Barack’s bounce? — Newsweek shows Obama with a 15-point lead

I’m reasonably confident that Barack Obama is well-positioned for Election Day. But I’m not this confident.

Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country’s direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters.

Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

In the previous NEWSWEEK Poll, completed in late May when Clinton was still fighting him hard for the Democratic nomination, Obama managed no better than a 46 percent tie with McCain. But as pollster Larry Hugick points out, that may have had a lot to do with all the mutual mudslinging going on between the two Democrats. By contrast, in recent weeks Clinton has not only endorsed Obama but has made plans to campaign with him. “They were in a pitched battle, and that’s going to impact things. Now that we’ve gotten away from that period, this is the kind of bounce they’ve been talking about,” said Hugick.

Well, maybe. It stood to reason that the post-primary period would benefit Obama. For the last few months, Obama was getting hit from multiple directions, and the Democratic Party was largely split. Now that we’ve been in general-election mode for a couple of weeks, some kind of modest bounce is expected.

But a 15-point lead isn’t expected at all, and seems like an outlier. Most of the recent polling from other major outlets puts Obama’s lead between four and six points, which makes more sense.

Indeed, I went back and looked this morning at Newsweek polls from the last few presidential elections. No candidate has had a 15-point general-election lead since Bill Clinton 12 years ago. I’d be delighted to think the Democratic candidate has that kind of edge now over McCain, but I don’t think it’s realistic.

Nevertheless, I tend to look at these national polls for the trend lines, at this point, things are going in the wrong direction for John McCain.

* Only 14% of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country, and most voters perceive Obama as the preferred agent of “change.”

* Women prefer Obama to McCain by a wide margin — 21 points — and Hillary Clinton backers are seen moving to Obama in considerable numbers. A month ago, 53% of Clinton’s supporters were prepared to back Obama. That number is now up to 69%.

* Obama has a 12-point lead among self-identified independents.

* There’s a surprising gap in the candidates’ personal ratings. 62% have a favorable opinion of Obama, while 49% say the same of McCain.

* Voters prefer Obama on the war in Iraq (46-40), energy policy (48-34), and the economy (54-29).

* Obama even leads among whites (45-43) and voters over 60 (44-41).

Sometimes, when a poll seems too good to be true, you have to wonder just how seriously to take it. That said, just on trend lines alone, results like these have to make the McCain campaign nervous.

Newsweek is the swing-iest of the polls, I remember from 2004 as well. I fully expect to see Obama down by 10 at some point in their poll. Neither is that close to reality. Obama is ahead, yes, but he’s not blowing McCain out of the water. At least, not yet.

  • i don’t know whether it’s accurate or not, but i do know that the odds of mccain being the bob dole of 1996 – a forlorn figure, running a pointless campaign that smells of failure – are reasonably good, and would be better still if there wasn’t such a disconnect between what most reporters think of mccain and what he actually stands for.

  • Bear in mind that Dukakis had an even larger polling lead over GHWB during the summer of 1988.

    That said, the fundamentals this year are heavily against McCain. In the end I don’t think it’ll be all that close, no matter how much the villagers try to boost their buddy McCain.

  • Nevertheless, I tend to look at these national polls for the trend lines, at this point, things are going in the wrong direction for John McCain.

    It is the McSame meme…

    That one is the killer.
    Especially when you couple it with his obvious dotage.
    It is like trying to sell SUVs with gas at $10 a gallon.
    Or better: Trying to win an unwinable war with a 71 year old at the helm.

    A while back a CB commenter wrote something that put this election cycle in perfect perspective:

    The 2004 election was a referendum on the stupidity of the American people.
    The 2008 election is a referendum on their sanity.

    That’s the most concise and accurate analysis I’ve seen anywhere.
    McSame indeed equals McInsane.
    How crazy are we?
    We are going to find out in November.

  • Howard: …the odds of mccain being the bob dole of 1996 – a forlorn figure, running a pointless campaign that smells of failure – are reasonably good

    Actually it makes a lot of sense. Dole was the last of “the greatest generation” to make a run at the presidency. Similarly, McCain represents the last of the Vietnam generation to make a run…

    Tempus fugit. Out with the old. In with the new.

  • If you controlled the Diebold (or non-auditable) voting machines, and intended to use voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc. to manipulate election results, the first and most important thing to do would be to make the results plausible. The best way to do that is to have multiple polls done, using different matrices or methodologies to ensure different results and wide swings. I don’t necessarily distrust the results of this Newsweek poll per se, but I do think it is part of a pattern of intentional deception. Remember that we’re dealing with a public that is frequently told that “there you go again” was a defining moment in the Reagan-Carter race.

  • Barak’s failure on the FISA issue just lost him my vote. I won’t be voting for McCain, but I can’t, in good conscience, support someone who would undermine our constitution so. I’m hunting around now… maybe Nader?

  • “High as a kite by 10″…

    If the MSM begins to do it’s job to point out how wildly flip-floppy McAce is, the Man in the Edgar Suit’s candidacy will fold. The recent bump in money donated to his campaign is a “show me” donation. If he continues to tank in these national polls after this massive influx of cash watch for a sharp decrease from the “hedging their bet” class and the smart money move to Obama. Then: Jeb Bush at the GOP convention, rising like a phoenix from the ashes of McAce’s burnt-out cinder of an ass. Then watch the feathers fly. What fun…

  • Most of the recent polling from other major outlets puts Obama’s lead between four and six points, which makes more sense.

    Actually, 15 or even 25 points makes more sense, but after the events of the last 8-10 years, obviously a lot of what happens in America doesn’t make sense.

  • Phaedrus said:

    “I’m hunting around now… maybe Nader?”

    I’m not sure but Gravel may still be in. Bob Barr would probably appreciate a shout out and a contribution. And, as always, Nader would love your attention. Good hunting.

  • I’m hunting around now… maybe Nader?

    Yeah, that’ll show them.

    Like it or not, there are two and only two options in this election — McCain and Obama.

    If you’re concerned about Fourth Amendment issues that much, then you should recognize that only one of those men has an actual chance of becoming president. One of them has repeatedly promised to appoint many more judges in the mold of Alito and Scalia and Roberts, not just to the Supreme court, but to the circuit and appeals courts that dispatch many more issues before they even reach there. And the other has promised to appoint more progressive judges.

    This piece-of-shit bill expires in six months, but those new judges are going to be calling the shots — on this issue, on torture, on “executive privilege,” on all the Bush era bullshit — for the next generation.

    You can vote to put an end to the Bush bullshit. Or you can vote to help keep it going.

    And, sorry, but a wasted vote for Nader is a vote for the latter option there.

  • The 2004 election was a referendum on the stupidity of the American people.
    The 2008 election is a referendum on their sanity.

    Or

    We’re retarded, but’re not ready for strait-jackets just yet!

  • The more a politician sells out the Constitution, the higher his approval rating. Go figure.

