. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Here's a sampling of excerpts from comments posted in the Obama Web site blog, "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right," during one hour this afternoon
This was an hour (2:46-3:33 p.m. CT) following Senator Obama's failure to vote against cloture (which he would have had to do to permit the filibuster he promised) followed by his vote FOR the FISA bill and telecom immunity (which he had formerly opposed). And, oh yes, Senator Clinton voted against cloture (i.e., for a filibuster) and against the bill. Here's the official roll call record of the Senate's votes, if you're curious.
This morning I blogged, "Obama Doesn't Get It." That was before his vote. The reactions reproduced below -- all those of others, not me -- is just more evidence in support of this morning's thesis. I predicted two weeks ago something like this backlash was going to result for his campaign. Now it has.
# # #
Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right
Senator Obama - we are a proud group of your supporters who believe in your call for hope and a new kind of politics. Please reject the politics of fear on national security, vote against this bill and lead other Democrats to do the same!
I agree - there are many other issues
By Arun from Englishtown, NJ - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:33 pm EDT Also listed in: Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right
. . . But whatever those are - starting from being a better informed citizen (by the media companies), voting (on machines made by corporations), health care (provided by corporations), having no digital divide (telcos), disaster insurance for future Katrinas and mid-West floods (insurance cos), having my savings, investment, pension safe(banks and financial companines) - all these issues involve large and powerful corporations
Which just demonstrated that they can buy immunity from the law by purchasing Republican and Democratic members of Congress.
Senator Obama went tamely along.
Where is our protection when corporate interests are opposed to those of us people? We've just seen that Senator Obama and his movement cannot provide it. . . .
Sad day to be an Obama Supporter
By John H - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm EDT
This FISA bill just stinks from head to toe. Where was the fillabuster? Where is the man who ran on this issue and now flipping so easy to those that broke the law. You have my vote Senator Obama but no longer my work on the phone banks and my dollars from my other bank.
Lesser of 2 Evils Again
By Kathy - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm EDT
Congratulations, Senator Obama, on becoming the "lesser of 2 evils candidate" for millions of your supporters.
We worked for you and supported you before today because we believed what you said. I don't anymore. . . .
As it is, no more donations from me. No more going out of my way.
Because when I thought you were more than just another politician I became more than just another voter. Well you dropped your ball so I see no reason to disrupt my life on your account. You can obviously win without my contributions and work since the telecom companies will more than make up for what you lose from me.
[Y]our campaign just went corporate. Good luck serving them!
Obama FISA Flip-flop a Betrayal of Principles and the People
By Bryan K. Long - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm EDT
. . . Few Democrats held to principle and voted against this bad bill today. Hillary Clinton was one of them. Obama was not. Perhaps I made a mistake supporting Obama. If he betrays us on this, how can I trust him on promises about energy and the environment, or health care? Obviously, he and the Democratic congressional leadership are listening to "higher voices", and our government is in the control of powers larger than "we the people". . . .
Certainly I will not be renewing my financial support for Obama for the general election. I'm not sure I can even vote for him.
Shame on you, Sen. Obama.
Good By Barack
By Daniel from New Castle, PA - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:08 pm EDT
I have been watching C-Span 2 for two days to listen to the debates and vote on the FISA BILL. After the vote I removed your sign from the front window, and your bumper sticker from my car. Hillary voted against this bill. Lets draft her at the convention.
Obama votes for bush's American fascism!
By Robert - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm EDT
In 1933, in response to a "terrorist attack", Hitler, through his politics of fear and his cry for "national security", got his "Enabling Act" passed. . . .
It's amazing how similar the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act resemble many parts of hitler's Enabling Act. . . .
My money will go to Feingold, and my vote, i will have to reconsider.
What's done is done. Now what?
By John from Springfield, MO - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm EDT
So, Senator Obama has voted in favor of immunizing telecoms at the expense of us all; even though he said during the primary campaign that he would not. He has voted for what was clearly a capitulation and not a compromise. . . .
This is a sad day indeed. So long fourth amendment. It's been nice knowing you.
Cheers,
-John
Telecoms are king, gee thanks, Congress! Huge disappointment Senator Obama!
By Kate S - Jul 9th, 2008 at 4:02 pm EDT
I feel betrayed... and lied to, yet again. Did we not just experience a most horrendous 8 years with a president who lied to us over and over, ultimately doing what was best for him and his cronies and not what is best for the people of this country? I do not want that again, I will not be taken in again by pretty words and lies. . . .
