Feingold says a lot of contradictory things. Can we trust him?

More selling out to come. The Dims are as much as loyal segment of the Corporatocracy as the Repugs and just as loyal to their class.

When will we ever learn?

citizenblog July 6th, 2008 1:04 pm
Feingold says a lot of contradictory things. Can we trust him?

What article are you reading?

Look folks. I'm a recovering Obama supporter myself. Particularly because of this bad move he has just made (but his speech at AIPAC was another clue).

We can sit here and moan.

Or we can DO something about it!

The protests, the blogs on his own site, the letters he is being inundated with are all good things and we should not stop.

But Here is something else that we can all do.

This incident makes it clear that Obama listens to money, just like all other politicians. But he also listens to us just a bit more than most other politicians. (I know there are good exceptions, but we did not get them as viable Pres. candidates so no use crying about it now.)

So let's combine the two.

Send him $50.00 or $100.00 .... the amount doesn't really matter, it can even be a very small amount. Enclose a letter with a big "1/3" on it. Heck, put "1/3" all over it.

Tell him that this is "1/3 of the support that I was going to send you before you gave an immunity pass to the telecommunications giants. I am witholding the remaining funds for when you begin to once again strongly favor of the restoration of our rights and the punishment of those who would violate them."

Should this not happen send the remaining money to the campaigns of new House members with a clear anit-war/human rights agenda. (Cindy comes to mind, but there may be others and we shouldn't neglect them.)

Each of us, by ourselves, isn't much, but if his campaign advisors start calculating just how much campaign money they are losing because of this we might well see some movement. And if we do not...you've still got 2/3 of your political capital to spend with someone more reflective of our views!

1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3
Let's do it folks! Until we can get the system less dependent on money we will have to work within it, so let's use our vast power (and it is pretty large) to send a clear $ignal to this campaign.

Better yet, and more to the point: 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16 1/16

physicscitizen says: "but we did not get them as viable Pres. candidates."
True and for one reason only: because you were one of the millions of sheep who did not vote for them! You should be ashamed that you have wasted your vote!

jpbreeze July 6th, 2008 1:27 pm

"What article are you reading?"

Have a look at the comments in Greenwald's piece here:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/25/9871/

citizenblog
What are you referring to in that article? Feingold appears to be unequivocally against the bill.

Well, poopdeck, I can only vote on the basis of past record now can't I. (And I didn't actually VOTE for Obama by the way, I said I supported him....so don't assume what you don't know and keep your abuse to yourself please, it's unhelpful.)

And on balance Obama had done many things in his past that I liked.

And had (has) the viability factor that Kucinich has never had.

Call me gullible, fine, but sheep...I think not.

I think it is foolish to make the Perfect the enemy of the Good. I still believe Obama is 'Good' but if this trend continues then I can still vote for Nader.

Surely though, again my point, rather than moaning about Kucinich, let's see if we can shift the guy we have. We have the time to find out if Obama is good enough to listen to us....and Nader is always there waiting.

Oh and I liked 1/16 by the way Surrender...but you still have to send enough money to be heard and that's why I came up with 1/3....

Boy, the Democrats should landslide the Republicans this year. Instead, they seem to be running on the same platform, just with Obama's vague and caveat filled watered down populism. McCain, 100 years in Iraq, Obama, No end in sight either. Truth is, they both want to be there forever. Where is the line we draw in the sand, where as progressives we just say ENOUGH, you do not get my vote, because you do not come close to representing my interests, or the interests of the majority of the population.

I am starting to believe it does not exist. They take us for granted for good reason. Who would listen to people so willing to compromise everything they stand for? Just watch these boards fill up with pro-Obama comments, telling me I am a Republican in disguise. Ironic, because I don't support Obama because of his Republican-esque stances laid out in his own words.

Obama supported Joey Lieberman in the election
in Ct when Lieberman ran as "My party for me"
Is Obama still imprisoned with Lieberman?
Based on his address to AIPAC, Obama does not
sound like our FDR Candidate. He might just
blow this opportunity for the Democratic party
to take over the White house.
Ralph Nader is moving in and will call his bluff.

Yes, Feingold unequivocally opposes the atrocious FISA bill. I watched his interview with Amy Goodman last month on "Democracy Now".

I generally like Feingold, perhaps because of his intelligent, crisp, and no-nonsense speaking style. It's a refreshing change-of-pace from the usual unctuous and platitudinous political doublespeak.