  • Gee, if he is doing so well in the polls perhaps it’s because he promises change we can believe in and a new politics. But alas, yesterday with his support for FISA, he showed the world that he is just another Washington politician.

  • Phaedrus (and TR), this advice depends on the state in which you’re registered, but if you vote in a reliably Democratic state, consider the Greens, and give Mr. Nader a miss unless he ends up being the Green nominee.

  • @12 I believe that the bill is supposed to expire in 4.5 years. I may be wrong about that. But as long as there is a single Republican in the house and Senate I won’t depend on the spineless Democrats not to give in to Republican demands.

  • TR @ 12 – really?!?! The bill expires in 6 months. Sheesh. Phoebes in SF, excellent – thanks for the attention to TR’s note. I missed this point in reading TR’s original post.

    Thanks to both of you. This should be broadcast to all you are pounding on Obama.

    Only 212 more days!!!!

  • I, too, was very disappointed in Sen. Obama’s FISA statement. Why don’t you try doing what I’m doing: Send an e-mail to the campaign (under “Contact Us” on the Web page) stating your objections. Or write a blog post on your my.barackobama.com personal page. (The campaign reads both — really!) Just make sure the posts are at least somewhat respectful.

  • Obama still gets my vote (the country is in too critical of a state to be trusted to McCain), just not my money (well, depending upon whether he gets his head out of his arse over the next week and does what is right). I now (tenatively) have a couple thousand extra to spread around to Dems who voted and end up voting no on FISA reauthorization.

  • Thanks to both of you. This should be broadcast to all you are pounding on Obama.

    I totally agree.

    I stand with Obama.

  • I replied to the fundraiser email from Obama with a crticism of his FISA support. Here’s the rerply I got.

    Barack is gratified by the overwhelming response to his candidacy, and we appreciate hearing from you. Please note, though, that we are now replying only to emails sent through our webform. You may resend your message through the webform here:

    I don’t know if that is new policy or not. But I’ll bet a lot of people did like doubtful & libra and replied to the fundraiser with an earful.

    Still voting for Obama of course. But now the statement “there’s no other choice” has a different meaning.

  • “I don’t know if that is new policy or not. But I’ll bet a lot of people did like doubtful & libra and replied to the fundraiser with an earful.”

    As far as I know it is not a change in policy. And I will say that every time I have sent an email through the comment section of the website I have at least received, within a few days, an email that clearly indicates someone read the email–noting the topic, some part of the email itelf, etc. You will first quickly receive a boilerplate computer generated email notifying you that the campaign received the email, followed by the second more personalized email.

    Call, write, email, and let them know this is not going to cost your vote but that it will cost them you as a revenue stream, unless Obama gets this right. It is the only leverage we common folk have.

  • First, these numbers strike me as the most accurate polling of any I’ve seen — maybe they have realized that the RRs won’t be voting — or at least not working — for McCain in anywheres near the number they were for Bush, that young voters and blacks are likely to have the highest turnouts ever, and that McCain simply hasn’t made his message comprehensible — even to himself. (That’s assuming that McCain has a message instead of being like the flag-sellers who show up at my local supermarket arguing to buy from them because they are Vets, and nothing more.)

    (And don’t forget the bitter personal hatred between McCain and the Bushes — which means that the Roves and others aren’t going to work hard for McCain.)

    And — which may become a new statement everybody will get sick of me saying pretty fast — the MSM ‘coddling’ (to the extent it is true) only builds up expectations for McCain that actually hurts him once people see him. Y’know, like the food choppers that sound so good in late night commercials but get put on the farthest back shelf — or the garbage — once you buy them and see how lousy a job they do.

    As for the telecom immunity bill (I haven’t followed this the way I should have, so if I say something dumb, correct me please) I am not willing to forsake Obama over this for a couple of reasons:

    I can understand why the telecoms did this — they were asked by a President who hadn’t been shown — to the nation as a whole — to be as absurd as he now appears (and anyone want to bet that the Republicans used the old cop trick of telling everybody that “Everybody else has signed on to this, do you really want to be the only holdout?”)

    If they can be sued the courts will be so jammed with suits that nobody else will be prosecuted for anything for years.

    If the suits succeed, the telecoms will be hit with such a large payment that either they will go out of business or our own telephone bills will jump so high that we’ll be seeing phone service as the ‘new gas.’

    But even if this is wrong, well, bills can be reversed and even this bill does not protect them from criminal liability.

  • I think you should vote for exactly who you want to vote for and not necessarily for the “only choice”. Your vote means a lot more to you than it does to any outcome. Presidential races don’t come down to one vote making the difference, but your conscience does.

  • I wonder if his horrible decision regarding the FISA bill will make a (slight) difference. I realize that very few Americans really pay attention to this, but right now — if the election were today — I would be unable to vote for him. I’d vote on the downticket elections (my rep, for instance, voted nay last week) but would be unable to cast a vote in the most important presidential election in my lifetime. & that really sucks.

    Obama: Change, just the same as the old change.

  • TR said This piece-of-shit bill expires in six months,

    Do you have a source on that? I thought it was till 2012.Thanks.

  • Y’know, some of you people put me in mind of someone who was my Congressman briefly, William Fitts Ryan. Great man, right on so many things, the second Representative to introduce a gay rights bill — years before Stonewall. But he had one problem. Any time he had more than 25 votes on his side, he started frantically reassessing his position, because he was afraid he might be ‘selling out.’

    A lot of us sound the same way. Obama is going to do things we aren’t going to like, sure, things we may find very problematic. But — even ignoring the obvious point that at his ‘worst’ he’s 100 times better than McCain at his best — I have seen him over this last year and I trust him to get things right, to push the envelope just enough, and then, once that is accepted, to push it more. Remember, the new Congress isn’t in place yet, and we don’t have a ‘policy majority’ in either House now. We will have.

    (And voting for Nader — or Barr, or any third party candidate, but mostly Nader is simply idiotic. Nader got one thing right in the 60s — the automobile story — and has been living on that for four decades, being forgiven for every idiocy and exaggeration he’s come up with since. Pfui!)

    Btw, one of my ‘quick quizzes.’ Ryan was the second Congressman to introduce a gay rights bill. Who was the first? (Hints: He was black, a minister, and was succeded by his son. Oh yes, and like Ryan, he was almost certainly straight.)

  • Danp: Thanks, I’ll study it more, but the most important point is that this bill may give the telecoms immunity — it doesn’t protect the Government officials who instituted the program. Were the telecoms dumb, sure, but they were also under a lot of pressure, and I think they may have learned their lesson — not that there is any likelihood of a ‘new Bush’ doing the same thing for the next 16 years at least — if ever.

    So why waste the time and money — our money since they will pass the cost of the suits on — prosecuting them, just to prove our own bona fides? (And, given the rate of turnover in the upper executive ranks of large corporations, does anyone know how many of the people who approved the wiretapping are still alive and working for the companies? Why punish successors and the companies as a whole for what they did?)

  • Do you have a source on that? I thought it was till 2012.Thanks.

