The Libertarian Heart of the "Swing Vote"

I've been thinking about this all weekend.  The AP flury of terrible reporting is a reflection of exactly the type of backward thinking you refer to.

"What many mistakenly refer to as "moving toward the center" or "moving toward the right" is often a case of their sudden realization of positions that the Democratic nominee has consistently held all along. "

 

This is basically what I wrote in my letter to the editor about one such article (not yet published).  Do these folks even bother to do any research??  I believe it was Jennifer Loven who indicated "Obama contends these are long held positions."  Period.  No further information on whether this is true or not - as if it is impossible to prove.  Unfortunately, Amy Goodman wrote a similar letter about "moving' to the center. 

 

Obama is very difficult to pigeon hole but that doesn't stop the media from trying. 

 

"...the mold of the tired old media-fed and false definitions of right and left, as they pertain to US politics, has been broken, and amidst its rubble there's a new space for us to stand upon, too."

I sure hope you're right.  I'm not sure most people have acknowledged this yet.  They are pretending that nothing has changed.

 

I've always viewed the political spectrum not as a straight line but more a circle.  By the time you move right enough, you end up back on the left again!  But beyond that, Obama has views that go beyond so much of the standard definitions of things.  That's why many of the various libertarian groups you reference are finding Obama resonates with them.  And that is why the lastest Ramussen poll has him up 5 points in Montana. : ))  I'm giving some thought to taking a week later in the season and going there to try and win it.  It's the only state in play that I can drive to.

As Tara notes above, there is a strong libertarian streak in the western US, which Obama recognizes and is appealing to, that is at least partly responsible for his strong showing there relative to recent Democratic Party candidates.

And I suspect that these small-l libertarians are not persuaded that the oh-so-recently born-again Barr is truly one of their own, even though he is the capital-L party's nominee.

The pundits who insist on explaining current events by applying templates from past elections have been consistently wrong so far, and this is why we come to The Field.

Nice, post.  My problem with many libertarians in the US is that they have very little to say about corporate hegemony and the tryanny of capitalist markets.  More, many seem to be cheerleaders for illegal US agression.

But I agree with you that corporate media do more to perpetuate false stereotypes than they do toward engaging rudimentary critical thinking.

As you know Al, I became somewhat freaked out with Obama with his comments about Latin America and his grovelling to the zionist warmongers.  But I know that unless Obama placates the imperialist power-mongers, there will be no 'change we can believe in'.  I am willing to shut up and do what I can to get Obama elected--because we know that with McCain we will get more of the same.

Obama is a unique breath of fresh air, as well as one of the most astute politicians that I have seen in my entire life.  His positions on late term abortion, faith-based initiatives, etc. are astute because they separate Obama from the orthodoxy and they chip away at the traditional Republican base.  This is simply pragmatic and masterful politics.

As far as Barr is concerend---yes, I do hope he stays in the election to siphon votes from McCain.  Barr reminds me of the fake libertarian that will allow corporate tyranny to expand.  However, I hope that when all the votes are counted that O-man wins over 50%.

 

My pops has always been so far to the right that he was outside my peripheral vision... and vice versa, with me to his left. We had our first-ever sane political discussion last summer when we discussed and agreed upon many of Ron Paul's points of view.

Hit Post instead of Preview and sent the Ron Paul post without my info.

Al -

I agree with the basic premise - that the libertarian wing of the Republican electoral base is in play, given the authoritarian and police-state actions of the Bushes - but I disagree that all of Obama's so-called 'centering' is based on courting the libertarian base; FISA being case in point.

Were he touting an overall revamp of the PATRIOT ACT and all that, it would be one thing, but the FISA bill, imho, is all about symbolic statements of state power and making legal that which was illegal on domestic surveillance goes straight through the heart of your arguement.

I'll even give you 'electoral Kabuki' arguments that little that is said matters, but you don't court the libertarians by making illegal wiretaps legal.

 

John Slade - I strongly beg to differ with your analysis. The candidate has maintained, and continued to maintain, all along, opposition to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies engaged in warrantless surveillance. He says he will vote for the amendment removing that immunity from the FISA bill.

If that amendment doesn't pass, it means that the votes are there to pass the bill. His then voting against the entire bill won't make a hill of beans of difference in whether it passes or not. He also makes it crystal clear that, if president, he will use executive power to reverse the bad elements of the overall bill. And still people are nit-picking the details, and in the name of "civil liberties." They're morons in political strategy.

This is a *classic* example of stupid activist purity tests: making a mountain out of something that *makes no effing difference in the outcome!*

What's even more annoying (to me, anyway) is that most of the people screaming about this don't have the kinds of international communications that would subject them to such wiretapping, whereas I - as a US journalist abroad investigating very controversial topics - indeed am among the targets of FISA. I'm not upset because what the activists fear will suddenly happen is already happening through the thousand loopholes that already exist. The passage of FISA makes zero difference to my freedom and privacy. Zero. It is functionally symbolic only.

It just shows me how far these activists and bloggers need to go to learn an iota about tactical and strategic matters, not to mention about current reality in which international wiretapping happens without warrants on a widespread basis. It never needed the FISA legislation to begin with. But some people, I see, would rather be "pure" than effective. With allies like these, who needs enemies?

As you mention, Steven, this conceding of ground is a new (old) approach.  Abortion is a good example.  Most people believe it should be allowed but that it shouldn't be a free for all.  And yet those at the top in the government and special interest groups tend to get pushed to the extremes and, to the degree that we have any meaningful debate, it ends up being based on all or nothing.  I am very much pro choice.  But I can also concede that allowing a 6 month old fetus to be aborted because the mom changed her mind is something that civilized societies wouldn't allow.  And if you concede this point, then maybe you can prevent the ridiculous debate on partial birth abortion which is a medical procedure to save a woman's life. 

 

Political discourse of late has just fallen to the gutter when people refuse to concede any ground whatsoever.  Obama is no idealogue and he strives to see the other's point of view and find ways to achieve consensus on issues.

 

Please keep in mind abortion was an example and I am NOT trying to hijack this thread on that topic.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it that there are sane libertarians, especially out West. All the ones I've ever met in the East are either single-issue gun nuts who like to talk about how they could survive on their own (that career government job is just temporary, really) or people given to bizarre circular arguments like that we don't need antitrust laws because if anyone gets a monopoly, someone else can just start up a competing business, or that funding for basic scientific research is counterproductive because it would just automatically happen in the private sector if federal money wasn't crowding it out.

I think I'd want to see a little more evidence before accepting that Independents, disaffected Republicans, and new or alienated voters are largely people with libertarian tendencies.

