Meet The New Boss

Jim Henley on Barack Obama's lack of leadership on FISA: "If the House and Senate leadership really did sneak the bill past him last week, which I’m not inclined to believe, still nothing stopped him from shutting them down this week. Except if he either doesn’t consider it important enough to be worth his time and credibility, or if he’s just as happy that the measure might pass." And of course if I were Barack Obama it's very possible that I wouldn't think giving the executive branch unlimited surveillance powers was a bad idea at all -- I'm going to be president in a few months.

For the rest of us, this is a concern. But it's still baffling to me how little concern congressional Republicans seem to have about this. It's not that I expect logical consistency to restrain them -- they complained about Bill Clinton's expansions of executive power in the 1990s then turned on a dime when Bush entered office and they'll turn again in 2009. But while they'll be able to whine about the inevitable abuses Bush-era policymaking has opened the door to, they won't actually be able to do anything about it. Meanwhile, I guess I hope President Obama uses his powers responsibly, but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for.

Photo courtesy of BarackObama.com used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Perhaps they're expecting it to be revised or largely rescinded, except that it will be impossible to undo the retroactive immunities conferred. Maybe that's all the Republicans and their collaborating Democrats care about.

Posted by El Cid | June 20, 2008 10:08 AM

I've been thinking along these lines as well. I assume that a deeply ingrained Washington pathology -- that it was, is, and will be a Republican power center, despite any electoral shifts to the contrary -- is driving the GOP here. They can't conceive of the possibility that Obama could beat McCain in the fall. Just look to recent history: when they lost Congress in '06, did they change policy course to distance themselves from Bush and recoup for '08? Nah. They double-downed with their guy -- part and parcel of the pathology of worshiping authoritarian, top-down power.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | June 20, 2008 10:08 AM

Isn't it possible, even if it's not likely, that he thinks he overturn most of the expansions in executive power once he's elected with stronger majorities in the House and Senate and that doing so would be easier than trying to curb the process now?

Posted by Brian | June 20, 2008 10:16 AM

It occurs to me that the telecom immunity offered in this legislation hinges entirely on certification by the attorney general, issued individually for each civil lawsuit.

But after January 20, 2009, the attorney general will not be Michael Mukasey. It is possible that Obama has not come down hard on this issue because he knows that once he takes office, the immunity seemingly open-and-shut immunity given the telecoms in this bill will evaporate?

Seems to me that there may be a long line of plaintiffs' attorneys outside the court clerk's filing window come Wednesday, Janaury 21, 2009.

Hmmmm, I wonder what John Edwards' views on telecom immunity are.

Posted by Andy | June 20, 2008 10:16 AM

Obama's sellıng out on thıs was predıctable ın the extreme. Even ıf he secretly hates telecom amnesty, ıt's a no-braıner to let thıs through because he can always use ıt agaınst the accusatıons that he wants to retreat and surrender.

Telecom amnesty and all constıtutıonal matters have to be defended ın Congress. Presıdent Obama wıll only stand up gıven cover from Congressıonal Democrats, and they are obvıously sellouts.

Posted by Marshall | June 20, 2008 10:19 AM

Obama's sellıng out on thıs was predıctable ın the extreme. Even ıf he secretly hates telecom amnesty, ıt's a no-braıner to let thıs through because he can always use ıt agaınst the accusatıons that he wants to retreat and surrender.

Telecom amnesty and all constıtutıonal matters have to be defended ın Congress. Presıdent Obama wıll only stand up gıven cover from Congressıonal Democrats, and they are obvıously sellouts.

Posted by Marshall | June 20, 2008 10:20 AM

Is Obama really the leader of the party at the moment? Isn't he just a junior Senator running for President?

Why not blame the Congressional leadership?

Posted by Peter K. | June 20, 2008 10:24 AM

Good leaders pick their battles Matt.

Posted by Jake | June 20, 2008 10:25 AM

Andy, from what I've seen the amnesty is for the period from 11 Sep 2001 to 17 Jan 2007. Ashcroft and Gonzales have already made the certifications necessary -- otherwise this legislation wouldn't be going anywhere. Anything done by Mukasey or later AGs is irrelevant.

Posted by KCinDC | June 20, 2008 10:26 AM

Call me naive if you want, but I can't get very worked up about this stuff. If the surveillance is some sort of automatic, statistical pattern recognition system, then I don't think its too much to worry about. Granted, I doubt it will be very helpful due to the leakage/false alarms tradeoff.

Invading countries for crazy reasons, torturing people, claiming that the Constitution gives the President dictatorial powers: these are the major outrages of the day.

Posted by Jim W | June 20, 2008 10:27 AM

I'm sorry, but someone who attended and taught at two of the top law schools in the country should know better. A civil rights attorney who...isn't particularly interested in civil rights? I'm still having trouble accepting not only his lack of interest in this issue, but his endorsement of (and radio ad for) Blue Dog John Barrow against a more liberal primary challenger. Barrow supported eliminating the Estate Tax, is on the wrong side of the FISA bill, and has one of the most conservative voting records of any House Democrat.

Not to steal Matt's well-deserved thunder, but Glenn Greenwald is invaluable on this issue.

Posted by chris09 | June 20, 2008 10:28 AM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by gar2458 | June 20, 2008 10:29 AM

The Republicans don't worry about Democrats having abusive surveillance powers because they know that the Democrats won't use them.

Posted by The Fool | June 20, 2008 10:29 AM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by gar2458 | June 20, 2008 10:30 AM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by gar2458 | June 20, 2008 10:30 AM

Given the past history, if Obama does become the President, the impeachment of the President will come back on the table again, even if the Dems are in a majority, and the Dem leaders will successfully, and out of fear, impeach the President Obama for one transgression or the other as soon as a two bit Republican complains about Obams' inattention to some minor issue.

Dems are that stupid and cowardly.

Posted by gregor | June 20, 2008 10:31 AM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by gar2458 | June 20, 2008 10:31 AM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by gar2458 | June 20, 2008 10:31 AM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by gar2458 | June 20, 2008 10:32 AM

January 25, 2009. President Obama writes a letter to Congress informing them that he has it on "good authority" that there are a number of Al Qaeda agents operating in Congress. So, he's tapped all of their phones and will be recording everything. Of course, if they'd like to limit his ability to do so, he'd be happy to sign a bill rescinding his authority to do so...

I can dream, can't I?

Posted by Tel | June 20, 2008 10:44 AM

Isn't it possible, even if it's not likely, that he thinks he overturn most of the expansions in executive power once he's elected with stronger majorities in the House and Senate and that doing so would be easier than trying to curb the process now?

Posted by Brian | June 20, 2008 10:51 AM

"Andy, from what I've seen the amnesty is for the period from 11 Sep 2001 to 17 Jan 2007. Ashcroft and Gonzales have already made the certifications necessary -- otherwise this legislation wouldn't be going anywhere. Anything done by Mukasey or later AGs is irrelevant."