I did not expect this from Obama. Obama voted yes for FISA today. Unbelievable. I was unaware the Congress could rewrite amendments to the US Constitution at will. . . . My disappointment in Obama and Congress is enormous. But I have learned to accept little from politicians. I have been behind Obama for quite a long time, but this as a slap in the face, given his previous positions and statements. . . I am also not ready for another president who talks out two sides of his mouth... and Obama most assuredly did this on FISA. It IS capitulation and nothing less. . . . I expected something better - different - from Obama, but we were sold out to big business again. . . . Big money is king, even to this campaign... the people do not matter. If you keep saying they do, then you need to show it. Sorry, I am not seeing it. I see capitalism strangling freedom and the Constitution. What a sad pathetic day for America. . . .
Lost my Vote today over FISA
By CJ from Moreno Valley, CA - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pm EDT
How disappointing that our man of change represents more of the same. I can't in good conscious vote for him now and am despondent of the future of this country I loved so much. So sad. I will start shopping jobs elsewhere, let the brain-drain begin as is usually the case when governments become fascists.
No Money, No Vote for the Latest Gutless Wonder - Barakh Obama
By David C. - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm EDT
The 4th Amendment is apparently irrelevent to our legal genius.
The same complete disrespect for the Constitution and the LAW as Mr. Bush.
How completely shameful and disappointing.
The Federal Government is predatory, corrupt, and venal, and Obama has revealed today that he is part of the problem.
Obama lost my vote today
By Keith from Knoxville, TN - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm EDT
Voting for the FISA bill was inexcusable. Obama was the only hope we had to turn this country around, but unfortunately, he has shown himself to be a traitor.
Hillary voted no on FISA amendments
By Steve from Austin - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pm EDT
I've been semi-comforting myself by saying that it doesn't matter whether Obama or Clinton is the nominee because they will both vote for FISA, but Obama voted yes and Cinton voted NO. I can no longer feel sure we have selected the right nominee. Very sad day. Integrity has suffered a major blow.
i don't believe in fairy tales
By joy - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm EDT
Your asking me to believe? letting me think for a moment that my voice, the peoples voice, actually meant something to you?. Well we all begged, pleaded and asked you to stand strong with us against the fisa bill and you could have cared less. Change to believe in, or believe that you will change for political points. . . . [I've] lost that hope you lied about.
FISA is the deal breaker Senator Obama
By Paul from Salinas, CA - Jul 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pm EDT
Wwll, it is official, Senator Obama can no longer expect my support either monetarily or otherwise. The idea that upholding the rule of law was even debated in Congress is enough to make me sick. The real question now is since history will judge Bush to be the WORST president ever, how will the Representatives and Senators that supported this disgusting bill be remembered . . . [T]he idea that EVERY individual is equal under the law, including the president and corporations is apparently just a advertising slogan. Seems that our country is already lost....all we can do now is slowly watch all of our remainging freedoms . . . dissappear.
Here are some more, but . . .
rather than edit the comments with authors' names, etc., these are just some of the headlines they put on their comments [posted from 4:21 until 4:51 p.m. CT]
Change My Ass
what a pi$$er!
On the wrong side of FISA
Well, thanks for selling out our constitutional rights.
ACLU and EFF Pledge to fight New FISA in court
Barack Obama has disappointed me
FISA consequences: There Will Be Blood
Withdrawing My Support Due to FISA Capitulation
Faith based FISA
Disgusted with Obama
Obama’s ‘Sister Souljah Moment’ on the Surveillance Bill
Senator Obama's announcement that he was going to abandon his support for public financing of presidential campaigns -- at least so far as his own campaign was concerned -- (along with the $85 million it would have provided) was the first worrisome hint that we might be in for a number of other seeming changes as well. Surrogates rushed to reassure us that he was holding to his position, just using a different kind of "public financing" -- namely our small contributions -- as a matter of a pragmatic winning (and very expensive) strategy. This was a special case, we were told.
Well, it wasn't. Since then our initial concerns have been played out -- big time. I've been blogging about it since June 22.
Sadly, either Senator Obama just doesn't get it, or he doesn't care, or he is further fudging regarding his shifts. And to borrow a line from CBS "60 Minutes'" "Ronald Reagan the Movie," "which would be worse?" Here's a report regarding his defensive response in Powder Springs, Georgia, yesterday:
POWDER SPRINGS, Ga. — Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday forcefully addressed concerns that he had moved too quickly to the political center, acknowledging complaints from “my friends on the left” about his statements on Iraq, his approaches to evangelicals and his remarks on other issues that have alarmed some of his supporters.
