FISA is mostly a netroots pet issue, especially the part about retroactive telecom immunity.
I don't get the part where he has to make us 100% happy 100% of the time.
It's like we're spoiled children or something...
Hey!
I'm good with that just as soon as you explain to me whey 81% of Americans polled on this issue do NOT want the Telcos to get immunity.
This is the biggest issue of the Bush Presidency; funny you never noticed.
Must be a netroots thing.
No politician can represent you 100% of the time. It is ridiculous to try and force any politician to meet that requirement.
I could easily say that I won't vote for Obama because he still will not support same-sex marriage, but then again, it is not like anyone who does could currently get elected President.
What happened, happened, and unfortunately we can not change that. For me, it is much more important to get a President who will follow the letter and the spirit of the law in the future. I am more worried about who is going to get to nominate the replacements for Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsberg on SCOTUS.
While Obama is the nominee for President, he is also still just 1 of 100 Senators. At this point everyone of us should also be holding the Senators of our states responible and let them know how we feel.
Yet the main problem is...he has never come out in favor of supporting same sex marriages (versus civil unions), and has never made same sex marriages a cornerstone policy or even made a large speech about it. He has never taken a PRO position on it, only to now take a laze faire position on it in order to get elected.
He said it's a bad bill, but better than what was available before. --That means it's still a bad bill!
He said it's not the way he would have written the legislation. --If I recall he's still a member of the United States Senate, why not write his own ammendment or even his own version of the bill!!!???
He's said marriage should be left up to the state, but the federal government and all states must recognize civil unions affording identical rights and benefits to same-sex couples. Name one of the viable presidential candidates from the primaries who took a more progressive stance. I mean, he's even more progressive than Clinton because he wants a full repeal of DOMA.
He called the original bill bad. He's called the current version an imperfect but acceptable compromise. You can't possibly claim to not understand that difference.
Nothing is preventing him from writing it, but he won't get enough votes to pass it. Between the blue dogs and Republicans it would be a hard sell under any circumstances, but it's basically impossible during an election year. So, you'd rather he burn his time and political capital on a lost cause?
Anyway, what's your actual problem here? You haven't presented one legitimate criticism. You just seem to be lobbing clumsy attacks for the sake of fighting.
It's the fourth amendment ... the constitution that's what you call a netroots pet issue. A lot of Americans have died to protect the rights you think are a "pet issue for the netroots."
And just to help you get a grip....the congresscritters that voted yes got $$$$$$$ lots of $$$$$ from the telecoms...our congressman got $11K from Comcast. The ones who voted no got zip, zero nada.
Obama's response is a weak apology for a strong betrayal. And the only reason he bothers is because the netroots have made him nervous. But not nervous enough to defend our rights.