    I can’t remember where I read that, but it looks like I was wrong. Sorry about that.

    According to the provisions, this bill will automatically expire in 2012, as you note. (I could swear I saw something about six months, but I think that was for the 2007 PAA extensions.)

    That’s if nothing is done to amend it or override it, of course. We’re going to see a horde of “new and better” Democrats elected this fall, and with the campaign rhetoric removed from the stage and those new votes on our side, we can get this corrected next year.

  • 23. Dale said: I replied to the fundraiser email from Obama with a crticism of his FISA support. Here’s the rerply I got.
    Barack is gratified by the overwhelming response to his candidacy, and we appreciate hearing from you. Please note, though, that we are now replying only to emails sent through our webform. You may resend your message through the webform here:

    Problem is, if you send your message through the webform, you get an email auto-response thanking you for your comment and saying that due to the overwhelming response to his candidacy they can’t reply to every message. Considering the amount of money that Obama is raising online, is it too much to ask that they actually respond to messages individually?

  • Shalimar said:
    Problem is, if you send your message through the webform, you get an email auto-response thanking you for your comment and saying that due to the overwhelming response to his candidacy they can’t reply to every message. Considering the amount of money that Obama is raising online, is it too much to ask that they actually respond to messages individually?

    This makes me wonder about the response to my criticism too. Do you think I would have gotten that response if I had mentioned that I have a lot of money I would like to give to Obama?

  • Prup@36 – shit, I was going to say Adam Clayton Powell, Jr! Other than him, I have no idea.

    I do think that Obama WILL let some of us down, sometimes. That’s the problem with having a “blank-slate” candidate, on whom his supporters write their own dreams and ideals.

    But, he is clearly the best candidate I can see for the horrific muddle that is going to be our (once) great country’s future few years. He ain’t perfect – who is? – but I think he has what it takes to guide us through. He and his advisers, who will hopefully be carefully chosen to reflect abilities we will dearly need.

  • Prup (33): it doesn’t protect the Government officials who instituted the program. Were the telecoms dumb, sure, but they were also under a lot of pressure,

    I think that’s the issue, though. While the exec branch is not protected by the new immunity, it looks like they are immune from having the public find out why they started this data mining even before 9/11. So once again they get away with it. What I want to know more than anything else is how many people stand between presidential appointees and those who actually have access to information on specific people. Is there a reason we should assume that the NSA isn’t right now the most powerful opposition research team working for the Rep party? As for the telecoms being under pressure, I’m not so convinced whether they were under pressure or whether they were willing partners, much as the media is.

    As for the quiz, I’m guessing the guy from Georgia, Lewis? But it’s just a guess.

  • @shalimar
    Try calling the campaign. (866) 675-2008 Press 6.

    I called. They said they’d received lots of calls–the gal asked me probing questions about what I thought. It was a good experience.

    He said he’d work to remove retroactive immunity from the bill in the Senate. I still think it’s worth holding him to that promise at least.

  • Ryan was the second Congressman to introduce a gay rights bill. Who was the first? (Hints: He was black, a minister, and was succeded by his son. Oh yes, and like Ryan, he was almost certainly straight.)

    I would’ve said Bella Abzug, but the parentheticals make that highly unlikely.

  • Like it or not, there are two and only two options in this election — McCain and Obama. -TR

    Yeah, either way, the Constitution is toilet paper. Whee.

    And the other has promised to appoint more progressive judges. -TR

    We know what kind of weight those promise carry, now, don’t we?

    Same you can believe in.

    This should be broadcast to all you are pounding on Obama. -sduffys

    What should be broadcast? The phantom six month expiration? Care to back that up with evidence? Everythnig I’ve seen says it expires in 2012. And since he’s wrong and hasn’t voted yet, why shouldn’t we pound him? He owes us, not the other way around. We supported him when he was a long shot and helped him become the nominee. We’ve got time to convince him he’s wrong, but with all the rationalizers and can-do-no-wrongers I doubt it’ll happen. We can’t even stand up for our right to privacy with one voice. Weak.

    I suggest that we Obama supporters don’t waste our credibility trying to justify his FISA advocacy. -Dale

    You’re damned right, as usual. I’m still voting for him, but all y’all trying to justify his position and rationalize it are just making fools of yourself, making up stories, and making me sick. He’s no longer ‘Obama,’ to me, he’s just ‘not McCain.’ Voting for the lesser again, instead of someone I truly support.

    Since when do we accept a compromise on the Constitution, be 6 months, 4 years, or forever?

  • We’re going to see a horde of “new and better” Democrats elected this fall… -TR

    Pelosi brought this bill up, likely with Obama’s blessing, when it didn’t need to happen and the Democrats have the majority. Tell me, how many ‘new and betters’ will we have to have before those who are already in the majority aren’t afraid of Republicans anymore?

  • Tell me, how many ‘new and betters’ will we have to have before those who are already in the majority aren’t afraid of Republicans anymore?

    It depends on when and where we run them. Personally, I intend to donate to whatever progressive Democrat challenges Steny Hoyer in his next primary, and call him to account for his role in all this.

    We need to have a majority of the majority, apparently. It’s not strictly numbers — the New Deal Democrats had to outnumber the Al Smith Democrats before we got progressive change in the 1930s, and the Great Society liberal Democrats had to outnumber the old segregationist Democrats before we got civil rights change in the 1960s, and on the other side, the Reagan Republicans had to outnumber the moderate old guard before they got there stuff in the 1980s.

    This is the way the world works, doubtful. Sure, I wish we could snap our fingers and make it all magically happen overnight, but we can’t. It takes time, and hard work, and patience.

  • John Dean said last night on Olberman that the bill did not rule out criminal charges being brought against these people for spying on Americans. So there is that hope still in this bad bill. This may be one of those battles we cannot win at this time, but condirions might be more favorable toward winning after say Jan 21, 2009. Obama has always said that WE are the change. So we need to contact his campaign and/ Senate office and let them know how angry and disappointed we are. And let’s not condemn the man until he is actually given the opportunity to act.

  • Personally, I intend to donate to whatever progressive Democrat challenges Steny Hoyer in his next primary… -TR

    Then you get to deal with the frustration of Obama backing the less progressive, Bush enabling encumbant.

    I wish I shared your outlook, but with Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, and now Obama, I don’t think progress has much of a chance. Same shit different day.

    And let’s not condemn the man until he is actually given the opportunity to act. -Dee Loralei

    As my Senator, I would grant him that leeway, and yes, I hope that he’ll still do the right thing when he actually has to vote (though like I said above or before, he’s in a bubble of enablers and apologists now, so it’s unlikely), but as the leader of the Democrats his time to act was earlier in the week. He could have used his influence to prevent the bill from being brought up by the Democratic house leadership, he could have used his influence to try to prevent it from passing.

    What do we get, a statement of support released late on a Friday with only a half-hearted opposition to retroactive immunity. That’s not leadership, that’s not new politics, and that’s not right.