Redshift, I have noted the same.  So many libertarians are corporate-brainwashed weenies that think blacks and undocumented people are living life kings and queens on our tax dollars.  When it comes to corporations closing down US manufacturing and seeking super-exploited labor to prop up their bottom line, they are cheering them on.  Attack Iraq--they are cool with that.

Sure, this is a stereotype, butl, in general, US libertarians don't have much in the way of historical perspective, nor well honed critical thinking skills.

Tara, I agree, and I am generally pro-choice also.  Obama is engaging commonsense on this issue.   I loved George Carlin when he pointed out the rightwing hypocrisy on abortion:  they love the fetus, but once the child is born they kick the kid to the curb and tell her/him to get a job.  The absolute hypocrisy and lack of indepth discussion on this and many other issues keeps us all prisoner to oscillating sound-bite emotionalism--nothing is ever gained from these shrill shouting matches.

Al, I totally concur.  The FISA issue was a big yawner to me all the time--because I know that if the FBI wants to go after folk, statutes and laws aren't going to stand in their way.  Real terrorist threats on the domestic scene in the US will be agressively persued.  Left-democratic organizations will always be a target when they threaten status quo relations of domination and economic power.

The will do all types of illegal shit to protect police power and economic power.  The left should always expect this as a given.  Just as I would expect it as given that our communication here is being monitered.

To these authoritarian freaks we are 'unAmerican' for wanting to change the hierarchies of illegitimate power in the US.  This is like pointing out that the sky is blue.  Yawn.

Expect this, but don't accept this--lobby to the hilt when real laws and rights have been violated.  Scream like hell. This is what we are supposed to do.

 

Giving telecoms immunity?  Well, another yawn.  As much as I despise these corporate propaganda factories--what do folks expect them to do after 9-11?  They were caught between a rock and a hard place--and it is hard to imagine organizations whose existance is about making profit standing up for the rights of citizens.  Kind of like asking a crackhead to throw away his pipe and go to a twelve step program.

 

 

Al: You always offer such a fresh and interesting take on things, the latest being the misunderstood elements of libertarianism on both the so-called left and right in our society. I suspect that many people who hold these views would never even identify themselves as particularly "libertarian" in any respect, so simplistic and sclerotic is our current political debate that is constantly dumbed down by a lazy corporate press. I have never in my life met so many Republicans and Independents who either like or are intrigued by (in a positive way) the Democratic candidate, perhaps because he is advocating a very astute political realignment that is understood by only a few observers such as yourself. Obama's move to the center, mindlessly criticized by too many on the left, is turning out to be a very interesting exercise in deft political positioning that goes beyond the usual general election campaign tactics.

By the way, as Andrew Sullivan noted, even Fred Barnes can't help but praise Obama's move to the center:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_tacks_to_the_c...

 

I think you are missing several points with respect to the new FISA Bill. First, the bill allows the president to vacuum up ALL international electronic communications (telephone, fax, email). You may believe that you are more likely to be a target, given your line of work, but the reality is that the bill doesn't discriminate targets. It allows interception of ALL foreign communications of everyone. As the ACLU has explained, the bill "allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States." (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35786prs20080626.html).

Now you may well be correct that this is already going on. But, if it is, it is clearly illegal under current law. And it seems quite odd to argue that, since the government is already doing it illegally, it doesn't make a difference if we make it legal.

Secondly, Obama's position on the FISA bill does not represent a position "that the Democratic nominee has consistently held all along". Obama has previously spoken quite eloquently, numerous times, about his opposition to both telco immunity and basket warrants. (If you would like, I can dig up some quotes for you.)

Thirdly, as others have pointed out, Obama's new FISA position would hardly be attractive to libertarians, so it is difficult to see how you could ascribe this to his wooing of libertarians.

Finally, you castigate those that oppose Obama's new FISA position as being ignorant of "tactical and strategic matters". But what is the strategic advantage of Obama's cave on FISA. Polls consistently show that Americans do not want to be spied on by their government. By caving on FISA, Obama has given additional credibility to the framing of these issues as a trade-off between security and civil liberties. What strategic advantage has been gained?

You claim that FISA is a losing battle. By not using his leverage as leader of the Democratic Party (that happens to control Congress) to fight passage of the bill, we will never know. But even if you are right, what conservatives have understood for quite some time (and progressives simply fail to understand) is that there is nothing wrong with fighting a losing battle. It is better politically to fight the necessary battles and lose than to capitulate. Americans are favorable to people who stand by their convictions, not to people who capitulate on their principles.

This is not about "stupid activist purity tests". This is about Obama dramatically reversing a position that he had previously claimed was grounded in his principles. This is about his support for a bill that degrades the 4th amendment. And, this is about support for a bill that degrades the rule of law. You may believe that "passage of FISA makes zero difference to my freedom and privacy", but you are only demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this subject.

Franklin - First, thanks for your differing opinion. I'd like to make some statements of fact in response. You write:

"the bill allows the president to vacuum up ALL international electronic communications (telephone, fax, email)... Now you may well be correct that this is already going on. But, if it is, it is clearly illegal under current law."

Al replies: Yes, this is already going on but not illegally! Here's how. All communications between the US and Mexico (and any other US ally) are being vacuumed up already by the Mexican-owned telecom companies and turned over to US agencies, with the full blessing of the Mexican state. The same goes for every other country in the hemisphere save Cuba and maybe Venezuela and/or Bolivia. Nothing illegal about it, because it's done with the imprimatur of those governments that have jurisdiction.

Furthermore, once the wholesale vacuuming is done, the retail parsing of it then follows: that's when key words, phone numbers, names, etcetera are given more scrutiny. Most of what gets vacuumed is what the security agencies consider useless chaff. It's the political stuff, or sensitive information, that then draws greater attention. So the current way of doing it still does disproportionately target political dissidents as is.

You write:

"Secondly, Obama's position on the FISA bill does not represent a position "that the Democratic nominee has consistently held all along". Obama has previously spoken quite eloquently, numerous times, about his opposition to both telco immunity and basket warrants."

Al replies:

This is where you are either being willfully dishonest or you really are ignorant of the facts. Senator Obama is still opposed to telco immunity and basket warrants. His most recent statements have repeated that. If you want to be an effective activist or advocate, don't distort so wantonly.

You write:

"But what is the strategic advantage of Obama's cave on FISA."

Al replies: It is your use of the verb "to cave" that is off. You can say it until you are blue in the face but it does not make it true. It's your errant projection upon the facts. You're welcome to it, but many of us just yawn and consider it irresponsible.