I don't think that's clear. Ashcroft and Gonzales would have been reluctant to commit anything to paper at the time, for various reasons. If the telecoms are trying to sell anything less than a 100%, buttoned up, contemporaneous affidavit (i.e., one issued at the time), the District Court can hand them their heads, and the office of the AG doesn't even have to do anything other than refuse to bail them out.

So, are we certain that there is a) written request, b) signed by someone who meets the new statutory definition, which is c) clear and d) contemporaneous?

This isn't a defense of Obama, I'm gladly for him but the Lieberman / Barrow endorsements are plenty to convince me that he ain't perfect. But seriously, some nuance here ... small sell out ain't big sell out. He's done a lot right, and is continuing to. I will 1) grant him a few sins (though howling is fine), and 2) grant him that he may have a 3 rail shot going on some of these things. His power, as noted, is not unlimited right now, and he has all sorts of power to alter how this goes once he gets in.

Posted by drinkof | June 20, 2008 10:51 AM

...but his endorsement of (and radio ad for) Blue Dog John Barrow against a more liberal primary challenger. Barrow supported eliminating the Estate Tax, is on the wrong side of the FISA bill, and has one of the most conservative voting records of any House Democrat.

Ugh. So sick of this one. Criticize him over FISA all you like, but the Barrow attack is just so lame.

Barrow endorsed Obama in the primary. Not rushing out at the last minute; Barrow endorsed back in February, when Obama needed all that backing. He then won the primary by getting a tad over half the votes. You think the way to unify the party now is for him to immediately turn around and knife one of the people who supported him and bounce the guy out of office? Cripes.

Posted by jbryan | June 20, 2008 10:58 AM

Drinkof,

I agree that Obama will have a few small sellouts along the way- this is politics right?

My issue is that this FISA compromise is a big sell out. Constitutional checks and balances are slowly being eroded and Congress just lies back and takes it.

Perhaps Obama will be wise enough not to abuse these new powers but will the next president after him be as wise? I would rather not take that chance.

Posted by Bob Oso | June 20, 2008 11:07 AM

Yeah, Barrow's what passes for a Democrat in Georgia. Any politician in Georgia, of any stripe, no doubt our impotent Dems too, have long been taught to cozy-up to homies such as Ma Bellsouth. (Well, she was our homie until morphing to Ma AT&T and moving on to a double-wide somewhere in Texas, of course.) Most of our country-a** Georgia Dems and Repugs can barely power-up a computer on their own, so bless their hearts, they likely have no clue as to what they're even giving away when they continue to do Big Telco's lobbyists' bidding. They just do exactly what the lobbyista tell 'em/pay 'em to do, go play some golf, and wine and dine themselves into a stupor. Obama's just sniffing along the same 'ole same 'ole, good 'ole boy money trail. You'd think he, of all people, would have put a finger to them winds 'o change by now. Must be all just hot air...those mighty winds 'o change. As if we don't have enough of that down here already. I miss Hillary already.

Posted by SpaceyG | June 20, 2008 11:07 AM

Because he is a politician... he will tell you what you want to hear (and does a very good job at doing so)... frankly, both candidates are undeserving of the presidency of the United States...

http://snipurl.com/2lrgv

Posted by jarhead | June 20, 2008 11:13 AM

I miss Hillary already.

Hillary could probably derail this, too, if she wanted, you know.

Nothing's stopping her.

Posted by jbryan | June 20, 2008 11:14 AM

Isn't it possible, even if it's not likely, that he thinks he overturn most of the expansions in executive power once he's elected with stronger majorities in the House and Senate and that doing so would be easier than trying to curb the process now?

No.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 11:25 AM

So we've seen today that a U.S. President can seize absolute power, and the opposition party will go meekly along.

Can you say, "Dry run" ?

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 11:30 AM

Selling out on the principle that it's OK for our telcom companies to violate our constitutional rights if the AG says so isn't a small sell-out. It's a big one. To the extent that neither HRC nor BHO act on this, it just indicates that they're standard-issue Village establishment pols who act out the standard roles of Democrats, scripted for them by our MSM - caving in the face of Republican threats that we're soft on terror. Still waiting for that "change" thing I keep hearing about.

Posted by scottreads | June 20, 2008 11:33 AM

jbryan, Barrow endorsed Obama after he had already won Georgia. It's still before most Dems did, but I'm not really sure it was much of a gamble. I'm not saying Obama should've turned against Barrow, I just don't see a compelling reason to weigh in for someone who made this ad: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WOolIZpw8Y

I know he's not on par with Joe Lieberman, it's not the end of the world, etc. I know that he narrowly won in 2004 (I lived in Athens at the time and still have a Barrow bumper sticker) and then won even more narrowly after re-districting in 2006. I'd be fine with Obama supporting him after he's won the party nomination, given that Barrow is better than a Republican alternative. That being said, there is still a primary, and there's a more liberal alternative to John Barrow. I'm not trying to single him out as the root of all evil in the party, but given the enormity of this issue, I think it's reasonable to support a viable alternative and to point out why one is doing so.

Posted by chris09 | June 20, 2008 11:33 AM

Doesn't this tell you that maybe the President and Republicans in congress actually believe this is the right move, regardless of who's in power? Who is the more principled here? Matt who is saying he only disagrees with it when a republican is in power, but when the democrat has the power it is fine. We are going to see a lot of inconsistencies in this election season from "heads in the sand" democrats, I for one will be laughing my head off.

Posted by Judd | June 20, 2008 11:35 AM

Obama is one big pussy. He ducks every time any significant issue arises. Every time. And if he is forced to speak out on any topic, he'll later back away. Both sides of every issue.

You get the leaders you deserve. And we'll get a big pussy.

Good for me, though, because I am Big Dick.

Posted by Big Dick | June 20, 2008 11:36 AM

"Isn't it possible, even if it's not likely, that he thinks he overturn most of the expansions in executive power once he's elected with stronger majorities in the House and Senate and that doing so would be easier than trying to curb the process now?"

I am disappointed in his silence on this issue but this has been in the back of my mind. However, I also realize it is difficult to give up power once you have it.

I am still hopeful that, even if the current FISA law is enacted, when Obama is president, he and Congress will reign in this abuse of civil liberties.

Posted by John B | June 20, 2008 11:36 AM

Bill Clinton was freakin' horrible on civil rights, especially after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Isn't it possible, even if it's not likely, that he thinks he overturn most of the expansions in executive power once he's elected with stronger majorities in the House and Senate and that doing so would be easier than trying to curb the process now?

"Now" being in the middle of an election. I'd say it's likely. There are some people on the left who apparently have a need to be drama queeny and call Obama a sellout as often as possible just so they can say "I told you so." It's some sort of psychological defect. Maybe because Obama is black?

As the NYTimes said:

"Senator Barack Obama opposes immunity and voted against the temporary expansion of FISA. We hope he will show strong leadership this time. He might even take time off from the campaign to vote against the disturbing deal brewing in the back rooms of Congress."

I see him undoing it, if he's elected in six months.