But I was depressed and disappointed by the totality of the interview. Although Feingold had the courage and forthrightness to publically disagree with the anointed presumptive candidate on the FISA bill, he also forcefully expressed continued support for Obama, and suggested that in the long run, Obama would correct the corrupt and warped national politics that required Obama to play along with major propagandistic memes like the "Global War on Terror".

Feingold didn't use those terms, of course, but he did surround the tiny bitter pill of his legitimate criticism with a big ol' spoon of honey. Like Kucinich, Feingold seems ultimately compromised by serving in a party that barely tolerates their progressive instincts, and uses them as Judas goats to manipulate the naïve and gullible into believing the fiction that the Democratic Party welcomes populists and progressives.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH - I'm hoping more and more voters will simply STOP voting for the madness that goes along with the two "viable" parties and break the catch-22 of viability by voting in increasing percentages for ANY other "third" party candidate in all elections. NO more votes for Dems (certainly no votes ever for Repubs, either; I've never voted for any Repubs). It isn't about "winning", it's about getting our country back!!

McCain will probably win, remember that in a close election (and it will be close, not a landslide at all) we have to deal with the rigging of the machines, etc. The best we can do is to send a clear message that enough of us are fed up and will not vote for mainstream candidates unless the Dems start behaving like compassionate human beings, instead of cowards.

Some folks say George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condolizza Rice are aliens inhabiting human bodies.

I say any alien with a lick of sense who came anywhere near this planet would have hightailed it to the far side of Pluto five decades ago to watch while the humans destroyed themselves and the planet.

thadeeus, all FAT ignorant USA sheeples are alien food, see David Icke

however I assume 'slobama' was told to be team player or die

he is just another Bilderburg Oreo

shame, WAS hope for USA

glad i am getting back outta here

Carlyle group CEO is Bin Laden and bush Mom is A. Crowley daughter

you people are fucked

If not now, when? What will it take the public to not accept the status quo?

The case not to support either of the two corporate parties has never been clearer.

But the same old arguements still abound. Obama and McCain are the 'real' choices and you shouldn't throw your vote away.

I'm sorry, but we can continue the dance of voting for the lesser of two evils with the unrealistic hope that after Obama is elected he will act in a manner that he was unable to do till now.

I'm not talking about his empty, but well pronounced, rhetoric. I'm talking about his voting record. That is what should count.

Is there a difference between Obama and McCain? Sure, but I don't find either providing a solution to the global problems we face. Both are selling out to the the corporate elite interests, at the expense of the well-being of society.

I will not be throwing my vote away by voting for either of the corporate candidates.

Vote third party. Vote Cindy Sheehan.

If not now, when?

Cast your vote for the candidate Green

If you'd like to mess up the Demon Machine

But if you'd rather have more of the same

Hop aboard Barak's flip-floppery train

How is sending Obama any money at all sending him a message? Send him NO money, write him lots of letters, and unsubscribe from his campaign letters. If people drop off his website, that will send the biggest message of all.

I just hope the youth vote will not be lost over all of this.

Obama is all tapped out. I can no longer support his campaign. Feingold and a few other real patriots got it right... including one of my Senators - Maria Cantwell. It's time to defeat any politician who supports the FISA travesty.

Obama - He had me at hope and change. He lost me with lies and deceit.

my two cents is to keep sending money to Cindy Sheehan. she is wielding a knife which could destroy a critical organ of the monster. sending money to her gives not only financial aid but an encouragement which is extremely important.

and a message to Democrats who defy their constituents.

when will the politicians get it? the am' people are through with being lied to.

Every week I seem to be getting closer to voting for Nader again. Obama is turning out to be just
another democrat.

I'll modify what I said above.
The scheme here by the Bushites is to have the American people live in a state of constant warfare and accompany that state of anxiety with the threat of a wider fear that the war will escalate to an ever expanding circle.

Also,
the prospect of armed conflict with Iran does some washing up of the mess in Iraq from a public relations standpoint for McCain.
Oh, lookey here, say the Bushites. The conflict in Iraq you say is a mess? Well, here's a real threat coming up.

If you can't keep 'em happy at least you'll keep 'em confused.

