The FISA Fallout

Disclaimer: I meant to post this last week, but some things (i.e. some little person) came up!

I’ve been slowly absorbing and reading up on what exactly has prompted media outlets to cover the community backlash Barack Obama recently received from his decision on the recent FISA bill. I didn’t really have an immediate reaction from his actions outright, but after reading multiple commentaries, reading his blog response, and reading even more comments from blogs who posted his response, I felt another perspective needed to be thrown out there.

For those catching up to the issue, essentially, Barack promised, during his campaigning for the nomination, that he would reject and filibuster any proposal that would give the ‘ok’ to still President Bush and his executive constituents that completely violated the 4th amendment (right to improper search and seizure) through their unwarranted wiretaps and spying of Americans in the name of the Patriot Act. FISA, an agency used as a checks and balances to such government grievances, was pretty much castrated after the Patriot Act. The recent FISA bill, which aimed to eventually give some power back to this agency, proposed retroactive immunity (read: ‘get out of jail’ card) to telecommunications companies who had already violated Americans 4th amendment rights in the past by giving their info the government without cause. By voting ‘Yes’, Barack appears to have reversed his position in what could be deemed to appeal to independent voters who support measures to ‘protect Americans from terrorism by any means necessary’. He wrote a blog post explaining his position, his most ardent supporters cried foul (and a lot of other things), and here we are now. Caught up? Good. Let’s analyze.

I have a feeling that most of the people who completely choose to jump ship from Obama’s campaign probably have never been President of an organization, been in a meeting for hours upon hours, tabled discussions, and mediated resolutions between convicted polar opposite members. The ability to compromise, as Obama stated in his blog response of voting for a ‘not as evil’ bill, shows tremendous leadership quality. While examples can be made when standing firm, the actions of a leader must be indicative of the entire body an ultimately attempt to reflect the whole. Just as the most liberal constituent exclaims the narrow thinking of their conservative counterpart, they too must not be narrow in mind. We all know (now) that the Patriot Act is a formalized version of Wild West policy. Completely banishing your ‘champion’ because he chooses to slowly erode away at harmful policies doesn’t make him any less of a leader. Lest we not forget that he has to win in order to make REAL change. He is a politician and that IS a factor, no matter how idealistic we want our nominee to be on all issues.

[via CNN]