I’ve posted before on the phenomenon were witnessing of Obama supporters who for years have said they oppose President Bush because “he lies,” now saying they can support Senator Obama because they’re sure he’s lying on critical issues.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about provided by litigation attorney Armando Llorens who blogs as Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left.
His post is titled: My View: I Do Not Believe Obama On The FISA Capitulation Bill. It follows in full, with my comments below the star line.
Yesterday, Barack Obama said:
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."I do not believe Barack Obama. I will go further. I do not want to believe him. Because the alternative is worse. Because if Obama believes the BS he said about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is not fit to be President. More . . .
If Barack Obama really believes this about the FISA Capitulation bill, then he is as dangerous as George W. Bush:
[G]iven 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."(Emphasis supplied.) Excuse me, but the Constitution does not work that way. Firm pledges from the President do not compensate for evisceration of the Constitutional right to privacy. As John Adams said:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.(Emphasis supplied.) Obama's "firm pledge," (given he pledged to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity, the irony of his new pledge is nauseating), IF HE WINS is worth nothing. His position here is nothing short of disgusting.
But politics is disgusting. And pols do what they do. I remind Barack Obama of the words of Louis Brandeis:
Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.They tell me Obama is a Constitutional scholar. I assume he is familiar with Brandeis' words. So no, I do not believe he believes this FISA Capitulation bill is good or even acceptable. I believe he is acting out of political calculation (and bad political calculation at that.) Indeed, if that is not the case, then his position is unacceptable and he is not fit to be President.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
If you find what you’ve just read hard to believe, go here to Talk Left and check it for yourselves.
Part of the problem many liberals and leftists are having with Obama’s FISA shift has to do with the position many of them took relative to President Bush and FISA. According to these liberals and leftists what President Bush did constituted impeachable actions. Now here’s Obama saying he’ll vote for FISA and will administer it as President.
But as Big Tent Democrat makes very clear in his post title and post, he and others view FISA as a capitulation allowing presidential action they hold is impeachable.
So how are they going to vote for Obama under those circumstances?
That’s when they resort to telling each other: “It’s OK. Our guy's lying.”
They have to do that because “if that is not the case, then [Obama’s] position is unacceptable and he is not fit to be President.”