Posted by Peter K. | June 20, 2008 11:42 AM

"I've been thinking along these lines as well. I assume that a deeply ingrained Washington pathology -- that it was, is, and will be a Republican power center, despite any electoral shifts to the contrary -- is driving the GOP here."

Posted by BryklynLibrul

It could also be that they assume that such executive branch powers are far, far more exploitable by a GOP president. Remember, we're talking about the NSA, CIA, and Pentagon. 'Liberal' there might mean 'Republican who isn't batsh*t insane'.

Posted by Barry | June 20, 2008 11:45 AM

I'm not trying to single him out as the root of all evil in the party, but given the enormity of this issue, I think it's reasonable to support a viable alternative and to point out why one is doing so.

Chris,

I agree, it's very reasonable to support a viable alternative and to point out why. I think the people supporting Barrow's primary opponent have good cause for doing so, if they believe she can win.

I don't think it's reasonable at this point in time, though, for Obama to support primary opposition to one of his supporters, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect him to. When you've got a primary he won with a bit over 50% and you've got the media hunting for conservative southern Dems who say "no, sorry, I can't endorse him" as a way of damaging his candidacy, the last thing he should be doing is trying to get one of the conservative southern Dems who DID support him bounced out of office.

What a message that would send. "Not only will you get ads run against you in the general if you support me, but I'll turn on you too and ensure you go down in flames in primaries before you even make it to the general election. Oh, and by the way, if you supported Hillary, please come support me anyway, even if I might sink you shortly after."

As I said, it's perfectly fine to criticize Barrow over FISA; it's fine to criticize Obama for not fighting this immunity crap harder. But the expectation that Obama shouldn't be supporting Barrow is nuts.

Barrow endorsed Obama after he had already won Georgia.

Not a huge risk, no, and Obama did win Barrow's district in the primary. But he was still getting out way ahead of the field by endorsing in February, and being in a conservative district that he's narrowly won and held, it is still something that could have posed a problem for him later on.

Back in February, Obama *needed* those superdelegate commitments because he was lagging so far behind Clinton in them. So Barrow came out at a critical time and I think it's ridiculous to not see why Obama would feel a favor or two is owed for that. I think you'd see the same sort of thing (appropriately) in any decent politician (or person) -- it's the same way, based on media reports, Clinton decided to give up when Rangel made his case that her staying in hurt the black congressmen who had supported her but were now facing primary challenges of their own.

Posted by jbryan | June 20, 2008 11:51 AM

Maybe Obama is as much of a megalomaniacal, Machiavellian sociopath as Bush is. Could that be the explanation?

Posted by steve duncan | June 20, 2008 11:54 AM

The difficulty a leading Democratic presidential candidate, especially one who does care about civil liberties, faces in this complex of issues cannot be overstated. It is truly a fine line Obama is being asked to walk by Matt if he expects him to restore perceptions of Democratic strength on national security, protect civil liberties, AND get elected.

Matt will say that there is no conflict there, and I agree with that on substance. The problem is not with the policy and constitutional imperatives, which are easily reconcilable, but with the activists on the civil libertarian side and the political opportunists on the executive maximalist/terror exploitation side, who mutually disdain the other side's animating concerns.

Obama this week supported SCOTUS' granting habeus-esque rights to challenge detention to non-citizens held off U.S, soil. He pointed out that we used the federal court system to deal with Al Qaeda perpetrators in the 1990s, to good effect. For this he was branded a 9-10 thinker who doesn't believe in preventing attacks. We know this is hogwash, but the reality is that what he says and how well he walks the fine line we are asking him to walk doesn't matter when we dealing with dishonest and/or obtuse obfuscators who can successfully portray any concern with means as a reluctance to do what is necessary to keep the country safe.

Until we somehow deal with the fact that such methods are effective politically, to some extent Matt's desire for a strong national-security Democratic party that still upholds the constitution, however achievable in policy terms, will remain elusive for political reasons.

The practical solution I would propose for the real world where we can't transform the electorate to think more like us would be to support Obama in his efforts to make clear how he will fight terrorism and handle national security, and choose to believe in his sincere desire to protect our liberties. The drawback to this solution is obvious I know, but the advantage might be avoiding George W. Bush's third term.

Posted by Mike | June 20, 2008 12:04 PM

In terms of Barrow, I'd just like to second the annoyingness of this line of argument. Barrow won re-election by less than 1000 votes. His "more progressive" challenger is an African American woman, in a region of the country where no African American has ever been elected for the first time in a majority white district.

So, basically, on the one hand we have a guy who endorsed Obama in the primaries at a time when there was some risk in doing so (and in a region where not all of his Democratic colleagues have done so, even now), and who stands a decent chance of winning. On the other hand we have an undistinguished state senator with no money and little chance of winning. Is this really the ultimate symbol of Obama's betrayal of progressivism?

Posted by John | June 20, 2008 12:09 PM

I guess we'll sit quietly with our traitorous civil libertarian thoughts until we have the safety of "more and better Democrats." Until then, we'll just believe in the audacity of hope, or something. If only those pesky activist civil libertarians wouldn't make things so difficult for us, or if those naughty maximalist terror exploiters weren't so bad.....You know, a plague on both their houses, they're distracting us from the Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes!

Posted by scottreads | June 20, 2008 12:12 PM

I guess the conspiracy theorists are right - some secret and nasty matters are dear to the hearts of both parties. And I think the issue is not so much the penalties that would result from all the current lawsuits against the telecomm companies, but rather it's the discovery process that would take place in the trials. All the gory details would come out, including the eager participation of both parties in trampling our once-prized Constitution.

Posted by matutinal | June 20, 2008 12:12 PM

We didn't need that $165 billion anyway. Don't know why people are getting so riled up about it.

Posted by Alan in SF | June 20, 2008 12:25 PM

Let's not even joke about Obama being the same as the old boss. He's been weak on this telecom amnesty business, and he should be called on it in the blogosphere.

Posted by Psittakos | June 20, 2008 12:47 PM

Until then, we'll just believe in the audacity of hope, or something.

Yeah, Obama should be up there on the Hill alongside Fightin' Hillary. I mean, Senator Clinton's leading the charge against the bill, right? ... Right?

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | June 20, 2008 12:56 PM

Watching C-Span and hearing the fellow up from all the callers - MOST of them are all VERY upset Americans.

At this point in time - IS ANYONE going to care what Obama says? The Commander and Cheif is flat out missing.

WTF is Obama doing - WHERE THE HELL IS HE?

Hate to say but Hillary was right - you don't saying nothing and pretend nothing happened.

Posted by Me-again | June 20, 2008 1:13 PM

"In targeting and wiretapping Americans, the administration would have to get individual court orders from the intelligence court, but in “exigent” or emergency circumstances it would be able to go ahead for at least seven days without a court order if it asserted that “intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost.”

JESUS H. CHRIST! THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!

Posted by Drama Queen | June 20, 2008 1:18 PM

"Isn't it possible, even if it's not likely, that he thinks he overturn most of the expansions in executive power once he's elected with stronger majorities in the House and Senate and that doing so would be easier than trying to curb the process now?"