“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he told a crowd gathered at a town hall-style meeting in this Atlanta suburb. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”
Far and away the most active blog -- on Senator Obama's Web site! -- is "Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right." Over 20,000 supporters -- many of whom are now "former supporters" -- are clearly upset; some expressing a sense of betrayal, many saying they will no longer support him financially, some talking of voting for Ralph Nader or Senator John McCain. I've reproduced some of the responses I received when I put a questionnaire into that blog asking for members' opinions in Nicholas Johnson, "Request for Response: Your Reaction to 'Move to Center,'" July 7, 2008 (to which some readers of my blog, this blog, have added similar comments of their own).
The problem Senator Obama has created for himself does not come so much from some one position he's now articulating -- though that is a problem for many former supporters (especially on FISA and telephone immunity). The primary problem is that, having gained voters' (especially first-time voters') enthusiastic support for this "new kind of politician," who offered "hope" and "promises we can believe in," he is now looking more and more like the same old, same old politics as usual -- thereby creating a sense in former supporters of something between betrayal, a sense of having been duped, and a very deep disappointment and disillusionment.
The problem, in short, is not that his former supporters who are now being critical "haven't been listening to me" -- it's that they were listening, and absorbing, precisely the image of Obama that he was trying to project and hoping they would buy. They did buy. And now they're suffering from a severe case of buyers' remorse.
Criticizing one's most enthusiastic supporters with, in effect, to borrow the old song title, "How Could You Believe Me When I Told You That I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life," is not -- among other things -- the most effective way to win elections.
Meanwhile, yesterday (July 8) the Times' op ed columnist Bob Herbert, who does "get it," summed up much of what I -- among a great many others -- have been saying. Here are some excerpts to give you a flavor of what he wrote:
Back in January . . . there was a wide and growing belief — encouraged to the max by the candidate — that something new in American politics had arrived. . . .
Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician . . . could hold fast to every position . . .. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. . . .
This is why so many of Senator Obama’s strongest supporters are uneasy, upset, dismayed and even angry at the candidate who is now emerging in the bright light of summer. . . .
Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies . . . but Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash. . . .
Separation of church and state? Forget about it.
And there he was . . . agreeing with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas that the death penalty could be imposed for crimes other than murder. . . .
“What’s he doing?” is the most common question heard recently from Obama supporters.
For one thing, he’s taking his base for granted . . .. A taste of the backlash this can produce erupted on the candidate’s own Web site.
Thousands of Obama supporters flooded the site with protests over his decision to support an electronic surveillance bill . . ..
[B]ehind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over . . . his support of . . . the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.
There’s even concern that he’s doing the Obama two-step on the issue that has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq. . . .
Mr. Obama is betting that . . . the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters . . . will be there when he needs them.
He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.
Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual. . . .
To grasp -- or remind ourselves -- of the great heights from which his youthful followers have been dropped without parachutes, read Kathleen Parker's column from February 22. It provides some understanding of why many are moving so fast, and so far, with such bitterness, from his campaign -- based on their perceived discovery that what they thought was going to be a "new politics" has turned out to be -- as their more cynical friends warned them earlier -- the "old politics" after all. Here are some excerpts:
Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. . . .
His rhetoric . . . drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. "We are the ones we've been waiting for," he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.
Actually, they were hysterical . . ..
To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans. . . .
Grown-ups . . . have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.
One of Obama's TV ads, set to rock 'n' roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: "We Can Change The World" and "We Can Save The Planet."
Those are . . . campaign promises . . . no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope -- and hope, he'll tell you, knows no limits. . . .
But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent -- hence thousands of years of religion -- but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods.
Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, . . . apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.
I wouldn't want to leave the impression that all of Obama's young supporters are abandoning ship; nor even that all contributing to the "Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity" blog on Obama's Web site are doing so -- although clearly the overwhelming majority of the 20,000-plus contributors are disappointed with his new-found position on FISA/immunity. After all, as the name of the blog suggests, that was why it was created.
An example from this morning, almost selected at random, illustrates some of the more analytical (as distinguished from emotional) comments in that blog. Here are some excerpts:
Compromise - but not your principles.
