Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have been getting an incredible amount of free air time, hours of it, on the major news outlets, even on FOX. Is the media going to choose this president also?
Yes, I realize they are making history, based on race and gender, but we are voting for the most important leader of the world !! We aren’t voting a popularity contest and the winner goes home with a trophy and a million bucks, this is voting for someone who is going to impact our everyday lives, and our place in the world. I have heard Sen. Obama say things that sound as if he thinks he would be above the Constitution. This DOES matter, that document was written by men whose recent ancestors escaped an extremely violent society led, at times, by those who refused to follow any laws of decency. Our Constitution was designed to prevent that abuse, and the checks and balances are there to protect us from another tyrant; however, we are in danger of throwing it all away if we neglect our responsibility and vote for a president who does as he pleases, and appoints a cabinet with his values. Be careful how you use the freedom our ancestors bought with their blood and sweat and tears, and then laid it at our feet, trusting us to treasure it as they did. 7-6-08

I am undeclared, although it is clear that electing McCain is the only way to maintain divided government for the next two years. I phrase it this way, because I want to work through the counter arguments on my blog and on the Donk. Besides, I need something to write about over the next four months, since I find both candidates (considered in a vacuum) unacceptable on purely libertarian principles. This is truly a “lesser of two evils” decision for me. The two best counter arguments to voting for divided government is the one you mention (We need unified Dem government to roll back Republican abuses) and considering the Iraq War as an over-riding stand-alone issue that takes precedence over all other considerations.

Is that going to be enough? Consider. The Dems will pick up at least 20 seats in the house and perhaps as many as 70. They will pick up at least 5 seats in the Senate and perhaps as many as 10. This is not really going to be a decision between Obama and McCain.

It is potentially a decision between:

A) Barack Obama + Nancy Pelosi leading a 100 seat majority in the House of Representatives + Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton leading a 60-40 filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

B) John McCain + Nancy Pelosi leading a 100 seat majority in the House of Representatives + Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton leading a 60-40 filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

I submit that having the opposition party so marginalized in option A is dangerous in the extreme. At no point during the disaster that was the six year run of unified Republican Party Government, did they ever wield that level of power over the Democrats.

The question I think everyone needs to ask:

“Do you really trust Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Stoyer and the Democrats with that much unfettered power? “

Well, you’re suspecting incorrectly.

I know the situation very well, and whereas you say a comparison to Bush’s previous provisions is irrelevant, I think that ignores something which is plainly inevitable. Is it true that Bush’s awful FISA provisions have expired? Yes. Of course. Anybody who follows this knows that happened, and I didn’t think I had to state that I knew this.

However, the reality is that a new bill is coming, and quickly. 68 senators voted for a reupping of FISA earlier this year, which include a much more lax version telcom immunity. Then it was sent to the House, which made the immunity clauses more stringent. As opposed to the Senate version, the House’s forces telcoms to make sure they have a court find that they meet certain conditions for immunity. That’s a distinct difference, and since this train has left that station (even though you and Greenwald want to wish it hasn’t) it’s an important one.

So, again, your argument that this erodes civil liberties from current FISA laws completely ignores the fact that the law is destined to change very soon anyway. My position acknowledges this reality and favors a pragmatic solution where we get more oversight instead of less.

Seen in this light, the 3 AM reference is even less apt in challenging myself and Obama. This isn’t a “the terrorists are going to get us if we don’t pass this” situation, and neither I nor Obama have suggested anything remotely close to this. Instead, this is understanding the realities of the situation and finding the best solution that meets the needs of now. The 3 AM ad was nebulous, and therefore pure and blatant fear mongering.

Switching gears…

So you’re voting for McCain? Still, you’re divided government theory doesn’t hold up if your aim is to get more civil liberties instead of fewer. The only way that will happen is with a unified Democratic government that can roll back the abuses of the Bush administration. You and I both know this is a much more likely scenario and so it clearly falls outside of your philosophical approach.

“Simply put, the new FISA bill is better than what had existed before because it forces the government to get warrants before “wiretapping” inside the US”-jg

I guess this all depends on what you mean by “what existed before”. I suspect you don’t really understand the current status of FISA. If you mean it is better than the Bush Administration sponsored “Protect America Act” that passed last August, then your statement is true, but also irrelevant. That law expired in February when Congress failed to reach an agreement to extend it. We are now operating again under the original FISA law passed in 1978, as amended over the years. That law already permits wide latitude for the executive to electronically eavesdrop, and has worked fine over the years for that purpose, with many legislators and scholars asserting that it does not need an overhaul, but rather just some fine tuning. By comparison to the current law, the FISA “compromise” just passed is far far worse, with many loopholes that the executive can abuse to bypass or ignore the jurisdiction of the FISA court.

“The bill no longer allows wiretapping without warrants, and Greenwald’s assertion that it legalizes this just because telcoms get off the hook is just plain wrong and is not, as he states, a “fact”. This new bill removes the “we don’t have time for warrants” practice that this administration previously engaged in, and that’s a HUGE step in the right direction.”-jg

The original FISA bill that is current law does not allow wiretapping without warrants. It never did. The Bush administration simply chose to violate this law with the complicity of the Telcos. The FISA compromise grants retroactive immunity for this illegal activity, and codifies procedures that would permit the executive branch to continue to permanently exploit loopholes and exceptions in the future, with far less protection than we have now. And that is a HUGE step in the wrong direction. You also misread Greenwald. That is not what he said.

