Obama Votes to Silence Debate and Pass FISA

posted by John Nichols on 07/09/2008 @ 4:59pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (147)

Subscribe Now

Arizona Senator John McCain did not bother to show up for Wednesday's Senate votes on whether to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to absolve George Bush of responsibility for initiating an illegal warrantless wiretapping program and to provide retroactive immunity to the telecommunications corporations that violated the privacy of their customers in order to collaborate with a lawless president.

But that's O.K., Illinois Senator Barack Obama cast the votes that McCain would have.

In addition to joining the majority in a 69-28 Senate vote to approve legislation that the American Civil Liberties Union describes as "a Constitutional nightmare," Obama backed a key move to silence debate on the FISA bill.

During a day of decisions on amendments, cloture and formal approval of the FISA rewrite, Obama cast several votes in favor of failed amendments to limit certain forms of retroactive immunity for the telecommunications corporations. But, in the essential votes on whether to advance and pass the unamended bill, the senator from Illinois broke the majority of his Democratic colleagues -- including New York Senator Hillary Clinton -- as they worked to keep the debate open and block final passage.

In the case of the cloture vote, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president sided with Republicans who argued that the essential Constitutional questions raised by the White House-backed FISA legislation did not merit extended or thoughtful debate.

Seventy-two senators backed the move to end the debate, while 26 sought to keep it going. Two senators – McCain and ailing Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy – missed Wednesday's votes.

Those 26 "no" votes on cloture were cast by Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders and 25 Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, Obama's Democratic colleague from Illinois, and Clinton, Obama's primary competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Leading the fight to keep the debate about the FISA rewrite open were Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, the two senators Obama promised earlier their year to work with in an effort to block this assault on the Constitution and corporate responsibility.

Said Feingold, "I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure."

Unfortunately, while Obama once promised to work with Feingold, he wasn't listening on Wednesday when the Wisconsin senator explained to his colleagues that granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications corporations would effectively block the ability of Congress and the courts to address not just massive corporate wrongdoing but attacks on the privacy rights of Americans.

"If Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these years of law-breaking," said Feingold, who flatly rejected Obama's argument that, while unappealing in some aspects, the FISA rewrite was somehow acceptable as a whole. "That's why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity. It knows that the cases that have been brought directly against the government face much more difficult procedural barriers, and are unlikely to result in rulings on the merits."

Russ Feingold was speaking the truth about a moment in which the ACLU said the Senate was on the verge of passing "an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance."

But Barack Obama did not want to hear it.

Comments (147)

If Clinton were still in the race, she would have voted "yes", just like Barack.

What you fail to realize, John Nichols, is that most of the country is NOT like Feingold's Wisconsin, so if you are in a "national" race and intend to win, then you cannot allow yourself to be put in the "He/she won't keep America safe" box that the Republicans are trying to but Obama in.

Once Obama's in office, FISA will be overhauled and the Bush-era abuses eliminated. If you can''t see this forest because you are focused on this one tree, then you are like a number of other progressives who only want to make noise rather than get the power necessary to bring about progressive change.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 4:47pm
We know that Mask and Metteyya will stick with Obama. How about the rest of you? Posted by lvliberty1 at 07/09/2008 @ 4:40pm

I don't know will you ignore all your doubts about McCain and vote anyway?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 4:49pm
He will govern as a progressive, but you can't "campaign" as a progressive until Obama shows during his first term that progressive "governance" is good for America.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 3:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Again, the idea that Obama won't allow this political equation to shape his decisions once he is in office is nonsense. First, he's going to have to have one eye on 2012 from January 2009 on. Second, if he's a trimmer now, there's no reason to believe he won't be a trimmer once in office, where he'll be dealing with the same electorate and the same Congress.

Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 4:51pm
Posted by brunowe at 07/09/2008 @ 4:51pm

All you have to do is go back and look at his rise to the president of the Illinois senate (in eight years).

It is obvious that Obama didn't change his stripes then, and he is not going to change them now.

Being president with a Democratic legislature create a whole new opportunity to control the agenda, and Obama's agenda still favors civil liberties over abuse and violations of our civil rights!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 4:57pm
So taking positions that are actually popular--sometimes wildly so--won't get you elected? Fascinating...

Posted by geezjan at 07/09/2008 @ 4:57pm
>>>So taking positions that are actually popular--sometimes wildly so--won't get you elected? Fascinating...

Posted by geezjan at 07/09/2008 @ 4:57pm<<<

How popular is it in the battleground states that Obama has to win?

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 5:03pm
Blow up the 4th Amendment just to get elected. We are so screwed if these are our leaders. Had enough yet? I have.

Posted by 2PartyRegime at 07/09/2008 @ 5:07pm
On-topic....anything is still better than "four more years" which is what McCain is promising....anything. Posted by Maskbeta at 07/09/2008 @ 5:00pm

That is why I will vote for Obama. He can go as far center as he wants as long as he is not Bush number 3.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 5:13pm
>>>Blow up the 4th Amendment just to get elected. We are so screwed if these are our leaders. Had enough yet? I have.

Posted by 2PartyRegime at 07/09/2008 @ 5:07pm <<<

Blowing up the 4th Amendment is grossly overstating the case.

The re-write forced judicial oversight over wiretaps and the only thing being debated was retroactive immunity for telecoms.

Besides, Bush has only 194 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes left, so unless John McCain is elected, I think the 4th Amendment is safe!

If you REALLY care about the 4th Amendment, then you should put all of your energies into defeating John McCain rather than bashing Obama for doing what he needs to do to win.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 5:17pm
How popular is it in the battleground states that Obama has to win? Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 5:03pm

I don't know--you tell me. How popular is it in those states?

(I know what national polls say.)

Posted by geezjan at 07/09/2008 @ 5:19pm
Once Obama's in office, FISA will be overhauled and the Bush-era abuses eliminated. If you can''t see this forest because you are focused on this one tree, then you are like a number of other progressives who only want to make noise rather than get the power necessary to bring about progressive change.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Seemed to me like there was a lot more than noise going on when people worked their asses off to win back Congress in '06. The least the Democratic majority could do is make it seem like there's a real difference now.

So, if pandering to the radical right wing's doctrine of fearmongering is acceptable now, will it also be acceptable next year, when it's time to look forward to oh, I don't know, the 2010 midterm elections or the 2012 presidential election? It's never too soon to start worrying about how to stay in power, after all.

Personally, I'd like my candidate to have a bit more backbone and prove that you can win elections by standing up for what's right. Anything else falls terribly short of the profound change that's necessary in American political discourse, the widespread hunger for which Obama has banked on all the way to the nomination.

Posted by joyfulspark at 07/09/2008 @ 5:31pm
'Everybody's bosom friend/ I do whatever pleases/ Jesus! Won't I bleed 'em in the end!' -- Thenardier -- Les Miserables

'...Dear DNC, I have voted Democratic since I cast my first vote for George McGovern in 1972, and I am still proud of that vote! However, 2008 is a different circumstance. Since Chairman Dean and the Rules and Bylaws of the Democratic Party stole votes from Senator Clinton, and gave them to candidate Obama. I will not, and cannot vote for Barack Obama because of the totally disrespectful treatment of Senator Clinton by the DNC, and the news media, not to mention the distortion of her views by Mr. Obama. Since Mr. Obama apparently has no intention of selecting Senator Clinton as his running mate, I will write in the name of Hillary Clinton for President on my Ohio ballot which is permitted in the State of Ohio. Hillary Clinton is the very BEST candidate prepared for the Presidency on day one, no on the job training, which Mr. Obama will require, much like the current President....' -- Jack McIntyre Jr, Ohio -- #175 -- http://www.thepetitionsite.com /4/hillary-clinton-for-president

Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/09/2008 @ 5:34pm
Wonder what the TeleCom's taped about or of Obama to make him want to get it out of the way. Illegally taped conversations with Rev Wright maybe? Of course once Barack's president he can make it all go away like hsuB did with his AWOL/pos drug test NatGrd rec.

BTW FrGr, why do you hate Billary?

Posted by hsuBfools at 07/09/2008 @ 5:41pm
This whole thing sounds more and more like what happened in 1939 in Communist circles when Stalin about faced and signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler. Anyone who's seen Glenn Greenwald's blog today grasps the facts involved but the question remains, are progressive voters sufficiently self-respecting to vote for Nader or will they simply put up with any indignity. I suspect they'll put up with any indignity. I mean why would a group of people so self-centered as to be agreeable to the destruction of thousands of little lives each year take offense when some reptile like Obama urinates on them once a week. That's a mere triffle in comparison, eh? While they ought to vote for Nader in droves, they won't. They'll go along just as Earl Browder did in 1939.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 5:48pm
How ridiculous it is to use the excuse "Hillary was a bigger suck-up" (which is much debatable if you xcheck out who Obama's big donors were--he didnt get $500m in $200 donations, oh naive one) for the failure of Obama to do what he [promised he would do to "change Washingotn"! If, by that, you meant "stick with Bush"--why arent you voting for McCain? We SHOULD have Edwards or Kucinich---but Obama's disciples (including the Nation) failed to vet "their candidate". If you thknk any one man is responsible for /is gonna get us out f the shiii-hoole this country has become--think again. Also, if you pretend that both parties are equally guilty (how many GOP voted against FISA today? I dont know), or that Bill Clinton was "one of the worst we ever had" (COME ON PEOPLE!) OR that Reqagan "made alot of good points"--move to China--they LOVE that kind of blind loyalty there!

Posted by kdelphi95 at 07/09/2008 @ 5:51pm
Heard on radio yesterday that Bush went to telecoms prior to 9/11 to get them to aid in his spying programs. This crap is being peddled as necessary because of 9/11 and our poor telecoms being swept up in the collective patriotism and fervor post 9/11.

Feingold's warning quote in Nichol's article is what everyone should be paying attention to.

