Obama Vowed To Support Filibuster of Telecom Immunity Bill

recognized that this was an immense (& likely terribly damaging) sellout of principle on Obama's part. It's going to cost him, and rightly so.

It's futile to demand that "Obama must stick to his commitment to filibuster telecom immunity," because the damage has already been done. If Obama now reverses once again on this issue, he'll look like a double flip-flopper, instead of a single flip-flopper, a charge he already has no defense against. In a campaign fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars, he's not going to reverse course yet again & risk looking like a complete fool.

What the incident proves is not that Obama has made a mistake that can be fixed by his changing position yet again. Rather, it's that neither the Democratic nor the Republican candidate favors defending the Constitution. Anyone who values that will have to look outside the two big business parties.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [256 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 22, 2008 at 1:08:39 PM

  (0+)

by Gustav Wynn (82 articles, 73 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 470 comments [47 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 22, 2008 at 7:56:22 PM

  (0+)

He has us over a barrel.  We have 2 choices, McCain or Obama.  On a bad day, I say I will vote for McCain just to give the treasonous Dems a lesson.  On a good day, I say I just won't vote.  It seems clear the ruling elite have chosen.  Follow the money.   If you still want Obama, then at least read Dreams From My Father before you vote.

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:41:07 PM

  (0+)

Dear Mr. Burton:
You know as well as I do that the US, which spends more money making war than all other nations combined, is under no credible threat from any external quarter. The threat to America is from the use of fear to consolidate political power by gutting our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If, as President, Mr. Obama would spy on us and provide immunity to those who have done so illegally in the past, then he must be stopped. It's as simple as that.
JP

by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 113 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:54:31 PM

  (0+)

You really trust Obama?

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 1142 comments [68 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:28:36 AM

  (0+)

Before you seemed politically advantageous for him to take a progressive position on this.  Now it does not.  His see-saw between trying to be a candidate of change and trying to reassure the establishment that he would not rock the boat is largely over.  Now the latter dominates, because he no longer feels much of a need to make overtures to progressives, judging that most are going to treat it as a 2-person contest, and see McCain as unacceptable.  We can defeat this cynical opportunism only be voting for a 3rd party or independent candidate.

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 474 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:43:07 AM

  (0+)

IN 2000 ELECTION WE THOUGH THERE WAS SOMETHING FISHY GOING ON, BUT LET THAT GO. IN 2004 WE NEW THAT SOMETHING WAS GOING ON AND LET THAT GO.

NOW IN 2008 ELECTION IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THINKS THIS ELECTION IS NOT FIXED. WHAT SAY YOU.

by RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:06:10 AM

  (0+)

public campaign financing, it appears the only thing Obama really plans to change is his mind.  Some change.  We can get this much change from Harry Reid or Joe Lieberman.

His campaign says Obama will "support" a filibuster.  What good is that?  If Obama had said he would LEAD a filibuster, then he would have my respect and my vote.  As it now stands, he gets neither.

Watch this guy.  I have never been convinced that Obama was in this race for anything more than himself.  With decisions like these, the evidence mounts.

by Richard Wise (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 107 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:40:25 AM

  (0+)

I wasn't aware of Sen. Obama's pledge but, after reading the article, I emailed Mr. Burton and said the following,  "I am an Obama supporter who is strongly opposed to the amnesty for telecommunications companies provision in the FISA reauthorization bill and who hopes that Sen. Obama will not only oppose it but, as he promised, filibuster it as well.

by Mark Welkie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 59 comments) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:34:48 AM

  (0+)

This is a question of either keeping one's word or breaking it. If Obama wants my vote in November he better keep his word. I would also point out the only people in government worth supporting are all of those who voted nay to this capitulation and thankfully my own representative, Sam Farr is among the honorable rather than the complicit and the cowardly! And no Nader is not the answer! Perhaps an all out rebellious effort to write in a candidate in November rather than choose any of the stooges on the ballot. How about Wexler, Gravel, Feingold or Kucinich? A Russ and Dennis ticket sounds good to me.

by Michael Shaw (13 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 484 comments [47 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:37:51 AM

  (0+)

Dear Mr. Burton,

As a lifelong democrat and supporter of Barack Obama I must say I am rather puzzled by the recent change of events concerning telecom immunity. Didn't you promise that Obama would filibuster any bill that would take the telecoms off the hook and grant them immunity? Now I see Obama is supporting this travesty and calling it necessary to protect Americans. But which Americans? Bush and the telecoms broke the law by illegally spying on us. Is it necessary to protect them rather than our own Constitution? If so it might be necessary for me to support another candidate, someone who realizes the Constitution protects all of us, rather than the few who see fit to ignore it.

Sincerely,

Michael Shaw

by Michael Shaw (13 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 484 comments [47 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:29:44 AM

  (0+)

 BUT WE ONLY GET TWO GLOBAL ELITE PAWNS TO PICK FROM, WITH THE MEDIA MASS DECEPTION AT ITS BEST.

by RICH SHA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Tuesday, Jun 24, 2008 at 2:40:09 AM

  (0+)

my flip flop comment wasn't aimed at you. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

by Michael Shaw (13 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 484 comments [47 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 9:43:36 AM

  (0+)

Forget all this writing and petitioning and bewailing; just strike and boycott this entire thing.  The election means nothing.

The fuel used to oppress and repress is MONEY.  Strike at your jobs and at the malls.

Refuse to play along with a scam called elections.

by ed kriner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:42:18 AM

  (0+)

I understand your anger, but lets not forget those who voted against this Bush/ telecom immunity and who are openly speaking out against it and condemning it. They deserve our full support.

by Michael Shaw (13 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 484 comments [47 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:01:32 AM

  (0+)

I suspect Obama is just another trojan horse. Once elected, he'll be about as "democratic" as Pelosi and Reid, supporting the GOP agenda.

He and McCain are both pretending to be people they aren't.

Politics today is all about conning the voters into picking people they never would if they knew the truth about them.

America has failed.

by Thomas Mc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:43:04 AM

  (0+)

I just called Obama's office at 5pm EDT.  I was read a statement by Obama, which I did not copy down word for word. The gyst of it was that Obama supports the bill, but not retroactive immunity, and would work to do what he could to remove retroactive immunity from the bill.

The person I spoke with had no answer to the obvious question: If Obama could not remove the retroactive immunity language, would he still vote in favor?  We don't know.  But his public statement said the above, and you can call his office yourself to confirm that.

Bottom line: Obama has given lip service to the idea that national security is important by supporting the bill, and has given lip service to his base and to civil libertarians by announcing that he will work to remove the objectionable language.

When the vote is finally cast, we will see where he lands.

by David Block (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:22:56 PM

  (0+)

Several months ago during a vote on immunity for telecoms, Senator McCaskill, D-MO, stated it was not fair to the telecoms because they had been told the wiretaps were legal.

I do not understand why people are not more upset about allowing warrantless wiretaps rather than telecom immunity.  I assume a fear tactic of not time to get a warrant was used.

by Laura Kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:50:49 PM

  (0+)

by Gustav Wynn (82 articles, 73 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 470 comments [47 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:51:50 PM

  (0+)