Democratic leaders in Congress are poised to grant new spying powers to President Bush and arrange retroactive amnesty for telecommunications companies accused of illegal surveillance, according to a deal announced Thursday evening. Today's New York Times describes the legislation, which the House could vote on today, as "the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years" and a "major victory" for the lame duck president. If passed, the bill would constitute the largest capitulation by Democratic leaders since winning control of Congress, an especially striking setback as Democratic voters rally around a presidential nominee who has flatly opposed Bush's spying policies -- and repeatedly promised to challenge the corruption, doubletalk and "politics of fear" that rule Washington.

Yet Barack Obama has been mostly silent as the House caved into White House demands for more surveillance power this week. He has advocated civil liberties and accountability during previous clashes over surveillance, voting against a White House spying bill in August, but Obama has sidestepped the issue this week, despite pleas from supporters. "If Obama remains missing much longer, it may be necessary to issue an Amber Alert for him," wrote Glenn Greenwald, an attorney and Salon blogger who rallied activists to raise over $115,000 in two days to run primaries against Democratic incumbents who undermine the rule of law.

Obama's quiescence on this fundamental issue is disappointing, but not new. In February, I criticized him and Clinton for going MIA during an earlier spying stand-off, when a coalition of liberal incumbents, netroots activists and the civil liberties groups ACLU and EFF successfully beat back Bush's threats to stop a similar bill. Now things are just worse, for Obama and the Congress.

Obama has a much larger mandate to lead the party, yet he is ducking this battle. There is no rationale for Congress to fundamentally alter surveillance policy for Bush's last five months in office, but instead of doing oversight they are granting him more power. The Supreme Court just issued a historic opinion rebuffing Bush and Congress for compromising the Constitution, through the President's lawless detention policies and the Democratic Congress' attempt to authorize them in the Military Commissions Act, yet neither branch appears chastened. And politically, the Democrats' promise of change, reform and accountability risks a hollow ring when they continue to endorse more of the same corporate handouts and failed Bush agenda.

Comments (61)

1. Ari, I don't understand this MIA thing. In your article you refer to "pleas from supporters", but when you click on the link it takes you to a KOS diary by an Obama precinct captain who says he contacted the campain concerning this issue and got this response:

   "We hear you loud and clear. The staff are literally reviewing the FISA issue as we speak. You'll be hearing from us soon."

   This doesn't sound like an Obama MIA issue at all, as this is still in the House and the Senate has yet to weigh in.

   Taking time to craft an effective response is not the same as MIA, and I'm sure you know the difference. There appears to be some anxiety among progressives that Obama will turn his back on us, so progressives are jumping at ANY sign, no matter how imaginary, to support this anxiety.

   Don't feed into these fears among progressives, Ari. We have all we can handle in trying to defeat John McCain and need all hands on deck in this effort!

   Posted by Metteyya at 06/20/2008 @ 12:28am

2. If Obama sells out my only interest in this country will be in making the money to retire to a somewhat civilized (not waging imperialist wars at least)country like Mexico as soon as possible, because it will prove that there's no chance of democracy coming to the USA.

   Posted by louisrue at 06/20/2008 @ 12:34am

3. Just an aside: "Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, said members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of Edwards and Nunn when she met Wednesday with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.

   When Kilpatrick said Gore was her personal choice, "they had a smile on their face. They have a list of candidates. I think I may have been the first to do that. They didn't say one way or the other."

   But she wasn't the only one to mention Gore.

   Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, met Wednesday with Kennedy and Holder..."

   http://tinyurl.com/5ublbu

   Well considering Al's take on our constitution being used as TP by the current hsuB/cHeney admin, Barack better start using those constitutional cred's he earned to do some verbal rectifying. Al's watching.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:34am

4. Barack here:

   http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/01/16/gore_spying/

   Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:37am

5. Thus quoth chicken little:

   "The sky is falling... the sky is falling... Obama said that with our help, he would hold up the sky..."

   You got it in one, Metteyya!

