstadt]

1. First of all...

Obama is no longer a senator and does not vote. Secondly, what would the point if getting a bill that passed with more than enough votes to override his veto?

[phasma ex machina]

3. To score political points? nt

[DJ13]

6. Exactly

It would pass either way, at least if he had vetoed it he wouldnt look like Bush Light.

[sunwyn]

14. Bush lite haha.... I really wish I had known he would have caved so easily on so many things but,

This Patriot Act deal .... I am so conflicted. Never voted Republican and won't now but I am gonna have to hold my nose when I vote for Obama again.

[Pholus]

8. Status as a Senator is irrelevant to a candidate's positions as they run for president.

But I'm more interested in what the "secret" interpretation of the text whose existence has been hinted at us.

[Pholus]

12. To put on the record your feelings about the bill. Of course, that's not realpolitik I guess. nt

[MadHound]

17. Well, let's not forget the early warning signs we had concerning Obama's dichotomy problem

Yes, Candidate Obama stated in '03 that he would vote to repeal the Patriot Act, but in '06, when the rubber hit the road, Senator Obama actually voted to extend it.

That should have been a big warning sign.

Oh, and though the Senate had the votes to overturn such a veto, the House, where the extension passed by a margin of 250-153, it didn't have that margin.

Voila, no more Patriot Act.

But that's assuming of course that we were talking about Candidate Obama.

[Enrique]

2. this 4-yr extension is actually a compromise

Obama wanted a permanent extension.

[SDuderstadt]

Please prove that n/t

[Enrique]

10. here

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/with-deal-to-renew-patriot-act-reformers-will-have-to-wait/239178/

(...)

What's odd about PATRIOT Act politics is that the Obama administration has agreed more with congressional Republicans than with its Democratic allies -- a rare occurrence, in general. At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Department of Justice oversight on May 3, Attorney General Eric Holder voiced support for a permanent extension of the expiring provisions, the position held by Republicans. Holder said:

We believe, I believe, it is absolutely essential that these expiring provisions be reauthorized. We never want to see these acts, these provisions, expire. The fact that they have sunset, period, and requiring us to come back periodically to get them reauthorized, is not helpful to us ... We need certainty. Our prosecutors, our investigators, need certainty in that regard ... So my hope is that these provisions are reauthorized for as long as we possibly can. If they were extended permanently, that is not something we would be opposed to.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Dude...

That is Eric Holder. Duh.

[Pholus]

15. So the President can't make his own attorney general toe the line. Weak.....dude.

Many times I've seen statements from Axelrod or Holder denied here as they "are not the President." On the other hand, what they say is usually what we see coming out from the administration -- the tax cut "compromise" being a very relevant example.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Dude...

Do you honestly think the President tells the AG what to do? Presidents go out of their way to avoid putting political pressure on the AG.

Sorry, not buying this.

[Pholus]

23. Possibly. Or possibly more good cop, bad cop. Dude...

The problem as I see it is that you just can't tell.

[Enrique]

33. without the good cop

Obama hasn't opposed the Patriot Act since 2003.

[Enrique]

31. provide a link where Obama contradicts Holder

on this issue.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Dude...

Holder is not Obama. If you have a statement from Obama saying what Holder said, please provide it. Holder speaks for the DOJ, not the administration.

[Enrique]

42. so no link

so you are talking about congress overriding a veto by Obama, and you have no link to him ever threatening to veto it, no link to anyone ever talking about Obama vetoing the bill, and no link to Obama ever speaking a word of opposition to the bill. The Obama veto of the Patriot Act is all in your imagination.

[PufPuf23]

97. Dude, Holder was a pathetic choice by POTUS Obama.

POTUS Obama's appointment of Holder, irregular retention of Bush era Federal Prosecutors, and selective enforcement or ignoring Federal law is a non-partisan problem and a disappointment for most members of the Democratic Party but perhaps not our "leadership".

[Enrique]

24. now show me where you get the idea he would veto it

dude.

[SDuderstadt]

26. I'm not the one who...

said he would, dude. Read what I actually wrote.

[gkhouston]

20. Yeah, I know what got compromised. Us. n/t

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Oh, bullshit...

there is no point in vetoing a bill that has no chance of being sustained.

[MadHound]

18. But it would have been sustained.

The House vote was only 250-153. Small enough for a veto to be sustained.

Whoopsie.

[SDuderstadt]

21. 92 Senators voted for it, dude...