By Another from Englewood, CO - Jul 9th, 2008 at 8:05 am EDT
It is unreasonable to expect supporters to understand Senator Obama's new position on giving immunity to telecoms. It is simply not what was advertised. . . .
The biggest disappointment about Senator Obama agreeing to immunity is because it stands for everything he has said he is against. People understand that compromise is needed in government and expect the Senator to seek opportunities to find it - but not at the cost of his principles.
The compromise citizens want is that of finding the middle between two extremes. And while almost everyone agrees that granting retroactive immunity is an extreme, no one sees the two extremes that would make immunity the "middle" or "center". And without that contrasting extremes, how can one honestly call it a compromise. . . .
Many Democrats had hoped that Senator Obama represented a CHANGE from weak leaders that readily accept what amount to Republican threats. . . .
Republicans have threatened that they will not pass a bill unless it includes immunity, so now Senator Obama feels he must . . . accept what he can get. Why is he not instead rallying Democrats to defeat any bill that provides immunity to those telecoms that ignored the law? . . .
And underlying it all is the question of why is it important to Senator Obama to make such a stance? This, in itself is extremely disappointing, as it smells of pandering to the very concepts held by those for which Senator Obama has been selected to defeat. It casts a strong doubt on the understanding that many people had of who he is. It makes it appear that he has abandoned his principles for the political maneuverings of the day - which is exactly the type of leadership he presented himself as a CHANGE from.
There is an honest difference of opinion here among politically sophisticated Democrats and Obama supporters.
(1) On the one hand are those who, with Vince Lombardi, say "winning is the only thing." They are willing to do whatever it takes (though most would like to avoid violating any laws) to save us all from what one member of this group described as "those evil Republicans." Even among this group, there are two views:
(a) That the best way for Democrats to win presidential general elections is to move as far to the right as possible that will still pass the laugh test, thereby making it somewhere between more difficult and impossible for conservative Republicans to charge that our candidate is "too liberal" or "out of the mainstream."
(b) That we've tried this approach and found it wanting -- most recently in 2000 and 2004. Moreover, polls show that voters want a "strong" president, and recent research shows that the most effective way to project "strength" is to project a willingness to stick with one's views regardless of how unpopular. (For example, among even those who oppose the war in Iraq, and the "surge," are some who express some admiration for Senator McCain's willingness to stick with his support of the surge -- in spite of its widespread unpopularity, and the fact that they would never consider voting for him.) Therefore, this group would urge that Senator Obama not change positions, especially not in the wholesale manner that he has this past three weeks or so.
(2) On the other hand, there are Obama supporters who believe that it is the responsibility of the voters -- especially those who are Democrats supporting him -- to participate as active citizens as much, and perhaps more, during the campaign as when he is, hopefully, in the White House. They believe themselves to be the realists, aware that the positions taken by a president, indeed any elected official, are in large measure subject to the pressures of their constituents. As has been said, "When the people will lead, their leaders will follow." When those who put "people over profits" remove themselves from the public dialogue (because "winning is the only thing" and conservative platform planks are most likely to win) they have only themselves to blame when the president they succeed in electing is found to be granting immunity to telecom companies and otherwise doing the bidding of the largest corporations and their lobbyists, using the power of the presidency to perpetuate the very "old politics" from which we believed Obama would deliver us.
This is a debate worth having, and on the resolution of which will clearly turn America's next four years -- not only because of the outcome of the election in November, but because of the actions of the government that will follow during that president's administration.
The primary was the "time to build up," "a time to dance." Now, it appears, the general election campaign is the "time to break down" and our "time to mourn."
What a shame.
I began predicting on June 22 (see the entries linked below) that Senator Obama's moves to the right risked the decimation of his "brand" ("change," "turn the page," "hope," a "new politics") and along with it the loss of his greatest asset: the enthusiastic support of those of all ages who accepted that his were promises we really could "believe in" -- but especially the young, first-time voters.
His sharp flips to the right now include everything from the trivial sporting of a flag lapel pin, to the more serious issues of NAFTA, public financing of campaigns (and bundling), government funding of faith-based programs, the death penalty, Israel, tax cuts for corporations, regulation of guns, FISA and immunity for telephone companies caught illegally spying on Americans. And we've scarcely concluded the first month following the primary.
