Thanks to his brilliant grassroots efforts, his exhaustive and skillful community organization talents, President Elect Barack Obama has pulled off a landslide Election. Through his exhaustive campaign in which he elicited the support of thousands of volunteers, his extraordinary discipline, his tireless, never ending hard work, the severe lack of sleep, the sacrifice of his personal and family life, and despite the attacks and the attacks and the attacks and the misinformation and the misinformation and the blatant media bias, the bias, the bias, and the appalling regional ignorance, the ignorance, the ignorance, and the hate talk, the hate talk, the hate talk, somehow, despite all of the symbolic and vociferous right wing smearing and screaming, finally the majority of Americans heard through the deafening clamor and voted for truth, hope, change and a return to normality.
The president-elect won overwhelmingly among blacks, Hispanics and voters under the age of 30. He made inroads among important swing groups, including Catholics, suburbanites, political independents, even veterans. He won in the Midwest, where Mr. Kerry had lost. He even made small gains among groups that typically have been solidly Republican - whites, conservatives, Southerners, regular churchgoers.
And, according to the The Politico, the most affluent voters were key to Obama's win.
Thankfully, for the entire planet, the last eight years of the Republican Dark Ages and Reign of Financial Terror have crashed and burned, hopefully forever.
During the presidential primary campaign earlier this year I watched my favorite candidates drop out of the race one by one. On Super Tuesday I decided to support Barack Obama. I was very enthusiastic about his campaign and worked every day for him during the run-up to the Texas primary. However, last week I changed my mind about the guy who said he stood for "Change we can believe in."
On July 9 Barack Obama joined with other senators to vote against the Constitution and give unprecedented (and unconstitutional) power to the least popular, least trustworthy president in the history of the United States. By supporting passage of the amendment to the 1978 FISA act, the Senate-as the House of Representatives did last month-thumbed its nose at the 4th Amendment by significantly weakening our right to protection against warrantless searches.
That same vote undermined our rights under the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the law and due process of law. By immunizing telecom companies from liability in connection with their violation of privacy laws, congress effectively denied Americans their right to have their day in court.
Obama not only voted against our civil liberties, he broke a promise he made during the primaries. He said more than once he would oppose this FISA legislation.
I have no interest in knowing why he changed his mind. It could have been because he thought he would pick up some support from among undecided voters. Or maybe telecom company executives promised big campaign contributions in exchange for removing their liability. He might rationalize his position by saying: Trust me; I know more than you. I just can't tell you what I know, but if I told you, you would thank me for violating your civil liberties.
In June a Texas congressman I know voted in favor of this year's FISA bill. Last year when he voted for an even more egregious version of this legislation, he told me, "It's just politics." I suspect Barack Obama's reason for supporting this latest version of FISA was the same-"just politics."
But it's not "just politics." It's about the Constitution.
“Many times throughout my lifetime I have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This isn’t a part-time Constitution. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they break the rules. It's appalling that my opponent, John Cornyn, puts his special interest campaign contributors ahead of the Constitution. Texans have had enough.
Americans will not accept an abuse of power, and they will not accept corporations getting away with breaking the law.
We already have a law in place that balances national security concerns while adhering to the Constitution. This is not the time to compromise the privacy of the American people and not the time to disregard the Constitution of United States. I regret that the Senate has voted this way.”
Something you may be used to hearing about a Democratic candidate in other states, but here in Utah, this is truly a first. We have but one Democrat in our federal delegation, and on FISA, Matheson has proven himself a true Bush Dog. Now it appears a new candidate is ready to step up and show true leadership on a key issue.
Morgan is the Democratic candidate for Utah's first congressional district, a seat currently held by school voucher supporting, "drill here, drill now" parroting, warrantless wiretap backing Rob Bishop. In addition to the 2/1 odds Morgan faces unseating the corporate funded incumbent, he also faces a battle with in-state leadership as a result of Rep. Jim Matheson, our only sitting Democrat, and faithful Blue Dog.
Standing here, the old man said to me Long before these crowded streets, here stood my dreaming tree Below it he would sit, for hours at a time Now progress takes away, what forever took to find... ---"The Dreaming Tree" by the Dave Matthews Band
Twenty weeks ago, on February 13, we at Burnt Orange Report endorsed Senator Barack Obama. It's an endorsement I was proud to see us make, as I believe he will make an extraordinary President. But that doesn't mean I still don't have concerns about an Obama Presidency -- concerns that I, and no other Democrat, should sweep under the rug.
Specifically, Obama's pathetic statement about the House's passage of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Like many progressives -- especially those of us who call ourselves "policy progressives" -- I was wholly outraged at Obama's statement on the legislation. The equivocation, pandering, and political cover in his statement was severely disappointing.
I can understand wanting to "play to the center" on legislation that wasn't so clear cut. But the FISA legislation the House foolishly let slide through was making Bush's illegal wiretapping program legal -- and it's not like the prior process made it difficult, in any way, for America to counter terrorist efforts through wiretapping. We just, you know, wanted a small modicum of accountability.
Instead, the legislation out of the House makes pretty much everything Bush did illegally, legal. There's even immunity for phone companies -- something Obama, to his credit, has pledged to either remove from the bill or vote against. Many others in the Senate are also on board, either with a "no" vote or on removing immunity. But the whole law needs to be killed.