You write:

"You claim that FISA is a losing battle. By not using his leverage as leader of the Democratic Party (that happens to control Congress) to fight passage of the bill, we will never know."

Al replies:

Be honest. Do you really think that even if Senator Obama put everything else he has to do right now on hold and became a single-issue candidate over FISA, that the hapless Democrats in the US Senate really would follow him? He'd find himself standing on feet of clay, abandoned by the old party hacks and the new non-ideological hacks that abandoned Kennedy on immigration reform just last year and whose habit is to abandon progressive measures time and time again. And that's when FISA would hurt Obama's election chances in November, because he would have taken on a major battle and lost it, being made to appear weak in the process.

You seem to have some kind of an illusion that a guy who just got the party's nomination against all resistance from the party insiders and the old Clinton machine, can just wave his magic wand and make other Senate (and House!) Democrats vote as he tells them. You clearly haven't considered the political suicide he would have committed had he taken this matter to the rails only to have a vicious defeat slammed upon his head by members of his own party.

You're welcome to your opinion. And you've been welcome to state it here, but you're just plain wrong - tactically, strategically, and even in your lack of understanding in the current situation without this bill. You want to bemoan my supposed "lack of knowledge" in how my freedom and privacy is affected by that legislation? Go right ahead, but those of us that have to deal with these matters daily are a step ahead of the purity lobby on this one.

 

"a nominee that, from the beginning of his campaign, has broken with Democratic Party orthodoxy"

Indeed. And the move of giving the acceptance speech to "the American people" instead of the "assembled delegates" is, I guess, one more way of making this clear. How do you think the "assembled delegates" will take this?

Excerpt of the email sent by David Plouffe to supporters (full text here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGxl4h)

On Thursday, August 28th, he's scheduled to formally accept the Democratic nomination in a speech at the convention hall in front of the assembled delegates.

Instead, Barack will leave the convention hall and join more than 75,000 people for a huge, free, open-air event where he will deliver his acceptance speech to the American people.

Redshift and Steven--Being out west and having young new voters in my family, I can vouch for the libertarianism in their thinking. My 20 y/o son and his best friend were very hot on Ron Paul and less government all the way up until Paul dropped out. They looked around at what was next best and now are voting for Obama, they of course want less laws & are against the war in Iraq.

Tara-I agree with you completely on the abortion issue.

In the article Sullivan was quoting above by Carolyn Lochhead, I read this

 "It could be the second coming of the Clinton administration. If people have any confidence in that, I think a whole lot of conservatives would vote for him."

All I can say is, I sure hope it is not the second coming and just political astuteness causing conservatives to think it is.

 

Claudia, that will be one stellar event, and the resonance with Dr. King's famous speech will surely resound.

One, huge, kickass party---that I will miss, unfortunately.

However, I am sure that there will be much reportage of the event.  More, maybe The Field can be a bit more techno--maybe have some type of audio streaming, and some interactive stuff.

On a strategic level this could work very well for Obama.  The appearance that this is a more vibrant and 'new' political game is something that just might prompt some of the heretofore apathetic folk to participate in the process.

 

 

 

I'll make a more elaborate announcement shortly but wanted y'all to be the first to know. The Field will be sponsoring the only opening welcoming reception scheduled so far at Netroots Nation on Wednesday evening, July 16, 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. at downtown Austin's "nomadic watering hole for politicians, journalists and courthouse lawyers," the Cedar Door:

201 Brazos Street
Austin, TX  78701
(512) 473-3712
www.cedardooraustin.com

Admission is Free. Cash bar. Netroots Nation will be adding the event to its program. More announcements to come... See you there?

Christi, I never quite got the appeal of Ron Paul, and my insticts are libertarian-socialist.

The fact of corporate power and the small elite of the US population that actually control most of the capital--this was largely absent from Paul's discourse.  Paul's campaign appealed to a very simplistic, psuedo-individualism that is rooted to the emotional core of our identity as US citizens.  And like any national ideology--it has become an operative and regulating myth-coding that allows political action to be fairly predictable to the herd managers.

Some 'libertarians' think that it's the welfare mothers that are gobbling up most of the tax money.

The fact is that big corporate power needs big government and copious regulation to keep the game going in their favor.  Honest, in depth discussions you don't find in corporate media.  Even Olberman is nothing but sound-bites that appeal to emotionalism, with so many commerical breaks that it makes your head spin.

Libertarianism a la the corproate media also has a strong appeal to middle class young people whose start in life has been subsidized in a big way by their parents.  Poor folks from rural areas and the big city don't have these resources.

Given the parameters of plutocratic/corporate control of the economy here in the US, I see a big role for governemnt to help provide help for people that the corproate market place would consign to permanent wage-slavery--and then kick them in the face if they/we don't have money for adequate health care, assistance for the aged, and universal education.

For many middle class, pro-corporate 'libertarians', these folks don't matter, they should just die and get out of the way.  Those aren't the values that I want translated into public policy in my country.

 

translated into public policy of my country either. I am sure you are right about the middle class young. My kids have definitely been spoiled in a way my parents & I were not.  As for adequate health care,  I have lived the nightmare of getting sick in between health care plans, it was financially devastating and very hard to focus on getting well when worrying about finances.

Off Topic-Obama's plane had to make a emergency landing due to a slide opening in the tail cone of the plane during flight. This is why I have to take xanax to fly. (showing off my new link skills, thanks Pam)

 

Christi, as I have read your comments before, and followed your line of thinking/ethics--I was not implying that your kids were even remotely similar to some of the lazy thinking that is so rife among some of the priviledged sectors.

You are an Obama supporter--you live and breath 'nuance' by default.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Look, it takes all types to make the world go round--and though we should vociferously challenge ideas, creating caricatures of people whose ideas creep us out (which I have been guilty of) doesn't serve the larger political goals of progressive, healthy change in any society.

I think Obama understands this instinctively--and there is much work to be done on so many levels in this nation.

 

Congrats on embedding the link, Christi. I was sickened (literally) by the comments made by readers. Are they living in a separate universe... or are we?

 

And for your comments on FISA in the discussion section. We so need the sanity and perspective you have. I am going to send some people over from the Obama website and Kos. Many inoculations needed at this time. In fact I may head into some other blog territory too, why not?

 

Al, not sure which I love more, your post on the "Swing Vote" or your posts in the comments on FISA. I wish you would do a diary on the subject over at DailyKos.

And Christie, the comment sections on a good section of the mainstream news blogs are horrific. I try not to read them, because like you, they tend to make me despair about the state of humanity. I like the comment section over here much better!