   Posted by ttr at 06/20/2008 @ 12:48am

6. Glenn Greenwald, an attorney and Salon blogger who rallied activists to raise over $115,000 in two days to run primaries against Democratic incumbents

   posted by Ari Melber on 06/20/2008 @ 12:05am

   Have you lost your FREAKIN mind?! Of all the stupid, assinine, selfdestructive things to do, all in the name of your selfish progressive purity ideology.

   I would wager a game of chess with you losing would go four moves, checkmate, four moves, checkmate, four moves, checkmate, as you did the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Indefensible!

   Posted by Benchrest at 06/20/2008 @ 12:54am

7. I've never understood why a Senator was supposed to comment on legislation that hasn't entered the Senate yet. Can he at least read what it says before he has to make a statement? I think that's good governance. Plus there is every chance it will get drastically altered in the Senate or better yet filibustered. So breathe Ari.

   Posted by yutsano at 06/20/2008 @ 12:54am

8. The fact is that Obama has a record of avoiding tough votes that would paint him into a corner. This legislation is a further proof that there is no substantial difference between the democrats and the republicans. They are both owned by the same elite...the question is how Obama or McCain administration would serve them. I am surprised at this post in the Nation that does not use anti-Hillary lense to portray a story.

   Posted by kevin99999 at 06/20/2008 @ 01:10am

9. So who's one Mr. Obama? Mr. Change or Mr. Black or Mr. Politics-as-usual or all of the above or None-of-the-above? The closest is Mr. Ego.

   ------------

   Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer Thu Jun 19, 4:39 PM ET WASHINGTON - Barack Obama chose winning over his word. The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too. No more.

   Posted by HelenDAO at 06/20/2008 @ 02:32am

10. Hillary has lots of time & energy on her hands these days.

    Hillary, here's your 1st big op to assume Ted Kennedy's mantle as the great Liberal Lion of the US Senate.

    Hillary, you lead the Dem filibuster to ensure this gutting of the 4th Amendment goes nowhere.

    Show us, Hillary, your true integrity, your strength, your courage.

    Or forever lurk in shadow.

    Posted by sloper at 06/20/2008 @ 02:50am

11. <i>Posted by HelenDAO at 06/20/2008 </i>

    The key word in that statement is "IF." McCain has made no ironclad committment to public financing, and since Obama's promise was conditional, no breach is immediately apparent.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2008 @ 04:15am

12. What's the big deal. Everyone is searched at the airports without a warrant. Why is that allowed. For public safety. I suppose if you owned your own plane you wouldn't be searched. And if you owned your own telecommunications network it wouldn't be scanned for terrorist communications.

    Posted by abell12ct at 06/20/2008 @ 08:19am

13. Posted by abell12ct at 06/20/2008

    For "public safety", ABELL...we need to strip and CAVITY search everybody...

    mind if we start with you?

    Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 08:46am

14. Just heard the news about "Operation Malicious mortgage"

    Gotta tell ya it sounded a little like "Nacht un Nebel" in New York they way they're rounding them up.

    Posted by william.harry13 at 06/20/2008 @ 08:54am

15. "Operation Malicious mortgage"

    A great show of getting bad guys will go far to pushing capital markets reform out of sight. It's so complex & boring anyway.

    The perp walks of overwhelmingly small shots, a few mid-shots, no CEOs or chairmen, will ensure that Glass-Steagal never returns & the Big Banks get bigger & the consumer gets screwed in ways as yet unimagined.

    Posted by sloper at 06/20/2008 @ 09:09am

16. Pretty sad situation in the House. It just points out the crying need in our system for LEADERSHIP. That's the one need that can't be constitutionally ensured. Most people-politicians included-are sheep. They'll settle for anything. They don't really believe in much. You need strong, committed, wise leadership that understands our system and is willing to protect it. I'll be watching Obama to see if he can turn this into a "teaching moment" and actually discuss the constitutional issues at stake. If he doesn't, then that's a bad sign for me. Note: The reason you can be searched at an airport is that you are in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy. The process has been legally vetted. Also--private planes/charters ARE searched. The wire-tapping barrel of snakes is just an example of the Executive ignoring basic constitutional protections.

