Why is he supporting this Bill. I thought that he was against it. This is what I have been talking about. Obama cannot hold himself up to a certain standard and flip and play the politics of usual. He will definately hear from MOVEON.ORG.

What are you talking about? Who are your sources? Are you one of those GOP infiltrators? $10.00 a month to plant lies on the Randi Rhodes site! Your post smells!

We'll see what happens in the Senate.

BTW, I did e-mail my congress person my disappointment over her yes vote. Of course, Laura Richardson has a few disclosure problems of her own. You can Google a gaggle of bad news about her. 37th District? read: Port of Long Beach.

She can't be any worse than John Doolittle of CA Dist 4. He took bribes from Jack Abramoff and is under investigation. That is why he's not running for re-election.

The way the Pugs are playing this; they want to set up these votes to use as fodder for attack ads come this fall.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fisa-over...2008-06-24.html

FISA overhaul spat moves from Capitol to campaign
By Walter Alarkon
Posted: 06/24/08 06:44 PM [ET]

The contentious debate over rewriting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) may be over in the House, but it’s just starting to gain ground on the campaign trail.

Republicans want to make it a national security issue this November. Democrats think that argument is outdated. But the majority party does acknowledge a new onslaught from liberal activists, who, though usually sympathetic to Democrats, are now talking about challenging some candidates based on the recent FISA overhaul.

The FISA deal reached between Republicans and centrist Democrats proposes to change the nation’s spying laws and provide an avenue for telecommunication companies that participated in the Bush administration’s domestic wiretapping program to be immune from lawsuits. The bill passed the House 293-129 last week, with most Democrats opposing it and just one Republican voting against it.

The vote is evidence that the country is still in a “center-right position” when it comes to terrorist surveillance, said Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

“Democrats are desperately trying to take the terrorist surveillance issue off the table now that the election is within sight, but this doesn’t change the fact that many of them voted against the critical intelligence program at every turn,” Spain said. “Just because they caved to Republican pressure in the end doesn’t mean we won’t expose their abysmal records.”

The NRCC has already cited House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who brokered the deal, as a way to go after Democrats who opposed it.

“[Rep.] Bill Foster (D-Ill.) sent a message to the voters of Illinois today that he is more interested in putting special interest politics above our national security,” Spain wrote in a release last week.

But Foster, a staunch telecom immunity critic who won a March special election to replace House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), and other liberal Democrats have emerged unscathed by previous FISA attacks, a Democratic strategist noted.

“I think the sort of scare tactics and fear-mongering [Republicans have] used to try to demagogue this issue are a reminder of the past,” the strategist said. “Voters have basically grown tired of it. They just don’t believe the party anymore on a whole realm of issues. National security is one of them.”

A new poll suggests that the FISA debate hasn’t resonated with voters in the way Republicans would like it to. According to the Rasmussen survey, 32 percent of likely voters think the government worries too much about protecting individual rights, while the same proportion believes that the government is too worried about national security.

Republicans may also have a difficult time paying for attacks focusing on FISA, with the NRCC raising far less money than its Democratic counterpart and with polls showing other issues — the economy, energy costs and the Iraq war — more on voters’ minds.

Republicans may have to rely on outside advocacy groups to push the issue; the NRCC has even circulated the names of Democratic opponents of the White House-backed FISA deal among telecom companies and their political action committees (PACs). One advocacy group advised by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, ran ads earlier this year criticizing House Democratic freshmen for not supporting a bill that included immunity. The ads ran in the districts of Reps. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Michael Arcuri (N.Y.), Nancy Boyda (Kan.), Tim Walz (Minn.), Chris Murphy (Conn.) and several others, according to Factcheck.org.

Liberal online activists are also looking to pressure Democrats over FISA. The netroots movement, a group of liberal bloggers and online activists, has been among the staunchest opponents of telecom immunity.

Blue America PAC, a group led by blogger Glenn Greenwald, has raised more than $310,000, much of which has been used to criticize Hoyer for going along with Republicans. The group bought a full-page ad in The Washington Post saying that Hoyer has made it possible for the Bush administration to wiretap “everyday Americans.”

“This election should be about change after the Bush administration, and I think that this vote shows a real jarring contradiction in this message,” said Joan McCarter, who blogs about FISA as mcjoan on Daily Kos. “From the outside, it really looks like business as usual. You know — ‘Congress bought and paid for by the telecoms.’ ”

McCarter and other bloggers have praised recently elected Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and Democratic House challengers such as Darcy Burner (Wash.) and Gary Trauner (Wyo.) for being vocal opponents of Republicans over FISA. These candidates have been rewarded with strong fundraising support online; for instance, Edwards on ActBlue.com has raised more than $455,000 this cycle, which is more than a third of her $1.18 million haul.