You Nader Clowns cut it out. Nader ain't happenin'. Deal with it! If you want to start a viable third party, you have to start right AFTER a presidential election and build it up over the next four years. It's too late now. Vote for Nader, if you must, then do what you gotta do to get your third party, fourth party, or upteenth party, in the limelight by 2012, if we have an election then, if we have ANY freedoms after this year. Just remember, you had your chance these past eight years. As for me, I'll vote for Obama, and then call him to task to deliver what he has promised, even if it puts me in jail. We all must do what we can.

There are many unfamiliar persons saying odd things on CD today. Therefore I shall accept the things I cannot change, we've been infiltrated by Trolls.
Change the things I can, Get the fuck off until the cultists take leave.

That f word-is that what you meant by Trolls?

no tad Fuck is a great word, American as apple pie. update that site much, tad?
how can you put government info on there and claim copyright, what is copyrighted on that site, awfully, well boring, what is your message tad?

Now that he is the presumptive nominee, Obama is standing not with Feingold, but with Bush and the special interests Obama once denounced
-yup, so glad everybody is catching on...

That's bad — not just because Obama is putting politics ahead of principle, but because he's calculating the politics wrong.
-isn't that what politicians do, hate to say it, "Told ya so." (not really)

"The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation.
-correct

Despite what some apologists for this sellout by Democratic leaders might suggest,...
-The DemocRATic Party is in disrepute, completely discredited and fully despicable.

It is unfortunate that they are not standing together on the right side of history — and the Constitution.
-The DemocRATS have allowed Bush to take a dump on the Constitution and wipe his butt with it.

To hell with the DemocRATS vote for Cynthia McKinney! Go Greens!

Lairderg July 6th, 2008 5:38 pm
"As for me, I'll vote for Obama, and then call him to task to deliver what he has promised, even if it puts me in jail."

Just curious Lairderg, you don't need to answer, but is there anything Obama could do that would cause him to lose your vote?

How about funding the war, not in favor of impeachment, FISA capitulation, hawkish on Iran, right wing advisers, leaving 100,000 troops in Iraq to defend our "interests" (OIL).....anything?

when will the politicians get it? the am' people are through with being lied to.

What are you smokin'?;the only Americans who know they're being lied too are CD readers.

Mr. Nichols: What do you mean by "Obama should follow Feingold?" Obama did follow Feingold when both Senators recently voted for the continued funding of the war/occupation in/of Iraq. I do not understand your question.

This FISA fiasco is a deal-breaker for me. I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama in November...but I won't work to get him elected. All my enthusiasm is gone, like the air in your lungs when you get the wind knocked out of you.

Lairderg July 6th, 2008 5:38 pm
"...if we have ANY freedoms after this year. Just remember, you had your chance these past eight years."

Just curious, what have the DemocRATS done in the last 8 years in defense of our freedoms that would merit a vote for them? Well, what have they done? This is what they've done:

1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here

Now, Lairderg, what is it the DemocRATS haven't done to us already that you expect them do if elected?

I disagree with sending Obama any significant amount of money as leverage to encourage him to reverse his many blatantly pro neo-con positions (i.e. AIPAC,NAFTA,pro-growth, public funding, support of agrobusiness in the ethanol scam, support of medical and insurance companies in health care system, opposition to the June 2008 Report of the Task Force on a Responsible Withdrawl from Iraq)

Better still, maybe if the millions who voted for his nomination were to send a symbolic one dollar "protest contribution" rather than a $100 dollars, along with a threat to vote for Nadar/Gonzalex in objection to his many reversals and political backtracking, Obama and his handlers mightd justd get the point.

John,
In 2000, you supported Ralph. Things have gotten so bad it's time to return to Ralph. I have come to face this reality. You should too.

In a few hours, I am calling Obama's office. I will tell them that, if Obama votes for this bill, I will vote for McCain: at least McCain is honest about the ways in which he intends to screw us over.

Note: I am talking about making a threat only to make a point.

Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars.

I sent my $50 to Cindy this month, anyone else helping her replace a real loser.

Politicians win elections, idealogues never do. Wouldn't it be better if the more liberal of the two won?

ascott, Nice try Republican

Nader, Mckinney, Ron Paul, anybody but the kissasses in dc.

Hey 'toast', are you as disappointed in murrays vote as I am? Why do these two WA dem senators seem to have a habit of canceling out their voice with opposing votes? Do they flip a coin to see whose turn is up to vote on the right side of an issue? One of our big problems is the very weak representatives we have. When you look at the Kennedys, Feingolds, Durbins, RI Reid and then compared to the little, weak voices and we have nothing. WA can do much better.