. . . To which we now -- I've discovered since writing this -- must add Iraq as well:
Sen. Barack Obama left open the possibility of slowing his promised, 16-month withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, saying he would consult with military commanders on an upcoming trip to the region to ensure a withdrawal would keep troops safe and Iraq stable.
What a loss. What an incredibly high price to pay for abandonment of principle -- especially, ironically, in light of the pragmatic data that the odds were he would have received more general election votes from where he was standing than from the pit into which he has now fallen.
Today's further confirmation of my concerns is reflected in the excerpts below from James Risen's story in yesterday's New York Times:
Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.
Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters.
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.
“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.” . . .
“The opposition to Obama’s position among his supporters is very widespread,” said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. “His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.”
One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger on the Obama site.
“I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm,” Mr. Arellano wrote, “and I have given you money. For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me.” . . .
Several activists and bloggers predicted that Mr. Obama’s move toward the center on some issues could sharply reduce the intensity of support he has enjoyed from liberal activists. Such enthusiasm helped power his effort to secure the Democratic nomination, and it has been one of his campaign’s most important tools for fund-raising and organizing around the country.
Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal.
“I will continue to support him,” Mr. Moulitsas said in an interview. “But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution.” . . .
(I have a friend who told me almost exactly the same thing as Moulitsas. And I was told of an Obama staffer who conceded to a volunteer that she was hearing the same thing from her own grandparents.) James Risen, "Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecomm Immunity,"New York Times, July 2, 2008.
I really doubt that there will be many of Senator Barack Obama's supporters who will stay home, let alone vote for Senator John McCain, because of Obama's recent flip-flops on major issues. And apparently he's counting on that as well since he's just left $85 million of public money on the table.
But can he now continue to count on his supporters' continued financial support, and enthusiastic campaigning, between now and November? That has become more problematical.
As anecdotal evidence, a friend has shared with me an email she received from an Obama supporter in California that reported,
"Barack Obama owes me $600.43. I sent him my [federal government economic] stimulus rebate with the proviso that if he opted out of public finance he should return my contribution. I enclosed a self-addressed envelope with a 43 cent stamp attached."
Another friend who has been a nearly monthly contributor to Obama tells me she swears she's not sending him another dime -- as much because of Obama's switch on FISA as because of his switch on public finance.
At least a part of what brought out Obama's crowds of thousands, the new voters and contributors, and the enthusiasm of the young, was the Robert Kennedy-esque suggestion (some would say "promise") of a new kind of politics, "change we can believe in," the practical implementation of a bottom-up-community-organizing approach to national politics, a small-d democratic replacement for the "to-get-along-go-along" expediency, campaign-contributor-lobbyist-sub-government control, compromise-anything-and-everything-to-win, special privilege, and corporate welfare of which we've all grown cynical and disgusted. The story is told of Louisiana Governor Earl K. Long that when asked by a staffer what he could tell some Baton Rouge constituents who had come to the governor's office to claim some of his campaign promises, he replied, "Tell them I lied."
Had Senator Obama presented himself as "just another conventional politician" he, too, could try telling his supporters that he lied, knowing that while they might be disappointed they could certainly not claim to be surprised.
But he has marketed himself as something more than that, something better than a conventional politician or manipulative "Pied Piper." So his every change in position, his every abandoned campaign promise, further alienates the supporters who are both disappointed and understandably surprised -- and when his behavior is repeated, ultimately discouraged, disaffected, distant and depressed.
After all, they were promised "Change We Can Believe In." In fact, you can still buy a fan with that message on it from the Obama "store" for $3.00. But the number of "fans" "buying" that slogan may be declining.
Because now, in the course of two or three days, Senator Obama's enthusiastic supporters are discovering that what he has been talking about is not "change we can believe in." We needn't characterize it with the "L" word; let's just say he "misspoke" when he pledged to use public financing to fund his campaign; when he said he opposed spying on Americans and granting immunity to the telephone companies which did so illegally; when he said he would eliminate taxes for the working poor and seniors earning under $50,000; when he said he opposed NAFTA.
If you hadn't noticed, there are a lot of other days between now and November 4. So stay tuned. Remain attentive.
And if you have been, or are still, an Obama supporter you might want to let him know how you feel about changes in the positions you thought you and he were supporting, positions that were important to you. Don't let him take your vote for granted. You know he's going to hear from the lobbyists and major campaign contributors -- regardless of what he says -- and he also needs to hear from you to keep it all in balance and remember who got him to where he is. You can email him here.