  • Tom Udall gets it:

    The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

    Today’s vote was not easy. I stood up to leaders of my own party and voted against this bill, because I took an oath to defend Americans and our Constitution, and it was the right thing to do.

    That duty is most important when it is most difficult. We can protect our nation while upholding our values, but unfortunately, this bill falls short.

    Tom Udall

  • Doubtful, @49,

    Robert Wexler “gets it” too:

    Today I voted against the so-called FISA “compromise” bill, as the only thing that is really being compromised is our civil rights.

    In spite of the earnest, hard work of many Members of Congress, the President has continued to demand that Congress rubber-stamp his illegal wiretapping program.

    Every American wants to protect our country from terrorists; but the President is not asking for tools to thwart terrorists. He is demanding unchecked power. He expects the Congress to throw out even the most modest, expedited court review on the absurd premise that a specially designed court with over 30 years of experience handling surveillance requests is suddenly going to bring our nation’s intelligence operations to a standstill.

    The rights of everyday Americans are at issue here, and full accountability needed. A court that is given full and appropriate review of the particular circumstances in each case is the only appropriate venue for making decisions about immunity for actions that may or may not have violated the civil liberties of some individuals.

    In addition, while I am sympathetic to the difficult position telephone and Internet service providers, who may have thought they were doing their patriotic duty, the fact remains that I simply cannot support offering retroactive immunity. I have had the opportunity to view some of the documents in question, and I can say that my position on this subject is unchanged.

    I will continue to support the March 14th House bill that preserves the appropriate court review of all surveillance of US citizens and gives judges the discretion to review all the necessary documents related to telecom lawsuits without offering blanket immunity.

    I don’t know if that is new policy or not. — Dale, @23

    It’s not; I got the same, ‘dentical message, a month ago, when I wrote on something else. And also to the “not on your nelly” reply to the fundraiser. They just don’t want to make things one-click easy 🙂 But I also took your “road”; dug up that same fundraiser, found the unsubscribe button (thanks; I’d have never found it, if you hadn’t told me it was there) and used the comment section to let fly from both barrels. Since the comment (reason for unsubscribing) is optional, I don’t know whether anyone will read it or not. And I certainly don’t expect an answer, other than the automatic “your name has been removed from the mailing list”.

    But the un-subscription itself and its timing should convey a “message” to them anyway. If someone does read it… I did mention that I’ll be watching how he votes on the bill when it goes back to the Senate and that only a flat “no” (not the wishy, washy, “later, maybe”) will be acceptable.

    Of course I’ll vote for him in November. But I’ll spend my “small potatoes” money elsewhere. It doesn’t compare to what the telecoms can give him, anyway.

  • Before I get into the merits of the discussion — which will be long, even for me, and which may come much later — I just went shopping and by the time I get the delivery unloaded, including 300 lbs of cat litter, and put away, I’m going to need a nap — I’ll answer my quiz.

    It was the highly obscure Rep. Robert N.C. Nix Sr.

  • Thanks libra,

    Glad to see a few of the regulars getting it, too. My disappointment with Obama is only compounded by those so willing to write off the fourth amendment in their unquestioning support of the Democratic nominee.

    Now is the time to withdrawal financial support and tell him how we feel. Greenwald said it quite well:

    Telling Obama that you’ll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you’ll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.

  • I predicted this all along but you were extremely difficult to convince Steve. No matter who the dem nominee turned out to be voters would turn out in droves out of the NECESSITY to end this republican disaster before we lose our democracy and assume third world nation status. I was saying this even when Guliani was trying to pose as a threat. Dems could nominate a blind monkey and still win the general because so many of us have become so frustrated by Pelosi removing impeachment, by secret undemocratic meetings by Cheney, by corruption and lies and executive privilege etc that we were ready to scream. We are just short of armed insurgency now but pundits kept acting like there was a serious debate going on that was yet to determine how we would choose. The debate ended when impeachment was taken off the table and Bush’s corruption became blatant. Most of us wish the election could be held earlier this time because we are counting the days till we end the republicans and here you act surprised that the poll numbers are overwhelming…to which I can only say …DUH! I’m not surprised of shocked as I expected the dem candidate to win by a landslide and he will.

    It didn’t matter who the republican candidate was either because the republicans have all but destroyed our country and are just short of being jailed for all party corruption.

    So too will the dems win huge majorities in the House and the Senate. The republicans are unrepentant about the damage they’ve done and want to continue marching us straight over that cliff with an ideology which has proven a complete disaster on every level. Only the wealthiest people at the top want to continue pushing our democracy into a corporatocracy and until they figure a way to cancel elections, don’t have the vote numbers to pull it off so they have focused on our legislature with vote dollars to get what they want. The people want it to stop and pundits keep running around trying to make this a race so they have something to talk about when all evidence pointed to overwhelming victories for whoever was determined to put an end to this republican obstructionism and disaster. Same will come true for those blue dog dems, those repubs posing as dems.

    btw…if you haven’t been to driftglass.com yet you are in for a treat to not only laugh your heart out but get a Friedman Picture that should be mounted on top your TV and besides excellent commentary a terrific video of McCain and the f**king c*nt comment. Thank me later because it’s a delight.

  • Okay, here we go, and I am fuming at some of the nonsense I saw in this thread. I expected posts like this next March, when President Obama surprised some people by preferring to get things accomplished over meeting the expectations of the most liberal of his supporters — and I consider myself one, but I’m also someone who tries to make his comments fact-based.

    Let’s start with one simple fact, fifth grade civics anyone. (I can’t make up my mind whether I should send some of you a book on third-grade math, or should just send you the “Schoolhouse Rock” song on ‘bills.’) The bill you’ve been complaining about is the House version. It now has to go to the Senate, where it can be amended in any way that will pass. Then it goes to Conference Committee, and they can change it as they like. Then it goes to the White House, where it might be vetoed anyway, because King George the Last prefers to rule by fiat — and if it is, it won’t be passed over his veto — this Congress.

    But there is that question about math. We have 50 Senators that are Democrats, including Bernie Sanders. We have a majority in the House of what? And in the Senate we have the Nelsons and other relatively Conservative Democrats. In the House, our majority depends on the Blue Dogs — maybe we don’t like them, but they are there. And there aren’t that many Republicans — though the by-elections and the polls grow the number — who are ready to attack the Bush policies.

    Sure, it would be wonderful — this year — if we were a Parliamentary system where breaking from the party line was punishable. But imagine what it would have been like if we’d had it when the Republicans had the majority. Think of the judges we’d have had in lower courts, think of the bills we would have had passed. Think this is bad, imagine if Bush didn’t have to adjust his wishes to what could pass muster with those Republicans who are not total horrors, and there are more of them than you think.