“how you equate criticism of Hillary’s 3 AM ad as being inconsistent with supporting a FISA compromise is beyond me…”-jg

That is because I was not equating them. I was questioning how you could be so critical of Hillary’s 3AM ad as the “politics of fear” in what is after all only a campaign ad, but accept Obama’s identical use of the “politics of fear” as a rationale for surrendering constitutional protections.

“Obama sought compromise on ONE piece of legislation that restored some of our civil rights with regards to FISA activities.”-jg

No it doesn’t. Flat wrong. It erodes civil rights from current FISA law.

“if you really think that voting for Republicans for Congress will result in more civil liberties … what if you vote for a Republican congress and a Dem president, but McCain gets elected? Your theory just got thrown out of the window.”-jg

Actually I have consistently stated that the Republicans absolutely cannot regain either the House or Senate in 2008 and in fact will certainly lose ground in both houses in 2008. Further I have stated repeatedly in other posts that the only way to avoid a single party government is to elect a Republican president. I am not happy with that choice either (stay tuned for a future post on the subject of limited choices) If these recent polls hold up, that is not going to happen anyway. It is choice of bad and worse, so I’ll probably choose bad. The first opportunity the Republicans will have to regain either house will be in 2010. We will likely have at least two years to see just how good the Dems will be at “restoring civil liberties”, controlling spending, exercising fiscal responsibility, managing the corrupting earmarks, etc when they have all the keys to the castle. They will have no governor on their worst impulses just as the Republicans did not. And they will likely behave and govern just as badly. That is the historical precedent of single party government.

“…there are simply too many holes in the divided government philosophy for anybody but yourself to really buy into it.”-jg

au contraire, mon ami. You can do your own googling or technorati searches if you want, but I’ve noticed an increasing number of MSM and higher profile bloggers starting to promote it. I think it is at the beginning stages of ramping up as a meme. I saw a similar pattern as we ramped into the mid-terms in ‘06. Of course, then it was partisan Dems that thought it was a good idea, while partisan Republicans pooh-poohed it. This time it will be the partisan Republicans that embrace it while partisan Democrats reject it. It may get more play this time because it is really the only good reason for independents and/or libertarians to vote for McCain. I’d guess the meme can swing as much as 5-8% of the indy vote.

As I said, if the current polls hold up it won’t matter. The swing vote gets swamped. If it is a close election, it is an argument that could make a difference. We’ll see.

I don’t think MW’s discussion of the FISA amendment as it stands is all that flawed; frankly, I think your interpretation is a little to kind. You say it no longer allows wiretapping without warrants, but it does allow the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any review. Furthermore, what oversight is provided is minimal. Under the proposal, the FISA Court reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected, but does not require the court know who, what or where or when tapping will occur. The bill also lacks language about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications. The bill also permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” Assuming the government even follows this (you know, like the Bush administration followed the existing FISA laws–oh yeah, they didn’t, so why do you assume future governments will follow this?) And that does not even address the Telco immunity.

As for Divided Government as a philosophy, well, to me it’s always been a Pascal’s Wager kind of thing….it’s not the best we can do, but it puts the breaks on the worst.

First, here’s my post about the FISA compromise, which was written before I knew Obama was supporting it. Simply put, the new FISA bill is better than what had existed before because it forces the government to get warrants before “wiretapping” inside the US.

Second, how you equate criticism of Hillary’s 3 AM ad as being inconsistent with supporting a FISA compromise is beyond me. The bill no longer allows wiretapping without warrants, and Greenwald’s assertion that it legalizes this just because telcoms get off the hook is just plain wrong and is not, as he states, a “fact”. This new bill removes the “we don’t have time for warrants” practice that this administration previously engaged in, and that’s a HUGE step in the right direction. If it takes immunity for past telcom action to get there, then I’m for that. And that’s engaging in the art of what’s possible, not what’s ideal.

Third, this post is more reactionary and fear filled than any legislation Obama voted for, and, as such, is much more akin to Hillary’s 3 AM ad. Obama sought compromise on ONE piece of legislation that restored some of our civil rights with regards to FISA activities. You and I both know that this doesn’t come anywhere close to McCain’s record on sanctioning torture and stripping people of Habeas rights.

Last, and certainly not least, while I respect your divided government theory, if you really think that voting for Republicans for Congress will result in more civil liberties and adherence to the Constitution, I fear you’re convincing yourself of something that the facts don’t support. Republicans will fight a Dem president tooth and nail because terrorism is one of the only issues they have left to claim some amount of leadership on. Also, what if you vote for a Republican congress and a Dem president, but McCain gets elected? Your theory just got thrown out of the window.

Again, an intriguing post, but there are simply too many holes in the divided government philosophy for anybody but yourself to really buy into it.