Tuesday For Change

1:27 pm EST July 1st, 2008 | News | 11 Comments

Tuesday for Change is your weekly reminder that to get change, to elect Barack Obama, we must do our part to help.

Donate here to Sen. Obama.

Donate here to the DNC.

End the Iraq War. Fix the Economy. Save the Supreme Court. Donate today.

Topic: 2008 Election, President Obama

« John McCain: We Need To Create Jobs In Mexico And South America
We Learned It By Watching You »

11 Responses to “Tuesday For Change”

Joe Bourgeois says:

July 1, 2008 at 2:47 pm

As I wrote back to the last fundraising email I got from the campaign, I’m not gonna send any more money if he votes yes on telecom immunity.
Sean D. Martin says:

July 1, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Same here. I’ve donated to Obama because I liked his promises. More will come only once the FISA bill is dead.
Duros62 says:

July 1, 2008 at 4:15 pm

I donated last week, so I could get the car magnet.
There’s no way for Obama to win on this FISA thing. vote for it (even with an amendment to strip out the immunity) and the Dems blast you for caving to the Rep. Vote against it and the Reps. slam for being “soft on terra©”
Plus it’s a shitty bill as written and everybody knows it.

Dunno if anyone saw John Dean’s assessment on Countdown last night, but I for one find it very interesting that immunity extends to civil liability but not criminal lawsuits.

Hmmmm.
anotherbozo says:

July 1, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I donated again yesterday. Sure, I have doubts about Obama’s FISA vote (but not certainty–maybe he knows as much as Keith Olbermann–is that possible?) and even more about his reported pledge to continue the government’s Constitutionally compromised “faith-based” initiatives, but Obama has such a wealth of talent and maturity and TIMELINESS (the non-white, international-upbringing thing) that it’s hard to see my enthusiasm leaking away anytime soon. I do hope he doesn’t veer toward the “center” for reasons of expediency å la Clinton or Kerry, but I have to believe he knows more about winning elections than I do.

The guy is smart.
Sean D. Martin says:

July 2, 2008 at 3:35 am

Duros: Vote against it and the Reps. slam for being “soft on terra©”
Plus it’s a shitty bill as written and everybody knows it.

Sheesh, Duros. You don’t usually say things that strikingly dumb.

By whining “I don’t want to be thought of as soft on terror” you cede the win to the Repubs without even putting up a fight, and on a issue on which they are losing when anyone keeps enough spine to point it out. And you advocate voting for something that everyone knows is shitty.

I want, for just once at least, a leader who will LEAD. One who will say, “This is shitty. I will NOT vote for it. And you shouldn’t want me to.” And then goes and convinces the public that he’s right. Again, someone who LEADS.
Bill L. says:

July 2, 2008 at 4:22 am

Obama has royally f*cked up multiple times in the past two weeks, exhibiting a deeply disturbing tendency to trample civil liberties, liberals, and other democrats to secure the White House. It’s a tried and tested DLC “centrist” (meaning running to the right even on issues where public opinion clearly trends in the opposite direction) approved plan for snatching defeat from victory. Kerry much?

The FISA vote, however, is his biggest misstep and it is HUGE (let’s save his support for mega-douche John Barrow for another thread). While some may hold out hope that protecting telcos from civil liability, but not criminal, leaves the door open for Obama to get them later with a special prosecutor, it’s pretty clear that that will never happen. For starters, the burden of proof in a criminal trial is far higher than in civil cases. in addition, Bush can simply pardon the telcos on his way out of office and shield them from any future prosecution (yes, he can do that even before any charges have been filed). Now had Obama come forward and loudly opposed this bill as a gift to the telcos and a massive blow to the fourth amendment, his stature as the Dem nominee and massive media access would have gone a long way toward scuttling a disastrously bad bill and thwarting bought and paid for Dems like Steny Hoyer. Instead Obama not only gave the bill a pass, but he went out of his way to re-iterate a raft of Republican talking points (we face “grave” threats and need this bill so we have the proper tools to fight terror…BOO!).

It’s not a right or left thing, it’s a right or wrong one, and shifting from the “left” to the “right” to find the “center” is nearly always a run away from doing what’s plainly right and choosing to instead do what’s wrong but superficially convenient.

Nice work Obama. No money from me.

Next.
Duros62 says:

July 2, 2008 at 10:26 am

By whining “I don’t want to be thought of as soft on terror” you cede the win to the Repubs without even putting up a fight,

Well, no, Sean, that’s not exactly what I meant. He’s gonna get the “soft on terror” bullshit anyway. His actions will be perceived that way by the opposition if he votes against it, no matter how strongly he defend his vote.

Again, I think he knows something we don’t.
Duros62 says:

July 2, 2008 at 10:29 am

Bush can simply pardon the telcos on his way out of office and shield them from any future prosecution

Which would be an admission of guilt.

Instead Obama not only gave the bill a pass,

It’s not gonna come up for vote until after the July 4th break anyway.
Settle down.
Bill L. says:

July 3, 2008 at 7:28 pm

An admission of guilt? Technically, no it wouldn’t be, as Bush can always fall back on the “protecting those working to safeguard this country from over zealous partisans blind to the “grave threats” this country faces” card (thanks for the speech, BO!). Besides, who here thinks that Bush and crew care what the liberal hippies think as they gather up their spoils and move out?

Delayed till after the 4th? Whew, crisis averted! everybody knows you can’t eviscerate the fourth amendment after fireworks.

It’s been speculated that Reid is using FISA to force the GOP to support a housing relief bill for people hit by the mortgage crisis.
That may be true, but it’s already been revealed that the Dems running to join with the GOP on this got a fist full of cash from the very telcos they are falling over to protect. What’s more, this bill was effectively dead in the water until Steny Hoyer went out of his way to resuscitate it and Reid and Pelosi stepped aside and let him (lying about the “compromise” all the way, to boot). There is NO evidence of any “centrist” part of the population eager to throw their civil rights down the well, either.

Any way you slice it, this is a huge failure.

“Settle down” indeed.
Sean D. Martin says:

July 4, 2008 at 2:03 pm

SDM: I,IBy whining “I don’t want to be thought of as soft on terror” you cede the win to the Repubs without even putting up a fight,

Duros: Well, no, Sean, that’s not exactly what I meant. He’s gonna get the “soft on terror” bullshit anyway. His actions will be perceived that way by the opposition if he votes against it, no matter how strongly he defend his vote.

You’re saying if he votes against it he’ll get picked on. Yeah? So? Is that a reason to not do th right thing? Is that what we want in a LEADER? “I know voting against it is the right thing to do, but I didn’t because I don’t want to be teased.”

Alright. Supporting it will draw criticism. SO FUCKING WHAT?

You stand up. You say the bill is shit. You say I will fight against it. And you convince people you are right (with the majority of the country ALREADY convinced).

Or you say “Oh, yeah. I just remembered I’m a Democrat. So I have to cave at the first sign of disapproval from those who will disapprove of me no matter what I do.”
Magnetic Strips says:

August 12, 2008 at 4:50 am

It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”