Senate democrats are preparing to capitulate to the republicans on yet another issue. No wonder the democrats are seen as the weaker party.
While Senator Obama has the excuse of not wanting to appear too liberal, what happened to the other democrats? Where is "the fighter" that many of us supported? Some, including me, thought that it would look like Senator Clinton is undermining Barack Obama if she opposes FISA. But is how you appear to some Obama supporters more important than protecting the constitution? I hear that Senator Clinton has released a statement opposing retroactive immunity(couldn't find a link to it anywhere though), but I am sure that Senator Clinton could sway at least a few other senators if she comes out strongly against it (call Senator Clinton).

Today's NYTimes editorial starts

Congress has been far too compliant as President Bush undermined the Bill of Rights and the balance of powers. It now has a chance to undo some of that damage -- if it has the courage and good sense to stand up to the White House and for the Constitution.

This is a real opportunity for Senator Obama. Senator Obama can show that he is strong, if he stands by what he said in January, rather than capitulating to a minority republicans (some of whom may not be there next year) and a president with 23% approval rating.

But, while they decide on capitulating so easily, we can still continue our efforts. Here's what you can do

Call your senators using the simple tool
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/fisa
or
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?ale rtId=389&pg=makeACall

Tell them to:

• Support the rule of law and vote YES on the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy and Bingaman amendments.
• Oppose expansion of government surveillance powers and vote NO on the FISA bill

If you would like to join us, please call your Senator, join the group on myBO and Facebook, and help get the word out!

Check out the new discussion forum at getfisaright.com!

Politics is a strange, and often fascinating, process. People get involved with politics for any of a number of reasons. Some people view politics as a game. Others view it as a participatory sport. Some see it as a means to make a living, or in some cases, a fortune. I can understand all of those views, but I don't share them.

To me, politics is a means to an end. In my view, politics should be used to advance an agenda. When played for any other reason, such as fun, to gain power, for profit, or even as a means to pass the time, politics becomes about you. When this happens, politics ceases to be a means to an end and becomes nothing more than an ego trip.

What does all of this have to do with PUMA? It's really quite simple. The people in PUMA and like-minded groups have a purpose. You may not like their goals. I know I don't. You and I may disagree with their tactics, or their rhetoric, or even their goals, but that doesn't take away the fact that they are working towards an end result.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the “Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right” group is rapidly growing. An open letter was sent to senator Obama's office this morning and they are preparing a response to this.

(We continue to hear that they're working on a statement, but it's getting late, so we decided to take the initiative to make sure we have something out before the weekend.

Please repost widely! - promoted by JonPincus)

            sent by Mike Stark to Senator Obama's office and his campaign at roughly 11:45 a.m. EDT today.  also posted on the Get FISA right wiki and elsewhere)

Dear Senator Obama,

On October 24, 2007, your campaign spokesman said, “To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.”

On June 20, 2008 you said, of retroactive immunity, “I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.”

As the largest grass-roots group on your campaign website, my.BarackObama.com, and in the spirit of your open/responsive government campaign pledges, we wish to share our ideas for how we may work together to further the goal of eliminating retroactive immunity from the FISA legislation scheduled for debate in the Senate next week. Although this is only one of the problems we see with legislation allows the government to wiretap the communications of its citizenry without a warrant, it’s the area we think we can help you the most.

First, Senator Obama, we ask that you make the same tools that we used to call undecided voters in Iowa and New Hampshire available for us to call our fellow citizens in West Virginia, Nebraska, Delaware, Florida and other states that have Senators committed to voting against the amendment that would strip telecom immunity. You have the tools and we have the people power. Together, we are confident we can bring Change; we can make the government listen to the people instead of the telecom lobbyists.

Second, Senator Obama, we ask that you attend the Senate debate and schedule floor time to speak about the violence done to the rule of law when Congress retroactively immunizes the illegal conduct of a special interest. We know you understand that justice should not be sold to the highest special interest bidder; we also know that you can persuade other Senators that are not so clear on the issue. Of course, if you do this, our committed members will surely capture the video of your inspiring oratory, load it to YouTube and spread your words to our friends and family far and wide. We trust in your ability to bring a new way of doing business to Washington and look forward to helping you make that Change a reality.