Surely, you don't think it only takes one house to override a veto.

[MadHound]

25. No, it takes both sections of the Congress for a veto to be overridden,

And since that House didn't have the votes to override a veto, then the Patriot Act would have expired. Thank you for making my point.

[SDuderstadt]

27. Bullshit, dude...

You have little idea how Congress works.

[MadHound]

32. Umm, duder, the Constitution

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."
Article I, Section 7.

It takes a two third vote of BOTH Houses of Congress to override a veto. While the Senate would have the votes to override such a veto, the House, where the bill passed by a margin of 250-153 wouldn't have the votes.

I not only have a real good idea of how Congress works, as I posted here, I have the facts.

What do you have? Oh, yeah, nothing but hot air and bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Dude...

1st of all, do you have any idea how those not voting would vote when it comes to an override? Secondly, are you claiming that no members switch their votes?

I know what the Constitution says, dude. The House is within striking distance of the numbers required and if Pelosi's, Hoyer, wrap do their jobs counting votes, they would report that the votes to override were there. Especially with such strong Senate support. Like I said, you need to learn how Congress actually works.

[MadHound]

41. First of all, why do you think that Pelosi, et al were doing a vote count for a veto override?

They were in on this as well, and knew that Obama wouldn't veto.

Second of all, yes, votes might have switched, but that goes both ways. But the single best measure, the original House vote, shows that a veto would have been sustained. It would have taken twelve votes to get an override, a large number in any override bid.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Bullshit, dude...

BTW, the OP isn't even talking about the same legislation. It's an exercise in apples-to-oranges comparison.

[MadHound]

46. You keep repeating that word

Apparently that's all you've got to offer up as a rejoinder.

Sucks being hypocritical, doesn't it.

But since you can't offer any sort of factual, logical counter argument, apparently once again it is time to stop playing with you.

Bye:hi:

Psst: I know what's in the OP, I wrote it, remember?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Yeah, dude...

and you blew it.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluebear]

95. But dude! Dude!

:crazy:

[hootinholler]

102. !

:rofl:

[Enrique]

19. veto?

He has been in support of the Patriot Act since he was a Senator, as I recall he flip-flopped immediately after being elected. The quote in the OP must have been from his senatorial campaign. In fact he was wavering even then. I was living in Chicago back then, and I remember getting a mailer expressing his opposition to the Patriot Act and seeing it as a contradiction from what I had heard from him in the debates.

And there has never been talk of him vetoing the legislation as president, other than in people's imaginations. Tell me, where did you get the idea that Obama would veto the Patriot Act if he could?

[Capitalocracy]

29. Sure there is.

You veto it if you are against it. This forces the Senate to override the veto. If they override the veto, OK, that's how democracy works (you know, assuming you think this particular law is actually constitutional). If you sign the bill, you support it.

[Cherchez la Femme]

107. Amazing

With who you have personally chosen as your DU icon, you say that.

Simply amazing.

[Newest Reality]

5. Obama is doing a great job

at doing what he is supposed to for those who want him to. He is great a public relations, so far, as well.

We were expecting something else, and that worked to create enough cognitive dissonance to let the rise of corporatism continue while stunning the populace with contradictions.

Obama is the best when it comes to the Status Quo and what would they do to him if he stood up and became a true leader? Cut him some slack, it is just a job these days. Titular heads all over the world would agree.

[jaxx]

9. Radically different?

How provocative.

An 8 year old survey....how lame.

Don't support him, and good luck.

[MadHound]

22. Yes, like 180 degrees different, I think most folks would consider that pretty radical

And what has changed about that abomination known as the Patriot Act in those eight years?

Oh, yeah, President Obama now supports it, so all is good, right:eyes:

[jaxx]

34. Modified in 2006 and 2009.

Do not get with the Obama crap with me. I really don't care what you think of him.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OKNancy]

11. Because he knows more now that he is President

That has to be the reason. I know people here like to discount the threats, but I trust Obama, and I suspect he knows some things we don't know.
I think he is smarter than just about everyone here.

[MadHound]

28. You're putting your faith in a politician?

Well, apparently he is smarter than you, if that is the course you are taking.

If you are following that logic, then why were you against the Patriot Act when it was Bush who was in office? After all, by your logic, Bush would be in the same position and deserving of the same sort of trust:shrug:

[Enrique]

30. exactly

Viet Dinh, the author of the Patriot Act, is also probably smarter than everyone here, and smarter than Obama even, and I don't trust Viet Dinh.