Regarding the flip-flop nonsense, I made a diary on Daily Kos saturday comparing Obama's positions before and after he won the primaries:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/13146/00395/160/54698

 

We suddenly have a record number of readers online all at once. Did some big site just link to us?

Oops forget an extra 0 at the end of that address:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/13146/00395/160/546980

As has been the case more than once this political season, Markos was all over this one more than two years ago.

I can still remember the howls of disagreement and shock, from both sides, that he'd even suggest such a grand Democratic/Libertarian alliance. It's great to finally see that alliance coming together. See here and here for the posts in question.

The Obama website's most recent blog [7/7/08] highlights and links to DISSENT and community organizing!

 Lloyd-Thanks for the post. I am a libertarian Democrat, but did'nt know it until I read that.

Steven-I guess I am just simple. With all due respect, your overly wordy posts make me work to hard to figure out exactly what you are trying to say. I did not think you were calling my kids lazy thinking. I am still thinking about the "nuance by default" line. Not quite sure if it is a compliment or a insult?

Al-Damn, I want to go to Texas! Sounds like a fun learning experience. I hope some big site did link here. Maybe something in print came out?

Christie & Kat-I too stay away from the comments on MSM blogs, horrific! Like it here much better.

Wow!!! I love the latest post on Obama's site, I wish they would link to Al's blog someday soon.

The media's strategy/tactics confusion is maddening.  Obama plans to pull out in 16 months, which is a strategy, and which most Amurricans like.  Then he says he'll consult with the military guys on the ground on how best to pull of the withdrawal, which is about tactics, and everyone's all in a tizzy about him reversing himself.  Geez, Louise, it's like talking with a two year old.

My old American Heritage Dictionary defines libertarian as one who believes in freedom of action and thought, or one who believes in free will. Interestingly, "liberal" is defined first as one who believes in non-revolutionary progress and reform, and second as "having, expressing, or following views of policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing."  Conservatism is "the disposition in politics or culture to maintain the existing order and to resist or oppose change or innovation."

Up is down, black is white, etc., etc.  All these terms are beyond meaningless as used in our current crazed culture.  According to these definitions I'm a liberal, which is frankly more like what most conservatives are like.  I'm so confused.

So, as confused as I am, what I truly wonder is whether the frustrated, enraged, abused and widely despised electorate can get past identity politics and the media's frenzy to redefine Obama in their accustomed vocabulary of the politics of hysteria.  My guess: Obama will get elected partly out of preference and partly as the lesser of two evils.  But this is nothing new.  Electing presidents because they're not the other guy is as old as the Union.

I have a sense of history. I have a sense of when ideological purity is too much (and when it's motivating.) Al's argument about FISA being 1) not part of Obama's pledges, 2) having little practical effect on government behavior, and 3) unwinnable and therefore someplace he shouldn't spend strength so as to appear weak hinge, for me, on the last point.

But since one of the biggest reasons the Democrats don't want to touch this one, and generally only have under prodding, is because they're too much in the control of the Corporates.

So while I agree that the votes might not be there in the Senate, the reason this is the case is because the Democrats are sold out on a blend of corporate cash (and in some cases, the heady rush of state power...) So in effect, the "the votes aren't there" is "he won't buck the corporate party on this one."

But I strongly and respectfully disagree that the FISA vote in any way panders to the libertarian wing of the Republican base.

Hi Al-

I visit the field a few times a day not only to read your awesome posts but to read folks' coments.  I rarely write, however.  I also take a look at HuffPo and it seems that its readers and bloggers are turning  this FISA thing into a "liberal meltdown" often with misinformation and confusion (at least in the comments). I know that you post there can you get your comments from

• The FISA Complaint is about Tactics, Not Substance
  

• Response to Franklin up there
  

Or can how can we field hands get your level headed informed information out there?  If so what is the best way to do this?  The world is falling seems to have taken over the site.  I hear so many of these "progressives" using Repub. talking points you'd think we linked to Townhall or something.  Thoughts?

The disinformation about the current FISA bill is astounding.

First, the push-back from the critical Beltway Insiders is really over civil immunity, not so much the underlying FISA bill itself. In fact, here's what Sen. Dodd had to say back in December about the actual FISA bill (including civil immunity) being advanced:

Rather than concede such power, Congress has worked to bring the president’s surveillance program back where it belongs—under the rule of law.

... The bill now before us would create a legal regime for surveillance under reworked and more reasonable rules.

Absent this bill, and with the expiration of the very flawed Protect America Act earlier this year, the Bush Administration has no bars against thwarting the 1978 FISA law as he did before — previously using the 2001 congressional authorization for the use of force against Iraq to justify it. Going forward (and possibly right now), he could do so again, finding some other unscrupulous rational to justify mass wiretapping absent any other oversight outside his White House lap dogs.

The current version of the FISA bill (and please set aside civil immunity for now, which I'll return to) would do the following (as outlined in many places, including in this recent Washington Post op/ed): 

1. Most importantly, it states clearly that all intelligence wiretapping is overseen by FISA — no ifs, ands or buts.

2. Any wiretap directed at a U.S. citizen, living here or overseas, requires an individual warrant premised on probable cause that the individual is engaging in espionage.

3. And yes, broad surveillance powers are granted over foreigners living outside the U.S. (which gets into the data sweep stuff if they are communicating within or through the U.S.) but this bill, unlike the conditions that led to the Bush Administration's illegal spying, requires that any procedures set up on that score Must Be Approved by the FISA court and reviewed annually. We don't have that protection now. It's not perfect, but it's better than no protection.

4. In addition, the Justice Department and intelligence agencies (CIA/NSA, DIA, etc.) inspectors general, are required to review the president's surveillance programs with a special eye toward how they are affecting U.S. citizens.

5. Both the judiciary and intelligence committees of both the House and Senate will be granted oversight powers under this bill. Currently, that oversight rests soley with the intel committees.

The president's men would be granted authority to conduct surveillance absent a warrant in emergency situations, but even in those cases, they would have to seek FISA court approval within seven days.

So the bill isn't perfect, but in a perfect world, we would need none of this. However, the bill at least sets up some strong oversight checks, where none exist now, and makes clear that FISA is the law of the land -- preventing this current president, or future presidents -- from doing another end around the 1978 law.

That's why Obama supports it, and that's why even Chris Dodd said "the bill before us would create a legal regime for surveillance under reworked and more reasonable rules."

And due to the bill's current imperfections, that's also why Obama said, once in office, he would work to improve upon this current version -- because it can be improved upon. But right now, it's better than the alternative, which is mass, unchecked surveillance. And if you think it's stopped since all this surfaced, well, I have this bridge in Brooklyn that I recently got deed to and would be happy to sell at a bargain basement price.