Posted by OneVote at 07/09/2008 @ 5:52pm
Jackson, who has endorsed Obama, didn't elaborate on the context of his remarks, except to say he was trying to explain that Obama was hurting his relationship with black voters by recently conducting "moral" lectures at African-American churches. Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 5:40pm

Uhh. What is the point of this? Are you trying to make some sort of remark about Obama because Jackson apologized? I mean thanks for the news but does it have a point?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 5:55pm
John Nichols,

You missed this KEY FACT in your story!

>>>Just under a third of the Senate, including presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, supported an amendment proposed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., that would have stripped immunity from the bill. It was defeated on a 32-66 vote.<<<

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 5:55pm
Not too surprised! I was going to vote for Nader anyway. There is aways Barr for the Republicans. If Jesse Jackson was running, I would vote for him again!

Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/09/2008 @ 6:16pm
Figures you'd miss the point. Jacksom was pointing out that obama is nobody to preach about morals. Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 6:05pm

Well the problem is you never posted his original comment. What was the original comment he made? It's not missing the point it's you not giving me the full amount of information.

Plus who the hell can preach about morals? Jackson? Are you joking me? In order to preach about morals with any clout you have to a very very good human being who has done very little wrong. That person doesn't exist. It's why I hate when people tell me how I should live because how do they know the way they are living is right? On top of that most of them aren't even living the right way to begin with. Everyone has their demons and those demons void your ability to tell other people the way they need to be.

Try not to be so damn pompous Frank. You're arrogance is getting riduclously amazing. You said you never insult people if they try to engage you in a dialogue yet you break your rule constantly. Probably because you are full of shit to begin with( that WAS meant to be an insult.)

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 6:16pm
"Once Obama's in office, FISA will be overhauled and the Bush-era abuses eliminated."

Withdraw from imperial wars?

Join the rest of the civilized world in banning torture?

Close Gitmo & the other black prisons abroad?

Restore habeas fully?

Restore a more equitable tax system?

Close tax loopholes for hedge & equity fund barons?

And those are just for starters.

Don't hold your breath too long.

Posted by sloper at 07/09/2008 @ 6:27pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/09/2008 @ 5:54pm

There's an old Bill Cosby vignette where the football coach encourages his rather limited quarterback to throw the ball, but when the quarterback doesn't quite seem to grasp his meaning, next instructs him to "pick it up first". You're a lot like that quarterback aren't you, little guy?

You blurt:

"Okay, let me get that straight...

Obama voting on the FISA bill...

is like "Stalin signing the von Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact"?"

No, no. Self-despising automotons like you supporting Obama in the teeth of his vote on FISA today are like Earl Browder's supporting Stalin after Stalin signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Pick it up first, Maskbeta.

Progressive need vote for Nader.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 6:37pm
See the funny thing here is. Frank can't comment to heartily. He can talk about Oh, Obama is selling out the cause or whatever but he can't actually address the bigger issue at hand. Why? Because if he does he still has to acknowledge that he is voting for the guy who vehemently believes in this bill. A guy who would have voted for it even if it did have no protections against wiretapping. This is the plight. It's why I think Frank was so silent on this one and then posted about an entirely different topic than this one.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 6:37pm
Progressive need vote for Nader. Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 6:37pm

And watch McCain become President!

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 6:38pm
Progressive need vote for Nader. Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 6:37pm

4 more years! 4 more years! 4 more years! Actually since John will be calling for a Nader vote next time around it will be 8 more years! 8 more years! 8 more years!

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 6:39pm
So now the obama supporters on this blog are admitting that he is politicking - something he promised he will never do. Reagan didn't compromise basic conservative principles when he ran and he won in two landslides. If there was a time that a progressive candidate could convince the country to go left this is the time. The Republicans are finished for this election cycle and they are openly admitting it! Obama and the Democrats just don't have Reagan's cajones and Obama is not as convincing and as gifted as the media have made him out to be. Therefore he and his party shouldn't lead us. Obama should be ahead in the polls by 15 to 20 points and yet in both gallup and rassmussen he is in a statistical tie and this while most of the mainstream media is kissing his butt and the RNC hasn't started attacking him yet. Obama is Reverends Wright and Pfleger, Louis farrakhan, bill ayers, tony retzko, meeks,sharpton, kashidi, black panther party, america haters and anachronistic leftist radicalism, constant flip-flops, inexperience and a dismal legislative record all wrapped in one. The RNC is going to have a ball! Let's all enjoy the spectacle

Posted by haris2B at 07/09/2008 @ 6:42pm
Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/09/2008

You understand, P. J.! Those on the left that vote should vote for Nader, those on the right that vote should vote for Baldwin. Barr is still refusing to answer the question Larry King posed to him in 1999 as to whether he signed a check paying for an abortion for his former wife. No prolife voter could possibly support him in conscience until and unless he issues a denial.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 6:57pm
The RNC is going to have a ball! Let's all enjoy the spectacle Posted by haris2B at 07/09/2008 @ 6:42pm

Uhhh. I don't know which polls you are reading. But according to all the ones I see he is ahead by 7-8 points. he is also ahead about 70 points in the electoral college. Hmm. You should check your facts.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 6:59pm
I've spent a lot of time being angry that both Obama and Clinton were wasting our time/their time/our purported democracy by not doing the job for which they were paid. Unfortunately, Obama decided to go back to work today and did what most, desirous of joining the "big boys," would do -- "the fraternity says, do this. Therefore, I must do this." Worse than Clinton? No, she had nothing to lose today by actually performing her senatorial job in an honorable manner -- exception being the rule. Refreshing that. Suggestion. In every phone call, pretend that you are a terrorist. That way the Administration, the spooks, and the media will be overloaded with data about "TERROR!!!!" By the time they stop looking at shadow puppets, the Telecoms will have been so busy they have not been able to put out their usual drivel and, C'est du joli, we will no longer have to dumb ourselves down with flea-market information or entertainment.

Posted by arlendean at 07/09/2008 @ 7:01pm
Posted by haris2B at 07/09/2008 @ 6:42pm

You keep making this race sound like a national popular vote contest, when it is a state-by-state electoral college contest.

13 battleground states that are currently red that Obama plans to compete in have voters that are easily frightened by Rovian "he won't keep America safe" politics.

If Obama wins a few of these states, we are talking about a MANDATE! Then, even these red state voters will give Obama a chance to prove his mettle, and if he is able to show that he can keep America safe and improve the economy, he will be free to pursue the progressive agenda in its entirety!

Then, and only then, can the Russ Feingolds and Dennis Kucinichs run openly as a progressive and win on the "national" stage.

This is the BIG picture that some progressives keep missing.

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 7:02pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 7:04pm

If Hillary was still in a national race and trying to win the same battleground states as Obama is trying to win now, she would voted "no", and you know it.

Hillary was even more self-conscious than Obama concerning her military and terrorist credentials. this why she voted for the Iraq war and was carrying water for the MIC her entire time in the senate!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 7:13pm
If Clinton were still in the race, she would have voted "yes", just like Barack. Hillary voted against the bill. Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 7:04pm

Thank you for acknowledging this Frank. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a Presidential candidate would HAVE to vote yes on this or else they would be take to be weak on defense and that would have been used against them.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 7:15pm
Hillary even more so than Barack would have had to appear strong because she is a woman and they would have used that very heavily against her.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 7:16pm
Uhhh. Mask. Mett. Frank said that she would have voted yes the same as Barack did. He is saying she would have been in favor in order to appear stronger on defense. He didn't say she would have voted like she did now. So I would lay off the attacks on this one.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 7:18pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 7:18pm

No, CCC, I think he was quoting the first line of my first post in this thread without putting it in quotes!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 7:27pm
Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 7:27pm

You are correct.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 7:36pm
>>>By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

Beyond immunity, the new surveillance bill also sets new rules for government eavesdropping. Some of them would tighten the reins on current government surveillance activities, but others would loosen them compared with a law passed 30 years ago.

For example, it would require the government to get FISA court approval before it eavesdrops on an American overseas. Currently, the attorney general approves that electronic surveillance on his own.

The bill also would allow the government to obtain broad, yearlong intercept orders from the FISA court that target foreign groups and people, raising the prospect that communications with innocent Americans would be swept in. The court would approve how the government chooses the targets and how the intercepted American communications would be protected.

The original FISA law required the government to get wiretapping warrants for each individual targeted from inside the United States, on the rationale that most communications inside the U.S. would involve Americans whose civil liberties must be protected. But technology has changed. Purely foreign communications increasingly pass through U.S. wires and sit on American computer servers, and the law has required court orders to be obtained to access those as well.

The bill would give the government a week to conduct a wiretap in an emergency before it must apply for a court order. The original law said three days.

The bill restates that the FISA law is the only means by which wiretapping for intelligence purposes can be conducted inside the United States. This is meant to prevent a repeat of warrantless wiretapping by future administrations.

The bill is very much a political compromise, brought about by a deadline: Wiretapping orders authorized last year will begin to expire in August. Without a new bill, the government would go back to old FISA rules, requiring multiple new orders and potential delays to continue those intercepts. That is something most of Congress did not want to see happen, particularly in an election year. <<<

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 7:37pm
Little Johnny Nichols must be having a fit. His cherished hope of bringing charges against Bush and Cheney after they are out office just went out the window. Sorry LJ----even some Democrats believe it is more important to do what is best for the country than it is to be a slave to a far far left agenda.

Posted by Len Mosse at 07/09/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/09/2008 @ 6:38pm

There's a difference? McCain IS Obama and Obama IS McCain. Try thinking of it ontologically, it gets you closer to the reality. Electing McCain can be no better or worse than electing Obama and the same with respect to the Congress: Republican, Democrat who cares. Have you see those pictures of a snake pit with all of the reptiles crawling over one another. Does it matter to you whether one is green and another gray? All that counts is that there likely to bite you if you put your hand in among them. And so the Congress, reptiles one and all.