No. There's nothing in the world easier than not passing a bill. The Speaker just has to decide not to put it on the calendar. The worst that could happen is John Boehner will go on the news and say this is the most obsctructionist leadership he's ever seen in all his years in the Congress. Which he does every week anyway. And despite what the GOP says, there's no need for an extension bill. However, **passing** a bill is tough, and slow, even if you do have big majorities.

Posted by Cliffy | June 20, 2008 1:22 PM

Oh, also, while I haven't read the bill, my assumption is that once the telecoms have the amnesty, it can't be revoked. ISTM that would be an ex post facto violation. The sunset on the bill would just apply to **future** amnesty for telcos "asked" to spy on Americans in future.

Posted by Cliffy | June 20, 2008 1:27 PM

"You know, a plague on both their houses, they're distracting us from the Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes!"

To a certain extent, a plague would be fine with me, although as an ACLU member I have to think I may be among those not innoculated. It's not the Most Important Election I care about (I mean yeah, I care, don't you, scottreads?), so much as picking the right fights. I believe he's prioritizing the Constitutional harms being done, putting the summary denial of habeus before a legisltive act that paves the way to a shifting of some surveilance methods. I think he thinks torture and indefinite detention hugely trump some shifty manoeuvers on surveilance that we all know is eventually going to be done. The harms aren't even close. If he was just a senator, sure, go after it all, but you gotta cut a guy some slack in this environment if you want him to win.

Furthermore, he isn't the leadership, it is they who caved, and did it far more easily and fulsomely in Obama's body weeks ago than what happened in the House this week. What was the intervention from him that we think would have influenced the House leadership this week?

If you are a single issue voter (and on this issue, I would give you credit for that), and his lack of action on this nullifies your preference for him over McCain, I guess that's your call. I would question that caculation, but okay. But remeber what you are giving up: the telecom immunity issue to my misnd doesn't even approach the kind of harm being done in the detention/torture arena. And John McCain this week called the Court's decision "among the worst in its history."

Is that who you want defending the constitution for the next four or eight years, scottreads?

Posted by <ike | June 20, 2008 1:49 PM

"You know, a plague on both their houses, they're distracting us from the Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes!"

To a certain extent, a plague would be fine with me, although as an ACLU member I have to think I may be among those not innoculated. It's not the Most Important Election I care about (I mean yeah, I care, don't you, scottreads?), so much as picking the right fights. I believe he's prioritizing the Constitutional harms being done, putting the summary denial of habeus before a legisltive act that paves the way to a shifting of some surveilance methods. I think he thinks torture and indefinite detention hugely trump some shifty manoeuvers on surveilance that we all know is eventually going to be done. The harms aren't even close. If he was just a senator, sure, go after it all, but you gotta cut a guy some slack in this environment if you want him to win.

Furthermore, he isn't the leadership, it is they who caved, and did it far more easily and fulsomely in Obama's body weeks ago than what happened in the House this week. What was the intervention from him that we think would have influenced the House leadership this week?

If you are a single issue voter (and on this issue, I would give you credit for that), and his lack of action on this nullifies your preference for him over McCain, I guess that's your call. I would question that caculation, but okay. But remeber what you are giving up: the telecom immunity issue to my misnd doesn't even approach the kind of harm being done in the detention/torture arena. And John McCain this week called the Court's decision "among the worst in its history."

Is that who you want defending the constitution for the next four or eight years, scottreads?

Posted by <ike | June 20, 2008 1:52 PM

This is from the original post Matt refers to:

"I have a sneaking suspicion that, as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, Obama could have kept the bill from getting even this far with a quiet word or two."

We can just dismiss this magical thinking in any case. It has nothing to do with how the world works. This has been brewing and festering in Congress since before the nomination was a glimmer in Barack's eye. Now he's the presumed nominee, so he's suddenly King of Congress? This is nuts. Congress is Congress, ie. its own branch of government, of which Obama is a junior member. To think he has some mystical powers over the leadership of the other chamber? WTF?

Who knows if his chat with Lieberman will even change Joe, for that matter? He wnated to get the Muslim thing off his chest, that was all. Has nothing to do with any power he may have over Steny.

You're damn right, Obama's not liberal Jesus. He's a politician. He balances interests, picks his battles, and tries to make things incrementally better.

I still believe he is more committed to liberties than his opponent, and in fact more committed than the average Democrat.

Posted by Mike | June 20, 2008 2:06 PM

I don't think it's a good idea. If he's going to be president, it's not now- it's in half a year. Half a year of crap it's been made easier for the NSA or whoever else to do. Who the fuck are the NSA? Are they staffed by Jesus Camp types?Dominionists? I don't know, and I sure think a lot of you other Dems & liberals out there don't know, either.

If Barack should have these powers to get anything done he needs to get done, he should have them when he's president, and that doesn't mean the president should have them now. It's enough of a problem that Barack probably can't guarantee that people like the NSA aren't going to do really wrong and really unauthorized things when he's the president, and just not tell him about it. Giving some invasive surveillance powers to Bush and his thugs now is not a balm for any of these concerns.

Posted by Swan | June 20, 2008 2:17 PM

Whenever Obama is criticized, it is a metaphysical certainty that his partisans will do the following:

1)race bait
2)whine about the Clintons
3)break out the strawman

Congratulations gentleman for once again showing Ygleasias' readership how vacuous you are.

Posted by Obama: The Lesser Asshat | June 20, 2008 2:29 PM

Matt: You reveal a lot in this post. It was never about principles; it's always been about power.

Posted by Christian | June 20, 2008 3:04 PM

Obama doesn't want to be marginalized and powerless the way Carter was - he has to play ball and maintain bridges with the congressional Democratic leadership - or at least not alienate them - if he wants to get anything done. You pick and choose your battles.

Posted by ethel-To-tilly | June 20, 2008 3:05 PM

Whenever Obama is criticized, it is a metaphysical certainty that his partisans will do the following:
1)race bait
2)whine about the Clintons
3)break out the strawman
Congratulations gentleman for once again showing Ygleasias' readership how vacuous you are.

Vacuous? I don't think so.

I do think Obama's hiring of Patti Solis Doyle was a Fuck You to the Clinton campaign. Doyle's on top again and the Clinton campaign staffers are out looking for a job. Some of Clinton's big donors were aghast. It definitely means Hillary won't be VP. Thank God. She ran a horribly racist primary campaign - granted she was reaching b/c she was desperate after Iowa and Super Tuesday, but still.

But it is good to see Hillary will be campaigning with Obama and that they'll work together to defeat McCain. Hillary's not stupid, she recognizes there's a new sherrif in town. I'm also hearing she might get a Supreme Court nomination out of it.

Posted by Peter K. | June 20, 2008 3:08 PM

Friendly wager: If Obama is elected president, he will not roll back any executive powers of the last two administrations, and he will seek more.

Posted by JSA | June 20, 2008 3:17 PM

"...they complained about Bill Clinton's expansions of executive power in the 1990s then turned on a dime when Bush entered office and they'll turn again in 2009."