And that's the rub, the fact that it has in all likelihood continued under the president's abnormal interpretation of executive power. Everyone's fighting over the civil liability exemption in the current bill, for fear that will let the telecom's off the hook and is a slap in the face of the rule of law. And they are right.

Obama opposes that and will vote for the amendment seeking to srike it. But that amendment will fail, because there is no unity in the Democratic party on this front -- the willingness to forgoe checking, at least in imperfect form, the current ongoing illegal wiretapping that would be accomplished by the underlying bill in order to stand up for principle and send a bill to the president absent civil immunity, which he will certainly veto.

In other words, we can win on principle and still have our bathroom conversations immortalized without check on the tape decks of the various U.S. intelligence agencies. Or we can bite the bullet on civil immunity, stop the spying now, and work toward a more perfect union after we have the power to do so.

And there's another trick in this bag; watch for it. The criminal liability for FISA violations is not waived in this current bill. And despite all the prattling of certain bloggers, there is a high probablity, in my view, and in the view of a few others expert on this topic, that Bush will not sign the current bill into law, but rather will veto it and send it back to the Congress asking for that criminal liability exemption.

Bush doesn't want this bill passed, if criminal liability is on the table, because his administration has and likely still is continuing to break the law on the FISA front. And the notion that he can pardon everyone in advance before he leaves office is a stretch of the imagination, but even if it were so, he can't pardon himself. And Bush, like most humans, is very much concerned about his own neck.

And the bigger matter in play here, at least as I see it, is this isn't about the law to the Bush administration; it's about creating a political issue that will resonate for their side to help their party stay in power, which is so critical — since a McCain presidency is really their only clear path out of this mess. So by vetoing this current bill (even with civil immunity), and throwing it back to the Dems in the Congress, they hope to put them on the spot. If the Dem. majority and Obama voted for the bill with civil liability stripped, because the underlying bill is sound, then if they fail to advance a bill with criminal liability waived, the Republicans can once again attempt to hit them over the head with the national security issue -- assuming most Americans won't understand the complexities, and they're likely right, as all the chicken-littling out there on the left demonstrates.

So that will be the test as I see it. Can the Dems. out-manuever the Rove-brain on this one. Will they take a stand if the bill is pushed back at them yet again with a demand for a criminal liability exemption? Can they come up with a more brilliant chess move?

Don't believe me now. I'm sure it seems to most that it is an outcome too far outside the box. But if it happens, that is the time to discuss Obama's next move in this game. For now, it seems he is making the only move that can guarantee the short-term protection of our civil liberties, even if it's at the price of civil immunity.

If the Bush veto doesn't happen, then I will be glad to have egg on my face in that event, because I think we are still better off with this short-term compromise, having more oversight in place, assuring the current illegal spying is put in check, the option still on the table to pursue criminal charges against culpable parties, and, if we are lucky, a new president who will take this imperfect FISA measure made temporaty law and tune it up so that it actually resonates with our democracy in a more perfect harmony.

My town in New Hampshire was targeted for political action/takeover by FreeStaters. That did not happen, but they were worse meddlers than any Republicans or Democrats ever have been. I guess I just didn't like the fascist free market plan or the I'll put my tire dump next door to you if I want to "freedom." They especially targeted any attempt at conservation and still do.

We had a governor who invited the Free State project to come to New Hampshire who proposed to sell all the State Parks to the highest bidders. The only guy I could even talk to was their resident "arms" expert who since has moved to Belise. He was a tracker and survivalist and we could talk about many political issues. Either he wasn't a free market fascist or he thought better of bringing that up.

I'll have to trust these aren't the people you are talking about on this thread because with the way they wanted to interfere with my life they didn't seem much like Libertarians to me. They have an annual burning of the UN flag which seems pretty pointless. I went and photographed it once and they couldn't get the flag to light up.

I do however find solid common cause on eminent domain.

However redshift is right, the Eastern Libertarians are very fond of circular logic.

John Slade - I don't think I've said anything that implies that "the FISA vote in any way panders to the libertarian wing of the Republican base." If anything, liberal Democrats framing it as such hurts their candidate with that swing vote. (Although I do think that David Boaz-type libertarians do see the nuance in Senator Obama's statement the other day explaining his position in unusual detail for any politician, in a pragmatic way that Democrats just aren't so used to grasping on the level of strategy and tactics). The problem here is not the Senator's position, but in the claims of a vocal sector of his own supporters.

Jon, CA - One thing I learned early on from my very special education South of the Border: to never again worry too much about "what other people say." People can and do get all whipped up into a frenzy over lots of things. At times it seems - Chicken Little redux - as if the sky is falling. But then the sky doesn't fall! And all that hot air spewed becomes forgotten. I have not been aggressive on this FISA thing because, in my view of the facts at hand, it is something around which the passions will not last as the realities sink in. I feel badly for those sincere folks all in an uproar over it, but there's nothing we can do, right now, to dissuade them of their focus on it. Time. Space. Other events more important coming into focus... Those things will resolve most of this. And I do fear feeding the "concern" with a direct assault on it would be counter-productive in that it would prolong the 15 minutes of fame of an off-topic dust storm.

"....So in effect, the "the votes aren't there" is 'he won't buck the corporate party on this one'."

Obama has always said he is a pragmatist. To play Lucy/Charlie football before being elected is folly. The significance of the current blog [A new generation of organizers] portends he will buck the corporate party over time - with our help.

Well, I goofed, sort of, on the matter of whether a sitting president can pardon himself. As the Constitution is written, it is not clear, and has never been tested.

Apparently, the issue came up a wee bit during the Clinton years, as this New York Times story indicates:

There is some debate among legal scholars over whether a president can pardon himself. Some say that he cannot, on the principle that a judge cannot preside over his own trial. Others say that the pardon power in the Constitution is absolute and extends to a president granting himself a pardon in advance of any criminal trial.

Just one more reason to see this as a very big chess game.

 

 Bill Conroy

Christi, no insult with the 'nuance' comment.  Sorry, you will have to re-read that wordy quip again.

I just see Ron Paul advocates as generally non-nuanced, and totally blind to many critical aspects of US history and power relations.

Especically his decontextualized, ahistorical, and patriarchial purist 'pro-life' position, he simply strikes me as creepy.

No, I don't hold it against you to have raised sons that incline to this guy, it's demographics, the culture,  I guess.

As a libertarian socialist I am more inclined toward Obama because he is the best hope, given all the options, for the working class and oppressed people in the US.