If you're a progressive, vote Nader, Cccomfo1.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 7:52pm
oh Frank, your intention is so appreciated... Its all about you. You are starting to sound like O'Reilly ...

Another 'FINE' American..

Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/09/2008 @ 7:57pm
If you're a progressive, vote Nader, Cccomfo1.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 7:52pm

And yet, you yourself will not vote for Nader. Or anybody. Your words.

While I sincerely respect your Pro-Life position, you can take your "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude and stick it in your ear.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 8:01pm
Watch your comments everybody! Obama and the US government is watching and listening! The Obama people are being either naive or hypocritical. What a shame!

Posted by haris2B at 07/09/2008 @ 8:06pm
Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 8:01pm

Hi Benchcrust,

"And yet, you yourself will not vote for Nader. Or anybody. Your words."

I'm John Lowell and I approve this message.

"While I sincerely respect your Pro-Life position, you can take your 'Do as I say, not as I do' attitude and stick it in your ear."

You respect my prolife position but, as a "progressive" and one that feels no choice but to vote, you'd vote for war funding advocate, Obama? Sir, you can stick that one in your ear.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 8:25pm
NSA Domestic Surveillance Began 7 Months Before 9/11, Convicted Qwest CEO Claims By Ryan Singel October 11, 2007 | 7:20:59 PMCategories: NSA

Did the NSA's massive call records database program pre-date the terrorist attacks of 9/11?

That startling allegation is in court documents released this week which show that former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio -- the head of the only company known to have turned down the NSA's requests for Americans' phone records -- tried, unsuccessfully, to argue just that in his defense against insider trading charges.

Nacchio was sentenced to 6 years in prison in 2007 after being found guilty of illegally selling shares based on insider information that the company's fortunes were declining. Nacchio unsuccessfully attempted to defend himself by arguing that he actually expected Qwest's 2001 earnings to be higher because of secret NSA contracts, which, he contends, were denied by the NSA after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting to give the NSA customer calling records, court documents released this week show.

AT&T, Verizon and Bellsouth all agreed to turn over call records to an NSA database, according to reporting in the USA Today in 2006. At that time, Nacchio's lawyer publicly stated that Nacchio declined to participate until served with a proper legal order.

The government has never confirmed or denied the existence of the program, but is trying to win legal immunity for telecoms being sued for their alleged participation in the call records program and the government's warrantless wiretapping of Americans. Turning over customer records to anyone, including the government, without proper legal orders violates federal privacy laws.

Nacchio's attempt to depose witnesses and present the classified defense was declined by Colorado federal district court judge Edward Nottingham, a decision that is playing a role in Nacchio's pending appeal to the 10th Circuit Appeals court.

The allegation is peppered throughout the highly redacted documents released by the lower court today, but are most clear in the introduction to this filing (.pdf) from April 2007.

Defendant Joseph P. Nacchio ... respectfully renews his objection to the Court's rulings excluding testimony surrounding his February 27, 2001 meeting at Ft. Meade with representatives from the National Security Agency (NSA) as violative of his constitutional right to mount a defense. Although Mr. Nacchio is allowed to tell the jury that he and James Payne went into that meeting expecting to talk about the "Groundbreaker" project and came out of the meeting with optimism about the prospect for 2001 revenue from NSA, the Court has prohibited Mr. Nacchio from eliciting testimony regarding what also occurred at that meeting. [REDACTED] The Court has also refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to demonstrate that the agency retaliated for this refusal by denying the Groundbreaker and perhaps other work to Qwest.

By being prevented from telling his full story to the jury or from fully and properly cross-examining any rebuttal witnesses, Mr. Nacchio has been deprived of the ability to explaoin why - after he came out of the February meeting with a reasonable, good faith, expectation that Qwest would be receiving significant contracts from NSA in 2001 ... Qwest was denied significant work.

[ed note. James Payne, Qwest's government liason who was also at February 27, 2001 meeting, later spoke with government agents in 2006].

In the interview, Mr. Payne confirmed that, at the February 27, 2001 meeting, "[t]here was some discussion about [redacted]. Mr. Payne also stated: Subsequent to the meeting the customer came back and expressed disappointment at Qwest's decision. Payne realized at this time that "no" was not going to be enough fro them. Payne said they never actually said no and it went on for years. In meetings after meetings, they would bring it up. At one point, he suggested they just them, "no." Nacchio said it was a legal issue and that they could not do something their general counsel told them not to do. ... Nacchio projected that he might do it if they could find a way to do it legally.

There was a feeling also, that the NSA acted as agents for other government agencies and if Qwest frustrated the NSA, they would also frustrate other agencies.

The Groundbreaker contract, reportedly worth $2 - $5 billion dollars, outsources the NSA's IT management, but at least one lawsuit charges the project was cover for a domestic spying program.

Notably, after the USA Today story ran , Nacchio's lawyer Herbert Stern, who argued his case before trial, released this statement:

In light of pending litigation, I have been reluctant to issue any public statements. However, because of apparent confusion concerning Joe Nacchio and his role in refusing to make private telephone records of Qwest customers available to the NSA immediately following the Patriot Act, and in order to negate misguided attempts to relate Mr. Nacchio's conduct to present litigation, the following are the facts.

In the Fall of 2001, at a time when there was no investigation of Qwest or Mr. Nacchio by the Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission, and while Mr. Nacchio was Chairman and CEO of Qwest and was serving pursuant to the President's appointment as the Chairman of the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, Qwest was approached to permit the Government access to the private telephone records of Qwest customers.

Mr. Nacchio made inquiry as to whether a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request. When he learned that no such authority had been granted and that there was a disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process, including the Special Court which had been established to handle such matters, Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act.

Accordingly, Mr. Nacchio issued instructions to refuse to comply with these requests. These requests continued throughout Mr. Nacchio's tenure and until his departure in June of 2002.

Note that Stern says a request was made in the Fall of 2001. Stern does not say "first approached" in the statement, though that clearly seems to be the implication. But it's not what the four corners of Stern's statement says. And finally, the redactions in the documents make it impossible to say what the February 21, 2001 requests from the NSA were. It could have been a request from NSA to do some other eavesdropping thing that Nacchio felt uncomfortable with, but I'm very doubtful.

Posted by OneVote at 07/09/2008 @ 8:45pm
Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 8:25pm

You avoid the obvious point. Yes or no. Are you, or are you not proposing, "Do as I say, not as I do."?

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 8:47pm
Um...wow. That's actually pretty offensive...

Posted by Thrawn at 07/09/2008 @ 8:56pm
WHY he would deliberately paint a bullseye on his forehead is beyond reason.

Frank, did you take an Ambien and mix it with alcohol?

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 9:01pm
To john lowell, lvliberty -

Stalin? Hitler? The CP in this country felt betrayed by the pact, especially the Jewish members. I don't know if the feelings being expressed here are similar, but we are not in a life and death situation so I doubt the intensity is the same.

To all Hillary voters -

Hillary stands for fairness in taxes, employment, housing; universal health care; ending the war in Iraq; negotiating with Iran and other nations to reach agreements. If you care about these things, and think McCain will help them happen, well and good. I don't think he will. I think the only way to make these things happen is to vote for Obama, and that is what I intend to do. (I started out supporting Edwards.) For me it is that simple. I don't want another Republic president chooing the next Justice for the Supreme Court either. Nader may be pure, but I will not help McCain win.

Posted by ramara at 07/09/2008 @ 9:06pm
MCBAMA '08

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 9:08pm
Excellent point by OneVote!

Obama could have said very clearly that Bush started the program prior to 911, and therefore the warrantless wiretapping had nothing to do with fighting "terrorism" and everything to do with decimating our civil liberties!

Also, Obama's political posturing doesn't make him look tough. It makes him look very weak because it shows how easily he will back down at the slightest resistance to any of his policies. And what is the point of obtaining power when you end up compromising everything away?

For all the Obama supporters: what evidence do you have that Obama will stick to his principles once he is elected president?

Posted by blue photon at 07/09/2008 @ 9:10pm
The man nodded sadly and replied, "We did. Then four of 'em didn''t show up for work, two filed for welfare, one of them robbed the pro shop, and the other is running for President."

Posted by frankgrits

hey, did you hear about the niggers that voted?

we lynched 'em!

hahahahahahaha!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 9:10pm
what evidence do you have that Obama will stick to his principles once he is elected president?

Posted by blue photon at 07/09/2008 @ 9:10pm

president, principles?

never.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 9:13pm
If Obama has to lie his way into the Presidency, how do you think he'll be able to pass laws that are toxic to 75% of the electorate?

Posted by marybretbrad

hahahahahaha!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 9:22pm
Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 8:47pm

"You avoid the obvious point. Yes or no. Are you, or are you not proposing, 'Do as I say, not as I do.'?"

I'm going to posit the defining remark above one more time for your benefit, I want you to read it carefully, understanding it in all of its implications and then, for the sake of your own sanity and mine, please dispense with the absurd reductionism:

"Those on the left that vote should vote for Nader, those on the right that vote should vote for Baldwin."

There's the statement. That's my view.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 9:38pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/09/2008 @ 9:16pm

While you are correct about FISA and 75% (more like 65%) there, you are wrong about taxes, social security, and healthcare.

The vast majority of Americans have no problem at all with taxing the RICH because it ain't them!

The vast majority of Americans do NOT think social security should be privatized, as this would eliminate the "security" part of social security. And like taxes, they don't care if the cap is raised on the rich for social security taxes in order to pay for ordinary Americans who are getting older.

The vast majority of Americans do realize that HMO care is a fraud, as these private companies only care about covering medical conditions that are profitable to them while everyone else gets the shaft. And most agree that healhtcare costs are way too expensive, and should be capped at 7% of income as was proposed by Jason Furman, who has been attacked by progressives for his article concerning Wal-Mart.

So there are a wide range of "progressive" issues that have huge majorities in the electorate, many more than the few you have identified. These issues have been neglected under Bush, and now it is time to turn the page!

