Well, today is the day. The vote on the FISA Capitulation bill.
Yesterday, Obama denied shifting to the center.
Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."First of all, if he is not moving to the center, why would he call them "my friends on the left." Secondly, only an arrogant weasel would blame his strongest supporters. He is over-confident and comes across as condescending and impatient with what he views as others' "stupidity." His disgust is evident each time he must "clarify" his statements and there is sheer disbelief in his voice that he actually needs to explains what he meant AGAIN.
So, does he believe what he said about the FISA bill?
"But 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, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
Now let me get this straight. Isn't (wasn't) Obama purported to be a Constitutional scholar, lecturer, professor... whatever??? What part of the Constitutional right to privacy does he not understand? That he gives us his "pledge" IF HE BECOMES PRESIDENT means literally nothing. Besides, didn't he "pledge" to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity. A "pledge" from any President does not compensate for removing the very substance of our Constitutional right to privacy.
So does he believe what he said, or is he just voting for this bill because it is politically expedient? If he believes what he said, then he is comfortable with eroding the Constitution. If he is just doing it because it is politically expedient, then he is just as scary as George Bush. Either choice is completely unacceptable to me. Whether his vote is an act of political cowardice or the desire for personal political power, he isn't fit to be President.
UPDATE: 2:27pm CDT ~ DAMMIT!! Yep, he voted for it. The man who aspires to be the chief defender of the U.S. Constitution voted for it. Voted FOR it. We already have a President who has no regard for the Constitution. Do we really want another one? He can continue to "clarify" how his monitoring and review will be better than Bush's, but it's already impossible to believe anything he says, so how we can trust him to protect our rights and privileges any better than Bush has? So, would you like to guess who voted "nay"? You know who. Hillary Rodham Clinton broke ranks with Obamacons and voted against it with Schumer, Biden and Kerry!. She wasn't going for the politically expedient vote. She was going for the RIGHT vote.