    Okay, so we may be stuck unable to punish the telecoms for giving in to White House pressure — and remember, as I said in another context, they have lawyers who would, perfectly legitimately, tie up the courts. (All you who want to punish the Bushies for their scandals and ripping up the Constitution — you have to be able to get to the courts.) Maybe we don’t mind seeing our telephone and wireless bills double if the telecoms have to pay off those people whose rights were violated. (And remember, the telecoms were merely giving the President lists of numbers called — bad enough, but a lot of you are acting like they were listening in to every phone call, foreign and domestic, that we were making. And somehow had enough people to filter the ‘significant’ information from the 99.999% of calls that were — in this context — pure noise.)

    I am NOT defending the Bush Administration, btw. Not in the slightest, and I’d gladly see everyone involved in this plan learning why jail reform is necessary from personal experience.

    But saying things like the following — I’m picking on doubtful only because he’s the most prominent in this thread — is, simply idiotic:

    “and now Obama, I don’t think progress has much of a chance. Same shit different day.”

    “you get to deal with the frustration of Obama backing the less progressive, Bush enabling encumbant”

    “Like it or not, there are two and only two options in this election — McCain and Obama. -TR

    Yeah, either way, the Constitution is toilet paper. Whee.”

    “We know what kind of weight those promise carry, now, don’t we?

    Same you can believe in.”

    And while I’m at it, let me say something I’ve said repeatedly for. One of the unquestionably BEST things that Pelosi has done this Congress is to take impeachment off the table. Not one thing could have made it more likely that a Republican would be elected this year — and for what, to grandstand? Assuming that it might have gotten a majority in the House — highly doubtful, not just because of blue dogs, but because there are a number of good, liberal Democrats more interested in changing the horrors Bush has given us than thumbing their nose at Bush futilely — there was no way imaginable that it could have gotten 17 Republican Senators to vote to convict, even assuming that every Democrat voted for it — I’m still waiting for anyone to refute me by telling me the Republican votes they had a chance in hell of getting.

    Meanwhile Republicans would have been repeating ‘It’s all payback for Clinton’s impeachment” and Democrats would have spent the last year countering this and the actual merits would have been lost. (Again, I do not deny that he deserves impeachment, just that there was any way of doing it.)

    At the same time the shattered, splintered, self-destroying Republican party would have finally found an argument that would have unified it, and kept it unified whichever of the idiots running had been nominated.

    And, since Congress theoretically has to shut down during impeachment proceedings — unless unanimous consent is given, I think, or maybe 2/3rds — we would have accomplished nothing and we would have been pounded for that.

    Will all of you make a poster, with large print, fancy eye-catching colors, and whatever illustration you like, and post it over your computers so you see it before you keep making jerks of yourself.

    The poster should simply read:

    THE PERFECT IS OFTEN THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.

    Your hearts are in the right place, no question, but your heads are on vacation, and I hope they get back soon.

  • Phaedrus (#8) said: Barak’s failure on the FISA issue just lost him my vote. I won’t be voting for McCain, but I can’t, in good conscience, support someone who would undermine our constitution so. I’m hunting around now… maybe Nader?

    Try “None of the Above.”

  • Okay, so we may be stuck unable to punish the telecoms for giving in to White House pressure… -Prup

    It has less to do with punishing the telecoms than punishing Bush. How do you suggest we investigate who and to what extent Bush spied when the people who know have essentially already been pardoned by Congress?

    I’m picking on doubtful only because he’s the most prominent in this thread — is, simply idiotic

    You can call me names all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that Obama is wrong on a Constitutional issue when he doesn’t have to be. He’s turned his back on the progressives and one of our litmus test issues: restoring the rule of law and respecting the Constitution.

    If all you’ve got is “One of the unquestionably BEST things that Pelosi has done this Congress is to take impeachment off the table,” I think you should have just saved your typing time because you’re not going to get a lot of support for that anywhere.

    Since you’ve picked on me, here comes my defense, point by point you called out:

    1. “and now Obama, I don’t think progress has much of a chance. Same shit different day.”

    How is Obama’s support of this unnecessary compromise significantly different from Bush’s decision to ignore FISA in the first place?

    2. “you get to deal with the frustration of Obama backing the less progressive, Bush enabling encumbant”

    What else would you call him supporting Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont and now the nonsense in Georgia?

    3. “Yeah, either way, the Constitution is toilet paper. Whee.”

    Support for this ‘compromise’ is a direct attack on the fourth amendment.

    4. “We know what kind of weight those promise carry, now, don’t we?

    He promised to uphold the Constitution. He’s not doing that supporting this bill. Why should I trust anything else he’s said?

    5. “Same you can believe in.”

    He didn’t lead on this issue. He framed his whole argument with skeery terrist threats, and he’s trouncing on the fourth amendment. He released his statement late cycle on Friday so that most people wouldn’t notice it. Please, explain to me how exactly this isn’t exactly the same old politics we’re used to?

    Will all of you make a poster, with large print, fancy eye-catching colors, and whatever illustration you like, and post it over your computers so you see it before you keep making jerks of yourself.

    The poster should simply read:

    THE PERFECT IS OFTEN THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD. -Prup

    I don’t demand perfection. He’s way wrong on gay marriage, he’s wrong on health care…there are several substantive issues I disagree with him on.

    What I will use as a litmus test, thank you very much, is upholding the Constitution. That’s one issue I do demand perfection on. It’s sad that so many people feel differently.

    So you can call me an idiot and a jerk all you fucking want, but you can forget your ignorant fucking poster. What’s posted on my computer, so I can see it, is a copy of the Constitution. Maybe you should do the same.

    You’re argument was absolutely pathetic. I don’t see where, in between your wishful thinking about a parliamentary system and your lunacy about not impeaching the murderer and traitor we call President because it’s not politically expedient, you ever actually make an argument supporting Obama’s abhorrent support of an invasion of our privacy. You may see me as an idiotic jerk, but you’re rationalizing: I’m right, you and Obama are absolutely wrong.

  • And the worst part is, instead of standing together with one voice to let Obama know he’s wrong through letters, phone calls, and withholding financial support (yeah, money talks), half of the people who I thought had at least half a brain have shirked their principles because it was the Democrat who abandoned support of the Constitution and have squandered the precious time and influence we have arguing with those of us with our heads still firmly attached.

    Obama was wrong for letting this bill come up at all. Obama was wrong not to speak out against it all week, before the house vote, and Obama was wrong to support it late Friday afternoon given that FISA is fine as is and this bill grants broader spying powers to the executive and absolves several corporations of breaking the law.

    Are we a nation of laws? Or does our indignation depend on the letter after someone’s name? If that’s the case, the D’s are no better than the R’s.

  • As for the telecom immunity bill (I haven’t followed this the way I should have, so if I say something dumb, correct me please) I am not willing to forsake Obama over this for a couple of reasons:

    I can understand why the telecoms did this… – Prup

    Perhaps you should get a bit more acquainted with it before caling fellow commenters idiots or jerks.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html

    http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

    You understand why the telecoms did it? You know, the spying started before 9/11 to begin with, and their lawyers undoubtedly advised them it was illegal. That’s why Google and Qwest told Bush to take a hike. I don’t see what’s wrong with holding the corporations who didn’t follow their lawyer’s advice and broke the law accountable, but then it’s pretty clear I actually support the rule of law.