Posted by Metteyya at 07/09/2008 @ 9:39pm
"Those on the left that vote should vote for Nader, those on the right that vote should vote for Baldwin."

There's the statement. That's my view.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 9:38pm

And yet, you will sit on your ass and do nothing. How noble.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 9:44pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 10:08pm

Frank, no joke.

DID you take an Ambien and mix it with alcohol?

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 10:15pm
I'm still trying to figure out who's more realistic on this vote....the Feingold people (I admire Sen. Feingold tremendously) or the Obama people.....of which many seem to be Republicans. All I know is that the Obama I have been supporting the past few years seems to have gone into hiding now that he has the nomination. Politics as usual???

I still plan to support Obama in November and hope you all will also, but as Bush said...."Fool me once......and....shhhsaaa.....You can't get fooled again!"

That's my strategery and I'm sticking to it.

Posted by msteadt at 07/09/2008 @ 10:22pm
Now that's the most offensive thing I've ever seen posted here. Shame on you.

Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 9:44pm

and yet nobody except you says so.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 10:24pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/09/2008 @ 10:29pm

I was looking for a reason for the behavior, the only logical one that would partially explain it. There is none. He's screwed and he did it to himself.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 10:33pm
Yeah right. You know you've been dying to find a place to use the 'n' word. You don't fool me. Goodnight.

Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 10:27pm

yeah, uh, right.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 10:40pm
Me a bigot?

Posted by frankgrits

we only construe these ideas from your writings.

the people around us are the mirrors into our souls.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 10:43pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 10:40pm

You are an intelligent man. You are acutely aware of politics as you are acutely aware of the type of blog you are on and the political sensitivities that reside here. And yet you still told a blatantly racist joke, KNOWING you would get crucified for it. I do not know your reasons, and I don't want to know.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 10:48pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 8:32pm

Puke.

Posted by Malcontent at 07/09/2008 @ 10:48pm
The golfer said, "So then why didn''t you just paint them black?"

The man nodded sadly and replied, "We did. Then four of 'em didn''t show up for work, two filed for welfare, one of them robbed the pro shop, and the other is running for President."

Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 8:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Frank,

How was the klan meeting this week? Have you made grand wizard yet?

Posted by BizarroRio at 07/09/2008 @ 10:51pm
Posted by Maskbeta at 07/09/2008 @ 10:43pm

It is self destructive behavior. So rare to see it's stunning.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 10:54pm
Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 9:44pm

"And yet, you will sit on your ass and do nothing. How noble."

Would it be more "noble" for me to join in a parade of fools simply because the foolish bid me to, Benchcrust. I see the thing as beyond repair and participation the counsel of simpletons. But simpletons vote and, furthermore, without concern for John Lowell's attitudes, so are we to encourage the most egregious of potential stupidities for them or the least? Now invite me to a mass demonstration a la Ukraine 2007 with a view to dissolving the present structures and bringing the vermin within them to public trial and sentencing and you'd have an interested party. Naturally, the new constitution would forbid the holding of public office by these same insects.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 11:06pm
lvliberty -

Oops! I was thinking of your first comment. I was thinking of responding to your asking who still supported Obama; I probably should have included you with the Hillary voters, since that paragraph answered you. I won't do it again.

Posted by ramara at 07/09/2008 @ 11:09pm
Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 11:06pm

Then you live your life in vain and wish for that which will not be. Out of politeness I would wish you luck, but it would be meaningless.

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 11:16pm
Posted by ramara at 07/09/2008 @ 9:06pm

To john lowell, lvliberty -

Stalin? Hitler? The CP in this country felt betrayed by the pact, especially the Jewish members. I don't know if the feelings being expressed here are similar, but we are not in a life and death situation so I doubt the intensity is the same.

Ah, yes, my friend, ramara. I believe lvliberty has disowned this whole exchange, ramara, so only the truly good looking persist.

The reference was to a resemblance between synchophantic Obama types and the response of Earl Browder to the party line on the 1939 pact, ramara. The perceived betrayal notwithstanding, the confusion and the like, most went along lock step as they did consistently right up to and including the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. And here we have Obama selling out American liberty and a not dissimilar response on the part of these lemmings of his. Once fixed, the objects of infantile idealism are rarely disgarded. Obama could urinate on these people once weekly and they'd perform a brest stroke.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 11:27pm
You'll never in your wildest imagination guess who I really am.

Posted by frankgrits

jesse helms?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2008 @ 11:28pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 11:16pm

So what do they call someone who ceases to speak and behave as though he gives a shit about other people's sons and daughters, once his is safe at home, like you?

Posted by Malcontent at 07/09/2008 @ 11:30pm
You'll never in your wildest imagination guess who I really am.

Posted by frankgrits at 07/09/2008 @ 11:10pm

Batman?

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 11:30pm
Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 11:16pm

"Then you live your life in vain and wish for that which will not be. Out of politeness I would wish you luck, but it would be meaningless."

There is more to life than ideology, Benchcrust, there is the love of God in Jesus Christ. It is the only thing in life that is real, that has meaning and is worth pursuing, actually. Enveloped in it, I won't need any luck, be sure. Best to you.

Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 11:40pm
frankgrits-Actually,you're hoping that McCain gets elected and screws up so that the GOP is screwed and that leaves 2012 wide open for Hillary.Hoping that McCain screws up,of course,includes getting troops killed.Your cult has become more important to you than the country or troop lives.You are the puke,I'm afraid.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/09/2008 @ 11:47pm
Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 11:40pm

Acts 2:38

Mark 16:16

1 Peter 3:21

Romans 6

Posted by Benchrest at 07/09/2008 @ 11:50pm
Really? Is there ANYbody on here who doesn't have Grits on Ignore? Will you at least PLEASE stop quoting him in your posts??? All he wants is attention, and you feed his habit by giving it. IGNORE HIM and STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Posted by sjduskin at 07/10/2008 @ 12:02am
And the TOPIC is...

The very people who got Obama the nomination were sold down the river by him.

He actually had the political arrogance to vote AGAINST the filibuster and FOR the unconstitutional law. He couldn't even stand with his Democratic colleagues! Why should he be given the nomination, when he stabs his own Party in the back??

Really, does anyone out there think he will appoint another John Paul Stevens or William O. Douglas to the Supreme Court? ("On the whole, this guy Alito is A-okay!") This man is dangerous to the Constitution in his mendacity; at least with Bush/Rove/Cheney, you could see it coming. With Obama, he says one thing, and when you let your guard down, he does the opposite.

Right now, even the easy-to-hate Hillary looks good!

Posted by sjduskin at 07/10/2008 @ 12:11am
"IOW, she'd be a female Dan Quayle."

Like Cindy?

And My Friend Irma.

Posted by sloper at 07/10/2008 @ 12:20am
Oh how far the self-righteous have fallen. It seems like only yesterday Mett was telling us all about how Obama was the only REAL PROGRESSIVE!!!!! Everyone else was a DLC plant. Now that Obama is engaging in DLC triangulation, its all about winning.

Of course Mett's position doesn't even make sense. There is no strong groundwell of support for telecom immunity. Pretty much the only people who care about this issue and side with Obama are telecom executives and shareholders. Only a fool would cast this vote out of a desire to get electoral advantage. And Obama is no fool. There is no reasonable conclusion but that this is his real position, and that he is honestly supporting allowing people who violated our constitutional rights to get away without even a slap on the wrist.

But this is what the cult of personality inspires. No matter what the leader must be right.

Luckily it seems from the groups on Obama's networking site that a significant number of Obama supporters are significantly more honest than Mett.

Posted by Poppolphil at 07/10/2008 @ 12:40am
where balcks were some of my best friends and are to this day.

Gee Frank, it took you that long to do the "some of my best friends are black people" line? I guess all that smoke from the burning crosses has fogged up your brain.

Posted by brunowe at 07/10/2008 @ 12:52am
More than the gaseous, and sometimes intoxicating, "victory" that Republicans -and Frank- talk about, the USA needs moral victories. That is, victories of the heart and spirit, that will demonstrate our values and our vision of the world. And certainly that vision should not include the prospect of an empire, not even an economic empire. Now victories like that would make our soldiers and citizens really proud.

Stop the falacies that soldiers would like to return "triumphant" from Iraq so they need to stay "until finishing the job and winning", whaat?: bullshhh... Nor that if they return immediately they will return as defeated. The dubious mission that Bush gave them does not correspond at all with their highest courage and sense of duty. They have already win, as always the problem resides in our political management, not on the brave men and women that put their humanities to test and won.

The USA needs to face it. As we have won militarily, we have had an irreversible geopolitical loss. Iraq will be an ally of Iran in the foreseeable future as the Shiite fraction will impose rule. That will only reinforce a perilous eastern front for Israel. Don't ever forget that a myopic Republican administration did this only because they wanted to topple Saddam. As for Al-Qaeda, they will only die when hatred towards our country diminishes and that will occur only when the world witnesses our moral victories and not for example our selfishness for oil.

Posted by Frank42 at 07/10/2008 @ 12:52am
I personally don't care about Franks joke. Hell I make much more offensive jokes than that without ever actually believing what I am saying. Calling some you don't know a n----r is one thing but telling an offensive joke, eh whatever. On top of that I SHOULD be the one who is offended. So don't worry about his joke.

Give it up on Frank. His ego is so huge it's ridiculous. He is prodding you guys because he seeks attention. He thinks he is somehow above all of us. That the writers at The Nation actually care about him. That he is actually somehow more intelligent than everyone here. He's just a misguided sad old man searching the internet for the vestiges of attention that he hasn't received enough of in life. It's a sad sad thing to see. He lives vicariously through others. He considers himself to have somehow been in the military because his son served. I can tell he never has simply because when he mentions being in the military he mentions his SON'S service. Never his. If you WERE in the military then I beg to be proven wrong. I don't think I am though. I don't know you Frank. You don't know me yet you sit here and insult me constantly so maybe you should take your own advice. If you don't then you have given enough proof that you are at least a massive hypocrite.