Funny thing: in a two party system, when one side is accusing the other of inconsistency, hypocrisy & flip-flopping, the odds are the accusers are just as guilty.

The left didn't have a problem with Clinton's expansion of executive power; under GWB many have been convinced that the president is shredding the constitution as part of his own power grab; and under Obama the dems will once again support aggressive interpretations of what the president is allowed to do.

It's not that I expect logical consistency to restrain either them or you, Matt. You've proven time & time again that you're willing to toss aside intellctual honesty as long as it helps your team.

Posted by T-web | June 20, 2008 3:24 PM

Doesn't this tell you that maybe the President and Republicans in congress actually believe this is the right move, regardless of who's in power? Who is the more principled here? Matt who is saying he only disagrees with it when a republican is in power, but when the democrat has the power it is fine. We are going to see a lot of inconsistencies in this election season from "heads in the sand" democrats, I for one will be laughing my head off.

Posted by Judd | June 20, 2008 11:35 AM

=================================================

You beat me to it. Occam's Razor explanation as to why the Republicans aren't concerned about about a Dem president with enhanced power is they believe it is needed.

Posted by Campesino | June 20, 2008 3:38 PM

It's not that I expect logical consistency to restrain either them or you, Matt. You've proven time & time again that you're willing to toss aside intellctual honesty as long as it helps your team.

Posted by T-web | June 20, 2008 3:24 PM
================================================

Once again, MY = Democratic Hacks R Us

Posted by Campesino | June 20, 2008 3:53 PM

Matthew's post is just another episode of "when the delusional write."

Posted by Frank Davis | June 20, 2008 3:54 PM

This post raises a more general question about Obama. How much time has he spent doing the work of representing his state and the country.

He reminds me of Senator Edwards; gets elected then goes on the campaign trail.

I recall his comments to a reporter regarding why, as Chairman of a committee dealing with NATO, he had not held any hearings on NATOs involvement in Afghanistan. The answer - that's when his presidential campaign started.

Posted by davod | June 20, 2008 4:02 PM

Just when I think there couldn't be anything written in the world more simplistic and mendacious than an article in the Atlantic, I need only to read the sycophantic rabble posted by the readers who are "informed" by it.

Posted by Whatdoesitmatter | June 20, 2008 4:04 PM

"Oh, also, while I haven't read the bill, my assumption is that once the telecoms have the amnesty, it can't be revoked. ISTM that would be an ex post facto violation."

I don't believe that to be the case. Ex post facto exists because of the inherent unfairness in criminalizing an action not illegal when done. That wouldn't apply here.

"Now he's the presumed nominee, so he's suddenly King of Congress? This is nuts."

Correct. I wish he had done differently, but still. This is right.

"Friendly wager: If Obama is elected president, he will not roll back any executive powers of the last two administrations, and he will seek more."

Actually he will, and in pure self-interest. The fact is that Bush and crowd, as nasty as the side effects of the powers they've claimed have been, haven't really been able to exercise most of these powers because they're afraid to do so openly. Many, many people have been hurt because of the power they have grabbed, but it's a shaky foundation. Their attempts might have even succeeded if the Iraq war hadn't been such a debacle, or they had been better at weilding the tools of government, but the fact is, they were awful at all of it.

Obama will jettison, for example, all the 'power' claimed in signing agreements, because it's bulls(*t power. He'll work through a thorough review of the torture authorizations, and will reject them. All of this he will do irrespective of what a good guy he may or may not be. He'll do it because if he doesn't, it all sticks to him. These guys may be political to the core, but they're smart and they get how all this works. There's simply nothing in it for Obama, and much downside, in clinging to the 'power' that Bush grabbed in secret.

He may keep some that you wouldn't like. He may not roll back all the powers you'd wish. But "not roll back any executive powers"? That's nonsense.

Posted by drinkof | June 20, 2008 4:31 PM

"The Republicans don't worry about Democrats having abusive surveillance powers because they know that the Democrats won't use them.

Posted by The Fool | June 20, 2008 10:29 AM"

I'm assuming that is the joke the poster's pseudonym implies it is. Otherwise --

Wilson, FDR, JFK, RFK as Attorney General, LBJ.

Some of the worse abusers of surveillance and manipulators of personal data in US history. And pretty bad for general authoritarianism, even if often in justified causes. Arguably, Bill Clinton, if you count abuse of FBI records in this context.

It's not in any case clear that Bush has expanded the overall power of the presidency to anywhere near where it was under LBJ, even in the specific field of national security. He still operates under the War Powers Resolution and specific authorizing resolutions. The Military Commissions Act is an Act of Congress.

The surveillance under discussion seems easily legitimate. It concerns calls crossing US borders to international locations, taking one side at least outside the Constitution's borders entirely, and probably subjecting it to the surveillance of foreign agencies as well. There can be no sensible expectation of privacy, at least not certainty. At the level of statistical data compilation, one's privacy is unaffected anyway. And the purpose is intelligence gathering, not collecting evidence for what would, if warrantless, be the unconstitutional trial of US citizens.

The idea of the unitary executive, often used against Bush, is no constitutional aberration or "dictatorial" power. It is of the essence of the Constitution. Only two executive officers are elected, only they are named in the Constitution, and only the President is invested with "the Executive Power". The idea that any part of the executive branch should not be subject to him, or should be invested with independent Constitutional authority, would be an affront to the Constitution and constitutionalism as a notion. It is appalling that this once rudimentary notion is now thought radical and evil.

The "Executive power"'s scope would be problematic were it being used to transgress Congress' legislative power, undercut the existing jurisdiction of the courts, or try US citizens subject to the Constitution and protected by it. Although Lincoln used military courts to try civilians on the well-established grounds that vast areas of the US were then in rebellion or war zones. Not explicitly in the Constitution but well-precedented in survival situations. This is not such a survival situation, and Bush has correspondingly been modest in the extreme. The Military Commissions were put on a statutory footing, though once believed to be an executive power. It is unclear that this should be necessary for any prisoner not a US citizen. Pace Lincoln, US citizens are rightly excluded and handed over to US courts. Every element of surveillance affecting US citizens or trial evidence has been done via FISA procedures. Congress' powers are intact.

Constitutions by definition set up a body politic. Its members are its citizens. It's protections and duties fall on those citizens wherever, or on foreigners on the soil it governs. It neither need, nor should, nor as a matter of logic does, govern actions by or against foreigners on foreign soil. Nor is there any logical basis to extend the authority of the courts beyond US borders for the benefit of non-US nationals. Frankly, the President would be within his powers, rights and duties to ignore any such efforts.

In the past, though abused, US citizens had access to the courts in principle. It should be so in practice. In the past, legitimate POWs were held for the duration under Geneva rules. It should be so. In the past, unlawful combatants were shot, as of right, or handled gently at victors' discretion.

It was wholly political of the world to extend POW rights to non-soldiers, and the US rightly did not sign that 1977 protocol. America's foes neither are legitimate combatants, nor act like them, nor expect us to act like them, and neither give nor receive quarter.

