ryochiji (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ryochiji) wrote,@ 2008-07-18 11:23:00 |
|
rationalizing Obama's FISA vote
I, for one, have come to believe that Obama's FISA vote was not only rational, but the right choice given the circumstances. If he were just another Senator, then I would've been outraged by his vote, but he's not just another Senator; he's a presidential candidate. It is clear that he can do more for the country and the world as President than he could as the Senator of Illinois, and his first priority should be to win the presidential election.
With that in mind, let's look at what was at stake. Up for vote was a bill that was going to pass (it passed 69 to 28 -- with 3 not voting). His vote, for all practical intents and purposes, did not matter. Now, given that the vote it self didn't matter, what were the stakes? On the one hand, voting for it enraged and disenfranchised his loyal supporters, mostly on the far left. On the other hand, voting against it almost certainly would've been used by the Republicans as evidence of his "soft stance on National Security." At the end, this election (and most elections, actually) aren't decided by people like us, on the far left1. We're going to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter what2. The election is decided by the people in the middle; the moderates and independents. I don't have hard numbers, but my guess is polls have indicated that those in the middle want a candidate who at least doesn't look weak on national security. On the other hand, most of them probably don't know/care/understand the FISA bill. Did he make a compromise? Absolutely. Is he "making a move to the middle?" Of course! That's how you win. But here's the thing... I'd rather see Obama make strategic compromises and make it to the Oval Office, than to see him irrationally stick to liberal ideologies and let McCain be president.
There's a time when I'd like to see Obama take strong ideological stances on issues. But that time is not now. That time is when he's President of the United States.
---
1 At least that's normally the case. This election may be a little different since Obama's campaign did benefit substantially from grassroots supporters, both financially and organizationally. Having said that, I think he needed grassroots support in the primaries, more than he needs it in the general election where the entire party will be behind him.
2 a.k.a "Ryo's Law"... actually it might be the opposite of Ryo's Law.
I, for one, have come to believe that Obama's FISA vote was not only rational, but the right choice given the circumstances. If he were just another Senator, then I would've been outraged by his vote, but he's not just another Senator; he's a presidential candidate. It is clear that he can do more for the country and the world as President than he could as the Senator of Illinois, and his first priority should be to win the presidential election.
With that in mind, let's look at what was at stake. Up for vote was a bill that was going to pass (it passed 69 to 28 -- with 3 not voting). His vote, for all practical intents and purposes, did not matter. Now, given that the vote it self didn't matter, what were the stakes? On the one hand, voting for it enraged and disenfranchised his loyal supporters, mostly on the far left. On the other hand, voting against it almost certainly would've been used by the Republicans as evidence of his "soft stance on National Security." At the end, this election (and most elections, actually) aren't decided by people like us, on the far left1. We're going to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter what2. The election is decided by the people in the middle; the moderates and independents. I don't have hard numbers, but my guess is polls have indicated that those in the middle want a candidate who at least doesn't look weak on national security. On the other hand, most of them probably don't know/care/understand the FISA bill. Did he make a compromise? Absolutely. Is he "making a move to the middle?" Of course! That's how you win. But here's the thing... I'd rather see Obama make strategic compromises and make it to the Oval Office, than to see him irrationally stick to liberal ideologies and let McCain be president.
There's a time when I'd like to see Obama take strong ideological stances on issues. But that time is not now. That time is when he's President of the United States.
---
1 At least that's normally the case. This election may be a little different since Obama's campaign did benefit substantially from grassroots supporters, both financially and organizationally. Having said that, I think he needed grassroots support in the primaries, more than he needs it in the general election where the entire party will be behind him.
2 a.k.a "Ryo's Law"... actually it might be the opposite of Ryo's Law.
