The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Calling all Progressives who are ticked at Obama. Read This.
dailykos.com — Let's face it, when was the last time we had a chance this good to win the White House? The last time a national nominee committed his own resources to the downticket races this early? Paid staff in all 50 states where he can help others? You seriously want to throw that away, because of one vote? Because of something he said? Or didn't say?
voxlisa999- 103 diggs
- digg it
- voxlisa999, on 07/03/2008, -4/+22Change doesn't happen overnight. He said it would be hard. He told us we would disagree with him sometimes. He warned us. We have the opportunity to begin a national political shake-up that will prosper and thrive if we don't screw it up. The second he is elected I will feel free to scream and yell about policies all I want. But for now, he has my full support.
- PolishLogic, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Think about what you're disagreeing with him on. Is it something trivial, like the color he wants to paint his bedroom in the White House, or something that is a tiny bit bigger like a citizen's right to privacy?
Sorry, but part of your comment sounds like it's something that could have been said in Jonestown.
- PolishLogic, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Think about what you're disagreeing with him on. Is it something trivial, like the color he wants to paint his bedroom in the White House, or something that is a tiny bit bigger like a citizen's right to privacy?
- forthewin11, on 07/03/2008, -3/+19I couldn't have said it better myself. No one if perfect, and there isn't one perfect candidate out there who does everything how YOU want them to. Look at the opposition: A warmongering man whose campaign is run by the oil companies who have put us all through hell over the past 8 years.
Fired up and ready to go!- elcob32, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1You are acting as if there are only two parties in this country. Contrary to what the main stream media would like you to believe, there are other parties, and I for one will not vote for a candidate that is willing to give away my freedom in order to win a few extra votes. Obama had my support, but if he can't keep his word on telcom immunity, then I cannot trust him to keep his word on anything else. He might as well start taking money from PACs because as far as I'm concerned he's already selling out.
- stretch611, on 07/03/2008, -2/+18I hate the idea of Obama voting for immunity. However, I also realize that it is stupid to change my support on one issue. Obama is still the best candidate running and that includes Nader and Barr. I still believe that he will bring real change to Washington.
If Obama was running against the McCain of 2000, I would have serious reservations. However, McCain has proven the past few years that the voice of reason that he used to have no longer exists. He sold out his old values to get the support of the right wingers in order to get elected this year.
It comes down to this, over the next four years, I do not know every issue that will come up in our government. No one has a crystal ball. I can not guess the issues so I can not ask a candidate questions for every possible situation. I have to trust a candidate to make the correct decisions at the correct time. I want a candidate that will think of what is best for everyone in the US, not the best for a corporation or some radical fringe group. Obama is the only candidate that seems to truly care about the people as a whole and thus the only candidate I trust to make those decisions. - Ridgeliner7, on 07/03/2008, -13/+11Sounds like desperation time to me.....rationalizing, one more time to explain why yet another politician let us down.
- tkstock, on 07/03/2008, -6/+3Liberals will defend him no matter what. Obama can spin golden silk with that tongue of his, but his ideas are significantly liberal and significantly socialistic enough to put him out of the mainstream American.
In reality, McCain is closer to the center and represents a larger segment of the population. The moderates will vote for McCain if Obama's policies and their impacts ever become widely known.- stretch611, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4I am not a liberal. I am an independent.
I grew up republican, saw that the republicans have been taken over by the religious right and neocons and I left the party. While I believe in some social support for the people, the Democrats (IMHO) tend to overdue it. As for the libertarians, their one belief is anarchy. That is why I am an independent.
Having said that, McCain is not a moderate close to the center. He used to be, but not anymore. I lost all faith in McCain when he capitulated to Bush on the issue of torture and started cozying up to the ultra right in order to get elected. He has either turned his back on his old values or he is lying to get votes; in either case he is no longer deserving of my support. - tkstock, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2The religious right is a part of the party with their own set of conservative beliefs. Most of those beliefs are the core base of the republican party, so they didn't "take it over" - they've always been a part of it. They've just become more vocal and political in recent years. Neoconservatives have also been a part of the party since the 1960's. The Bush doctrine of seeking out and destroying terrorism overseas is the predominant theme of neoconservatism that is rejected by liberals.
That being said, I think Obama is further away from the center than McCain, regardless of how right McCain appears to be. You say McCain is cozying up to the right, and I think Obama is cozying up to the center for the same reason - to get elected.
People will vote for Obama for one of three reasons:
1) They're liberal
2) His ability to speak is more important than his policies
3) They don't know his policies
Although you didn't say, are you voting for him? If so, which one of the three options apply to you? - stretch611, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Well, Given those three choices, maybe I'm a little liberal. However, The far right seems to consider anyone that uses common sense liberal.
Obama's ability to speak is not more important than his policies, but it is important. It would be nice to have a president that can articulate and can speak with other world leaders on level beyond the ability of a second grade student.