Bush has been an extraordinarily inept president across the board, but he has navigated every one of these mazes well within norms of justice, the Constitution, the laws, and his lawful powers.

A judge can concoct any legal argument he wants, and I will lack the skill to counter it. But it will change none of the above. The Constitution's nature and content will not actually have changed, we'll just carry on ignoring it.

Lastly, one poster cited "invading countries for crazy reasons". Everybody believed in the WMDs. Saddam acted for years as though he had them. If, as may be true, he did so as a deception strategy to maintain his power, well tough. Didn't work as planned, and earned its fair reward. He flouted the requirements of the UN Security Council for a decade and fired on those enforcing its mandates. Under the international law of the UN era, easily a full justification for war, even if the Council choked at the last second. Nor did said choke matter, since the preceding Fall 2002 resolution, or any predecessor back to 1990, independently justified war. Saddam flouted the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, which limited his sovereignty by imposing these conditions. Under international law from long before the UN, always justification for renewing the war interrupted by the ceasefire. Not to mention the extraordinary number of terrorists on his payroll.

Reasons don't get any better. And that's without drawing in any "Realist" arguments at all. A proper Realist would have said just pick an enemy justified by any of the above causes, legitimately smash him by way of example, then leave the mess.

Bush was only crazy to stay in Iraq after December 2003.

Posted by GB | June 20, 2008 4:43 PM

"The Republicans don't worry about Democrats having abusive surveillance powers because they know that the Democrats won't use them.

Posted by The Fool | June 20, 2008 10:29 AM"

I'm assuming that is the joke the poster's pseudonym implies it is. Otherwise --

Wilson, FDR, JFK, RFK as Attorney General, LBJ.

Some of the worse abusers of surveillance and manipulators of personal data in US history. And pretty bad for general authoritarianism, even if often in justified causes. Arguably, Bill Clinton, if you count abuse of FBI records in this context.

It's not in any case clear that Bush has expanded the overall power of the presidency to anywhere near where it was under LBJ, even in the specific field of national security. He still operates under the War Powers Resolution and specific authorizing resolutions. The Military Commissions Act is an Act of Congress.

The surveillance under discussion seems easily legitimate. It concerns calls crossing US borders to international locations, taking one side at least outside the Constitution's borders entirely, and probably subjecting it to the surveillance of foreign agencies as well. There can be no sensible expectation of privacy, at least not certainty. At the level of statistical data compilation, one's privacy is unaffected anyway. And the purpose is intelligence gathering, not collecting evidence for what would, if warrantless, be the unconstitutional trial of US citizens.

The idea of the unitary executive, often used against Bush, is no constitutional aberration or "dictatorial" power. It is of the essence of the Constitution. Only two executive officers are elected, only they are named in the Constitution, and only the President is invested with "the Executive Power". The idea that any part of the executive branch should not be subject to him, or should be invested with independent Constitutional authority, would be an affront to the Constitution and constitutionalism as a notion. It is appalling that this once rudimentary notion is now thought radical and evil.

The "Executive power"'s scope would be problematic were it being used to transgress Congress' legislative power, undercut the existing jurisdiction of the courts, or try US citizens subject to the Constitution and protected by it. Although Lincoln used military courts to try civilians on the well-established grounds that vast areas of the US were then in rebellion or war zones. Not explicitly in the Constitution but well-precedented in survival situations. This is not such a survival situation, and Bush has correspondingly been modest in the extreme. The Military Commissions were put on a statutory footing, though once believed to be an executive power. It is unclear that this should be necessary for any prisoner not a US citizen. Pace Lincoln, US citizens are rightly excluded and handed over to US courts. Every element of surveillance affecting US citizens or trial evidence has been done via FISA procedures. Congress' powers are intact.

Constitutions by definition set up a body politic. Its members are its citizens. It's protections and duties fall on those citizens wherever, or on foreigners on the soil it governs. It neither need, nor should, nor as a matter of logic does, govern actions by or against foreigners on foreign soil. Nor is there any logical basis to extend the authority of the courts beyond US borders for the benefit of non-US nationals. Frankly, the President would be within his powers, rights and duties to ignore any such efforts.

In the past, though abused, US citizens had access to the courts in principle. It should be so in practice. In the past, legitimate POWs were held for the duration under Geneva rules. It should be so. In the past, unlawful combatants were shot, as of right, or handled gently at victors' discretion.

It was wholly political of the world to extend POW rights to non-soldiers, and the US rightly did not sign that 1977 protocol. America's foes neither are legitimate combatants, nor act like them, nor expect us to act like them, and neither give nor receive quarter.

Bush has been an extraordinarily inept president across the board, but he has navigated every one of these mazes well within norms of justice, the Constitution, the laws, and his lawful powers.

A judge can concoct any legal argument he wants, and I will lack the skill to counter it. But it will change none of the above. The Constitution's nature and content will not actually have changed, we'll just carry on ignoring it.

Lastly, one poster cited "invading countries for crazy reasons". Everybody believed in the WMDs. Saddam acted for years as though he had them. If, as may be true, he did so as a deception strategy to maintain his power, well tough. Didn't work as planned, and earned its fair reward. He flouted the requirements of the UN Security Council for a decade and fired on those enforcing its mandates. Under the international law of the UN era, easily a full justification for war, even if the Council choked at the last second. Nor did said choke matter, since the preceding Fall 2002 resolution, or any predecessor back to 1990, independently justified war. Saddam flouted the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, which limited his sovereignty by imposing these conditions. Under international law from long before the UN, always justification for renewing the war interrupted by the ceasefire. Not to mention the extraordinary number of terrorists on his payroll.

Reasons don't get any better. And that's without drawing in any "Realist" arguments at all. A proper Realist would have said just pick an enemy justified by any of the above causes, legitimately smash him by way of example, then leave the mess.

Bush was only crazy to stay in Iraq after December 2003.

Posted by GB | June 20, 2008 4:47 PM

what massive abuses? monitoring conversations with terrorists? I would imagine, as a conservative, I would be shocked, but pleasantly surprised, if he aggressively goes after terrorists.

Posted by ed | June 20, 2008 4:50 PM

This article says more about tells us more about Matthiew Yglesias than it does about Barack Obama. The author is "sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for." Hoping that a new president abuses power? Mr. Yglesias seems to suffer from the worst sort of partisan depravity if he can countenance an abuse of power in order to satisfy his desire for some misguided form of payback.

Posted by Mark | June 20, 2008 4:51 PM

Proposed Obama Campaign Slogans:

Obama: Change you can forget about.

Obama: Change you can ignore.

Obama: Change you can deny.

Obama: Change you can stonewall.

Obama: More value for your private financing dollar!

Obama: Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?

Obama: He's 'inclusive'--there's room for everybody under his bus!

Obama: Fuhgeddabowdit.

Obama: Nuance THIS!

Posted by MarkJ | June 20, 2008 5:03 PM

Not only did the US "believe" he had WMD, we knew he did. Sadam used them against his own citizens, he used them against Iran, the UN had inspectors who saw them. The only thing we didn't know was whether he had destroyed them or not. Now we know that we did find WMD in Iraq, though they were not the kind or quantity we expected, and were mostly degraded over time to be much less effective than when they were new.

