Yeah. Senators have no other way to express their views or communicate with the public except by raising their hand in the Senate chamber and saying “yea” or “nay”. Oh, if only they were able to say something other than just those two words!

This whole thing is buried within another appropriations bill, so if you vote against this, you vote against something you would otherwise approve of. You can’t win, the way it’s written.

I call Bullshit. You’re effectively saying things can’t change. That there is no way to ever improve the system. And, where Obama in particular is concerned, that isn’t an excuse that should be accepted.

He has a huge megaphone these days. He could certainly use it to say this bill is crap and that the people elected specifically to oppose and rein in the president should not cave because they think opposing and reining in the least popular president ever would be unpopular.

He could do more, far more, to stop this right now and, frankly, a strongly worded letter just isn’t it.

Same here, but it is better than nothing. Better than McCain, that’s for sure.

Well, what else can he do except vote no? This whole thing is buried within another appropriations bill, so if you vote against this, you vote against something you would otherwise approve of. You can’t win, the way it’s written.

Are you kidding me? I don’t want an empty gesture in the Senate, on the campaign trail, or in the White House!

Worse, of all the senate, WHO is a Constitutional Law Professor? If he thinks this is no big deal, he should make that case. If he thinks this is a big deal, I want him to make a stand that has meaning.

Ba’al, there is a difference between stating an actual argument and name calling. A post that says simply, so and so is a concern troll is worse than useless.

Frankly, I learn far more from the “trolls” and how people respond to them then I do from the “rah rah” comments. The trolls are needed and healthy for the community.

I’d still like to see him take a stand in a more high-profile manner.

I was really excited to vote for Bill Clinton the first time. And then he lost me when he continued to allow the persecution of gays in the military. Despite promises, he showed he’d cave on taking a stand about as fast as any other politician.

I’m even more excited about the prospect of a President Obama. But he’ll lose me fast if he doesn’t do something about this.

You may have noticed that I have on occasion spent time commenting at her site and that I had frequently attempted to engage her on substantive issues — such as the fact that she was repeatedly attacking Obama as weak on civil liberties issues while he has a higher lifetime rating from the ACLU than Hillary Clinton (to cite just one example of where she had tended to misrepresent Obama’s position on issues). When this was pointed out, she said she would check on it, and would make a correction if necessary. This is a point of fact, it can be checked in about 30 seconds. Nothing was forthcoming. Oh, and remember when Hillary came out with that fairly tasteless remark about RFK and assasination, and anything can change late in a campaign etc. Jeralyn posted that this was a topic that was not allowed and she “simply wouldn’t tolerate criticism of Hillary on this point”. (By the way, I get it that Hillary did not mean to say what some people were implying, but I also get the fact that this kind of careless speaking is something you have to consider when choosing the standard bearer for your party).

I might as well have been pissing into a windstorm. I supported Obama and that made me sexist, and that was really all there was too it.

Obama is not above criticism. And you may well think I am a jerk, and frankly I couldn’t care less. I can tell you that if you are not currently FOR the candidate of the Democratic party, I can only assume that you are for the GOP candidate, a corrupt, ignorant, dangerous, and angry man. There is nothing about Jeralyin’s recent posting that suggests to me that she has embraced the Democratic nominee in any real way. Until I see some change, I will call her a concern troll and worse.

That sounds an awful lot like “Getting elected is more important than making a stand”, which is the Democratic attitude that got us to this point.

“What is it you want him to say?”

George Bush and John McCain are trying to protect phone companies that have been illegally spying on their customers.

“People have a habit of being wrapped up in their own issue they figure its at the forefront of everyone else’s mind. It isn’t.”

Of course it isn’t; if it were, this abomination wouldn’t have passed the House. It’s passing because it flew under the radar and most of the public doesn’t even know what happened.

Obama could use his position to call attention to the issue. He’s behaving like a politician.

I like Obama too, but you’re acting like he’s above criticism.

I think they are used mainly because these people exist. I see a lot of right wing people trying to offer the left advice that is clearly wrong.

In this case, only one person used the term troll, and that was after Jeralyn’s argument was picked apart.

They are mostly made when no real argument can be made, and they are made to silence and punish and establish the groupthink.

And so I find they say much more about the person who makes them then its target.

If you disagree with Jeralyn you can say so and make an actual point. Otherwise before calling people you disagree with names, perhaps you should just pick another thread to comment in.

Yes, well I definitely agree with this.

I think he could and should make a strong speech concerning FISA. I think that as part of his statement (if I understand correctly) that when elected he will work to restore the civil liberties that have been trashed in the past 8 years, he will work to stop warrantless wiretapping, and so he thinks passing this bill now, is wrong. I think he can say that passing this bill now is wrong, that letting the old bill lapse will do nothing to harm security and he can explain why.

I think he can use his coattails and I suspect he’s going to have some big ones, to help leverage the house. And his campaign stash.

Perhaps it should be. We’re talking about authorizing the government to spy on us, about the law being whatever the President says it is, about it being OK for the President and corporations to break the law.

If this is taking a back seat to $4 gas it shouldn’t be. And Obama’s speaking out on it would certainly help move it to the forefront of people’s minds.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/06/20/a-letter-to-the-next-president-of-the-united-states/

Are you comfortable with a gutting of the 4th Amendment? You know about Hoover tapping MLK Jr.’s phones and stuff of that nature?

What nonsense. We all know who McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi and Burger King are too. that doesn’t stop them from advertising. If they didn’t have to (and it didn’t work), they wouldn’t do it.

The Olympics are NOT sacred. They are an international, profit-driven, business enterprise. It is more about money than some Utopian expression of harmony amongst the world’s athletes. And sporting events have already been politicized. Recall Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Miller’s short-lived anchoring roles on Monday Night Football. And the last Super Bowl had a Fox News political program inserted at half time to promote their cable network.

Reach and frequency are the foundation of all advertising campaigns. It’s not different for political candidates than it is for cereal. Why do you think they call them “campaigns”?