    Posted by Hamiltonian at 06/20/2008 @ 09:13am

17. Every day that passes bring some new disclosure of hollowness in Barak Obama. Within 24 hours of his sewing-up the nomination there was Obama doing a full court grovel at AIPAC. One would have thought that, having won the Democratic nomination, he was seeking the Likud nomination. Next, in quick succession were the campaign financing broken promise and John Nichol's report of a sell-out on Nafta. Today its the FISA situation. What could be more obvious than that this guy is in every respect a disaster. And plan on it getting worse. Progressives, if they are to have any self-respect in 2009, need line up behind Nader and fast. You're dealing with a man so devoid of principle that when everything's said and done "change" will read pocket change.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/20/2008 @ 09:16am

18. Wow.

    Bush's approval rating is what, 29%?

    He's the most despised President in our nation's history, and right now, probably the weakest too.

    And yet the Democrats give him whatever the hell he wants, be it more spying powers or more money for the Iraq lie.

    I was going to vote for Obama. I'll probably end up voting for Nader.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/20/2008 @ 09:18am

19. Hey, it is after all-- The Age of the Disinherited Meek

    or simply put the weak-kneed...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 09:41am

20. What could be more obvious than that this guy is in every respect not a disaster.Progressives, if they are to have any self-respect in 2009, need line up behind Nader and jump off the cliff fast.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2008 @ 09:59am

21. Russ Feingold for President!

    Posted by OneVote at 06/20/2008 @ 10:08am

22. Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2008

    At a rate of one sell-out per day, what's your hope, emile, that Obama might pass through the entirety of the political spectrum and eventually come out the other side as a socialist? You've already "jumped off the cliff" with Obama, and are now suspended somewhere between Steny Hoyer and John McCain. What's next, National Socialism?

    Posted by john lowell at 06/20/2008 @ 10:12am

23. A man of great oratory skills but of little conviction will be to the Democrat elite as George Bush was to the Neocon-Evangelical right wing of the Republican elite.

    It is totally appropriate that Obama express outrage. This legislation isn't something that is new....just repackaged.

    Your constitutional rights are at stake. Both Republicans and Democrats want to the chuck the 4th Amendment under the guise of the eternal war on terror and the Dems are figuring that hey...this looks pretty good once we get our stooge into the White House.

    Pitchforks & torches anyone?

    Posted by OneVote at 06/20/2008 @ 10:18am

24. Lowell, you're right.

    He says not a word about additional spying powers, not a word about more money for Iraq, not a word about what a catastrophe NAFTA is. I suppose it's understandable, if still UNjustifiable, that he kisses the Iraeli Lobby's ass.

    These are bad signs nevertheless. It looks like he's playing the ole triangulation game. I want to vote for him, but not if he continues in this direction.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/20/2008 @ 10:18am

25. Posted by KSP556 at 06/20/2008

    Hi KSP556,

    Lots of folks who'd wished this guy well and one in particular who'd fallen into the trap, Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com, are recovering from the Obama illness at the moment. The blush is clearly off the rose.

    A link or three for you:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06132008.html

    http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery06092008.html

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944

    Regards.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/20/2008 @ 10:42am

26. John, I'm familiar with the Counterpunch stuff, less so with antiwar.com (it's been 5 years I think since I visited that site).

    The real question all along with Obama has been, "Is he, or can he, be acceptable to liberals-leftists if he's far less than perfect on his policy positions?" And up to now, throughout the campaign season, the answer for me and many others has been a resounding yes. If he could ever deliver big on one or two issues, like the Iraq war or medical care, then his shabby positions on other big issues might be overlooked if not forgiven. And to judge by his campaign rhetoric, it seemed like such a promise was in the offing.

    But when all of a sudden, not even a month after the last primaries, he backtracks on his NAFTA position, says nothing about the extra $145 billion being spent on Iraq, is mum on the spying issue, and grovels before AIPAC, one really has to wonder about his intentions. Is he triangulating to win an election? Is he more concerned about pleasing the "right" people than he is on delivering on his promises? Can someone take these stands and still be considered even tepidly "progressive"?

    All I'll need to hear in the next few weeks is that he's in favor of more military spending, and I'll forget about him altogether and pull the lever for Nader this fall.