Happy. The whole thing with the gold old days. I don't know how far back you are talking but there was a certain time those jokes were told because of ACTUAL racism not because of a lack of PC. Like when someone said "What's similar between a black person and an apple? The both look good hanging from trees." It's because they meant it, not because it's a joke. Again I don't know what good old days you're talking about so I can't make that judgement call.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 02:42am
How will we know when we've won? Who will surrender to us, what strategic gains, in land or otherwise, will we have made? We have been fighting Iraqis on their soil; will victory give us control of their land? Or their oil?

Or maybe we'll know we've won when they ask us to leave their country?

Also, I support Obama even after today's vote, never was a "cultist" or sychophant.

By the way, isn't Teddy Kennedy awesome?

Posted by ramara at 07/10/2008 @ 02:42am
Posted by john lowell at 07/09/2008 @ 6:37pm

And john lowell, nutjobs (or phoneys) like you trying to tell progressives to vote for Nader, which will do nothing but help elect John McCain....need a street corner and a sign! heheh

Posted by Maskbeta at 07/09/2008 @ 7:07pm

No, you "cultists" have it wrong. It is Obama who will help elect McCain, by continuing to vote with Bush to cover up illegal acts, by continuing to vote for war spending "off budget", by keeping our troops in Iraq and failing to fix the mess in Afghanistan and by giving cover to his big donors .

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 07:25am
[Five years ago polls were conducted that asked a very specific question: "Do you favor the US Invasion of Iraq?" Seventy percent answered, "Yes".]-Marybretbrad

Five years ago Chimpy was telling people that Saddam had nukes, 20,000 litres of Anthrax, drone planes capable of reaching the US and ties with AQ.

I know these fallacies influenced your desire to invade a sovereign country, don't you think they probably influenced the other sheep too? What does it say when you use statistics that are based on lies, testimony from drunks and felons, obfuscations and forgeries?

BOO!

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 07:34am
Darin, what would you say to someone that wanted to visit Baghdad and asked you for a life insurance policy?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/10/2008 @ 07:38am
I think at this point, the mindset of those of us who've watched in horror as the country we once knew and loved inexorably slid into a fascist police state is that we simply cannot take any more. But take it we must, at least until we can get a strong progressive majority into power. If you recall, Bush and his cronies promised a moderate, bipartisan rule, then as soon as they took power they veered so hard right even moderates were thrown off the bus in the swerve. Let Obama say what he needs to now. The time to hold him accountable is after he wins....

Posted by StoneSoupStation at 07/10/2008 @ 07:49am
Impeachment will happen sooner or later. Neither McCain or Obama will give up their new sweeping powers willingly.

It's up to us to correct the imbalance of power - be the new abuser republican or democrat.

Posted by nameme at 07/10/2008 @ 09:23am
'Shawnedria McGinty was not sure what to think when she saw the comic book series Memin Pinguin on shelves at her local Wal-Mart. After flipping through the popular Mexican comic book, one word came to mind – racist....Historically, Memin Pinguin has been hugely popular on newsstands in Mexico and Latin America and has sales in the millions. Originally published in the 1960s, it was recently re-issued and available in Wal-Marts north of the border."They are calling him names. They call him an animal in one section. His mom is spanking his butt and it looks like they are drowning him," said McGinty, who went so far as to buy a Spanish dictionary to better understand the comic books.

She found one passage particularly offensive. In the frame, Memin Pinguin is being kicked by a light-skinned man and called "a black troublemaker."... This is not the first time Memin Pinguin has stirred up controversy. The character spurred debate in 2005 when the Mexican government issued a stamp commemorating Memin. At the time, many U.S. activists and political figures called the character racist.

The Mexican government said Americans did not understand Memin's cultural significance in Mexico.' -- Dallas News -- 8 July, 2008

Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/10/2008 @ 09:25am
"Impeachment will happen sooner or later. Neither McCain or Obama will give up their new sweeping powers willingly. It's up to us to correct the imbalance of power - be the new abuser republican or democrat. Posted by nameme at 07/10/2008 @ 09:23am

If only it were so.

The Dems have all the ammo they need, but they merely yawn at the thought.

Except for the intrepid Dennis Kucinich.

The GOP couldn't care less about limiting imperial abuse ... unless it involves oval office orgies.

Posted by sloper at 07/10/2008 @ 09:35am
Frank's joke isn't funny because the majority of people believe all blacks are on welfare or are thieves;

Posted by marybretbrad at 07/10/2008 @ 07:58am

Well the problem with Frank's was that e dug a hole for himself before when be basically said that all black came together and decided to overpopulate the US and steal from the welfare system. ALL blacks did it according to. Making all blacks thieves. If he hadn't have made that comment yesterday he might have gotten away with this joke today but he kind of handicapped himself.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 09:53am
Obama voted for FISA? Well maybe he is not so bad after all. He realizes the searches are just as necessary as the warrantless searches at our airports.

Posted by abell12ct at 07/10/2008 @ 10:08am
For all the Obama supporters: what evidence do you have that Obama will stick to his principles once he is elected president?

Posted by blue photon at 07/09/2008 @ 9:10pm | warn this person

There is none. Blind faith....or should I say hope? Feingold last night on the boob tube says that once Dems have the executive and a clear majority in congress we may be able to fix it....and we should trust that Obama knows constitutional law, respects civil liberties, and will do the right thing...maybe.

I am not buying into that crap. NSA spying isn't only about fighting terrorism....its about control, power and political advantage here at home. The pre 9/11 attempts of NSA offer proof of this. We will never know the real story because the real story will remain "classified" and not subject to discovery. Obama should have done the right thing -- right off. We have no idea of what future compromises lie in store for us. Very troubling.

Posted by OneVote at 07/10/2008 @ 10:44am
"Now however, we have a chance to turn lemons into lemonade. Plus we have the sacrifice of over 4000 young men and women to honor and that of thousands more wounded. "

That is absolute nonsense. Point to one political advance in the federalism, hydrocarbon or political reconciliation area. Also, please explain how you honor the dead by creating more of them.

"Maintaining a troop presence there is the least costly thinf America can do right now. We can't go back and undo what's been done. We have to move forward."

Not at all. It certainly isn't less costly for America and there's been no long-term political evolution in Iraq which will keep the Shi'ites from going after each other or the Sunnis.

Posted by brunowe at 07/10/2008 @ 10:52am
FrankGrits-You haven't answered any complaints.In fact,you ran away from them as you always do in favor of name calling and lying.You ought to ask Hillary to give you your testicles back.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 11:05am
You really can't read, can you? Or maybe you just read what you want and don't actually see the words. Sad in either case. Posted by frankgrits at 07/10/2008 @ 10:01am

Yes Frank. I can't read. That is how I type on here everyday. That is how I respond to everything you are saying.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 11:14am
You, of course are a liar. I never said ALL blacks did this. I said it was widespread and produced the data to proove it. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder because you've been had by your own kind and you can't handle it. Grow up or shut up. Posted by frankgrits at 07/10/2008 @ 10:19am

I have no chip on my shoulder. Had by my own kind? As if you are different from my kind Frank? It's comments like that that give people the impression that you are racist. I'm not saying that you are so don't get your panties in a bunch I am just saying that THAT is what gives people the impression.

"The black community played the system against the hand that was feeding them. Before anyone starts crying racist, let me say that their were of course some exceptions. But by and large, single mothers had five and six and more babies, most of which would never know their fathers."

This is from your post Frank. I admit you didn't say ALL blacks. You said by and large.

This is the definition of the phrase "by and large" so we don't get confused:

"Currently means in all cases or in any case. From the nautical: by meaning into the wind and large meaning with the wind: as in, "By and Large the ship handled very well.""

It means in ALL cases. For this context we will say you meant in MOST cases. You can change your original statement if you want. Or if you Google Frankgirts+Welfare+blacks you can find the whole post to refresh your memory. So no it is not a chip on my shoulder. It is just either you not speaking clearly or you trying to backpedal over your previous statement or just flat out lie about it. In any case, with the power of Google Frank, it is not that easy to change what was said.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 11:24am
Grow up or shut up.

Posted by frankgrits at 07/10/2008 @ 10:19am

That statement carries some irony from the person who insults people like a 5 year old. Didn't you call Mask gay the other day in an insulting manner? Then haven't you called people little girls? It's funny that YOU tell people to grow up when YOU insist on acting like a 10 year old.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 11:28am
I'm astonished that people are surprised at Obama's position. He sells out time after time. He WAS for Single-Payer healthcare, now he's against it. He claimed to be against telecom innunity and illegal wiretapping, he votes with the Republicans for it. He claims to be against the war, but will still leave thousands of troops in Iraq, adcocates an increase in military spending, and has the nerve to make a call for more enlistment. He panders to AIPAC in early June, setting the stage for war with Iran. For God's sake, he won the Illinois state senate by using lawyers to remove all competition from the ballot, leaving him as the only choice! Obama is a corporate democrat, inside and out, and people are giving him a free ride just because he's better than Bush and McCain. People's standards have become so low. Try supporting a real progressive like Ralph Nader, instead of a phony corporate wolf in sheep's clothing.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:33am
Try supporting a real progressive like Ralph Nader, instead of a phony corporate wolf in sheep's clothing.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:33am

And lets give McCain the Presidency!

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 11:38am
Do you favor the US Invasion of Iraq?" Seventy percent answered, "Yes".

Posted by marybretbrad at 07/10/2008

asked to find iraq on a map, seventy percent said "woof!".