[OKNancy]

36. It's not the same Patriot Act

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1186619

[MadHound]

39. That's like saying it is the kinder, gentler Mafia

They still kill you, but put a bouquet of roses in your bed instead of a horse's head:eyes:

Oh, and weren't you still screaming about the Patriot Act in '06? What's changed between now and then?

Oh, yeah, back to that whole Democratic President thing:puke:

[OKNancy]

44. I've never "screamed" about anything on DU

that's not my nature

[MadHound]

47. Then let me reword it more to you liking

Outraged, incensed, pissed off, flabbergasted, etc. etc.

The point being is that under Bush you thought that the Patriot Act was a civil liberties nightmare, and now, when it is a Democrat signing this abomination into law, you're for it.

I suggest you go take a long look in your mirror, and consider what has happened.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Correct...

It's only an extension of three key provisions.

[Enrique]

45. so you've gone from "Obama can't stop the bill"

to "it's a good bill."

I guess the constant is that Obama does no wrong.

[girl gone mad]

49. His handling of the economy makes me seriously question his intelligence..

or, at least, his intellectual curiosity and common sense.

He fucked up, big time. He put his faith in those same people who caused the global collapse and rather than set things right, they bailed themselves out at the expense of the rest of us. How can you believe he is smarter than everyone else, in light of such an astonishing failure?

Look at the world around you. Open your eyes and see what is happening, everywhere, as a direct consequence of the decision made by this administration to prop up the banks and do the bidding of parasitic corporations.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Upton]

48. Why should you support Obama again?

I'd give you an answer...if I had one.

To be honest with you, I'm wrestling with the same question myself..

[DCBob]

50. I suspect he would say circumstances changed.. as POTUS he now knows things he didnt know before.

It suggests there is still some disturbing and dangerous shit going on in this country that threatens our national security which compels our administration to continue the provisions of this act. That is only way I can justify it.

[MadHound]

53. So we should just put faith in what a president knows?

Did you adhere to that philosophy under Bush? Will you adhere to it under another Republican president? Somehow I think not, so why are you adhering to it under this president? Because he has a D behind his name? Sorry, but that letter has never guaranteed wisdom, honesty or justice.

[FarLeftFist]

57. Do you not believe 2 different people are individuals?

You seem to think we should hate ALL politicians instead of holding each one accountable. I think you might have outed yourself.

[MadHound]

58. Hate all politicians, no

There have been several that I've actually liked. But at this point in our nation's history I don't feel it is wise to trust any politician.

But that is rather beside the point, it is the policy itself, the Patriot Act, that is the problem here. Why should one find it to be an abomination, a threat to our civil liberties under one president, yet somehow a necessity under another. The policy has not changed substantially, just that letter behind the president's name:shrug;

[FarLeftFist]

59. Uh, but it has changed.

And when it changed Obama then supported it, back in 2006. So why complain in 2011 about old news?

[MadHound]

66. Changed? Really?

I remember that this board was livid about the "new and improved" Patriot Act back in 2006 as well. So what has changed?

Oh, yeah, my bad, I forgot, that little letter behind the president's name:eyes:

[FarLeftFist]

72. Again, I'm not the one signing anything into law or voting on it

Maybe you should write a letter to the President.

[MadHound]

81. No, you're just supporting the president in these matters,

And trust me, I write my representative regularly, about a myriad of different topics.

[FarLeftFist]

91. Not me. I support just about everything the D's do.

Because I've formed a coalition of people who are strictly anti-republican.

[Ramulux]

90. So let me get this straight

You think that Obama is aware of some sort of secret danger that no one else knows about, and that somehow makes it OK for our civil liberties to be stripped away?

Listen to yourself. That is the same argument people made to support the Patriot Act originally. Its called the constitution, it makes it clear that we have certain basic civil rights that cannot be taken away. The Patriot Act takes away some of those rights but you are saying that we should be OK with that, because it is protecting us from some horrible danger that none of us are aware of?

[Dragonfli]

51. because it is just a game, they will declare Republicans crazy and say that an asshole is better.

He has no intention of doing anything he says to anyone not high on the donor list.
We are just lied to for votes and then forgotten if not screwed outright afterwards, he was just lying when he said he would oppose the patriat act, Just a lie, nothing more nothing less..