He claimed he had destroyed all WMD, but refused to let the UN verify, except under such controlled circumstances that it was impossible to know. As a proven liar, Sadam's word meant nothing. Sadam wanted the world to believe he had WMD, so he could prove his was bigger.

Posted by Bruce | June 20, 2008 5:05 PM

Not only did the US "believe" he had WMD, we knew he did. Sadam used them against his own citizens, he used them against Iran, the UN had inspectors who saw them. The only thing we didn't know was whether he had destroyed them or not. Now we know that we did find WMD in Iraq, though they were not the kind or quantity we expected, and were mostly degraded over time to be much less effective than when they were new.

He claimed he had destroyed all WMD, but refused to let the UN verify, except under such controlled circumstances that it was impossible to know. As a proven liar, Sadam's word meant nothing. Sadam wanted the world to believe he had WMD, so he could prove his was bigger.

Posted by Bruce | June 20, 2008 5:11 PM

Meanwhile, I guess I hope President Obama uses his powers responsibly, but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for.

Matt, glad you are in favor of abusing citizen's constitutional rights just to enjoy a little payback.

Posted by James B. | June 20, 2008 5:23 PM

"but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for."

It's not about people and what's best for them, it's about politics and the writer being proven right.

I wonder if, on some level, Matt wasn't rooting for more casualties in Iraq, "so the right can get what it's asking for."

I never thought much of Matt's analysis, but this looks like a little window to his soul and it's got a black spot.

I was going to point out the differences between expanding powers unconstitutionally for one's own selfish reasons and expanding them constitutionally for security reason to points that they were normally only a few decades ago, but why even bother.

Posted by Mark B | June 20, 2008 5:32 PM

"but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for."

It's not about people and what's best for them, it's about politics and the writer being proven right.

I wonder if, on some level, Matt wasn't rooting for more casualties in Iraq, "so the right can get what it's asking for."

I never thought much of Matt's analysis, but this looks like a little window to his soul and it's got a black spot.

I was going to point out the differences between expanding powers unconstitutionally for one's own selfish reasons and expanding them constitutionally for security reason to points that they were normally only a few decades ago, but why even bother.

Posted by Mark B | June 20, 2008 5:35 PM

Maybe the Republicans sincerely think you're a bunch of hysterical ninnies, and that's why they're not concerned, since they're not planning on talking to al-Qaeda in Germany on the phone any time soon and thus think they really have very little to worry about.

Posted by Mike G | June 20, 2008 5:48 PM

Friendly wager: If elected, Obama will not surrender any executive powers taken or assumed by the last two administrations, but will seek to increase them. He will have the same reverence for limited executive power as he has for public financing of elections.

Posted by JSA | June 20, 2008 5:56 PM

Might I inquire as to what "massive abuses" of power have been inflicted on "the left", such that "the right" is deserving of such retribution by Dr. Maximum Leader for life Obama?

Even if you are one of the moonbats who pines for the poor Jihadis locked up in their Caribean hell, do you really consider them to be members of "the left"? Are they lefties just because they hate America and so do you? Oh well, I guess that's the big tent theory.

Anyway, it is good to know that "the left" intend to be every bit the thugs that they accuse the right of being, which makes me even more convinced that most of the cauterwalling of the last 7 years has been mostly projection anyhow.

Posted by Holdfast | June 20, 2008 6:24 PM

jbryan-- I actually do agree with a lot of what you're saying. Most of the time I'd agree that it's better to have a conservative Democrat than a Republican, but I'm just tired of the trade-offs. I wasn't happy when I first read the endorsement news, but I let it go until I saw that ad. He "stood up" to the party leadership, which oddly enough, hasn't changed since he made that ad--Pelosi and Hoyer are still his "Washington" bosses, Pelosi has given to his campaign, and they're all supporting this same FISA bill. To avoid misunderstanding, it's not just that he disagreed with positions held by the Democratic majority, but it's the rhetoric he used: the Dems want to "cut and run," it's a "death tax," etc. It's red meat, plain and simple.

Clearly there's a broad consensus within the party about the need for political expediency (Reid/Pelosi/Hoyer need replacing), but, in allowing and supporting this behavior, they're actually undermining their own positions. That Republicans can say "well even these Democrats admit their own party wants to cut and run" or "even these Democrats say their party is weak on terror" makes the GOP seem more moderate and sensible to anyone paying attention. Any Dem who still supports what should be the party line is now seen as being an out-of-touch extremist. This encourages more defection and expediency, because the party position seems ever more untenable.

Furthermore, there's no incentive not to do so--the party leadership backs the incumbent anyway, because he is, after all, still part of the club. At some point, the party leaders will have to brave new frontier and set a precedent with the message: don't demonize your own party. You can take a different position, but don't give legitimacy to slanders and oversimplifications.

I'll repeat, Barrow's not the worst, and Obama is basically following the party line in this situation. The problem is, the only way to hinder these potentially destructive situations in the future is to make an example out of someone. Hopefully, though, the primary voters who ousted Al Wynn will redefine what actions certain Democrats consider "expedient."

Posted by chris09 | June 20, 2008 6:57 PM

Re: "I see him undoing it, if he's elected in six months."

No President willingly gives up power.

Posted by wakeupyou'vebeenhad | June 20, 2008 7:34 PM

Overall, it appears the various comments have identified there is little difference between the two dominant parties. Both appear bent on restricting American freedoms be they through allowing surveillance, attempting to disarm citizens through gun control, telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies, offering amnesty to illegal aliens, or whatever ploy they think they can get away with. Yes, a third party with the interest of what citizens want would be appropriate.

Thinking out of the box, how about simply eliminating the party and representative system altogether. The ability of our current communications to disseminate information and educate the masses that choose to be educated, and then to simply have the people directly vote on the issues at hand would cause our system to be much more representative of our population.

And to follow what I'd seen above, I was an Obama fan. Unfortunately he has shown he is "politics as usual" and I've realized that I have to choose a candidate with a record of honorable service who has voted what he believes despite the ramifications.

Posted by Eic | June 20, 2008 9:54 PM

"but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for."

That's a pretty telling admission. I hope you are joking, but come on-- can you really fail to see the tremendous logical failure of arguing for so long that everything the Republicans were doing has been a terrible violation of civil liberties, and then turning around and saying that you'd like your "Change" candidate to engage in actual abuse!? What, do you keep a brown shirt ironed just in case?

Posted by capital L | June 21, 2008 1:24 AM

It's sad that the same magazine that has Robert Kaplan and Christopher Hicthens onboard, lets an idiot like you write stuff for it.

How creepy!

Posted by Winston | June 21, 2008 2:55 AM

It's sad that the same magazine that has Robert Kaplan and Christopher Hicthens onboard, lets an idiot like you write stuff for it.

How creepy!

Posted by Winston | June 21, 2008 2:59 AM

"...sort of rooting for massive abuses" ???