I certainly don't look for the priviledged in the middle class, adults or teens, to be agents for authentic and lasting progressive change in the US.  They weren't in the 1930, the '60's, nor are they now.  Not agents of change with respect to any organized political movement.

Given the parameters of acceptable and normal political discussion in the US I don't expect Obama to take up a more class based analysis or overty strategy.

More middle class people being bankrupted will help--some folks shed their bootstrapism and hypocrisy very quickly when they sleep in their car for a few weeks at a stretch.

 

Enzo, loved your dkos diary taking on the Obama flip-flopping narrative.

 

(or rather, this is what Al said that I was responding to)

"The moves that Obama is making toward the general election that confound and sometimes anger parts of the traditional Democratic or activist base are, in reality, part of the wooing process toward what may be the largest "swing vote" group of all: Independents, Republicans, new voters, and, yes, alienated Americans who haven't voted in years or decades, whose libertarian tendencies reach beyond a narrow economic focus into all aspects of government intrusion into the daily lives of the people."

I honestly don't see how the FISA vote, which has "anger[ed] parts of the... activist base" is a part of that wooing process.

Anne Crumpton

"Obama has always said he is a pragmatist. To play Lucy/Charlie football before being elected is folly. The significance of the current blog [A new generation of organizers] portends he will buck the corporate party over time - with our help."

Please; in this thread I have been saying just that FISA is not appealing to libertarians. In other threads, I've been agitating on the issue, but not here. My post on Fieldhands regarding FISA was how to constructively disagree. I am not advocating pulling away the football, so please don't accuse me of doing so.

The biggest reason to get excited about an Obama presidency is that he has indicated that he understands organized people power, and he will be vulnerable to that - instead of merely being vulnerable to organized money power like most politicians.

But to be truly effective, that organization will be OUTSIDE the official machine, and maintain some independence. That's why I did work in 2004 with MoveOn, not the Kerry campaign.

The "Response from Barack on FISA and Discussion with Policy Staff"

diary is a sign that the campaign takes this issue seriously, and should be considered a victory by those who worked the campaign on it. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing a community organization does - puts time into communicating, and you know the staffers that spent a hard hour and a half working on this understand better how important that is to people, and communicate that to the candidate.

 

Anyone else have trouble with the Bill Conroy link to the NYT story?  I got a 403 "Forbidden" error.

John Slade - As the barristers say in the courtroom, I stipulate to your point about FISA. (Since I don't see any real change in Senator Obama's position on FISA I wasn't thinking of that when I wrote that paragraph. I was thinking more of faith-based initiatives and flag pins and such). But, yes, I agree with you, the FISA stuff - especially how some are framing it - doesn't help with that libertarian swing vote.

McCain's Town Hall in Denver today. This report & video was just sent to me, FISA, Smisha,  charging a librarian for trespassing because she was holding a sign on public property????

Stephan

Being a libertarian in its pure form is actually a rejection of authoritarism. A true libertarian doesn't want the military, corporate, and government complexes all in bed with each other -- sapping the soul of this country -- any more than you do. Most libertarians support a get-along-in-the-world approach to the world that is the polar opposite of the imperialist (and dangerous) stance we're in now. Invading Iraq? Libertarians are NOT "cool with that"

As for Obama, I think many libertarian types actually welcome him as a breath of fresh air.

That being said, there are plenty of libertarian zealots out there with so many way-out ideas, it's difficult to take them seriously -- so I sort of understand where you're coming from. But then again some liberals are communists.

 

Nancy,

I fixed the link, sorry.

May I suggest that in some of the comments above where people are expressing their feeling that the Libertarians they've met have been pains-in-the-ass that don't fit Al's picture, I think there's a critical distinction to be made between capital L Libertarians and Republicans and Democrats with libertarian tendencies.  I'd consider myself in the latter group, while I doubt I'd be able to stay in the room long with the former.

I think Al's use of the term "Social Justice Libertarians" fits that distinction - voters who support ideas of minimizing government intrusion and abuse, but aren't really down with abolishing the Department of Education as job one...

When you take a look at that old Libertarian standard, the 'personal/economic' grid, or the Political Compass (now very popular on dkos signatures), you find libertarians and anarchists nearby. Both are strongly anti-authoritarian.

As the Republican National Convention nears, and my friends who are in favor of using civil disobedience to stop the convention are coming under scrutiny, the 'dangerous anarchist' meme is getting pushed heavy.

Like 'rules for radicals' freaking out some members of the Democratic party, there are some who get freaked out by 'anarchists.'

I would tend to agree that there is a broad left to right consensus that includes centrist libertarians all the way to the far corner of the grid (left anti authoritarians.)

And thanks, Al.

(Edited because I forgot the whole reason for this post!)

This is part of Obama's post on FISA, and I would recommend it to those who worry that criticizing Obama is counter-productive.

"I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.".

(how does one blockquote?)

All this discussion regarding liberal/conservative/libertarian/populist has made me "hit the books" tonight. For a two-dimensional picture and short explanation of these concepts, see Page 18 of the link below.

http://64.78.63.75/samples/politicalscience/05PO1004SchmidtAmericanGov&PoliticsToday2005200612Ch1.pdf

Regarding Al's post, one sentence from the above link, particularly popped out:

"...libertarians more typically support the Republican Party. They are more likelly than conservatives to vote for a compatible Democrat, however.

 

Looks like Booman Tribune. Possibly. Al, here are two ego-surfing arrows to put in your in your quiver of webby goodness links... adjusted for The Field, of course.

I can't watch YouTube at work.  Wow.  That was a beautiful backdrop...that humongous flag.  Made me think of your re-capture the flag post.  He should give lots of speeches like that.  How about the big one coming up in Denver???

 A libertarian socialist? Does that mean you are opposed to all forms of authority?  You believe this? --> the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state? I think the ideology in a another reality could be heaven on earth in some minds. Pragmatism tells me that our government created for the people, by the people can still be greatly influenced by we the people when it comes to governing if we stay involved, aware and organized.  It goes along with the reason I hang out here learning smart dissent. As for your expectations of the "priviledged in the middle class", well, I have always considered myself priviledged and middle class. Maybe your expectations of us are too low? I do appreciate the intellectualism in all of your comments. I come here and learn from all of you daily.

Susan Kitchens - Booman Tribute is a very important and big-time blog worthy of massive respect from this corner. But the blip on our radar screen was even bigger than it would give.

I'll find out tomorrow when our stats analytics roll in. I suspect it has to do with this Narcosphere story by Kristin Bricker, posted in English and in Spanish, for which I had the privilege to be editor, that identified the Miami-based perps that gave the torture trainings to Mexico police, on video, recently:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2008/07/compan...

