June 23, 2008

In plain sight...


So, it's not really a capitulation. It's a strategy.
ghost2 muses at Alegre's Corner on the FISA capitulation and suggests that it happened with Obama's full support and direction.

This is not only Pelosi's position, but also Obama's position.

You are naive if you think the compromise happened without the knowledge of Obama, and he is issuing a statement after the fact. That cannot be.

An expolosive, controversial issue like this could hamper the nominee. Why would Pelosi bring it up now?

Note carefully. It's the quiet time. Reporters mad at Hillary Clinton for prolonging the primary have just now gotten their vacations. It's summer, just before 4th of July. What better time to throw Campaign Finance, FISA under the bus?

Superdelegates LOVE the money networks Obama has and are drooling at the prospect of that money. He is even careful and not issuing fundraising emails for anyone, b/c that means some cherished donors will also end up on somebody else's big email list. That's his ace, and he is not letting go of it.

Remember, the first thing that came for Obama was MONEY. You'd think that network of bundlers, lobbyists, and corporate bosses with connections didn't expect anything in return?

Obama will throw a lot of people under the bus, but he is too smart of a politician to throw his money backers there. That won't happen.

FISA and immunity were the first thing delivered by Obama. You, Glenn and everyone else can ignore that at your peril.
Even Hunter (Why do we care about FISA?), over at DailyKos says:
Because of all the issues we've faced, in the last few years, this one was an absolute no-brainer, the one thing that the Democrats, no matter how stunningly incompetent, humiliatingly ineffective or bafflingly capitulating they may be, could manage to win simply by sitting on their damn hands. But no; it took serious work to lose on this one. Serious, burning-the-midnight-oil work to manage to quite so cravenly negate their own oversight duties.
Hunter assumes that the Dems wanted to "win" this (that is, come down on the side of the Constitution). It's obvious they do not.

In other news...

Turkana points out to us what else our Democratic Congress gave Bush: Funding for the war, no strings attached, through July 2009.
While you were distracted by the Democrats' capitulation to Bush on domestic spying and telecom immunity, you probably didn't even notice that they were also busy capitulating to him on the war.
Oh, and Cheney? He's off the hook too.
What can we say about a leader who can't stand up to the most unpopular president ever? No strings attached. In exchange for a few small bills that the Democrats could have hammered Bush for not supporting. If they weren't political imbeciles. But now the war is funded through July 2009. The biggest blank check ever. Because Nancy Pelosi took the war off Congress's plate. You have to love that metaphor. Because it calls to mind Pelosi's previously having taken impeachment off the table. Which set the table for this, as reported by The Hill:

Vice President Dick Cheney has won his battle to withhold records from the public despite efforts by Congress and other critics who say they should be open to scrutiny.

The Democrats are conceding defeat. The party’s top investigator in the House of Representatives acknowledges that there is nothing more he can do to force the vice president’s hand.

“He has managed to stonewall everyone,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “I’m not sure there’s anything we can do.”

Waxman said that despite Cheney’s turning this administration into “one of the most secretive in history,” there’s not much he or anyone else can do because the administration has only a few more months left in office.
Sure. And Waxman's one of the good guys. But there's nothing more he can do. Against perhaps the only government official in this country who is even more unpopular than Bush. Because once impeachment was off the table, it was clear that Bush and Cheney could do whatever they wanted. There are no consequences. So, they thumb their noses and laugh. They are above the law. And Congressional Democrats agree. But don't worry about it. Just another day in Washington.


Mike said...

I just wanted to point out that
Obama's money backers consist
of nearly 1 and 1/2 million people,
98% of them giving less than $100.

carissa said...

That's what they keep telling us.

Mike said...

I don't know, Carissa, but when I was taking care of Mom for a week and a half recently (she's in mid 80s), she got two thankyou post cards from the Obama campaign.

I guess donors have been giving to all the candidates more than they have to the Dem party.

Time to help Sen. Clinton erase her debt and further help with the money for the Denver convention.

Forgot: this is the first time, since Paul Simon's campaign, that I've given money. Including "in kind" donations (like making lunch for the young Obama org. fellwos one day).

It's going to be an interesting four plus months, that's for sure.

paulrevere said...

I would like to partially clarify the BO money and donor issue. BO's advocates constant tout is what 'mike' said or usually it is 90% verses 98%. The wording is important here as they always are very clear to state the number of donors and NOT their proportion of the dollars as in "over 90% of BO's donors donate a hundred bucks or less" making it sound like all that money is coming right out of the grass roots. I heard some one on Air America just yesterday (I searched for this link but time constraints you know) state that fifty percent or more of his dollars came from less than 10% of his donors...sounds like pretty big money to me folks and a much less 'foggy' description of his supporters financial means! The man is no less a weasel than his 'bots were spewing around that HC and others are/were.

Doubt Nothing...Question Everything