• commentary
  • THURSDAY JULY 17 2008 6:00 AM

Barack "Blunder" Obama

Barack Obama decided a month or so ago to begin taking the traditional Democratic path to the White House. It involved looking as much like a Republican as possible. They do this in order to win over the independents, who are apparently all Republicans. It’s been a fantastic way to lose, as has been demonstrated by Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. Obama’s current blunder involves his FISA vote and it is going to cost him where it hurts most: His bank account.

I will not be voting for Obama. Obviously, I’ve taken a lot of crap over the past week or so for taking this stance, but I’m just tired of this shit. There is a line, and in my opinion, Obama crossed it. I’m a liberal and I’ve sat and watched this country torn apart by complete and total douchebags for the past eight years. They have rolled back law after law, taken away right after right, and we’ve been forced to sit back and hope it all ends at some point. It is now apparent Obama is not the answer.

And don’t give me the, “You’re bailing because of ONE issue” bullshit. The Constitution is not an issue; it’s the foundation of our country. Obama is, and always has been, a centrist. I have no problems with that. As a matter of fact, I was already compromising by supporting Obama. Most of my support rose from my dislike of Hillary, but I also was encouraged by his stance against lobbyists. I expected Obama to take centrist positions on many issues, but I didn’t expect him, being a Constitutional lawyer, to vote to undermine the 4th amendment. Quite a few of us are pissed and rightfully so. This is a straw that broke the camel’s back moment for me.

As the presumptive nominee, Barack could have easily rallied his fellow Democrats to stop the FISA bill. The Democrats could not afford to stand against their nominee on such a important bill. By doing so, he would have been seen as a leader, a fighter, a savior of civil liberties and raised his political capital. He could have created an enormous gulf between himself and McCain/Bush on the issue of people’s rights – something Americans have a tendency to look upon favorably. But he didn’t. He decided this was the time to prove his right-wing credentials.

We’ve been living under the most lawless president of all time; a man who lives without rules and is not held accountable by Congress for his many illegal deeds. When we handed Congress back to the Democrats in 2006, it was with the expectation that Bush would be, at the very least, reeled in. That has not occurred, as a matter of fact, and the opposite has been the result.

So, when Obama decided to vote for the FISA bill, using the old Democratic blue print for failure, I was done. I have given him money over the past few months, but no more. After watching Bush do it for years, I have zero interest in a Democratic president who is even slightly okay with the same behavior.

And I really am not interested in Lawrence Lessig explaining to me that I am being "hysterical" or Theda Skocpol telling me that I am a "whiner." Trust me, I get it. I understand that Obama will move to the center on some issues, like his “faith based initiatives” and executing child rapists. But FISA is too far. And I get the implications of my actions. McCain may win. If he does, that will be on Obama’s head for taking the traditional route of failure in the general election. It is astounding to see the same pattern of “I will show I am strong on security by taking the most insane political position, only to be called a pussy on security anyway” taken by Obama. It’s just a loser position that Democrats seem all to excited to take.

This year, Democrats have won special elections in several Republican strong hold congressional districts. In every race FISA came up and was pushed hard by Republicans. And in every race, the Democrat stood his ground and won. These were districts Bush won by huge margins. They practically lit a runway, using bonfires, showing Obama the route to take. But he went the traditional Democratic spineless route.

Obama’s big on “telling it like it is.” He’s not going to hold back – and apparently he will do the same with votes in the Senate. So, just as he can take hard stands, Obama supporters have to accept that he lost a few votes over the past couple of weeks. And a lot of money. Comes with the territory of doing what he thinks is right, I guess.

To me, shitting on the Constitution is no different than bombing Iran or making abortion illegal. It’s that big of a deal. And I’m not alone. Most people aren’t holding back their votes, like I am. Most are just holding back their money. That’s how we send a message to today’s politician that he fucked up. And it’s not a few people, from what I am reading. When I received a call asking if I would donate more, I told them why I was no longer contributing to the campaign. The staffer then read the prepared and obviously written FISA excuse speech. It was pretty obvious I was not the first guy to explain why I won’t be donating.