(If anybody wants a good idea of what Narco News, our non-censoring host, does in its core mission, the examples don't come much better than that news-breaking story.)

End FARC hate!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7494196.stm

Comments in that abc blog are terrible. Is this how the msm brainwashed the US into voting Bush's 2nd term ?

amk

So I followed Susan's link to Google's blogsearch and was reading entries that reference The Field and was surprised to see not only so many critical (and oftentimes rambling) posts about The Field and Al, but also the repeated claim that Al represents the DLC.

 

Do they mean the same DLC - as in the Bill Clinton DLC?  I really don't see how they make that leap, but it was odd to me that several postings (from seemingly different blogs) were making that comment.  It seems like there are some bloggers out there furiously pounding on their keyboards to denounce what Al's been writing in recent weeks.

Obama's respect for empowering communities to deal with crime is what jumped out at me in the prison video, and also from his recently announced position on funding community services. The idiot media is framing the latter as Obama turning right and supporting Republican faith-based initiatives, but its the opposite, its sharp and sane. Anthropologists put the natural size of a human community at no more than a hundred. If a hundred people chose a representative and a hundred representatives of like-minded groups chose their own representative, it would only take one more step to make a congressional district: (100*100*50=500,000). The things our grapefruit-sized brains do to pretend at understanding the whole wide world beyond our sensual range are disastrous. Government has to be rooted in people we know.

 

Christi, yes libertarian socialists tend to resist and questions forms of authority that cannot justify their legitimacy under diligant scrutiny over time.  Should humans accept domination and slavery, inequality, wage-slavery, etc?  Many in economically priviledgd or dominant sector would say yes--but libertarian socialists tend to believe that accepting illegitimate human domination isn't conducive to a healthy society, or for human creativity and liberation.

I believe that institutions and levels of power/domination that cannot be rationally justified need to be challenged and dismanteled--and in thier place, more rational, healthy institutions should be developed.  When these institutions no longer serve their function, they should be challenged as well.  This is a never ending process, and nothing is sacrosanct.

 

Libertarianism and liberalsim can converge on the ends ... where I generally see libertarians having a big blind spot is in the (ab)use of money and its associated power.

Libertarians want government to get out of the way so that individuals can do whatever they want. They don't seem concerned with what individuals will do with this power, just so long as the government isn't involved.

I'm back!

Family emergency popped up Sunday night; things are better now.

Wow--lots to catch up on!

Great posts on libertarianism!

Lots of organizing activity over on the Fieldhands ning site!

I'll be here in the office most of today...thanks to Amy for her letter-writing leadership!

This place is amazing!  So many engaged, organized, ready-to-work, "not this time, not this year" Fieldhands!

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

Barath - I have that effect on some people. It drives up traffic to this site. Of course, those born-again civil libertarians share the freedom to pound away on their keypads and post it on the Internet because, well, I won it for them in 2001.

 why you keep your location secret. Thanks for the history lesson. I hope you write a book someday soon.

There is a dairy on Kos saying Mexico is running out of oil and is on the verge of a major crisis, what do you think?

Christi - The country's biggest oil field is pretty much tapped out. That's been known for years. The country's had four successive presidents dedicated to helping a very few loot the natural and human resources of the land at a lightning-speed pace. On the verge of crisis? The crisis is here, permanent, and has been for a while, ratcheted up by NAFTA; that's when the gigantic wave of northbound migration began, as farmers lost their lands and markets throughout Mexico. It hasn't helped that the State's response to dissent and protest has been iron-fisted and violent.

The Mexican citizenry takes it all in stride, though. (This level of constant crisis would have splattered the North Americans like watermelons tossed off the top of a building, long ago.) One gets used to it after a while, and learns to value the more important parts of life.

Although I agree that some of Obama's so-called movement to the center really is nothing more than media recognition of his long-standing views, I disagree that Obama has made a point of wooing libertarians.

Al, in response to someone in this thread, I think you said that you had in mind faith-based initiatives, flag lapels and other similar things when you were referring to "wooing." I just don't see libertarians as his audience there.

On the other hand, I agree that libertarians may find Obama the appealing choice simply because McCain and the GOP are now identified in a real sense with an intrusive, authoritarian government.

And because the GOP's image makes libertarians naturally in play, I think that Obama misplayed his hand (tactically) on FISA. I don't think he could have made a MAJOR stand, leading a filibuster and pulling out all stops to persuade his colleagues to vote against the bill. But would it have been a problem for him to announce that he'd support a filibuster, without leading it? Could such an approach have solidified his libertarian appeal, without making FISA a test of his own strength and authority in the party? I'm not sure.

The last comment I'll make on the merits of FISA. If I understand Al correctly, the reason the expanded eavesdropping doesn't matter is because other countries are already engaged in that conduct and sharing the information with our government. This point really needs some elaboration and sourcing (not just here, but in the media generally), as I'm sure it's news to most Americans. (I'm also somewhat skeptical that there really would be no practical difference - let alone principled difference - between the current situation (sharing results) and our government actively eavesdropping, but I have no way of knowing personally.)

 

As someone with a family who is right now benefitting from a training program provided free of charge by one of those "community groups" that Our Candidate wants to continue to fund, I can testify first-hand to the positive outcomes.

This particular "holistic" training/motivation/self-improvement program has young men aged 21-30 who need some help becoming contributing, tax-paying, job-holding, family-building members of society.

I don't know how much it costs per participant, but I do know that the "pay-back" to the community will be at least a ten-thousands-fold return of whatever that cost is.

Our Candidate is right (as usual), some "ideas" are neither "Democrat" or "Republican"; they are just the right thing to do--if managed correctly.

Obama has to walk a fine line with different constituencies with some of his decision; but he has been consistent, even when he "refines" some policy.

I certainly look forward to having a POTUS who is a Constitutional Scholar instead of a Constitution-shredder.

 

I don't know if that makes me a "Libertarian-leaning Democrat"...