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/20/2008 @ 10:53am

27. Bush's approval rating is what, 29%?

    Posted by KSP556 at 06/20/2008

    Yep even Faux Spews has hsuB in the 20's!?!? That's like all the polls have had hsuB there. Clearly one-- if not 'the' worst pres in US history.

    I do believe however that what the congress caving indicates is that we are living in a petty dic'tatorship where the 3 coequal branches of our gov are no more coequal than the large oil corporations we buy our gasoline from are competitive...

    Unless and until the hsuB/cHeney admin is impeached, the next pres may not be so petty. And what's worse than a petty dic'tatorship? A strong one... DUH.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 10:55am

28. Posted by KSP556 at 06/20/2008

    "Is he more concerned about pleasing the 'right' people than he is on delivering on his promises?"

    Making sure no one feels threatened by him would, in fact, seem to be Obama's MO. Allowing oneself to be molded by the feelings of others in this way betrays an underlying insecurity and a core belief that what is of greatest importance in life is possessing power. Here is the inauthenticity that drives just about every politician that has ever drawn breathe and, by way of contrast, what has made Ralph Nader so appealing. In a word, Barak Obama is revealing himself as the most egregious poseur.

    By the way, don't stay away from antiwar.com. Lots of courage and honesty there.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/20/2008 @ 11:09am

29. It's all an illusion. hsuB/cHeney admin have the congress in a box or threat of being put in one. What would make the congress cave like that when hsuB is so weak? Israel practicing bomb runs on Iran... uhmmm

    Perhaps Frita's delusion is a real one!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 11:24am

30. As I said on the NAFTA post, what is surprising about most of Obama's tacking to the right is how simply unnecessary it is. He's ahead in the polls, way ahead in fundraising, and if he had continued to campaign against the war but for diplomacy, for civil liberties and fair trade, he would have sewn up not only his supporters but most of Hillary's as well, plus the lion's share of independents. Instead, he's risking losing white working class males to McCain, anti-Iraq War and pro-Constitution lefties to Nader and/or the Greens, and anti-Iraq War and pro-Constitution righties to Bob Barr and the Libertarians.

    I've read before how the generation of Democratic strategists that came of age around the late 70's and 80's were shellshocked by the Reagan Revolution and have pretty much learned only one way to campaign in a general election, by running as the GOP Lite alternative. Could it be that his advisors, so smart for much of the primaries (although they sure couldn't put Hillary Clinton away, could they?) have reverted to type and are running as if it was the 1980's or 1990's? Wake up folks, the Reagan Era is dying, people are looking for a change, so how's about you actually stand by your guns and offer them one?

    Not that I actually expect that to happen, mind you. Obama's whole history as a pol is one of compromise and progressive-sounding, corporate-friendly centrism. It will hopefully up to a somewhat more progressive and populist Congress, one with a large enough Democratic majority, to shove any decent legislation down his throat. We'll see.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/20/2008 @ 11:29am

31. Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008

    Don't worry....Al will stop them. Soon as he changes in this phone booth...heheh

    Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 11:33am

32. Regards.

    Posted by john lowell

    you're right. Obama is really Vlad, the Impaler. keep up the good work.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2008 @ 11:39am

33. Here is the inauthenticity that drives just about every politician that has ever drawn breathe and, by way of contrast, what has made Ralph Nader such an appealing loser.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2008 @ 11:47am

34. Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2008

    "you're right. Obama is really Vlad, the Impaler. keep up the good work."

    Obama Vlad the Impaler? Not at all, emile. He's just a phoney.

    Posted by john lowell at 06/20/2008 @ 11:48am

35. Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008

    So let's get that straight...

    you're attacking Obama for not speaking out more forcifully...

    on an issue John McCain forcifully SUPPORTS....and you're voting for McCain?

    And that "makes sense" to you, right?

    Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 12:05pm

36. I spy a dic'tatorship.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 12:06pm

37. FrankGrits-You are the expert when it comes to the subject of drinking a politicians kool- ade.You overdosed on it.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008 @ 12:24pm

38. thanks ari!

    if obama doesn't speak up, immediately, then i'm voting for nader/gonzalez this time.

    i had a feeling that obama would move further and further right, if elected......

    Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2008 @ 12:48pm

39. Frank-You sure don't know much about politics or politicians.Your cult like thinking prevents you from having any type of realistic views of anything related to politics.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 06/20/2008 @ 1:03pm

40. This is what I love.

    A. This bill has no even come to the Senate yet so why is everyone expecting him to have said something? The bill hasn't even reached his desk, yet you expect him to respond. He is obviously reviewing it and will more than likely vote on it like he voted on the other spying bills. You guys are tearing the man down for something he hasn't even had a chance to read because he hasn't commented on a bill that has not come to his vote yet.

    B. This is the difference between conservatives and liberals and the reason liberals always lose. Conservatives no matter how much they are unenthused about a candidate they still vote for them in order to get their agenda accomplished. Liberals, if the candidate is not perfect won't vote for him. You worked you asses off to get Obama the nom and now you are tearing him down. Wait until he is in office to start doing this. If you keep tearing into him because he is not as liberal as you want him to be right now then he loses and we get McCain for four more years of Bush and you have nothing to blame but yourselves for not even giving the guy a chance to win.

    Don't be so quick to jump the gun. Like I said. Give him a damn chance to read the bill, and for it make it's way into the Senate first before you start bashing him for not commenting. You have no clue what his stand is or whether he was planning to comment on this bill because you never gave him a chance to read it. He isn't MIA if the bill hasn't reached his desk yet.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 1:32pm

41. Re: "McCain And Obama Tied In Georgia | June 20, 2008 04:33 AMA New InsiderAdvantage / PollPosition survey conducted June 18 of registered likely voters in the November presidential contest shows Sen. John McCain leading Sen. Barack Obama by a single point in Georgia, making the race in Georgia a statistical tie. Libertarian Bob Barr, a former Republican Congressman from Georgia, received 6 percent of the vote. ..."

    Is this the same Georgia that Sen Cleland lost 53 - 46? Doesn't look like a war record means much to Georgians...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 1:39pm

42. Especially one where the candidate says he didn't love America until he was forced to love America by COMMIES.

    Why did the Commies make McCave love America? Did they have a plan maybe? It doesn't make sense otherwise...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 1:43pm

43. It's ONE PARTY, folks, and business calls the shots. Never mind the pretense of Choice(tm) or civil liberties or the rule of law. The Party of Big Business(tm) protects its own. Don't fool yourselves with this Republican / Democrat boondoggle.

    Posted by mikecope at 06/20/2008 @ 1:46pm

44. See it all comes down to our constitution. It grants the power to congress to approve the creation and regulate corporations. (Originally, legally considered a non-person and without individual rights.) Our gov was always meant to be more powerful than the corporations it created. Our congress had a little more powerful than the president and the SC was to try to balance the scale. But the new con repub MIC MAD GOP, want corporations to be more powerful than our government. Thus they get into power just to weaken our government. The weaker our gov, the more powerful the corporations. The more powerful the corporations, the more control and money they keep. The more they keep-- the weaker our infrastructure, the weaker our schools, the weaker our EPA, the weaker our courts, etc, in the end-- the weaker/the poorer our people.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 2:06pm

45. We first need to take away the status of person from corporations. A corporation is not an individual with individual rights and should not have the right to lobby our government.

    Next, re-establish our constitution and rule of law.

    Impeach the hsuB/cHeney admin.

    Put down the new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

    And only then will our nation survive from the new con MIC MAD GOP attack.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008 @ 2:16pm

46. You have to admit that's ballsy of FRANK...

    he tries to sound like he's attacking Obama from the LEFT...while everybody knows he's going to vote for McSAME!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 2:21pm

47. 'Key senators voiced strong opposition to the compromise, although they're unlikely to have the votes to either defeat or filibuster the bill. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the immunity deal. He said that nothing in the new bill would prevent the government from once again wiretapping domestic phone and computer lines without court permission.

    Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president's Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.

    "Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.

    Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.

    "There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.'

    Exerpt from:

    By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 25 minutes ago

    Now whose take are you going to believe on this? Specter - ranking Republican and a Yale Law School grad or Nancy Pelosi - a nitwit who tells us that impeachment is "off the table."

    No wonder Bush is very pleased!