The hacky retort to my position is, “You may as well vote for McCain.” No. Not voting for someone is not the same as voting for his opponent. I do, however, very much believe that things need to get worse before they get better. We need to bottom out, as it were, and Republicans are the whiskey. Obviously things will not work as they are, with one party destroying the rule of law, ripping apart the economy and stripping away our rights, while the mythical opposition party does the same, while they claim to be against the whole process. I’ve never been happier to not be a member of the Democratic Party. They truly stand for nothing and the only way to right this ship is to have it collapse on itself.

I’m sort of glad Obama pulled this FISA move now. I believe this was a massive blunder by the Obama campaign. He needs his base to be “fired up” and to work for him, hitting the streets, making phone calls and donating regularly. He lost a few of those people. Quite a few. Sure, most of them will vote for him but the enthusiasm is gone. His campaign was all about enthusiasm. Now the enthusiastic ones are spending their time trying to convince people like me to vote for him, while many others are no longer enthusiastic. They should look to his new peeps, who are farther over to the right. Way farther.

Obama will probably win. The only thing that can stop him is a terrorist attack. He's up in the polls and pollsters aren't even calling people who only have cell phones, so he's probably way up. But I'm done. For now, I will give to Strange Bedfellows, the ACLU, and nobody else.

FearTheReaper still dislikes Hillary more, so shut your face. And you can read more FTR on his blog, Stop All Monsters.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

Comments
Colinism

Colinism

Atlanta, GA
July 2005

JUL 17, 2008 06:22 AM

Darke

Darke

Columbia, MO
June 2005

JUL 17, 2008 06:39 AM

You know, I don't have a problem granting a general amnesty to the telecommunication companies because most of them tried to deny wiretapping at first, and were bullied into it by the Bush Administration. Censure them publicly for aiding in a crime, but if we're going to prosecute someone for this bullshit, start at the top. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales et al...

Furthermore, you're right, FTR... not voting for Obama is not the same as voting for McCain. But voting for Obama IS the same as a vote against McCain... while not into some of Obama's centrist catering, I am REALLY not into McCain leading this country.

Ascanius

Ascanius

USA
October 2006

JUL 17, 2008 06:47 AM

I'm sure I don't have anything new to add, but FTR if you publicly refuse to vote for Obama and McCain gets elected I will make it my mission in life to tell you to shove it every time you write an article criticizing McCain. There's far too much at stake here for childish stands, especially in the public forum.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

JUL 17, 2008 06:53 AM

Colinism said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_el_pr/obama_money

Are you SURE it hit his bank account?



Yeah, I don't think it's going to hit him in his pocketbook much either, but to be fair that $52M (~!!!!) came before the FISA compromise was voted on.

If it has an effect (and I don't think it will), we'll see it in next month's numbers.

Peanut85

peanut85

San Jose, CA
July 2002

JUL 17, 2008 09:26 AM

"The only thing that can stop him is a terrorist attack."


And that's just what I'm really afraid of. Deathly afraid of.

TAFKASP

TAFKASP

Oakland, CA
June 2003

JUL 17, 2008 09:57 AM

he gives the word "politician" a bad name.


VOTE CARLOS PANACEA FOR PRESIDENT, 2012!

Skywisdom

Skywisdom

Portland, OR
December 2005

JUL 17, 2008 10:21 AM



Ascanius Said: I'm sure I don't have anything new to add, but FTR if you publicly refuse to vote for Obama and McCain gets elected I will make it my mission in life to tell you to shove it every time you write an article criticizing McCain. There's far too much at stake here for childish stands, especially in the public forum.



How is this childish? Really, explain how this action is childish. Also, not voting a for a politician whose politics he disagrees with means he can't criticize a different politician whose politics he doesn't agree with? Yeah, you're a genius.

FTR, I'm almost with you here. I'm certainly one of those who is refusing to donate any money now, and if he keeps on pulling stunts like this,I am not going to vote for him. It will be on his head if he loses the election, and maybe democrats might understand that swinging to the right every election isn't the way to win.

Ascanius

Ascanius

USA
October 2006

JUL 17, 2008 10:51 AM

Skywisdom said:


Ascanius Said: I'm sure I don't have anything new to add, but FTR if you publicly refuse to vote for Obama and McCain gets elected I will make it my mission in life to tell you to shove it every time you write an article criticizing McCain. There's far too much at stake here for childish stands, especially in the public forum.



How is this childish? Really, explain how this action is childish. Also, not voting a for a politician whose politics he disagrees with means he can't criticize a different politician whose politics he doesn't agree with? Yeah, you're a genius.