This is the why sensible people are suspicious of your kind.
Why are so many so-called Liberals closet totalitarians?
Are you really saying that any means would be justified if Obama was cracking down on your political enemies?
And to take your fantasy a little further... why would you think that he would stop there?

Posted by RobH | June 21, 2008 12:00 PM

"The Republicans don't worry about Democrats having abusive surveillance powers because they know that the Democrats won't use them"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, because the Democrats have always been the party known for restraint when it comes to the use and abuse of government power. Hahahaha, give me a break. That anyone can believe such nonsense in the 21st century is hilarious.

Posted by Mark | June 21, 2008 1:34 PM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by fdsafas | June 21, 2008 1:40 PM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by fdsafas | June 21, 2008 1:42 PM

It could be that Senator Obama is just another chickenshit politican and in fact not any different from anyone else running for office.

Posted by fdsafas | June 21, 2008 1:45 PM

Yup. Lord Acton was right.

Posted by perfectlyGoodInk | June 21, 2008 3:03 PM

I guess I hope President Obama uses his powers responsibly, but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for.

So the Right "abuses" it's power in it's zeal to go after AQ and our external enemies, but you dream of Liberals abusing their power to go after the Right. It's clear who your real enemies are.

Posted by David123456 | June 21, 2008 9:28 PM

I'm only surprised that anyone is surprised.

PUMA!

Posted by LAM | June 22, 2008 3:05 AM

You poor dears who have never been to Chicago to see how street level ward politics is done are in for quite an education when your golden boy takes the only politics he knows to a nationl forum.

Posted by Max | June 22, 2008 2:54 PM

I guess I hope President Obama uses his powers responsibly, but on some level I'm sort of rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they've been asking for.

That's right because, Americans are the enemy. I think this is quite revealing regarding the leftist mindset.

Posted by ATM | June 22, 2008 2:55 PM

The last Democratic president from Illinois was James Buchanan. He served one term and his own party wouldn't nominate him for a second term and a run against Abraham Lincon, a Republican from Illinois. Just a historical note for those who think Obama is somehow the legacy of Lincoln.

Posted by Max | June 22, 2008 3:00 PM

Obama abusing his authority as POTUS? Not a chance. Since only reichwingers believe in the unitary executive certainly someone will stop him.

Posted by ThomasD | June 22, 2008 3:03 PM

The idiocy demonstrated in these comments is truly spectacular. Bravo!

The reason Obama is saying nothing about the FISA agreement is that he knows he will be president in a few months, and he will need this system to actually function in order to avoid future terrorist attacks. Once the Dems are in power, they know they'll not be able to blame possible attacks on Bush. Hence, their sudden reasonableness on this issue.

All the rubbish they have been spewing for the last 7 years about "domestic spying" gets chucked out the window because it has always been pure nonsense, intended to keeps rubes like you folks agitated and voting Dem. I see it succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. If you think you're getting whiplash on this issue, wait till you see what they do (or should I say, fail to do) on Iraq, or NAFTA, or immigration, or any of a thousand other issues that they have demagogued over the last few years.

Welcome to Doublethink, proles!

Posted by Mike | June 22, 2008 4:43 PM

So the Right "abuses" it's power in it's zeal to go after AQ and our external enemies, but you dream of Liberals abusing their power to go after the Right. It's clear who your real enemies are.

No, no one frets about FISA because they are afraid of Bush going after "external enemies", we got FISA because there is a long history of people abusing secretive surveilance powers. My guess is that's how Spitzer wound up going down. You are a naive little child.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 22, 2008 4:58 PM

The "Right" ? Ha ha ha ha ha. That is like calling a massively overweight pontificating F**k-tard an "athlete" becuase of the running shoes he wears. There is no "Right" in the USA as of this moment. But I hope you get your wish - an Obama-nation - may his name be praised. And perhaps a true right-wing movement will arise and slide comfortably in the governmental apparatus created by Obama - ostensibly for our "good". Spain went from right to center-moderate, the USA is much more....dynamic..than tired old Spain. And the Jacksonians are much more vigorous than the Hamiltonians, Jeffersonians, Wilsonians, et al. So I guess we half-hope for the same things - but expect wildly divergent results. Of course everyone's better angels will prevail and what you hope for will OF COURSE happen. Naturalmente. Now back to sleep.............

Posted by Californio | June 22, 2008 5:18 PM

And of course if I were Barack Obama it's very possible that I wouldn't think giving the executive branch unlimited surveillance powers was a bad idea at all -- I'm going to be president in a few months.

Also known as the "elephants disapprove of elephant hunting on moral grounds!" rule in politics. Obama is a deeply unprincipled politician from the Chicago Democrat Machine school of politics and he's simply operating by Chicago Rules, ie., "Do and say whatever it takes to win then reward your inner-circle friends!"

Posted by Orion | June 22, 2008 6:09 PM

So you Democrats worship at the big O for His being the post partisan messiah, but then when He does something, you know, bipartisan, you freak out. I have a feeling a lot of political cherries are gonna get popped in the near future. Sorry, folks, it ain't The Daily Show out there (it's actually funny to watch, for one thing).

Posted by edw | June 22, 2008 6:11 PM

I guess I'm hoping the next president will use his powers responsibly but on same level I'm sort of rooting for him to throw Matthew Yglesias into a dark hole.

Posted by Ken Silber | June 22, 2008 7:29 PM

I guess I'm hoping the next president will use his powers responsibly but on some level I'm sort of rooting for him to throw Matthew Yglesias into a dark hole.

Posted by Ken Silber | June 22, 2008 7:30 PM

Maybe the Republicans think FISA is important for national security, you know, regardless of what party wins.

Posted by Aaron | June 22, 2008 10:45 PM

Good leaders do not go all over town making promises they know they can't keep - even those who really really really want to be President as much as Orisky does.
People need to stop making excuses for this man.
He is just another product - nice packaging, impressive claims, I'm sure he would make a compelling infomercial, but I still would never be convinced that I need this item, nor could I ever believe all the hope/ change it promises to deliver.

Posted by Mary Lou | June 23, 2008 11:34 AM

Geeze people, we're so busy hating Bush that we missed how BAD our candidate REALLY is!

Let's all vote for Carlin -- at least HE can't do anymore damage!

Posted by Osgrave | June 23, 2008 12:01 PM

Geeze people, we're so busy hating Bush that we missed how BAD our candidate REALLY is!

Let's all vote for Carlin -- at least HE can't do anymore damage!

Posted by Osgrave | June 23, 2008 12:01 PM

Rooting for massive abuses so the right can get what they deserve?

Hmmm. Right sets up powers ostensibly for national protection in time of war(self defined) and never massively abuse them. (Don't argue with me on this I am using Yglesias argument. He says he wants the left to abuse to show the right. If he beleived the right had already abused the future abuse would be moot.)

Now Yglesias hopes the left DOES massively abuse powers (fascism?) to show the right.

I expect more logic and less hubris from from my 10 year old son and am not disappointed.

Posted by wtlf555 | June 23, 2008 1:41 PM