    Posted by OneVote at 06/20/2008 @ 4:12pm

48. You are such a bunch of losers. Obama won't complain because he wants these powers if he (god forbid) is elected. You can be sure that if he (god forbid) is elected he will not repeal, rollback or denounce them.

    Look at how he lied to you all during the primaries about taking federal election money. He hasn't had a change of heart, this was his plan all along. He needs a ton of money and will take it whereever he can get it.

    Losers.

    Posted by wredner at 06/20/2008 @ 5:34pm

49. "We first need to take away the status of person from corporations. A corporation is not an individual with individual rights and should not have the right to lobby our government."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/20/2008

    Unfortunately, big corporations wield a lot of power. So, unless you're willing to live without all those things that make your life extremely comfortable physically, emotionally and financially, you're not to see any Congress take on those major industries that drive the GDP machine.

    Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 5:50pm

50. You are such a bunch of losers. Obama won't complain because he wants these powers if he (god forbid) is elected. You can be sure that if he (god forbid) is elected he will not repeal, rollback or denounce them.

    Look at how he lied to you all during the primaries about taking federal election money. He hasn't had a change of heart, this was his plan all along. He needs a ton of money and will take it whereever he can get it.

    Losers.

    Posted by wredner at 06/20/2008

    Yess because McCain is soooo much better. He won't take away more of your rights at all. He hasn't voted along the Bush line this whole time. Oh wait who voted against Bush on the last spying bill? Oh yeah Obama did. Oh wait which candidate signed the contract into the taking of federal tax payer money and THEN broke federal law in order to get out of that contract? Oh that would be McCain.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:30pm

51. frank, i didn't vote for obama (or clinton).....

    Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2008 @ 7:30pm

52. frank, i didn't vote for obama (or clinton).....

    Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2008

    I voted for Obama because him and clinton w3ere the only two left on the ballot by the time it got to my state.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 9:00pm

53. wredner

    you're such a winner for telling us we are losers. thanks. we needed that.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2008 @ 9:07pm

54. Posted by frankgrits at 06/20/2008

    FRANK, I feel sorry for you.

    You're so wrapped up in the worship of a POLITICIAN...that you've sold out all the principles that you spent many years here on the blog stating.

    We ALL know what the deal is. It's why you won't answer my question about "Will you support McCain during his re-election campaign in 2012?".

    If you meant what you said about him...you'd say "Yes."

    But you don't. All this is about is keeping 2012 open for "Her".

    What IS it about that woman that makes you want to sell your soul, just to keep HER ambitions alive?

    Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 9:08pm

55. So, unless you're willing to live without all those things ..., you're not to see any Congress take on those major industries that drive the GDP machine.

    Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008

    Our congress is benefiting financially from corporate lobbying which was originally illegal per the framers of our constitution. It was too obviously corrupt. Yet there was commerce and corporations that did not lobby/petition congress up until after the mid 1800's.

    All I'm saying is since corporations cannot die in a war and war is so profitable-- corporations that benefit the most by risking people should never have the right to petition congress as a person. It is insane that it is being done now. We're cutting our own necks.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/21/2008 @ 12:11am

56. Besides, Obama is the MOST liberal member of the Senate.

    Rubbish.

    NARAL Pro-Choice Rating--Obama 100 (45 Senators have that rating)

    Citizens for Tax Justice--Obama 100 (21 Senators have that rating)

    US Chamber of Commerce--Obama 55 (30 Senators have a lower rating)

    ACLU-- Obama 80 (23 Senators have a higher rating)

    American Conservative Union--Obama 7 (31 Senators have a lower rating)

    League of Conservation Voters--Obama 67 (42 Senators have a higher rating)

    Americans for Democratic Action--Obama 75 (44 Senators have a higher rating)

    Posted by brunowe at 06/21/2008 @ 01:40am

57. Make your donations to Obama today!...haha

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/21/2008 @ 03:52am

58. Make your donations to Obama today!...haha

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/21/2008 @ 04:08am

59. Okay mettaya, rationize this-- http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/20 /obama_supports_fisa_legislatio.html

    Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left from WaPo

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/21/2008 @ 04:53am

60. hope you can change for!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/21/2008 @ 09:02am

61. frosty zoom

    isn't it a rather narrow perch for you on the fence?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 11:36am