Meanwhile, here are brief excerpts from the media's reports regarding these four changes in which his supporters can no longer believe, plus excerpts from a David Brooks column, and my concluding thoughts along with a video of President Bush.
Public Financing of Campaigns
Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain. . . .
"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video message to supporters, circulated yesterday morning by his campaign. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." . . .
In the hours after the announcement, McCain indicated he would consider forgoing public financing as well, but he later indicated that he will opt into the system. "We will take public financing," he said on the Straight Talk Express bus. Asked why, he said simply, "Because we decided to take public financing."
But earlier in the day the senator from Arizona lashed out at Obama. "This is a big, big deal," McCain told reporters . . .. "He has completely reversed himself and gone back, not on his word to me, but the commitment he made to the American people." . . .
Yesterday, government watchdog groups expressed disappointment with Obama's move. Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook called $85 million "plenty of money" and warned that private funding -- even in the mostly small sums that Obama relies on -- "comes with the expectations of special access or favors." . . .
"Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a co-sponsor of the [campaign finance reform] bill, called Obama's decision "a mistake" but added: "I look forward to working on this and a wide range of other reform issues with him when he becomes president." . . .
Although campaign finance issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, the McCain team pounced on Obama's move, along with his rejection of the 10 town hall meetings that McCain has proposed, as evidence that his claim to represent a "new politics" is empty rhetoric. The campaign circulated Obama quotes praising public financing and accused him of breaking his pledge to negotiate the issue with the GOP nominee. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers dismissed an account by Obama aides of recent talks between the two camps on the issue, saying it was "flat-out false."
"He's broken his word," said Charles R. Black Jr., a top McCain adviser. "He said he believes in the new politics; to me it sounds like the old politics. If you're going to change politics in America, that's a step backward." . . .
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.
In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists.
In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a "vital national security matter" -- and alienating his base.
"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," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.
This marks something of a reversal of Obama's position from an earlier version of the bill, which was approved by the Senate Feb. 12, when Obama was locked in a fight for the Democratic nomination with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).
Obama missed the February vote on that FISA bill as he campaigned in the "Potomac Primaries," but issued a statement that day declaring "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."
Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) continue to oppose the new legislation, as does Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). All Obama backers in the primary, those senior lawmakers contend that the new version of the FISA law -- crafted after four months of intense negotiations between White House aides and congressional leaders -- provides insufficient court review of the pending 40 lawsuits against the telecommunications companies alleging privacy invasion for their participation in a warrantless wiretapping program after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. . . .
On the presidential campaign trail, Democrat Barack Obama promises to "completely eliminate" income taxes for millions of Americans, from low-income working families to senior citizens who earn less than $50,000 a year. . . .
To which the folks who monitor the nation's financial situation can only say: Good luck. Because, back in Washington, tax collections are slowing, the budget deficit is rising, and the national debt is approaching $10 trillion. Whoever wins the White House this fall, fiscal experts say, is likely to have a tough time enacting expensive new initiatives, be they tax cuts or health care reform. . . .
Meanwhile, the first baby boomers started receiving Social Security checks in January. Without major policy changes, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to devour half of all federal spending by 2050. But the more immediate problem is the depletion of excess cash in the Social Security trust fund, which has been used for years to cover a portion of the annual budget deficit. Government economists predict that the Social Security surplus will start shrinking in 2011 and dry up completely by the end of the next decade, exposing government-wide budget deficits of a magnitude not seen since Bush's first term.
In a new paper titled "Facing the Music: The Fiscal Outlook at the End of the Bush Administration," University of California at Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach and two co-authors from the Brookings Institution conclude that, if spending grows at historic rates, simply keeping the Bush tax cuts and halting the spread of the AMT [alternative minimum tax] would drive the budget deficit to $481 billion by the end of the next president's first term, or 2.7 percent of the economy. Subtract the cash borrowed from Social Security and other retirement funds, and it would be $796 billion, or 4.4 percent of GDP.
"It's a train wreck," said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), a member of the House Budget Committee. "The government is making promises to people right now it knows it can't keep. And you have some candidates piling more promises on top, which are clearly unfulfillable."
Former House Budget Committee chairman Leon Panetta, who served as President Bill Clinton's first budget director, said the financial situation is "much worse" than it was in 1993, when Clinton was forced to abandon promises of a middle-class tax cut before he took office. Instead, Clinton wound up devoting his first State of the Union address to a plan that aimed to tame rising deficits with one of the largest tax hikes in history.