    Additionally, granting them retroactive immunity will make it harder to investigate who bush spied on and why. We impeached Nixon for far less, but we already know your stand on impeachment.

    And more importantly, the worst part of the bill, which Obama supports, is the broad expansion of Presidential powers concerning spying on US citizens. Obama is lying in his statement about the scope of this bill and he’s using dirty scare tactics to sell it.

    Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike… -Obama

    Sounds eerily like Bush, to me, but probably without the poorly timed smile.

  • Doubtful:
    When you show me the seventeen Republican votes that are even possible for impeachment — or show me how wonderful it would be to try something that cannot POSSIBLY succeed, and would give the Republicans an incredible rallying point, you’ll have my apology.

    It might even deserve an apology to you if you’d showed an ability to read. My ‘wishful thinking about a Parliamentary system’ was precisely the opposite. I think one of the glories of our Constitution — which i know as well as you — is that it DOESN’T give us a Parliamentary system, and that is obvious in what I wrote.

    Let’s look at a few more of the statements you make in your defense. “How do you suggest we investigate who and to what extent Bush spied when the people who know have essentially already been pardoned by Congress?” Well, if they didn’t have immunity, and were asked about this, in court or in a congressional hearing, they would be able to say “I’m sorry, but I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that it might incriminate me.” Now let me think, what gives them that right?

    Oh yeah, The Constitution of the United States.

    I described your statements as idiocy, and I repeat it, but now I wonder if I should have personalized it. How the bloody hell do you think most criminal enterprises are broken? By immunizing people lower down so that they can testify about what those above them had done. It does mean that people who are guilty of lesser offenses get off, which I suppose you’d consider violations of the ‘rule of law.’

    Not only did you not respond to my request to name where the votes for impeachment would come from, you didn’t respond to any of my points about impeachment. If you have any answer to them — or if anyone does — I’d be glad to hear them.

    “How is Obama’s support of this unnecessary compromise significantly different from Bush’s decision to ignore FISA in the first place?” To state the question is to answer it. (Maybe you might argue that a District Attorney’s refusal to prosecute someone for murder, or even shoplifting — when he knows the person is guilty but knows a case can’t be made is the same as being a murderer or a shoplifter himself? Or — and here’s a great talking point I’ve been hearing for ages — from Republicans — a judge throwing out a case for police misconduct means he condones the offense the person unquestionably committed.)

    “Support for this ‘compromise’ is a direct attack on the fourth amendment.”

    Err, Mr. Constitutional scholar, do you know anything about the various cases involving wiretapping, cases decided during the SC’s most liberal period? (I mean the Stone Court and the Warren Court, btw.) All that is needed to permit wiretapping is a Court Order. In fact, one of the points repeatedly made about Bush’s ignoring of the FISA court is that it was unneccessary since he could have gone before a Court, presented an argument that this was needed — with evidence — and been given full permission to wiretap. And the telecoms weren’t involved in wiretapping, merely in providing a list of phone numbers called.

    The point about the NSA may or may not be valid, but it has nothing to do with this bill. The only grounds for finding the telecoms in violation of the Constitution has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment. It can only be sustained on the — valid, no doubt about it — ‘right to privacy’ that comes from the Griswold decision. There was no ‘unreasonable search,’ no home entry, etc. I will admit that there are a lot of places where I think the Fourth Amendment is regularly violated — such as child porn cases, whatever you think of the justification for them. But this isn’t that. To repeat, there was no wiretapping involved in this case, merely a providing of a list of phone numbers called.

    I am not justifying what the Bush administration did in the slightest, or even justifying those telecoms who gave in to the pressure they were under. Nor am I denying that the Bush Administration has repeatedly trashed the Fourth Amendment and every other part of the Constitution that they could — in other cases. But this is NOT a Fourth Amendment matter, and a little study of the case law might surprise you.

    The people who have trashed the Constitution are the Bush Administration and he has declared his first act as president will be to have his AG go over ever ‘Executive Order’ the Bush Administration has issued and throw out any that violate the Constitution — a position that no one else has made so directly.

    As for ‘skeery terrist threats’ well, I’m a New Yorker, have been almost all my adult life. I used to go into the WTC a lot. As it happens, i was working in Manhattan on the day that the FIRST attack was made against it, and I see the remains of the second everytime I go into Downtown Manhattan. Terrorists are pretty damn ‘skeery.’ The question is not whether they exist — they do. The qiestion is, I hope, not whether they need to be combatted — they do. The question is whether there are ways of fighting them that do not involve the sort of truly horrible attacks on our liberties like Guantanamo, the ignoring of habeas corpus, etc.

    One thing I am proudest of about Obama is that he does see this as a ‘law enforcement issue’ because law enforcement and ordinary court proceedings have provably worked — including in the first WTC attack. Were he to propose the sort of thing that Bush did with this I’d be fighting him as strongly as you do. But that he sees no reason to punish people pressured into supporting Bush — and btw, the ‘immunity’ only involves civil cases — is hardly the same as ‘trashing the Constitution.’

    (And again you made no response to the point that these civil cases would only mean that the telecoms would be raising their rates for phone, tv, and Internet services to recoup their losses — or they’d go out of business and we’d be dependent on the cable companies for our Internet services and phone services. I was a Cablevision customer and know how bad that would be.

    (In fact, I wonder exactly how someone would prove damages in a suit against the telecoms if they were not granted immunity. There are plenty of rotten things that aren’t illegal, or for which no damages can be shown by law.)

    I disagree with Obama on gay marraige as well — though i have a hunch he will come around before the election, or immediately after — using the California SC decision as ‘cover’ for his change. He is, after all, a Professor of Constitutional Law — unlike the two of us who are lecturing him on the Constitution — and can understand the reasoning. I support a Single Payer Health Care System — and by the time a bill gets through Congress — he is only the executor of laws Congess makes — as much as he can make suggestions — it may be just that, or be closer to Hillary’s. And I disagree with him taking marijuana legalization off the table after once supporting it. Gee, I guess that makes him ‘the same as Bush’ on these issues too, and I should look to supporting somebody else because of this too. Yeah, right.

    May I kindly suggest that, instead of posting the Constitution on your computer, you actually read it — and while you are at it, read the case law about it — unless you agree with Scalia and Thomas that all that matters is the words and the ‘original intent.’ Or, if legal jargon is too difficult for you — that’s not snark, it takes practice — at least read some biographies of the Supreme Court Justices who served between 1930 and 1970, or some who lasted longer, like Marshall and Brennan.

    And finally — at last, I’ve had to delay my dinner to finish this — you say “half of the people who I thought had at least half a brain have shirked their principles because it was the Democrat who abandoned support of the Constitution.” Not that they might disagree with you, not that they might have a case to be made for the other side. No, if they don’t agree with you, they have to be political whores — which is, in effect, what you are saying. In fact, there is a strong case for both sides — which is why half of the people are on either side. I don’t happen to think your side is stronger, and I think you made an absolutely pitiful attempt at defending it, but I know that a much better case can be made than you did. (Did you actually make a case at all, or did you just hurl insults and repeat ‘Fourth Amendment’ without knowing what it means — as interpreted over many years?)