[LoZoccolo]

54. Because if you keep talking about not supporting him, we'll keep alerting your posts. n/t

[MadHound]

60. Question for you. Who died and made you admin?

I'm asking questions and initiating a discussion here. If you find those questions, that discussion uncomfortable, that is not my problem, but rather yours.

[LoZoccolo]

64. If I thought I was an admin, I wouldn't be talking about alerting. n/t

[MadHound]

67. Really, so what would you be doing?

[LoZoccolo]

70. Probably "not alerting", as the alert button is meant to notify the moderators

and administrators of something. It would be like sending a message to myself.

[MadHound]

74. So as admin what would you be doing? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

78. Probably more of the back-end stuff, like Elad does.

I love technology. Not as much as you, you see. But I still love technology.

[Forkboy]

63. LOL

Mommy, people are saying things I don't like. Make them stop!!!111!!

[LoZoccolo]

I think this would be a better metaphor - and it is only a metaphor -

for what happens when people come here and distract us from our plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v097AaxKjsM

[Forkboy]

79. Well, yeah, of course that's a metaphor.

You'd get your ass handed to you if you really tried it. :shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

88. Even if I did, I would take it like an adult and not throw a crying fit about it.

http://tinyurl.com/3hm4qht

[Forkboy]

93. Well, one would hope so.

[MadHound]

80. Sadly typical of you, advocating violence,

Metaphorical or otherwise.

[LoZoccolo]

84. Do you also object to the "tombstone" metaphor? n/t

[MadHound]

75. LOL! Perfect! n/t

[Pholus]

104. From the board policy statement.

> Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals,
> and to support Democratic candidates for political office.

And when the two seem to be in conflict in a particular instance?

[ProSense]

55. He said this in

2003 before the law was revised, and even then, he called for replacing it (PDF).

I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal that addressed in a much more limited fashion the legitimate needs of law enforcement in combating terrorism (for example, permitting a warrant for the interception of cell phone calls, and not just land-based phones to accommodate changes in technology).

Not even Feingold called for the law to be repealed.

Most Democrats want to fix, not repeal the Patriot Act.

[MadHound]

61. And yet he has done neither,

Instead he has allowed this attack on our civil rights and liberties to continue.

What Feingold did or did not do is irrelevant, we're talking about what Obama just did.

[ProSense]

65. Are you aware

that a survey response in 2003 isn't a campaign promise for 2008?

Are you aware that the law is now different from when he commented on it?

[MadHound]

71. I am aware that Candidate Obama went from wanting to repeal the Patriot Act,

As you pointed out, to first voting for it, and now signing the "new and improved" version of it today. I think that sort of change is quite relevant, and quite telling.

The law is not that different than what was originally passed. Are you now saying that you are in favor of the Patriot Act?

[ProSense]

77. LOL!

"Are you now saying that you are in favor of the Patriot Act? "

What?

My position on the Patriot Act was and still is that it needs to be fixed. I even signed the ACLU petition calling for it to be fixed.

To answer this from the OP: "So tell me, why should I support Candidate Obama again, when President Obama continues to go against everything Candidate Obama stands for? "

Hey, search deep within yourself and weigh your perception of reality.

:rofl:

[MadHound]

82. I need weigh my perception of reality?

You're the one who wants the Patriot Act fixed, yet supports the President's actions in signing the extension into law. I'd have to say just from that that I'm not the person with a perception problem.

[ProSense]

85. Hmmm?

"You're the one who wants the Patriot Act fixed, yet supports the President's actions in signing the extension into law."

There are some things wrong with government, but I wouldn't advocate abolishing it just to fix them.

Still, you're the one grappling with spin to determine if you should support the President. You started a whole thread asking people to help reaffirm your support.

Yes, you have some thinking to do.

[FarLeftFist]

56. I don't get how

You could take a statement he made in 2003 about the THEN existing Patriot Act and apply it to TODAY when the Patriot Act was re-written 2 more times and in 2006 Obama then supported the NEW version. Its like the President saying he won't vote for the Ryan budget plan then the budget plan is re-written removing all the parts Obama was against then scolding him for voting on the new version. This OP seems like flamebait a little, especially for a Lefty website.

[MadHound]

62. The Patriot Act rewritten? No, more like tweaked a bit

That's all. It still allows for egregious violations of our civil rights, our civil liberties. But now you're OK with it because it was signed into law by a president who has a D behind his name.:puke:

[FarLeftFist]

68. LOL. You assume I'm all for it.

Not very open-minded of you. Lets just say I trust this administration to not view my beliefs as reason for me to be worried.