While it may be too late to challenge Democratic supporters of the FISA rewrite in primaries this year, the activists have said that they won’t forget.

“Will we actively work against them [in 2008]? Probably not,” McCarter said. “In 2010, that’s an open question.”

Oh, yeah. Doolittle should be in prison already.

Exactly, and I'm sorry to see so many Dems, including Obama, choosing their version of prudence (I'd call it unfounded, unnecessary cowardice) over that which they know to be right.

Sure as shit ain't gonna vote for John McCain because of it, though.

Here's what bothers me about what you said and this quote. The Dems are in charge. The Dems decide what does and doesn't come up for a vote. So if the Dems are SO against this, they wouldn't bing it up for a vote. They are in fact the ones setting this up to be used as fodder for attack ads by letting it come to a vote.

But it just isn't that simple, Kim. The majority is tenuous, and it is not sufficient to provide veto-override power. Just as important, there is an endless series of give-and-take deals, in that the minority DOES have enough power to throw a wrench in one piece of legislation because they are PO'd about something that was done with an entirely unrelated piece of legislation. Rep's have proved far more willing to pull these stunts than Dems were when they were in the minority.

I'm with you on the idealism - be great with me if they all voted on principle tied exclusively related to the given bill. But they don't and, from their perspective, can't. I disagree with them - I take it we both do. But their argument is more nuanced than, "We are powerless."

Obama needs to have the courage to vote against this, right now. I don't believe for a single second that he won't allow this to be abused if he becomes president. Some of you will yell at him for saying this. Well, have it. I'm am voting for him, but with low expectations that anything will really change for the better.

If Obama doesn't vote against, or fillibuster this bill, can we call him a bitter old bitch and a fucking whore?

Call him what you want to call him

Man, what a tough crowd here at the RRMB, but I wouldn't have it any other way.

I agree with Bushwa and Kim that this was a mistake. We know the Pugs are going to attack regardless of how much anyone tries to compromise and be bipartisan so we might as well do the right thing and try and explain it to the people.

On the other hand I don't have a list of everything my candidate has to agree with me on in detail. I'll take a broad range of issues we agree on as a smashing success after the last eight years. In fact, I'd be a little suspicious if Obama didn't sometimes take a different position on issues than what's considered the norm here. We hardly have the luxury of taking away our marbles and going home if we don't always get our way. This game is far too important this time.

The People, Not the Powerful '08

Jonathan Alter on Olbermann made a key point that may explain Obama's and Dems position. The FISA court is currently not in effect so President has the only oversight.

Obama is starting to sound like a Washington insider here. WTF is he doing? This is total Bulls*** no matter how you try and look at it.

Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...legislatio.html

=====================================
Oh Geez

Here's something that'll really get you pissed off

THIS -> http://youtube.com/watch?v=jovq9j8cJSc (this is funny, really)

AND THIS -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmp2XHgXkvU

Just remember, McCain is worse

I want to call him Sigfried.

You've got to read this bill before you critisize it. There is a lot of good things in it . Things like all surveillance must have a warrant before it can begin. (not in the old one.) It Bans reverse targeting. (prevents gov't from conductiing surveillance on people with whom callers communicate.) It requires the Gov't to receive a warrant to conduct surveillance on a American outside of the United States. There's a who lot more. Take the time to read it "the Foregin Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978" (FISA)

It's not all we hoped for but it's a whole lot better than the old piece of crap "The Protect America Act" and if it doesn't get passed before the old bill expires in the middle of August we will be ununable to conduct electronic surveillance on a large number of foreign targets putting our nation in greater jepordy.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about this bill. For a thorough scrutiny from the only Democrat that I trust with our Constitution and the cojones to call them as he sees them please follow this link

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/state...6/20080625f.htm

This bill does not plug up any loopholes or make us any safer but it does grant additional powers to the Executive to further undermine the Constitution. With that in mind, the best solution for now is to table it until after the elections and a new administration.
On the subject of immunity for the Telecoms, under current laws they have immunity as long as the request from government is lawful. Something which their team of lawyers is very well aware of. This immunity is for for them but for George Bush.
On Barack's statement of monitoring when he's president, I found it very arrogant. Does he know something we don't? Isn't there and election first?