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 11:40am
Cccomfo1, so it seems like a good idea to you to neglect Ralph Nader's infinitely superior platform and integrity, and vote for Obama, who clearly sells out at every turn, just because the Democrats & Republicans have bullied the entire electorate into thinking they only have 2 choices? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. I personally don't see that much difference between Obama, Bush or McCain. Obama is deceiving people on the Iraq war, so giving him a free ride to the presidency is a terrible idea. The 2 major parties are the REASON we are in soo much trouble! Remember, the Dems are the ones that promised to end the war in 2006? Did they? The Dems are NOT an opposition party! They have a MAJORITY in both houses and do not stand up to Bush! How blatant can things get? They could end the war right now if they had courage. Believing in them, or Obama's corny "Change We Can Believe In" slogan is naive. People need to stop this submission to the Democratic party and start voting their conscience instead of the "least worst" of the 2 major parties.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:54am
Cccomfo1, so it seems like a good idea to you to neglect Ralph Nader's infinitely superior platform and integrity, and vote for Obama, who clearly sells out at every turn, just because the Democrats & Republicans have bullied the entire electorate into thinking they only have 2 choices? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. I personally don't see that much difference between Obama, Bush or McCain. Obama is deceiving people on the Iraq war, so giving him a free ride to the presidency is a terrible idea. The 2 major parties are the REASON we are in soo much trouble! Remember, the Dems are the ones that promised to end the war in 2006? Did they? The Dems are NOT an opposition party! They have a MAJORITY in both houses and do not stand up to Bush! How blatant can things get? They could end the war right now if they had courage. Believing in them, or Obama's corny "Change We Can Believe In" slogan is naive. People need to stop this submission to the Democratic party and start voting their conscience instead of the "least worst" of the 2 major parties.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:55am
Cccomfo1, so it seems like a good idea to you to neglect Ralph Nader's infinitely superior platform and integrity, and vote for Obama, who clearly sells out at every turn, just because the Democrats & Republicans have bullied the entire electorate into thinking they only have 2 choices? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. I personally don't see that much difference between Obama, Bush or McCain. Obama is deceiving people on the Iraq war, so giving him a free ride to the presidency is a terrible idea. The 2 major parties are the REASON we are in soo much trouble! Remember, the Dems are the ones that promised to end the war in 2006? Did they? The Dems are NOT an opposition party! They have a MAJORITY in both houses and do not stand up to Bush! How blatant can things get? They could end the war right now if they had courage. Believing in them, or Obama's corny "Change We Can Believe In" slogan is naive. People need to stop this submission to the Democratic party and start voting their conscience instead of the "least worst" of the 2 major parties.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:55am
Cccomfo1, so it seems like a good idea to you to neglect Ralph Nader's infinitely superior platform and integrity, and vote for Obama, who clearly sells out at every turn, just because the Democrats & Republicans have bullied the entire electorate into thinking they only have 2 choices? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. I personally don't see that much difference between Obama, Bush or McCain. Obama is deceiving people on the Iraq war, so giving him a free ride to the presidency is a terrible idea. The 2 major parties are the REASON we are in soo much trouble! Remember, the Dems are the ones that promised to end the war in 2006? Did they? The Dems are NOT an opposition party! They have a MAJORITY in both houses and do not stand up to Bush! How blatant can things get? They could end the war right now if they had courage. Believing in them, or Obama's corny "Change We Can Believe In" slogan is naive. People need to stop this submission to the Democratic party and start voting their conscience instead of the "least worst" of the 2 major parties.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:55am
Cccomfo1, so it seems like a good idea to you to neglect Ralph Nader's infinitely superior platform and integrity, and vote for Obama, who clearly sells out at every turn, just because the Democrats & Republicans have bullied the entire electorate into thinking they only have 2 choices? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. I personally don't see that much difference between Obama, Bush or McCain. Obama is deceiving people on the Iraq war, so giving him a free ride to the presidency is a terrible idea. The 2 major parties are the REASON we are in soo much trouble! Remember, the Dems are the ones that promised to end the war in 2006? Did they? The Dems are NOT an opposition party! They have a MAJORITY in both houses and do not stand up to Bush! How blatant can things get? They could end the war right now if they had courage. Believing in them, or Obama's corny "Change We Can Believe In" slogan is naive. People need to stop this submission to the Democratic party and start voting their conscience instead of the "least worst" of the 2 major parties.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:55am
Cccomfo1, so it seems like a good idea to you to neglect Ralph Nader's infinitely superior platform and integrity, and vote for Obama, who clearly sells out at every turn, just because the Democrats & Republicans have bullied the entire electorate into thinking they only have 2 choices? The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. I personally don't see that much difference between Obama, Bush or McCain. Obama is deceiving people on the Iraq war, so giving him a free ride to the presidency is a terrible idea. The 2 major parties are the REASON we are in soo much trouble! Remember, the Dems are the ones that promised to end the war in 2006? Did they? The Dems are NOT an opposition party! They have a MAJORITY in both houses and do not stand up to Bush! How blatant can things get? They could end the war right now if they had courage. Believing in them, or Obama's corny "Change We Can Believe In" slogan is naive. People need to stop this submission to the Democratic party and start voting their conscience instead of the "least worst" of the 2 major parties.

Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:55am
carlosmnyc-Nader and his supporters were conned by Bush into thinking that Bush and Gore were of equal intelligence and equally capable making Nader and his supporters dumber than Bush.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 12:06pm
as bush readies his pen to sign this disgusting bill, darla is (officially) making plans to:

a) renounce her US citizenship

b) move to british columbia

Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by carlosmnyc at 07/10/2008 @ 11:55am

but nader needs to start from the bottom, not the top.

a movement, not a man is needed.

president nader could accomplish NOTHING given the fact he would have ZERO help from congress.

of course mr. nader's ideas are the better ones, but so are mine.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 12:09pm
Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008

don't drink the water!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2008 @ 12:11pm
A fact that I find interesting is that it's impossible to know if a new id is really a Nader supporter or a republican.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 12:15pm
The last good third party candidate was the pig that the Yippie party ran for POTUS back in 1968.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 12:20pm
obama is the biggest fraud in washington, and since i may still be here by november, i will certainly vote for nader.

and if mccain wins, as a result of taking some of obama's votes, it will not be my fault.

it will be the fault of obama. pure and simple.

he has rejected his people. he has rejected his promises. and he has fulfilled the conventional beltway "wisdom" of moving towards that mythical center, i.e. give the president everything he wants.

let me ask the forum something: if democrats need to be tough on national security, then why do they simply bow to republicans?

how is it tough when give the opposition everything it wants, and then some?

Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 12:38pm
I have been a fan of The Nation for years due to its shrewd, insightful journalism -- until it went head over heels for unvetted, always spineless Obama. Look at this apparent Democratic nominee now! Obama has done one thing and said another from the beginning, which most liberals (who voted for Hillary Clinton) recognized. The only question remaining is whether Obama is a chronic liar or simply has no inner compass about who he is. Conversely, Hillary Clinton is a rock and always has been. I'm a strong liberal and after a few days under Obama's spell, I switched back to Clinton because I realized she knows how to fix the economy, international status, the federal government, end the war, global warming, etc., etc., etc. -- and will deliver! That's her proven record. Plus, she grew in her campaign. She came to understand and empathize with the struggles of all Americans, not just with liberals like us. Any good President should have that regard for all Americans. She is not dogmatic and narrow minded, as most of us political news hounds tend to be and The Nation became in the primaries.

Now, we're in a horrible fix with Obama. Who knows what the future brings. Who is this guy?

Posted by richhall at 07/10/2008 @ 12:40pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 11:24am CCC...do you REALLY think FRANK isn't a racist (and likely a homophobic bigot as well)?

No. I don't think Frank is a racist. I also don't think he is a homophobic bigot. I think he sometimes doesn't think before he speaks which we all do. I also think that he sometimes makes comments that to many people would be offensive but to those of us who have a darker sense of humor understand as being a joke. I don't think making racial jokes makes you a bigot. I say many times to people that the reason that black jokes don't offend me and the reason I am fine with people making them is because it is HOW you say it not WHAT you are saying. If you make a racial joke to a friend of that race who you have known for a long time they know you are joking. Many of my friends are white and make jokes all the time about me being black. They are my friends I know what they say is a joke. Just like I joke about them being white. Or joke with my half Iranian friend that he is half a terrorist. We laugh because we say it with nothing more than a joke in mind.

If you make the same joke I made about the apples and you mean you want to see black people being lynched then yes you are a bigot and you make the joke because you think lynching black people is funny. However if you make the joke as nothing more than a joke of shock value and not out of actual racist intention, like Mary said most people in this world do not think lynching someone is actually funny, then you are not a racist. I do not think Frank is racist. I think like everyone he makes less than tactful comments sometimes. But being less than tactful is the spice of life. If we were all polite all the time we would also be bored all the time.

I think Frank wouldn't think for a second to make that joke to a black person on the street that he didn't know because he knows that to them it would be offensive. But a joke between friends is a joke between friends. A joke like that on a blog where he has been posting for a long time is essentially a joke between friends.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 12:49pm
Hello everybody,

I did want to post in and take the opportunity to gloat, because of the following news article which you already know about and are all bent up and upset about on these recent "threads"

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

Bush readies pen; Relishes signing wiretap bill AP - Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:07:36 -0400 (EDT)

President Bush is poised to sign a bill that overhauls the bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases. The Senate sent the measure to the president on Wednesday and he is to sign it in a Rose Garden ceremony Thursday afternoon. The bill was a victory for Bush. Its approval came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling in the Democratic-led Congress over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

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

As I said, this is after the fact gloating because the above news article is what launched this "thread" to begin with - but it is enjoyable to know that with all the angst and contortion and various posts where Hman23, crabwalk and others post in how stupid and dizzy I am because I don't see things the way you do, it doesn't matter because policy you disagree with and will be helpful to our national security is being put into place.

Come to think of it, that says it all to start with. That things you disagree with are good for the country and things you agree with are usually bad for the country!

Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2008 @ 12:51pm
I just wanted to add that I heard a fascinating theory on why the Northeastern wing of the Democratic Party (that gave us McGovern, Teddy in '80, Dukakis and Kerry) handpicked Obama after 1 year in the US Senate to run for President. This African-American woman who told me her theory is one of the most respected civil rights leaders in the South, if not the most, (and she remains a Hillary Clinton supporter). She said Obama was handpicked to split the Democratic women's voting block along racial lines, which only an African American could do (since the Northeastern wing would never back a woman candidate). She predicted months ago to me that they went with Obama because they needed someone who would switch sides on the issues as they ordered -- and predicted that's what Obama would be like, or they wouldn't have picked him. I always believed her because she's the most shrewd political analyst I know. But I just didn't see Obama doing that, until this month. The confusing thing is, what do they want? That was the civil rights leader's question exactly: "The question is, what do they want?"

There are other alliances, the civil rights leader noted, that come into play with Obama's coming of age in Chicago politics. Obama's past includes very Chicago-style-politics campaign chief Axelrod and includes Obama rubbing shoulders with at least one foreign billionaire (Nadhmi Auchi ... go to ... http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=Cz2Qj7Z73pi 3ICz6JpbpANIKtfB7LoObFjMEVhB9SQ9iJZai1s&bbParentWidgetId=B8k88rWwXopuz5S TgLeVwBLu) ... in Obama's political march to prominence. Has anybody ever checked to make sure Obama's alleged millions of $5, $10 or $25 donors actually exist and aren't money from one source linked to millions fictitious names -- if there are records at all? Typically, donations under $200 never are checked.

The only question left for Obama is what do his handlers want? We already know we're screwed.

Posted by richhall at 07/10/2008 @ 12:57pm
Hello Rese,

Normally I just scroll through and ignore what you say but the following caught my attention - a comment directed at me.:

"It is documented that plans (Operation Northwoods)were made by top US military officials (see below) to commit acts of terror on innocent people to justify an invasion of Cuba. It was rejected by President J.F.K, Jr.

It is well known that Bush wanted war in the Middle East way before 9/11 happened, and the he and his family would benifit finacially with their ties to Saudi financiers and oil industries , and Cheney would benifit greatly by Halliburton stocks, and oil industries. How do you know for certain that they were not complicit in the 9/11 attacks?"

This is wild stuff, here, Rese!

When was J.F.K. Jr. President? Did I miss something. I do not believe he ever was President and it would seem impossible that he could still be someday, given he perished in his private plane east of New York City.

I suppose you may claim he really was running things at the time frame involved, but that would be a stretch too - thinking that his father would have relied on his advice when he hadn't yet even been to kindergarten!

This of course, though, must be what you believe because the President John F. Kennedy's father was Joseph P. Kennedy, and Joseph Kennedy, Jr. also perished in a plane crash, that time in World War II.

So our President from 1961 - 1963 was not a "junior".

You of course already know this so you must have intentionally been talking about JFK, Jr. Wow! That kid must have been smart - directing national policy while he was still in diapers!

Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2008 @ 1:00pm
Hello Maskbeta,

No they are not evil. They are just wrong. Even though I don't know anybody here personally I am sure they are mostly decent and good people, but wrong.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2008 @ 1:02pm
maskbeta, you can thank obama for that, not me.

Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 1:07pm
No candidate represents me.Whine,whine,whine.America isn't fair to me because they won't elect someone who is a pure progressive or conservative.Whine,whine,whine..whine,whine,whine.My Hillary did not win.Whine,whine,whine.I'm going to throw myself on the floor and kick and scream until America does what I say and the candidates obey me because I'm all that matters..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 1:24pm
Hey, anybody here how in a speech yesterday in Georgia, Obama talked about how stupid Americans were because they can't speak French or Spanish? And that Obama, himself, speaks neither? What is this guy, a comedian, or is he just a joke?

Posted by pontificus at 07/10/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by marybretbrad at 07/10/2008 @ 1:35pm

"I'd consider that progress."

But nobody, apparently, on the left does. Here, a person's life only counts if it's politically convenient.

Posted by pontificus at 07/10/2008 @ 1:40pm
ponti-Can you back up your claim that Obama said that Americans were stupid?

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 1:41pm
I've noticed that republicans never promote McCain.They just put Obama down.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 1:42pm
MBB/Ponti-Your side invited terrorists to come into Iraq and kill Iraqis and you call that progress and call that caring about human life.You are a joke..

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 1:44pm
I'd consider that progress.

Posted by marybretbrad at 07/10/2008 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

So as long as they are killed by other people than Saddam, you don't bother to count them?

Posted by brunowe at 07/10/2008 @ 1:46pm
MBB-Churchill did not say that.

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 1:49pm
MBB-You have no experience that shows that liberal ideas do not work.Ever hear about the great depression and WW2 by chance?

Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 1:51pm
" In the decade before the US invaded, Saddam murdered 400,000 Iraqi civilians. And since he was captured, his tally is zero"

first, you numbers are extraordinarily inflated; second, those "iraqi civilians" were actually kurdish militant separatists, who have been threatening to secede from northern iraq for many, many years; third, since the invasion, as least 400,000 iraqi civilians *have* died; fourth, the murder of civilians was not one of the primary justifications given for the invasion; fifth, even if it *was* one of the primary justifications given for the invasion, shouldn't we logically and equally apply that justification to other countries (read: darfur, zimbabwe, etc) where innocent civilians have been murdered?

marybretbard, you are part of an inexorably dwindling class of frustrated pseudo-intellectuals, who have precious few arguments left in support of the most disastrous political class in our nation's sad and terrible history.

but i thank you for taking part in our "democracy".

Posted by darladoon at 07/10/2008 @ 1:51pm
Hello Maskbeta, No they are not evil. They are just wrong. Even though I don't know anybody here personally I am sure they are mostly decent and good people, but wrong. Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2008 @ 1:02pm

Just because the President is excited to sign something through does not mean it is good or bad. Think about it this way, has every bill Congress passed and every piece of legislation been good for the country? You have no proof that this is actually good for the country you just think it is because it passed? Does that mean every piece of legislation has been good? How about welfare legislation? School reform? Gun control legislation? All of this passed and according to you anything that passes MUST be good for country. You are insane if you think just because it passed that makes it good. There was legislation that passed that declared blacks only 3/5ths of a human does that make it good? Your theories as to the workings of wrong and right are ridiculous.

I am honestly dumbfounded that you actually said that everything you agree with is right and anyone disagrees with you is wrong. That is the debating tactic of a child. I don't mean that as insult either. Children use that tactic. Examine legislation since the beginning of America and apply your theory to it. You will find that it quickly falls apart as you run into legislation you DON'T agree with.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 2:23pm
Who did? Posted by marybretbrad at 07/10/2008 @ 1:51pm

SJChermark. Read his earlier comment.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 2:34pm
***For all the Obama supporters: what evidence do you have that Obama will stick to his principles once he is elected president?

We have none, that's why this former staunch Obama supporter is done. I'm disappointed (very) but haven't lost brain function. So, I won't be voting for McCain. But, the money and work I put into the campaign is over.

Posted by paranoid36 at 07/10/2008 @ 3:53pm
I'm sure you think the Democrats' solutions to our problems are right and the Republicans' solutions are wrong, generally speaking. that's the only point he was making. Posted by marybretbrad at 07/10/2008 @ 4:19p

That's the difference. I don't think everything Republican is wrong and everything Democrat is right. I think they both screw up and both get it right at about a proportional rate. Both groups are trying to help in different ways and they work as each others check to make sure that neither side gets too much through.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:55pm
Hmm I keep getting time warped.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/10/2008 @ 4:58pm
MBB

I concur. I consider Bush to be a bad president on a par with Buchanan, Grant and Harding; but the United States is stronger than a bad administration. The economic crunch is potentially severe but I doubt it will be as bad as the Great Depression or worse than the financial crises that this country periodically has.

I consider Iraq a quagmire but it isn't significantly worse than Vietnam. That war that scarred this country (and did significantly worse to Vietnam) but we had more successful foreign policies later on and our military recovered.

I consider the overreach inspired by the "unitary executive" theory to be dangerously unconstitutional, but I don't think the situation has gotten as bad as during the red scares of the 20s and 50s. I don't even see the equivalent of the Alien and Sedition Act (yes, even the Framers messed up on occasion).

Posted by brunowe at 07/10/2008 @ 4:59pm
MBB

I concur. I consider Bush to be a bad president on a par with Buchanan, Grant and Harding; but the United States is stronger than a bad administration. The economic crunch is potentially severe but I doubt it will be as bad as the Great Depression or worse than the financial crises that this country periodically has.

I consider Iraq a quagmire but it isn't significantly worse than Vietnam. That war that scarred this country (and did significantly worse to Vietnam) but we had more successful foreign policies later on and our military recovered.

I consider the overreach inspired by the "unitary executive" theory to be dangerously unconstitutional, but I don't think the situation has gotten as bad as during the red scares of the 20s and 50s. I don't even see the equivalent of the Alien and Sedition Act (yes, even the Framers messed up on occasion).

Posted by brunowe at 07/10/2008 @ 5:02pm
Hello cccomfor1,

I did not mean that this legislation is good BECAUSE it passed or that all legislation that passes is good.

What I meant was that this is in my opinion good legislation, and I am glad it passed. I am also happy that libs have been unsuccessful in stopping it and I was rubbing it in.

Of course in the history of this country there has been bad legislation that has passed. I was only commenting on this piece of legislation and the fact that it is now reality.

You then said:

"I am honestly dumbfounded that you actually said that everything you agree with is right and anyone disagrees with you is wrong. That is the debating tactic of a child. I don't mean that as insult either. Children use that tactic."

I got a little bit on my high horse here - but for good reason.

This Bush hatred just does not stop. As I am writing this there is another one in the hopper already, I see John Nichols has a story about impeachment in the blogs and right now on the home page.

It is almost like being at a busy airport, but instead of airplanes queueing up on the runway to take off, the contributors to The Nation just keep pumping out article after article to no end about some aspect of just about anything that they blame on George W. Bush, or some way they can get George W. Bush impeached or charged with some kind of criminal behavior.