[MadHound]

73. So you are another who puts their trust in politicians,

A sad statement about your level of gulliblity. You should know as well as anyone that it is a serious mistake to trust any politician.

[FarLeftFist]

76. I'm the least gullible person you'll ever meet.

And when my life goes on without any interference from this Patriot Act it will prove my point.

[MadHound]

83. And if it doesn't?

Whoopsie! And this isn't just about your life, but about all our lives and liberties. But that's OK just think about yourself.

[FarLeftFist]

92. Can you give me some examples of

When the Patriot Act under Obama has affected a persons civil liberties who wasn't found to be a terrorist?

[sad sally]

69. Makes it very difficult to believe, huh?

Contrary to the misleading reassurances of PATRIOT Act apologists, some provisions of the legislation aren't merely likely to be abused by law enforcement in the future -- they've already led to civil liberties violations, many of them documented circa 2009 by the Justice Department. Through National Security Letters, for example, law enforcement is permitted to obtain sensitive information from the banks, phone companies and Internet service providers of any American citizen. The FBI doesn't need a warrant to request this private data, and the target of the snooping needn't even be suspected of any connection with terrorism! More than 6,000 Americans were spied on in this manner during 2009 (the most recent year data is available), and the federal government has itself documented flagrant FBI abuses. All that's missing is a desire to fix the problem. There are plenty of other objectionable PATRIOT ACT sections too: the "lone wolf" provision, roving wiretaps, Section 215 notices. All are worthy of study, especially since now the American people won't learn more about them through a Congressional debate.

President Obama's support for this latest re-authorization matters because it bears on a central promise of his candidacy. During Election 2008, he made it seem as though a vote for him would signify and end to the Bush Administration's excesses in the war on terrorism: its tendency to needlessly sacrifice civil liberties even when less intrusive measures were sufficient, its disdain for checks and balances on executive authority, its habit of using scare tactics to insist that national security legislation be passed quickly and without a debate. Hope. Change. Those were the slogans. They weren't about getting Osama bin Laden, nice as that was.

"I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never -- ever -- turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake," President Obama said as late as May 2009. "I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset -- in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval." In the same speech, he added that "I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why." That promise has been broken as surely as the implicit and explicit pledges to close Guantanamo Bay, to treat detainees well, to refrain from wars of choice without Congressional authorization, and to stop abusing the states secret privilege.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-end-of-hope-and-change/239428/?du

[coalition_unwilling]

86. Chains we can believe in - n/t

[white_wolf]

87. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Kucinch 2016! He would veto the Patriot Act. Hell, he is one of the few who voted against it when it was first up for a vote, because quote "I read it."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. But..but..curtailing our freedoms is to protect our freedoms....or, something.

Anyway, it makes our freedom loving president look tough on terra'.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[nilram]

96. Oh come on, they asked if he would *vote* against it, they didn't ask whether he would *sign* it!

Completely different!

[LLStarks]

98. Whenever he flip-flops on the Patriot Act, it has to be something he knows that we don't.

Or he's simply sold out on his principles.

[RandomThoughts]

99. The idea behind that.

Is if there is something he knows, that we do not, then he should educate the population and bring them along.

However there are many delusions that get people to think existence is despair, so they think keeping people from knowing the truth is what they should do.

The contradiction, is the explanation for the need of the patriot act, makes that need not needed by that explanation.



There is a thought on that.

Basically it is that how a nation sets its laws, those laws will apply outside that nation in the supernatural.

The idea of Asimov, where a subset, earth, sets the rules for the outer supernatural. Or the ideas of what you loose on earth you loose in the heavens. Or the idea that if they allow the patriot act in government, then rules applied back, allows for similar actions to clean up government private or public.

So if things are messed up, they could argue to do it to help clean up private and public governance. However it is better to have transparency and justice with compassion for all citizens, there is an argument that drastic measures have to be taken when things are really messed up.

And when I am due beer and travel money, and many experiences.

[JoeyT]

100. Oh look, it's another promise that came with an expiration date.

Not much of a shock, really.

[inna]

101. lol, some of the comments in this thread are just.... WOW.

:crazy:

[treestar]

105. the Patriot Act was so long, though

It had zillions of provisions. So this is too broad a brush.

Some of its provisions could be constitutional.

[slay]

106. Excellent point

it's the same problem i have with him too.