  • Can’t leave until i cover two points in your last screed. “Additionally, granting them retroactive immunity will make it harder to investigate who bush spied on and why. We impeached Nixon for far less, but we already know your stand on impeachment.” I explained why — because of the Constitution — granting them retroactive immunity is the BEST way of finding out what Bush did.

    And as for my position on impeachment, I hope you DO know what it is, because I have said it often enough. Bush has committed a hundred impeachable acts. If impeachment had been possible, I would have supported it. But it isn’t, because the votes aren’t there — and because the votes aren’t there, it would rebound on the Democrats and unify the Republican party. (And, btw, I was 28 when Nixon was impeached and sat through every minute of the hearings. How old were you? I ask, not to be sarcastic, but because being there — even through television — is a lot different than reading about it in retrospect. I hope you are old enough that you did watch it, because it was one of the greatest moments in my life.)

    And, hopefully finally “Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike…” That’s what you quote Obama as saying. Rather than your sarcastic ‘sounds like Bush to me’ will you tell me which of the parts of the statement you disagree with. I’ll even break it down to make it easier for you…

    Given the grave threats that we face

    our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence

    and track down terrorists before they strike

    Well, which of these do you disagree with? Not with Bush’s attempts to use the same statements to justify his truly horrendous actions, but the statements in themselves.

  • All that is needed to permit wiretapping is a Court Order. -Prup

    A court order that Bush didn’t get, and after this bill won’t really be required. The President or any head of intelligence will be able to circumvent the courts indefinitely.

    No, if they don’t agree with you, they have to be political whores — which is, in effect, what you are saying. In fact, there is a strong case for both sides — which is why half of the people are on either side. -Prup

    I disagree there is a strong case for expansion of Presidential spying powers, or at least I haven’t heard one. Most of what I’ve heard is quickly formed rationalizations to shield Obama from a bad decision. What is wrong with the current FISA setup that requires this expansion?

    Here’s a list of some of the regulars who’ve taken positions since Friday:

    Pro FISA ‘Compromise:’ (Forgive me if I missed you.)

    TR – Can’t win, don’t fight.
    Prup
    Steve
    AK Liberal – So what? It’s not important to people.
    PeteCO – Don’t criticize Obama, it helps McCain. No time for this distraction.
    ROTFLMLiberalAO
    MissMudd
    phoebes in santa fe


    Con FISA ‘Compromise:’ (Forgive me if I missed you.)

    impeachcheneythenbush
    TuiMel
    NonyNony
    Shalimar
    Tom Cleaver
    dajafi
    Dale
    nerpzilla
    Maria ?
    libra
    aristedes
    Memekiller
    Algernon
    SadOldVet
    -daze
    Bernard Gilroy
    brent
    Danp
    Me-again

    It appears those who don’t support power grabs at the expense of our rights slightly outnumber those who rationalize their support for Obama. Will the dried up spigots make a difference and can we actually affect change by being squeaky wheels? (And for what it’s worth, I don’t think any of the pro’s are political whores…maybe a couple of floozies, but no whores.)

    Contrary to what you say, I don’t care if people don’t agree with me all the time, but I won’t tolerate a broad expansion of Presidential spying power, no matter what Democrat supports it. I gave you examples of issues I disagree with Obama on. I don’t demand political purity, but I can’t support an attack on my rights. You said earlier you didn’t really follow this issue, but you have such a strong opinion on it seemingly based on my criticisms of Obama which I explained. I stand by those explanations despite you standing by your claim of their idiocy.

    Your argument about impeachment is the same argument TR put forth defending Obama’s horrible position on this FISA bill: can’t win so don’t try. Just because you think you won’t win is no excuse for not trying to do what is right. I can’t imagine how different history would be if people didn’t at least attempt to fight when they thought something was worth fighting for.

    I described your statements as idiocy, and I repeat it, but now I wonder if I should have personalized it. How the bloody hell do you think most criminal enterprises are broken? By immunizing people lower down… -Prup

    Granted, I am not a lawyer, and I won’t pretend to be one on the internet, but aren’t most immunities granted under the threat of prosecution? This is a blanket immunity with no expectation of testimony. When a lower criminal is given immunity to move up the food chain, there are requirements attached. There are no requirements of the telecoms, and I fail to see what will motivate them to cooperate with Congress. I get your argument against self incrimination, but I’d much rather take my chances with them in the legal system then just a hope and a prayer.

    Not only did you not respond to my request to name where the votes for impeachment would come from, you didn’t respond to any of my points about impeachment. -Prup

    It’s off topic from my major concern right now, which is FISA, but ultimately I view it as irrelevant. Trying and not succeeding would be better (especially if it will shut congress down and prevent them from passing horrible legislation, like this FISA bill) but the Democrats seemed determined to be viewed as cowards historically, so I’m not surprised it was taken off the table. (By the way, this is an issue I welcome disagreement on, and I do think there are two valid sides. It’s an issue I’d love to have a more robust discussion of when something more pressing isn’t at stake.)

    And the telecoms weren’t involved in wiretapping, merely in providing a list of phone numbers called. -Prup

    I’m thinking you slipped from a discussion directly with me to a broader discussion of the issue in the thread, because I never made the claim they were. They data mined private data. Bush is the one who spied illegally. The telecoms violated Griswold, Bush violated the fourth amendment. Please don’t confuse me with other liberals who seem entirely hung up on the immunity issue. I think the broad expansion of Presidential powers (which Obama did not take issue with) are far more important.

    As for ’skeery terrist threats’ well, I’m a New Yorker… -Prup

    I’m truly sorry you had to go through that, and I understand the fears of everyone who did, but don’t you see the disservice Obama does by framing an unconstitutional expansion of presidential powers the same way Bush has for the last several years?

    And again you made no response to the point that these civil cases would only mean that the telecoms would be raising their rates for phone, tv, and Internet services to recoup their losses… -Prup

    By that logic, we should just drop all civil cases against corporations out of the fear they will pass those costs on to their customers. I simply don’t understand this argument. If they have to raise their rates because of lost lawsuits, then their customers will switch to other companies. Honestly, I can’t see how this is an argument against applying the law fairly to corporations. If they go out of business as a result, so be it. Another company will pop up to take their place, perhaps one that won’t break the law.

    May I kindly suggest that, instead of posting the Constitution on your computer, you actually read it… -Prup

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    With the utmost seriousness, because, despite the tone of our current debate, I have the utmost respect for you and believe you’re more versed in case law and the history of the court, how does this FISA bill not violate that? When I read the ACLU article I posted above, it seems to grant the President the ability to spy on US citizen with very little to know oversight, and that’s why I can’t come around to Obama’s supporting it nor the manner he chose to support it in.