It is like nothing I have ever seen before in my life - I am getting old now and I do not remember people like Lyndon B. Johnson or Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan or even Slick Willie catching the amount of flak and abuse President Bush receives, even though they certainly got their share.

Maybe my perception is distorted somewhat because now with the internet you can call up info and articles and blog postings so easily wheras in the past if intense angst existed against those other Presidents it was not as readily obvious.

But it frustrates me because I have read books (that would be called lies and propoganda by liberals) that paint quite a different picture of President Bush.

He is down to earth and not pretentious. He is not full of himself. He is not concerned about his legacy, unlike the previous occupant of the White House. He is not a moron or stupid, far from it. He is an excellent manager of people and motivator of people, in terms of the people who directly work for him.

I am reading a book by Karen Hughes, who was a top official in his White House as well as in the State House in Texas and on his campaigns. She talks about how in meetings and in talking to his staff he would ask questions that would provoke thought and he expected his staff to be prepared. He would, as going through drafts of speeches written for him, suggest to the speechwriters how to revise their writings to better convey what the message was.

And he is doing what he thinks is right for the country. He has not conducted all the effort in Iraq, etc. for all the nefarious reasons that are affixed to him by vicious angry leftists. He is doing it because he thinks it is right.

It just gets absurd sometimes because of course there is the right to free speech in this country and all the vicious angry leftists have every right to vent their anger and I would not want that right taken away from them.

However, one does have to ask the question at some point - don't any of these people have any positive or productive solutions or ideas that would actually work on how to improve upon what is already a great country to begin with?

Solutions other than to turn this country into Socialist Utopia and punish the successful, and thus take away success as a role model for all, and replace it with dependence on the government for all, even for people who clearly don't need or want it, and total subservience to the whims and opinions of all other nations to direct what we are supposed to do at all times?

There are a lot of angry leftists who are going to be totally devoid of a mission in life come next January, regardless of whether the Democrat or the Republican in Name Only wins the White House, because they will no longer have the subject of their hate and anger as the sitting President. They will be left empty and frustrated with no easy person to blame whatever (fill in the blank) problem there is at the time.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/10/2008 @ 5:20pm
carlosmnyc-Nader and his supporters were conned by Bush into thinking that Bush and Gore were of equal intelligence and equally capable making Nader and his supporters dumber than Bush. Posted by i'm nobody at 07/10/2008 @ 12:06pm |

piffle.

No con was perpetrated. Gore did what Obama is doing, he ran to the right. Same as Kerry, look what it got them. If Obama keeps flip flopping I and many others will vote Nader again in a minute, and the "blame" will rest solidly on Baraks weak shoulders.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/11/2008 @ 08:14am
See website: http://www.draftnader.org/

'Dear Ralph Nader:

We, the undersigned Green Party members, are urging you to run for President again with the Green Party of the United States (GPUS) in 2008.

We expect that if you did so, you would do what you did in the Nader-LaDuke Presidential Campaign of 2000.

• run on all available Green Party ballot lines • run on the Green Party's values • help raise money for the Green Party and local Green candidates in accord with Federal Election Commission laws • inspire the running of more local, state, Congressional, and Senatorial Green Party candidates • help organize to surpass the ballot access requirements and legal barriers in all states where applicable • further spread the Green Party agenda of peace, justice, democracy, and ecology throughout the United States and world

Running with the Green Party in 2008 would allow your campaign to add its resources to the Green Party's resources and ballot lines, thus increasing the strength and attractiveness of the campaign and maximizing the mandate of votes against the corporate control agenda. A united campaign would also spare the Green Party the divisiveness and inefficiency of another split campaign.

The U.S. is in a profound need of a progressive third party to take forth the people's agenda so betrayed by the worsening corporate parties. The Green Party needs a united and exciting national campaign in order to be able to fill that role.

Please give our grassroots Greens, and us, the undersigned, the opportunity to support you and unite with your campaign should you seek the Green Party nomination for 2008.'

Posted by HonestLiberal at 07/11/2008 @ 09:31am
Hello darladoon,

You said the following above:

"as bush readies his pen to sign this disgusting bill, darla is (officially) making plans to: a) renounce her US citizenship b) move to british columbia"

Two points:

1. It will cost you more money. I don't know if you like computers but if you do Microsoft Office 2007 Student and Teacher Edition costs approx $135 most places in the U.S., at Future Shop it costs approx $189. A ham sandwich, soup and coffee at Tim Hortons' costs around $5.75 in Buffalo, around $7.75 in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

2. In a blog a while back you indicated you were not a sports fan - but - you are moving to an area where the local team, the B.C. Lions, wins the Grey Cup quite often. So you might want to consider becoming a fan and going to games at B.C. Place.

But if you do, watch out when your team plays the Montreal Alouettes. They hardly ever win the Cup, but it has been my experience from watching CFL games that they are a tough team you can not count out. So a game against Montreal will not be an automatic win for the Lions.

I guess also you will have easy access to the Winter Olympic events in two years as well. The skating events (both speed and figure skating and also hockey) are the best ones to be a spectator at. You only see a little part of luge or downhill skiing being a spectator. I always liked the Winter Olympics better than the summer games.

Since you are moving I figured I might as well be a travel guide.

Take care

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 11:55am
Hello Darladoon,

I did want to update my previous post.

I mentioned BC Place in Vancouver. Probably by now it has a different name - all the stadiums here in the U.S. seem to change names all the time, so that is probably true of B.C. Place as well.

But it is a domed stadium so you don't have to worry about sitting out in bad weather to watch your B.C. Lions win.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/11/2008 @ 12:00pm
Mr. Obama, this is unforgivable. And as far as retroactive immunity goes, this is not 19th century Prussia, and neither is George Bush Bismarck, or the US congress the Prussian Landtag. Retroactive immunity flies in the face of everything we stand for as a nation of laws, not men.

Posted by swarming21 at 07/11/2008 @ 3:14pm
"hated Clinton every bit as much as you hate Bush. I was convinced that Clinton was single-handedly destroying the country I loved. Given the Clinton won two elections, I was convinced that I shared this country with a majority of dimwitted assholes who were ruining the greatest country in the world. It sounds like you have the same perception of Bush.

All I can tell you is that you'll feel better, soon.

Even though the President is the most powerful person in the country, really, he isn't that powerful. What did Bush do to SS? Nothing. What did Bush do to Medicare? Expanded the Sr. drug benefit. What did Bush do for taxes? He cut the top rate from 39.6% to 33%. He temporarily cut the Estate Tax. What about shredding the Constitution? He temporarily denied Habeus rights to non-US citizens, but the SCOTUS said he had to extend them..."

What a light judgment of this government, everything this eight years comes to be 'ephemeral'...let's try some more solid arguments:

Start for 9-11...if it had been a Democratic President Congress and the media would have had him crucified, but yes a Rep knows about national defense ...was it not Clinton officers who told Bush's to be aware of Bin-Laden and they laughed at them?? How about the FBI putting down their agent in Arizona about 'those men learning to fly only not to land aircraft??' Europeans have Prime Ministers subject to censorship, if Bush had been one, he wouldn't have been in office since. The administration's negligence is partly responsible of the greatest infamy committed against the people of the US.

4,000 more Americans died in Iraq and probably in excess of 50,000 have been severely impaired for a lifetime ....Conservative estimates put the tallies on 200,000 Iraqis or more...but that of course is ephemeral and certainly Bush could not have the power to stop that.

Iraq strategies, policies and objectives were a demonstration of ineptitude not of lack of power....

The Afghanistan adventure played as a 3rd tier war, the failure to get Bin-Laden, that was ephemeral...The failure to work coherently with Pakistan (by the way with all other nations) in this endeavors...that is well, maybe outside of the realm of the President.

The New Orleans Katrina drama told once more Black Americans what the GOP really thinks about them. Mobile homes with toxic gases, that was ephemeral... Wonder why 90%+ Blacks are for Obama? It is not only race fraternity.

The greatest net transfer of wealth from the middle classes (and lower) to the wealthy in history (compared by some economists with the situation before the 1929 Wall Street crack ) is also ephemeral... stripping 5 million American families of their homes that was also ephemeral they will forget it fast in their new rented home. Besides the President could not do a thing, lenders are in a free enterprise system. Speaking of the economy, the greatest fiscal deficits in history are also ephemeral...until they get paid by our grandchildren if ever.

'Temporarily' denied Habeas Corpus, now that is an euphemism as it is intervention of the communications, several chunks of the Patriot Act that make everybody suspicious of everything and the Berlin-like wall in the Mexican border. In the country that engendered the greatest promises of freedom, we live the culture of fear.. but that is ephemeral since we will forget fear some day isn't it?

Disrespect,lies... for everybody, especifically the American people like Valerie Plume or the lawyers in the Dpt. of Justice, telling such bogus things like "mission accomplished", or "I'm truly a compassionate.." Naming our friends "the old Europe", disregard for the world in environmental affairs...

I could continue on and on but I guess that would be ephemeral, which by the way is far long from effective, for example.

Posted by Frank42 at 07/12/2008 @ 5:54pm
This is most revealing.

Obama will be a disappointment. It is too soon to waver from "your base" of support.

What we fail to realize is that Bush, disgusting as he is, has one major asset. He never wavers from "his base" of right wing zealots. Never apologizes. Never shrinks.

What Americans want is resoluteness. Even if you are dead wrong, he has shown Americans want an unwavering leader.

Obama is about "feeling good." He will be diplomatic. But he will shrink from controversy. He will apologize frequently. That is the Democratic way.

He will not sign on to an impeachment which we desperately need to save our constitution.

This FISA act is non inconsequential. It was a deal of the worst sort. Criminality was committed. The Democrats know this. They still all remain spineless.

Posted by bodywise at 07/14/2008 @ 10:40am