"It's worse because there are a huge number of crises out there that are going to confront the new president," Panetta said, . . .. The likelihood is that it's going to get worse. And the fundamental problem has been that there's very little willpower by Republicans or Democrats to confront the issue." . . .
Obama has not made balanced budgets a priority. Instead, he promises numerous tax cuts likely to make the situation worse, including subsidies for education, child care, homeownership, "savers" and people who work. Obama also vows to extend the Bush tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 a year. According to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of Brookings and the Urban Institute, his tax plans would deprive the Treasury of nearly $900 billion in his first term, and increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion by 2018. . . .
The analysis also excludes a possible reduction in corporate tax rates, which Obama first mentioned in an interview this week with the Wall Street Journal. . . .
"They're promising the world with ways to pay for it that are really suspect," Bob Williams, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center study, said . . ..
OTTAWA — American presidential hopeful Barack Obama appears to have moderated his opposition to NAFTA just ahead of Republican rival John McCain’s extraordinary visit to Canada to praise the trade pact.
Obama, who said in March he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement if he’s elected, said he might have gone too far.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," the Democratic nominee told Fortune magazine in an interview.
Were his attacks on NAFTA a product of that brand of campaign posturing?
"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself," he answered.
The admission was published shortly before McCain was expected to pour unvarnished praise on NAFTA, drawing a clear distinction between America’s two combatants for the White House. . . .
North American free trade and Canada played a pivotal role in at least one state — Ohio — during the U.S. primaries.
A Canadian government memo written after a meeting with an Obama adviser suggested the Democrat’s biting opposition to the pact was rooted in politics that would not blossom into policy if Obama becomes president.
That memo was leak to The Associated Press and many of Obama’s own supporters believe it cost him the Ohio primary, which was won by Hillary Clinton.
Although you may find it hard to believe, it really is the case that it was only after I had written and assembled the material above that I came upon David Brooks column of June 20. You should read the entirety of it. It makes what I wrote look like the chants of an Obama cheerleader by contrast. Brooks may be a conservative, but he's my kind of conservative: normally much more both "fair" and "balanced," as well as reasonable, informed and soft spoken, than the network that markets itself with that claim. Here are some excerpts:
Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.
This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. . . .
[O]n Thursday [June 19], Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now. . . .
If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? . . .
All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades.
Senator Obama and his staff should reflect on these reactions -- and the fact that Senator Clinton has only "suspended" her campaign. He's not yet the nominee, and super delegates can change their votes at any time.
Nor is the only rational response for Obama supporters to suddenly drop him like last week's moldy pizza as a result of these recent flip-flops. He may not be all they thought -- and he promised -- and still be head and shoulders above the mediocre, far better than merely the "least-worst" alternative.
But meanwhile, what are voters in general, and Senator Obama supporters in particular, to make of this behavior? Should they assume that these will be the only four shifts in position, that he is really, deep down inside, the same person he represented himself to be, the same person they believed in? Or should they ask, with David Brooks, "If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out?"
Or is the lesson a much more serious and depressing one? Should they listen much more closely to the lyrics from the 1951 film, Royal Wedding (starring Fred Astaire and Jane Powell), "How Could You Believe Me When I Told You that I Loved You When You Know I've Been a Liar All My Life." Not because of Senator Obama, but because of politics and life in general. Will it always (or virtually always) be the case that offerings of "hope" and promises of "change" -- regardless of context -- are, like the enticement of winning the lottery, as ephemeral and short-lived as the morning fog on a hot summer's day?
There are many contexts and stories leading to the punch line, or "lesson," "Don't ever trust anyone, not even your own father." Is that the great lesson of the Obama campaign? "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me"? Or, as President George Bush puts it, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Sadly, we can get fooled again -- and again, and again, and again.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli's famous works, The Prince and The Discourses, were published in 1531, four years after his death, and have been read -- and to some extent followed -- by most politicians since. Is it perhaps the case that politics can't be changed? That it has always been thus? Do we have nearly 500 years of history to warn us that the "change we can believe in" was inherently unbelievable?
No, there have been changes, some improvements, and there can be more. But we must work for them -- with or without a President Obama. The changes will only, can only, have only, come from the peoples' sustained efforts.
"When the people lead, their leaders will follow." It's up to us to lead, not to look to the rear of our marching ranks in search of our "leader."