Because if Obama doesn't get elected, McCain does. And if McCain gets elected, he gets to appoint Justice Stevens' replacement. And if McCain appoints Justice Stevens' replacement, every liberal SCOTUS decision since the Warren Court is out the window, and it'll be the fault of assholes like you who refused to vote for an imperfect candidate. Not to mention the economy. Not to mention our foreign relations. Guess what chief, no candidates are perfect and when there's this much on the line the lesser of two evils really is the only way to go. That's what we big kids have to do sometimes. We have to make compromises. And yeah, if FTR and people like FTR don't vote and McCain wins by as thin a margin as Bush has been winning by, and spends the next four years driving us full-tilt down the road to hell we're already on, then I don't want to hear about it from somebody who made a public point of doing nothing to stop it.

Yeah, I'm a genius but you're a fucking visionary, Skywisdom.

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

JUL 17, 2008 10:51 AM

Skywisdom said:
It will be on his head if he loses the election, and maybe democrats might understand that swinging to the right every election isn't the way to win.



How? It seems more logical to think that it will be on the heads of the voters who didn't vote for him, but wanted not for McCain to win, if Barry loses the election.

silversoul7

silversoul7

Portland, OR
January 2008

JUL 17, 2008 11:12 AM

Darke said:
You know, I don't have a problem granting a general amnesty to the telecommunication companies because most of them tried to deny wiretapping at first, and were bullied into it by the Bush Administration. Censure them publicly for aiding in a crime, but if we're going to prosecute someone for this bullshit, start at the top. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales et al...


I do have somewhat of a problem with it, but I agree that it's not the telecom companies that are the real criminals here. It's the Bush administration that should be prosecuted for this(and much, much more).

jessferfun

jessferfun

San Francisco, CA
May 2003

JUL 17, 2008 11:55 AM

it IS lame. very lame. and sad, that he feels that he should use this FISA vote as a way to appease ignorant americans that live in fear. and vote because of fear.

CoyoteMike

CoyoteMike

Iowa City, IA
May 2006

JUL 17, 2008 11:57 AM

silversoul7 said:

Darke said:
You know, I don't have a problem granting a general amnesty to the telecommunication companies because most of them tried to deny wiretapping at first, and were bullied into it by the Bush Administration. Censure them publicly for aiding in a crime, but if we're going to prosecute someone for this bullshit, start at the top. Bush, Cheney, Gonzales et al...


I do have somewhat of a problem with it, but I agree that it's not the telecom companies that are the real criminals here. It's the Bush administration that should be prosecuted for this(and much, much more).



If I remember correctly (from one of the other threads on this) Bush and Co. are not immune from prosecution on this issue.

s5

s5

San Francisco, CA
OLD SKOOL

JUL 17, 2008 12:28 PM

Well FTR, congrats. You are officially part of the problem.

TheJOSH

thejosh

Clarksville, TN
January 2004

JUL 17, 2008 02:15 PM

His vote is irrelevant. The cases against the telecommunication companies are still on the docket. While the amnesty will throw out any criminal cases cases, one will sneak through in civil court and find its way to the supreme court, which is where it needs to be settled anyway. The supreme court will rule that the telecommunication companies violated the people's constitutional rights and the plaintiffs will get their money (more just in my opinion). I wish the democrats would have stuck to their guns on this issue but in the long run it may actually save the US Government money because instead of battling countless cases in court for years, now all legal fees will ultimately be paid by the telecommunications companies. The companies, after they go nearly bankrupt after paying out all the settlements, will think twice about intruding on the civil rights of customers after that. smile

I have to agree with, s5, you are now part of the problem. Look at the big picture!

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

JUL 17, 2008 02:15 PM

You know FTR, sometimes I get the feeling your articles are just very long responses to comments directed at you in other threads. It's kinda interesting, but I suppose if that provides your writing material than so be it, c'est la vie**. Anyway, you know where I stand on this issue, so I won't get into it.

I would just like to highlight Ascanius' comment about nominating judges and leave it at that. It's the argument I used with my dad after he suggested he may vote Libertarian and after I strangled him.



SPOILERS! (Click to view)
**I'm not implying there's anything wrong with that either just so we're clear. It was just an observation.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next