Obama must call for the Resignations of Pelosi, Reid, & Hoyer

[Phred42]

Ok -- he won't - But it needed to be said.


But if he was the real leader of the Democratic Party - he would.

[kstewart33]

1. Oh, please.

The objective, the only objective, for the next 5 months, is to get Obama elected. Such a call would create nothing but trouble - more intraparty disunity and a grand Swiftboating opportunity for the Repubs. They'll be screaming about Obama's position for months.

Let's get him elected first, folks. Then he can do whatever he wants.

[Wickerman]

3. that actually makes some sense

I hope. :yoiks:

[Phred42]

5. Yea you're right - These bastards couldn't possibly do ANY more damage in teh next 5 months

Of course by NOT impeaching Shit-for-brains we may be at war with Iran and a few others by then

But what the hell..... It's only the Politics that matter.

[robinlynne]

10. Hey. our "Dems" just handed Bush FISA on a silver platter. And don't tell me there is any reason in

the world they need to capitulate to Bush on ANYTHING right now, much less civil liberties and war. oh yes, they did that too. in one lousy week.

[Phred42]

15. Yep - So it should be ovbious by now that

Pelosi and Reid (others as well)

are either:

- Being Blackmailed
- are deeply involved in the illegal and corrupt activities themselves and silent members of the Reich
- or are cowards

there are no other excuses for this continuous capitulation

The bottom line here is that any way you look at this, neither Pelosi or Reid are in a position to 'faithfully execute..." their sword duties on behalf of the Constitution

- they have been utterly compromised

Checkmate - game over

Their removal NOW is the only way to save what they have left us of the Constitution and democracy.

[robinlynne]

19. I agree. Now how do we do it. Obama, although a decent candidate, is not one of us.

[Berry Cool]

6. Seriously. Stuff like this is what Dennis Kucinich is for.

He'll grandstand for what should have been, but it won't get anywhere. However, it won't cost him anything either.

We need Obama in the White House too badly to encourage him to go around making pointless dramatic gestures like calling for resignations that will never happen.

[grahamhgreen]

2. I agree.

[az chela]

4. These people are worse than bushco because they had

our trust and betrayed us.They need to charged as accesories to this administation and put in jail

[comradebillyboy]

7. They have been his ardent supporters, I don't think he will

criticize them.

[babylonsister]

8. No, he must not. Dumb idea. Until November, we have to trust

him to pick his own fights. I will trust him, and he will pick them.

[Robbien]

9. Are you nuts. Obama said he supports the FISA bill

Reid and Pelosi and Hoyer are doing exactly what Obama said he supports.

Obama backs FISA bill
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith

[orleans]

11. did you read the entire statement?

"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. "

[robinlynne]

20. Then this is what we must do. get the immunity taken out by the senate.

[orleans]

22. exactly. or have it go into committee and run out the clock. n/t

[Raksha]

12. Unfortunately, Obama has endorsed one of THE worst

of the FISA/telecom immunity traitors. I've just been reading Glenn Greenwald's recent columns at Salon. The Obama campaign better have a good explanation for this one.

Thursday June 19, 2008 05:39 EDT
Obama, telecoms and the Beltway system
(updated below - Update II)

As noted yesterday, Blue Dog Rep. John Barrow of Georgia has been one of the most enthusiastic enablers of the radical and lawless policies of the Bush administration. When running for re-election, he ran ads accusing his own party of wanting to "cut and run in Iraq," and was one of the 21 Blue Dogs to send a letter to Nancy Pelosi demanding that they be allowed to vote for the Rockefeller/Cheney Senate bill to give warrantless eavesdropping powers to the President and amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms.

As a result of all of that, Barrow faces a serious primary challenge in July from State Senator Regina Thomas, who decided to run against Barrow due to -- as she told Howie Klein when she announced -- "Barrow's failure to support his constituents against the encroachments of powerful Big Business interests." As Klein noted yesterday, Thomas' positions on both foreign and domestic policy are firmly in line with Barack Obama's views and with the Democratic base in that district, while Barrow has continuously supported the most extremist Bush policies, as he himself proudly boasts.

In contrast to Barrow's demands for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, here is the statement Regina Thomas issued yesterday (via email):

After reading the FISA bill -- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- I thought "This can not be good for Americans. That the Bush Administration wants unlimited powers for spying on not only terrorists, but on any American citizen. This is against and violates the Constitutional Fourth Amendment privacy. This also allows warrant-less monitoring of any form of communication in the United States." I was disappointed and dismayed with my Congressman John Barrow supporting this Bush Republican initiative against Americans. Too often Congressman Barrow from the 12th district in Georgia has voted with Bush and the Republicans on key issues.
Despite all of this, The Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported yesterday that Barack Obama -- who has been claiming to be so emphatically opposed to warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, to say nothing of the Iraq War -- taped a radio endorsement this week for Rep. Barrow, with the specific intent to help him defeat Regina Thomas in the Democratic primary.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[depakid]

13. If I were Barack Obama, I'd be ashamed (not embarrased) ashamed

To be a part of a so called "leadership" that votes to give the most unpopular president in modern history an unprecidented boon during an election year -all the while trashing the US Constitution -and granting retrospective immunity to crimes committed against ordinary Americans (God only knows how many).

Shame is the only word my Dad would have had for that, and if there's one thing I know for sure tonight it's that I'm glad he didn't live long enough- at least not cognitively to see it.

Would have broke his heart...

[Phred42]

14. Agree.

[spanone]

16. i want him to vote against the fisa bill...that would be enough

[Phred42]

17. I'm pissed - but I guess I'd settle for that at this point too

But he would need to fight against the entire FISA bill - not just Immunity.

[slipslidingaway]

18. Obama supports the FISA bill, he has never really fought against

it and has had plenty of time between campaign stops and interviews with the media to do so.


Just posted the article here, makes sense to me esp. since it had already crossed my mind :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3495818

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html


"...What gives? Why did Obama stay silent for so long, and why did he finally offer such a muted response to the bill?

The answer is simple:

Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office. Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive...


So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy...

[UTUSN]

21. Why would he do that? Do the names Warren CHRISTOPHER (I thought he was dead),

Sam NUNN, KERRY, and many others sound like CHANGE?!


(Btw, I'm a total Dem voter, so don't even THINK of calling me a freeper. If anything ought to be clear it's that Dems slash one another.)