Senator Obama, the my.BarackObama.com caption reads, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I’m asking you to believe in yours.” We’re ready to put these words into practice.

Thank you.

The 15,000+ (and rapidly growing) members

Please join the group “Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right” to show your support for the effort against FISA.

Obama's recent push toward the Christian community, especially as it comes to a White House connection to something resembling Bush's policies, has me a little edgy. The recent poll revelation that roughly 92% of Americans are believers in some form of religion (with Christians by far in the lead) puts me in a shaky 8% that misses the true separation of church and state that Jefferson enjoyed.

While riding in to work this morning and listening to public radio do a story on the Middle East, they gave up the statistic that over 80% of Arabs are convinced that the US's position in the Iraqi and Afghanistani campaigns is to replace Islam with Christianity, therefor giving Al Quaeda it's strongest recruiting message.

An article on Huffington Post this morning talked about Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's heir apparent) questioning Obama in public on whether or not he was a Muslim and trying to bring him to Christ in front of a group of clerics Obama was meeting with.

All of this is making me feel so far to the outside that I fear the worst happening both in the US and in the World.

Atheists rarely stand up proudly to declare their non-belief. More likely, they wish to be ignored by believers... left alone and unbothered. The organizations which have formed around atheism (The Brights, The Humanists, etc.) seem like they are competing more for membership and money than for the freedom from believing that everything is God-created and that we are doomed to hell for not taking part in the Jesus chorus.

It doesn't matter, it seems, whether you support a Democrat or a Republican. Both sides want to tie themselves to pastors and priests who advocate the most outlandish things... and who, when these things don't happen on schedule (you can look back for centuries and see the Rapture as having been expected and missed several times), simply revise the due-date.  At all political levels we are seeing this stuff happening (the Governor of Louisiana, for instance, just signed into law a bill making creationism ... excuse me, "intelligent design"... a subject being taught to the youngest of schoolchildren) and it is getting worse.

When I was younger I thought we were getting farther from religion as a culture, but we have actually swung the other way. I fear that my grandchildren's grandchildren will never see a religion-free cultural climate. Perhaps they will be able to finally disengage at least elective politics from this bugaboo.

Under The LobsterScope

Evangelicals seem to be odd man out this political season. Their much-vaunted voting block isn't concrete-solid this time around. McCain courts them with little success, even after gratuitously changing his official religion from those darn liberal Episcopalians to the more palatable and conservative Baptists. Obama's working the liberal evangelicals with daily mentions of his faith and a new evangelical plank - faith-based initiatives.

La Bama isn't talking the moribund photo-op that God's Main ManTM kicked off to lefty howls and Congressional reticence. No, he'll give it a shiny new name - the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - and elevate it to the moral center of his administration. I'm not clear where the moral center of his administration is and whether jamming "neighborhood" into the title makes it taste any better to the opposition. We'll see.

It was lead balloon time when Obama raised the flag. The liberal rank and file did not salute. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State summed it up, "I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration. It ought to be shut down, not continued."

He's right about Bush policies being daft and there are legitimate concerns about the integrity of the firewall between church and state. However, Obama argues there's a great humanitarian need out there and the nation needs all the help it can get to fill it.

The US Constitution is a wonderfully malleable masterpiece. It's simultaneously steeped in tradition, yet remarkably fresh. That quality usually stands us in good stead, but requires lots of judicial interpretation - much of it extending "meanings" to cover issues the framers could never have imagined. Some call these decisions judicial activism. Others hail them as a forward-thinking, rational decisions. But with charges and counter-charges thick in the air, there's no reason to suspect the bickering over some amendments will end anytime soon.

The Second Amendment is one example of the Constitution getting it - if not wrong - at least too vague. There have been decades of debate about the definition of a militia. Lawmakers and the courts disagree on whether basic gun control laws are allowed. In fact, there's even controversy over what constitutes "arms" - pistols, high-powered automatic weapons, or bazookas. Even though the Second Amendment isn't a hot button issue for me, I find it interesting to hear the debate.

My conviction, even before Barack officially joined the race a year and a half ago, was that he could win the presidency by forging a definitive mandate for a progressive agenda and a new political culture. I thought he could pull off this feat with his unique vision, his rare ability to articulate that vision, his extraordinary creativity/imagination, and, of course, his native political skills.

Looks like I'll be proven wrong.