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

I think one of the most important messages of Obama's campaign, and one of the most overlooked, is the need for personal responsibility. Every time he has talked about doing something about the problems the nation faces, he has always said, "But I can't do it alone, I need you." My parents alwyas told me that you can't get something for nothing and this is central to Obama's message, and his attraction to me. Beginning with the convention speech in 2004, where he talked about children learning being the responsibility of us all, but most importantly the responsibility of the parent, I knew he was a different type of Democrat. His plan for the tax credit for college is predicated upon the student putting in time. The credit isn't a gift, it has to be earned, and earned in a way that brings something back to the community at large. It is also obvious that he realizes a government bureaucrat in DC doesn't understand the needs in the heart of Jackson, MS or Chicago, or Cheyenne, WY. That is the thrust behind the "faith-based" initiative. He is a mixture, philosophically, between the old conception of the Democrat being someone who wants the government to do it all and the old style Republican who wants government out of his/her life. And that is why, I think, that he draws a lot of the libertarian vote. He really doesn't believe in the nanny state, and I think he would really prefer to see the government less involved in a lot of things, but he doesn't believe in the slash and burn tactics of the Republicans. In essence, his approach to dealing with the bloated government is the same as it is to Iraq, to get out but to do it wisely, carefully and with as positive a result as possible.

Thanks to Susan Kitchens for the links. Interesting to see folks calling Al Giordano and the Narcosphere (Hi, David!) "apologists" and not Pragmatists with deeply, deeply held values who have the wisdom to see the goal, and understand the many steps and temporary sacrifices it takes to reach that goal. Maybe Pragmatist isn't the 'right' label - but then I SO hate labels, and have tried to avoid them for so many years, my ability to label is disabled.

Interesting that as soon as anyone, Al Giordano, Bill Conroy, ask us to THINK, those folks who find that process difficult, seem to attack.

Re: Al's link to the landmark 2001 court decision, thank you isn't enough, but it's a start. Getting Al his credentials to Denver is another important action in my committment to Freedom of Speech!

 Is all over MSNBC today. They have been focusing on it all morning. In the height of round one?

I have come to accept that some people are not willing to "disable their ability to label" (good one, BTW).  It's just too comfortable!  Perhaps the human "mind" naturally categorizes and finds it easier to identify differences verses similarities.  Isn't learning the concept of an antonym easier than that of a synonym?  (calling waterprise2 AKA Pam for input!)   Look at how uncomfortable the media is when they try to pigeon-hole Sen. Obama.  I have to admit, I enjoy watching the MSM squirm on this one.     

Hey Christi, both candidates address the LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) Convention today.  And the only issue the MSM thinks of when they think of Latin American citizens is immigration.

(snark alert)

Because, of course, Latin Americans aren't interested in the economy, or the war, or jobs, or energy policy, or healthcare.

(snark off)

Expect Obama to kick Grandpa McSimpson's butt as he did at NALEO.

This is libertarian antiwar.com writer Justin Raimondo on Obama critics, both neocon and The Left: "Fake Flip-Flop Flap"

"this air of wounded outrage has about it a distinctly phony air."

==========

Al, Kristin's article was mentioned here, but not NarcoNews:

http://www.uruknet.de/?p=m45472&hd=&size=1&l=e

==========

Obama has shifted his position on immunity in FISA and on the death penalty for crimes other than murder. Those are both shifts towards a *less* libertarian position. On Iraq and NAFTA, the shifts are basically media fictions - his positions are substantially the same as they have been, though the rhetorical tone has shifted. On what has he shifted to a more libertarian stance? It seems to me the whole premise here is wrong.

Martin Bento - Obama's always had a mixed position on capital punishment, going back to the reform he sponsored in the Illinois legislature. And the FISA bill was amended. A new position on a different bill does not constitute a "shift." But go on and continue mouthing inaccurate talking points - what Justin Raimundo (see link, above, in Alexa's comment) calls the "fake flip flop flap." You're doing the MSM's work of distortion for it.

And the FISA bill was amended. A new position on a different bill does not constitute a "shift."

Perhaps it would help enlighten people if you would enumerate the substantive changes in the FISA bill. What positive changes have been added to the bill to cause Obama to support this bill when he opposed previous revisions?

 

 

Mary -

A link in my previous comment already answers your question. I really think that if more people did their own investigation and research before flapping their gums or keypads on this matter there would be a lot less drama. In the Senator's own words:

I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.

Seems to me we're getting waaay off base in this libertarian/Libertarian/libertarian-leaning ramble.

First, though, before demanding a personal tutorial on the differences between the new FISA law and the old one (Mary @ 3:45), please read Bill Conroy at 10:07 on July 7th, and the Washington Post link he gives us.  And, everyone, before doing the same on any issue, read the rest of the posts.  Usually someone has already made a point, which has since been refuted and could use an original response from you, thus avoiding having to start the conversation again and again and again and again...  Sorry if I'm out of line, Al, but it's making me cranky.

Al didn't say "libertarians" or "Libertarians".  He said that a portion of the "the largest 'swing vote' group of all" is made up of "alienated Americans who haven't voted in years or decades, whose libertarian tendencies reach beyond a narrow economic focus into all aspects of government intrusion into the daily lives of the people."  This segment of alienated voters see a role for government but now know that Bush & Co. have duped them into supporting a systematic dismantling of civil liberties, social justice and economic fairness by waving the red flag of terrorism and xenophobia.

These voters agree with Obama that we need surveillance but only with safeguards.  Many, especially those amazing X-ers, believe that late-term abortions should be reserved to preserve the health of the mother, but can't get behind pre-Roe bans.  They think people should be responsible for their lives, but that the state needs to provide ladders up and at least a floor below which the availability of food, shelter, health care, and education must not go.

So, if I understand Al correctly, we're talking about limiting government, finding the point where private and public interests are balanced in the eyes of the electorate, not you and me.  Obama is going to piss us off plenty while he's in office.

And we need to fight for our views, but we also need to be responsible enough to remember that this is, oh by the way, a small-d democracy, and that there are millions of other voters in this cute little country of ours, and that insisting on the purity of our ideals is tantamount to ceding the field to the religious and economic right wing.  But if you believe that any consensus is a bargain with the devil, I recommend Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  Or perhaps your beef is with the principles of community organizing themselves, in which case my whole rant is for naught.  Either way, I'm done for the day; will check back tomorrow.

At the suggestion of the last poster, I read what Bill wrote and can't resist making a few points about the merits of the FISA bill.

1. Bill says "most importantly," the bill makes clear that all intelligence wiretapping is overseen by FISA. But this declaration is merely an express statement of what was clear before anyway. And nothing stops a future administration from deciding that the amended FISA would be an unconstitutional infringement on the executive's authority. For that reason, I think this aspect of the bill is pretty unimportant.

2. Bill notes that wiretaps "directed" at citizens still require probable cause; but that requirement is wholly eviscerated when the communication involves an overseas transmission. It is a simple matter for the government to avoid saying that they are "directing" the wiretap at a US citizen, even when that is plainly the case.

3. Bill emphasizes that the procedures for the broad surveillanc