I do not know all the details of all Obama's policies, but I know enough...
I believe in universal health coverage for every US citizen. I know Obama's plan does not require everyone to be covered and I think that is wrong. However, his plan is much better than McCain's lack of any real plan. (i.e. the status quo.)
McCain's still believes in his gas tax holiday even though it has be denounce by almost every economist. That plan will not curb demand and put the country in even more debt. I do not believe in Obama's windfall tax for oil companies, but I do think that all tax credits to oil companies be eliminated and instead used to fund research into alternative fuels.
I believe in Obama's desire to talk to world leaders with no prior conditions. That is called diplomacy and you can not have diplomacy with someone that you will not even talk to. Plus, without diplomacy the most idiotic gung-ho chimpanzee can do something stupid and start a war for no reason.
And yes, the rich need to be taxed more. McCain wants to make the bush tax cuts permanent. We are drowning in debt and he wants to keep the tax cuts that lead up to our current recession. Only the extremely rich have been doing well and it is time they share the burden. "Oh well the death tax is so unfair" (.sic) yeah without it will just end up with more pieces of garbage like Paris Hilton all around the country. Obama wants to increase the taxes of couples making over $250K and reinstate the estate tax and I completely agree with him.
Obama also wants to allow senior citizens to not pay taxes if they make under $50K. I agree with him for the most part. If healthcare reform is not enacted I agree; but if we reform healthcare to the point that a senior does not need to worry about $1,000's in medical bills every year, I think we can probably lower that to about $35K. - tkstock, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2I don't consider liberalism to be common sense. Liberalism has an inherent reliance on the government for things like social welfare and believes that government is there to assist and provide for the people.
Conservatism believes that government should get out of the way. Their purpose is to provide for the common defense and represent the states as a whole union in the international theater.
I'm more in the middle ground also, I guess, but fairly right of middle, but I feel that some form of social welfare isn't bad. However, social welfare is quickly growing into being a monster that will devour our economy. The only thing bigger than our defense budget is our social welfare budget. Private industry is more efficient when it comes to healthcare in this country.
As far as Obama's ability to speak, he is really good in front of a teleprompter - the best we've seen in a long time. But have you ever heard him ad-hoc it? He's worse than McCain when he has to think about his words!! That's why McCain wants to get him into those town halls and why Obama is avoiding them like the plague.
You may not know McCain's plan for healthcare, which is understandable since it got little press. You should go read about it. It relies on tax credits and market forces to provide people with more money to get coverage and it lowers the costs of that coverage at the same time. And no additional government bureaucracy - its something that could easily be implemented. And EVERYONE will get the benefit of this too.
Although I understand the impetus behind the gas tax holiday, I don't believe in it either. Obama was probably correct in calling that a gimmick. However, the liberal position of not allowing us to drill domestically is keeping us hostage to OPEC. We will still be driving gas cars for years to come, and we should diversify our current energy requirements at the same time we develop new ones. I think McCain is one up on Obama in this matter.
I believe we should talk to our enemies, but from a position of strength. Walk softly, but carry a big stick.
Under the Obama Social Security tax plan, a person who makes $1 million per year will pay $93,000 more in taxes. Well, do you think that $93,000 just sits in a bank or under a mattress? No, it's invested in other companies which create jobs, spur innovations, etc. So, that's $93,000 taken out of the economy and put into social welfare. And that's just one person. Everyone who makes over $250K / year will be significantly impacted. That's a LOT of people and a LOT of money coming out of the economy - this doesn't seem like a good thing to me. And, please don't equate rich people to the likes of Paris Hilton. The death tax impacts real businesses - when ownership passes down from parent to child, suddenly the child is in debt to pay the taxes imposed by the death of the parent - this jeopardizes the business. There's the other side of that coin.
And then he also wants to raise the payroll tax - this will drive businesses out of this country and impact the ones who stay negatively.
I don't understand why social security payments are taxed, but that has to stop.
- stretch611, on 07/03/2008, -2/+4I am not a liberal. I am an independent.
- tkstock, on 07/03/2008, -6/+3Liberals will defend him no matter what. Obama can spin golden silk with that tongue of his, but his ideas are significantly liberal and significantly socialistic enough to put him out of the mainstream American.
- GretaG65, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11Let us also remember, however, that it was Barack himself that asked of his supporters to fully participate in all discussions of issues...to let him know where WE stand on them. He himself has called upon us to speak out when we disagree with him. I continue to support Obama, but I will NOT be made to feel that I need to shutup and not express my strong disagreement with his support of this bill. And I beg to differ with the niave opinion that this is "just one vote". This isn't simply a vote on some low level decision of whether to authorize national ladybug day...this is our Constitution we are talking about! I will not be acused of falling into lockstep behind my candidate and not challenging him (AS HE HAS TOLD US TO) on issues where we disagree. I will continue to work very hard for Barack, but I will not be made to feel guilty for standing up for something that I believe in. If we sit down and shut up, we are no better than the idiots who blindly follow the neo-cons!