The national netroots did a tremendous job stepping up and calling out Obama -- and the House Democrats who passed it -- last week. I didn't write about it because there was no real Texas tie-in, and I try to focus on Texas politics. But as I've thought about this more and more, there is something dramatically important to all of us with what happens today in the U.S. Senate.
By marginalizing the policy liberals within his campaign the way he has mowed down the outside groups, Obama is limiting his range of motion going forward and showing key progressive allies that he may not be a good faith operator after all unless he can be forced in that direction. And so they will dedicate more energy going forward into ensuring that they aren't embarrassed again by the person that we are all trusting as our party leader.
Trading Republican lobbyists and insiders for Democratic lobbyists and insiders is not change....The change we need must be adaptive. It must be a change that challenges Americans to look at the loyalties in our lives and, more importantly, the loyalties in the lives of those around us....It must be a change in how we define Presidential leadership.
Yes, Senator Barack Obama is making waves around the country -- and right here on BOR -- for announcing that he will run a 50-state strategy this November. I'm as excited as anyone about how expertly Obama is running a campaign. But we can challenge our leaders as we support them. Yes, we can.
If we don't, progress will take away what forever took to find.
Today marks an important moment in this campaign. How will Senator Obama lead in his only official capacity --- not as a candidate, or even presumptive Democratic Party Presidential nominee, but as a Senator, when the Senate takes up the FISA legislation today. Here's hoping he delivers the kind of change we all believe -- and hope -- he can.
A number of your were probably paying attention to the huge FISA debate today in the Senate. Chris Dodd led the effort to block a version of the bill being put up for debate which included provisions to give amnesty (retroactively, no less) to telecom companies for potentially violating privacy rights to assist government surveillance efforts. Complicated sounding for the un-initiated so for more background information you may want to go here or here.
In short, "retroactive immunity", would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants. Bush had repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that lacked this provision.
In Sen. Dodd's opinion (and many others) that doesn't quite square with the Constitution which is why he took to the floor and was prepared to filibuster. But luckily (at least until January), the Senate has chosen not to suspend reality or the Constitution resulting in a win for Chris Dodd and the progressive movement. We can have security (which many other parts of the FISA bill grant us) without having to sacrifice our liberties and privacy.
Rick Noriega backed up those thoughts today in this rather unique statement in support of Sen. Dodd's efforts.
"On Christmas morning 2004, outside of Kabul, Afghanistan, my buddies and I drove to our base camp to use the computers. We wanted to be with our kids when they woke up that Christmas. To get there we drove through a near ambush--anytime we drove on the Jalalabad Road, it was risky, and we had an incident on our way.
That Christmas morning, I suspect the government listened to our conversations. They occurred between two countries; Afghanistan and the US. They probably didn't realize the difference in tone in my voice as I spoke to my wife and children that morning as my heart raced still from our encounter on the road. My wife did.
I fought to defend our country and our constitution in Afghanistan. I fought for the right to privacy for every Texan. Mr. Cornyn must now stand up for the privacy of every Texan and American too. We as a nation cannot grant anyone sweeping amnesty if they violated the law.
Americans understand the need for safety and the need for intelligence gathering. What they will not accept is an abuse of power, of crossing the line on American's privacy.
I would join Sen. Dodd in opposition to any retroactive provisions that allow a "get out of jail card" for violating the Constitution. If Mr. Cornyn had ever had the opportunity to have his Christmas conversation listened to by the government, on a day that he feared for his life in a convoy on Jalalabad Road, he would do the same."
So called Texas Democrats hand a big victory to the whitehouse at the expense of your freedoms. I won't go into all the reason the FISA vote was a knife in your back as there as several excellent posts on Daily Kos. The question is, what were these people thinking? Is there anyone else who sent money and/or worked to get these guys in office feeling betrayed? What is the point of having a 'D' by your name if you are going to vote the same way as the bums we threw out?
Bush enablers:
Henry Cuellar
Chet Edwards
Nick Lampson
Ciro Rodriguez
(Point-counterpoint-counter, counterpoint - promoted by Damon McCullar)
Phillip's description of FISA is largely correct, except for one significant error: warrantless searches can be conducted if a warrant is requested and issued within 72 hours, not 48. Other than that, the first two paragraphs of Phillip's post I do not dispute.
It is the final two grafs that I have a problem with. First Phillip writes:
What's gotten everyone upset lately hasn't been FISA, but President Bush's circumventing FISA. He's started seeking wiretaps on domestic calls (instead of just international calls), and is hiding under the cover of FISA. That's what everyone -- including Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- has a problem with.
Ed. note: below is a journal entry written by a BOR reader. If you sign up for a user account, you'll also be allowed to post on our "journals" page. Then, if your post merits unique and interesting enough research, commentary, or controversy, you might even end up on the BOR front page. So sign up for those user accounts! -- Phillip Martin
Did Bob Gammage, a candidate for Texas governor, vote to give any president the unfettered authority to invade innocent citizen's privacy? Did Bob Gammage vote against the original FISA bill? In conference no less? Did he vote against fundamental constitutional checks and balances? This document (from The Agonist) indicates that he did.