    In your closing you ask me what parts of “Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike…” I disagree with, but you’ve completely missed my point.

    He’s using a framing you can’t disagree with to justify a power grab. It’s the same frame we’ve heard for nearly 8 years now, and that’s what is so disappointing. On Friday, Obama did not impress me as an agent of change, unless you count changing a law that doesn’t need to be changed. FISA in it’s current state address Obama’s frame. Democrats and liberals have been making that argument for quite a while now, and then suddenly on Friday so many changed their tune.

    Looking at it that way, I am wrong: Obama is an agent of change. He’s changed liberals into conservatives.

    And finally — at last, I’ve had to delay my dinner to finish this… -Prup

    Ha, don’t do that. I’ll always be around. From now on, enjoy your dinner first before arguing with me!

  • Doubtful:
    I too enjoy this argument. The delay in my dinner was worth it to me — my wife and the cats might not have agreed, but as my mothers used to say “Jim’d rather argue than eat.” Proved them right this time. (And let’s agree that both of us, in the heat will probably make personal remarks against the other that we will regret later, and accept each other’s apologies now.)

    Okay, now back to the fray. (I have the ACLU article open in a different tab, and Jimmy Buffett on the earphones, which should keep me calmer. Followed, if this goes as long as usual, by Van Morrison and Chyrsalis — anybody else a fan of that wonderful group which is either forgotten or loved if remembered.)

    3 points to make from the beginning. I have been discussing telecom immunity for the most part. The other areas I do need to check out, to see if they are equally beneficial. Secondly, I remind you that we are discussing a House-passed version and not the final bill. It will be different after the Senate discusses and amends it, and even more different once it goes to the conference committee. (The REAL test for Obama will be who he supports as conferees on the Senate side which will make a BIG difference as far as the final version goes.)

    And by supporting the bill — if I finally do –I don’t support George Bush’s misuse of it. (Oh, and one other thing. I don’t claim to be a lawyer either, because I’m not. If anyone has ever checked out my bio on my blog — and the bio and e-mail address are the only reason for checking out that mess — you’ll see I am an ‘auto-didact’ which means I’m not any sort of professional.)

    Okay, with the long-winded preliminaries taken care of, back to the ‘battle.’ And lets start with the question of impeachment — just to make my position even clearer, and get back to the FISA bill in the next post. Your argument that we should ‘do what is right, whether it will succeed this time or not’ is one I frequently agree with — unless doing it will cause worse consequences than not doing it.

    You haven’t ever responded to my point that impeachment would unify the Republican Party behind Bush — much as a lot of Democrats who weren’t that fond of Clinton were energized by that impeachment. “Support the President” is always a powerful message.

    If the impeachment would show the country how bad Bush was, maybe it would be worth it, but it wouldn’t, because it would be spun so loudly as a ‘payback’ for the Clinton one that the actual merits would be lost — and once it lost, as it would, it would THEN be spun as a justification of Bush’s policies. (Gee, republicans lying, what a surprise.)

    If it could possibly succeed I’d feel different about it. But it would probably fail in the House, where it would get maybe a half-dozen Republicans backing it, and would lose a hell of a lot of the Blue Dogs, as well as those who feel as I do, that it was the wrong battle to fight. But lets say it passed, barely in the House.

    To convict an impeached person — because ‘impeach’ means approximately the same as ‘indict’ it takes 2/3 of the Senate, 67 votes.

    Let’s assume it gets every Democrat. (Landrieux? The Nelsons?) This means we need 17 Republicans. Let’s look at the list, and bend over backwards to list people whose support is unlikely but possible.

    First, the least unlikely to support it: Hagel, Lugar, Warner, Snowe, Specter, Gregg, Grassley — all of whom have at least some integrity left.

    Barely possible, either because they might have a touch of integrity left or because they might see it desireable in a close political race where Bush is a millstone:
    Collins, Sununu, Coleman, Smith, Graham, Alexander

    That gives us, so far, at best 63 votes — and including some of them shows how far i am bending backwards. (Before the campaign I might have included McCain because of his personal hatred of Bush, but that’s gone, as is any chance of getting the more and more crazy Mugwump.)

    Here’s the rest of the list. Find me four more Senators who you can make the slightest case would vote against Bush — as i said, even if there were pictures of him in the same stall with Larry Craig and ‘My Pet Goat.”

    By state:
    Alabama: Shelby, Sessions
    Alaska: Stevens, Murkowski
    Arizona: McCain, Kyl
    Colorado: Allard
    Connecticut: the Mugwump
    Florida: Martinez
    Georgia: Chambliss, Isakson
    Idaho: Craig, Crapo
    Kansas: Brownback, Roberts
    Kentucky: McConnell, Bunning
    Louisiana: Vitter
    Mississippi:Cochran, Wicker*
    Missouri: Bond
    Nevada: Ensign
    New Mexico: Domenici
    North Carolina: Dole, Burr
    Ohio: Voinovich
    Oklahoma: Inhofe, Coburn
    South Carolina: DeMint
    South Dakota: Thune
    Tennesee: Corker
    Texas: Hutchinson, Cornyn
    Utah: Hatch, Bennett
    Wyoming: Enzi, Barrasso*
    (The starred are recent replacements who I have to assume will follow their predecessor, Wicker for Lott and Barrasso for Thomas. If you know anything about them that would contradict the assumption, I’d be glad to hear it)

    Find me four of them that would be even one-tenth as likely to vote to convict as Graham and Alexander would.

    Do it anyway? Fighting a losing battle to make a point is great — if it won’t cost you anything — like Nix and Ryan on gay rights in the fifties and early sixties, or Morse and Gruening against Vietnam in the early Sixties — and they lost their seats, remember. (Ironically, the person who defeated Gruening because of his vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was — Mike Gravel) But this would cost the Democrats BIG TIME, for reasons I have explained.

    So, unless you can point out those other four votes, or unless you can show me that the assumption that it would hurt is wrong — and remember, I’ve been arguing this since the 2006 election, even before Pelosi declared it was off the table — give Pelosi the credit she deserves for doing this, not the blame you think she deserves.

    (Oh, and one minor thing. Congresspeople frequently vote one way if their vote is not needed, and another way if their vote can be labeled as the one that passed/defeated a particular measure. Realistically, if the vote were going to be 66-33 with one of the Republicans I mentioned being the 67th vote, you won’t get them, or any of the ‘barely possibles’ — and you’d lose more Democrats as well. You need 70 votes to give them enough ‘cover’ — 7 from the list. But I’m willing to settle for four.)

    Okay, at least I finally got that written, and I can now repeat it if it comes up in another thread. The next post brings us back to the bill.

  • The next post never got written. Sorry. Some days my 62 years are harder on me than others — an explanation, not an excuse. Maybe in another thread, given the way each day’s post falls into the memory poll. (Steve, I told you, ya gotta learn to be dull sometimes!)

  • Comments are closed.