Citizenblog points to a column by Glenn Greenwald and to the comments afterward as evidence of Feingold's contradictions. I read and reread the article and the comments and have no idea what citizenblog is talking about.

Can anyone here give us some documentation on how this compromise or cave-in gives the government greater ability to tap Americans phones without warrants.

Does anyone here think they could win a civil case against their phone company ?

Where would you get the evidence that your phone was tapped?

Would this civil lawsuit also distract from the criminal acts of Bush against the constitution?

Just sounds like a much to-do about nothing. Unless we would know that somebody would pay for this lawsuit and convince us it would win, do we need another gesture that wouldn't prevent anything?

Jim Glover July 7th, 2008 12:59 pm
Jim this morning on Pacifica Radio KPFK in LA I heard an ATT technician was being called as a witness. He could verify the tapping of phones but the law suit will likely be thrown out.

Are you arguing that it's okay to break the law if no one can prove you did? Is it okay to break the law if the plaintiff can't win in court? Does that make it okay to break the law? So that should be the standard, breaking laws is fine as long as you can't get caught.-WRONG!

"...sounds like a much to-do about nothing..."
- I strongly disagree, this has to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.

Jim do you think these are much to do about nothing? What is not much to do about nothing? What is important?

Tailcap you miss my point.

If it is not effective it is not important....

A civil case which cannot be proved because NSA records and methods are all top secret.

It is important if it is winnable but if something is held out as winnable but is a distraction, I am asking could we be led down another dead end street?

That is what I mean by What is important.

If we take up a losing civil case and lose, who will want to take up anything criminal?

Now I have heard that there are two systems, Criminal and Civil.

Someone is saying they are the same, I am suggesting that this being tested in Civil Court is a distraction and a delaying tactic at best.

I am tired of people leading us down Dead ends, that is all.

Give me some hope here of what good would come of a civil case against the phone company... You said the technicians law suit will likely be thrown out.... that is not encouraging...

I am not saying your wanting law and order is not important, I am saying choose your battlefields wisely.

Borack H. Obama has not the financial or military experience to lead. John McCain has not the financial experience. But he does have the military experience. To compare Obama with McCain, John F. Kennedy, Or even Elvis Pressly is insane. Obama never served in the armed forces of the USA.Moreover Obama has duel double citizenship.One parent is American.The other is from another country.If Arnold Swashaneger, governor of California, is not allow to run for president, why should Obama? Because Obama has two allegiances. One for the USA, and the other is for Kenya in SE Africa; where his father is from.

Jim, "You said the technicians law suit will likely be thrown out…. that is not encouraging… "
-The only reason it'll get thrown out is because the DemocRATS will supply the Repugs with the votes they'll need to be able to grant these Telecom criminals immunity. I think these cases are vitally important to fight, win or lose.

Should Rosa Parks have not refused to give up her seat based on the fact the bus driver was going to pull over, call the police and get her thrown in jail? She didn't win that battle. That battle was lost but the war against codified, institutionalized racism was eventually won after a long, hard, bitter fight that cost MLK his life.

If MLK was told he wasn't going to win his fight in court do you think MLK would have given up? What makes MLK great?

How do you know ahead of time which cases can be won and which cannot? If you lose the first battle should the war be quickly given up? Should battles against oppression be only fought if they are guaranteed to be easily won the first time attempted? What's worth fighting for regardless of odds? Anything?

Luis Contreras July 7th, 2008 1:38 pm
Why do we need a military leader? Why do we need to be fighting in Iraq, Luis?

No Tailcap, I am not saying what you are saying....

You still haven't given me any documentation on how this bill gives the government More power to tap your phone without a warrant.

Now since this is the big complaint, help me out here.
Defend your position with facts please, I already know about Rosa Parks ...What I want to know is where are your facts?

Would this civil law suit win or would it distract for the Crimes of Bush!
Crimes should be tried in Criminal court..... Now if this bill Gives Criminal immunity to Bush or the Phone company, then that is much different.

Maybe not to you but I think it is important not to waste energy... Now you can lecture me on the history of struggle all you want but Rosa Parks did what she had to do at the right time. She was tired of Dead end streets too.