- GretaG65, on 07/03/2008, -3/+12And...let me just share with you Senator Obama's own words, from his speech on the nature of patiotism this past Monday:
"When our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expressions of patriotism.”- tkstock, on 07/03/2008, -4/+4Translation: I'm trying to win by being Anti-Bush (please disregard the Democratic Congress)
- voxlisa999, on 07/03/2008, -1/+9I think the writer of the diary (not me) was calling out to those like elcob32 above who are running around yelling that Obama has lost their vote and their support in the past week. I don't think the diarist said that anyone should shut up or feel guilty for speaking out although I only read it once.
- GhostyBoy, on 07/03/2008, -11/+7Partisan *****. Obama is just as much a corporate puppet as any other politician.
- ordig, on 07/03/2008, -10/+5***** Obama and any other politician that votes away my 4th amendment rights. It really makes me fell like not voting at all.
- Xondar, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1Look, Obama's stance on FISA is pure wrong. He should be held accountable for flip-flopping on this, for pandering to win votes.
That being said, if I was American, I'd still vote for him. But I wouldn't donate anymore to his campaign and I would let him know that he's made the wrong decision.
Just because he's the best hope for your nation doesn't mean you should let stuff like this slide. Hold him accountable. Show him that this is unacceptable. - PolishLogic, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5"Let's face it, when was the last time we had a chance this good to win the White House"
um, 1996....2004?
Jesus, some people are acting like it's been 100 years since the last time a Democrat was President. - voxlisa999, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6I have all the privacy I want or need.
Joe Klein in TIME.
On FISA
Posted by Joe Klein | Comments (182) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This
A few final thoughts on the FISA compromise, which--it will come as no surprise to regular Swampland readers--I favor:
1. It was necessary to update the FISA law to make legal the new technologies that enable intelligence agencies to suss out suspicious patterns of phone calls, emails etc between known terrorists and persons in the United States and U.S. citizens abroad.
2. There was broad consensus in the Congress that if a suspicious pattern of communications is found and a U.S. person is targeted, there needs to be approval granted by the FISA court. And, as Nancy Pelosi insisted, it needed to be established that the FISA law was the only way to legally wiretap an individual--in other words, under this law the Executive can't just go ahead and do it.
3. The NSA data-mining program legalized by this law was and is still opposed by small factions on the right and the left:
While passage seems almost certain in Congress, the plan will nonetheless face opposition from lawmakers on both political wings, with conservatives asserting that it includes too many checks on government surveillance powers and liberals asserting that it gives legal sanction to a wiretapping program that they maintain was illegal in the first place.
4. In classic Washington fashion, both these groups seized on a subsidiary provision--the granting of immunity to telecommunications companies that had cooperated with the initial, illegal NSA program--as a way to block passage of the bill.
5. The compromise reached requires a federal court to approve, or disapprove, the requests for immunity--with approval granted if the company in question can prove that it received a written request from the government asking for cooperation in the implementation of the NSA program. In other words, the telecoms would be exempted from prosecution if they cooperated in ways that will now be perfectly legal under the new law.
My feeling, from the start, has been that the NSA data-mining operation is a necessary tool in the hunt for terrorists who mean to do us harm--but that the FISA law needed to be updated to include civil liberties protections and limitations guiding the use of the program. The Bush Administration--as usual, arrogantly and outrageously--thought it didn't need the legal authority to conducting the NSA operation and then--as usual, outrageously--tried to use the legitimate Democratic call for legislation as a "soft on terrorists" political bludgeon.
I favor the compromise because I believe the civil liberties encoded into the law are important, and because I wanted to deprive the Bush Administration, and the McCain campaign, of the political bludgeon. Yes, the telecoms acted in a questionable manner--and yes, there were companies like Qwest that refused to comply, but in the end,as I've written before, their cooperation with the government, at a moment when just about everyone was freaking out about the terrorist threat (i.e.--right after 9/11) was understandable. Prosecuting them now, for past actions that will become legal when this bill is passed, is analogous to prosecuting doctors who performed abortions before Roe v. Wade after the court ruled...or prosecuting speakeasy owners after prohibition was overturned. Of course, if the telecoms engaged in actions that would be considered illegal even after the FISA compromise is passed, they should be prosecuted.
There are those, like Senator Russ Feingold and assorted civil liberties activists, who believe that the legalization of this program erodes essential constitutional rights of Americans. I respect their point of view, but believe that the greater good here will be the protection of Americans from terrorist attacks--and the prevention of extremist governments like George W. Bush's from illegally spying on U.S. residents.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is