Obama Nation: Obama's "Centrist Swing"

"If you've been sprouting Chicken Little feathers in recent days, gnashing teeth over the nominee's reported "move to the center" (or "to the right")..." Please read on and hopefully we can help you see that they sky is not falling and Obama isn't a flip-flopper.

First, I'd like to mention the fact that Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, and he needs to win not only in the liberal states of MA and CA: he needs to win in the deep South and the Midwest!

So it is not a huge shocker that he is focusing on issues that matter to them, such as patriotism, service, crime, guns, and faith-based organizations.

Here is an article from The Independent, which outlines some of the core principles of Obama's Values Tour of the Midwest and highlights what Barack is up against in terms of the smear/rumor mill:

Along with Internet claims that he is a secret Muslim, some evangelical Christians have put it about that Mr Obama may be the anti-Christ. Glenda Kinzer, a 41-year-old office manager from rural Ohio believes the end of the world is about to occur and with it the second coming of Christ.

"A lot of people are talking about how Obama fits the description" of the anti-Christ, she said referring to Biblical prophesies about a figure who will oppose Christ.

Here is an article on Obama courting Middle America by countering the "Anti-Christ" image that has been thrust upon him.

The point is, people, we are not used to a candidate who campaigns in all 50 states. Usually Democrats try to win by leaning as far to the left as they can and dismissing the opinions and votes of anyone who might disagree (or even question the party line). Maybe that is why we've only won a handful of elections in the last 40 years?

"Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships"

Some liberals seem to have the idea that faith or faith-based organizations are inherently "bad" or "dangerous" and they point to the ever-important separation between church and state. Here is what I think: many people do amazing work for humanity within the auspices of faith-based groups; faith provides meaning and a call to service for many Americans; and faith does not have to be "code" for Christian.

A true "separation" between church and state is not what we have in America today: there is preferential treatment for Christian (especially Evangelical) groups, outright discrimination against Muslims, and a general marginalization of Jews, nonbelievers, and others. The fact that the word "God" appears in the "Pledge of Allegiance" and people swear on the Bible in court proceedings and when taking public office shows the relationship between church and state that permeates the American political machine. America does not have a true separation between church and state; Barack Obama wants to make these implicit relationships explicit and ensure that resources fairly distributed among the diverse people of this great nation.

Barack Obama: The fact is the challenges we face today, from saving our planet to ending poverty, are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need an “all hands on deck” approach. I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, and I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up. What I am saying is that we all have to work together—Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim, believer and nonbeliever alike—to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

Barack Obama's plan to fund faith-based organizations is different from George W. Bush's thinly veiled mechanism to funnel money to the religious right, because Obama will not use the type of faith as a barometer of funding eligibility. According to the McClatchy News Service, Obama would prohibit religious bias in hiring to guard church-state separation:

Obama's plan for a "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" departed from the Bush administration's stance on one fundamental issue: whether religious organizations that get federal funds for social services can take faith into account in their hiring. Bush has said yes. Obama said no.

Barack Obama: Well, I still believe that it’s a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular, but it has to be a real partnership, not a photo op.

And that’s what it will be when I’m president. I’ll establish a new council for faith-based and neighborhood partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This council will not just be another name on the White House organizational chart; it will be a critical part of my administration.

Obama estimated the program would cost about $500 million per year. He said he would keep Bush's 11 faith-based offices and expand participation by smaller religious groups, as well as secular and neighborhood groups. Click here for more information.

Democracy Now! (listen, read, or watch):
Barack Obama has pledged to expand a controversial White House program that funnels federal money to religious charities. Many Democrats are reportedly saying it's the most aggressive outreach to religious voters ever by the party's presidential nominee. We speak with the Reverend Jim Wallis, founder and president of Sojourners, the largest network of progressive Christians in the United States.

"Although other Democratic presidential candidates, such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore, also have embraced federal funding for faith-based initiatives," Obama has been risking protests in his own party with his aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republicans.

Obama's choice of religious center Colorado Springs for his visit Wednesday showed the degree to which he is courting Republican religious voters and trying to make McCain compete for their affections. A religious political action committee supporting Obama has a new pro-Obama radio aid to highlight his faith — and is airing it on Christian radio in Colorado Springs, among other places.

FISA

There has been a lot of controversy over the FISA bill, which has been "snuck" into a number of other pieces of legislation and so far had not passed the house/senate *until this week). The short story is that basically after 9/11 the federal gov't asked the phone companies to illegally give them information about American civilians and the phone companies complied (what else were they gonna do?).

The FISA bill effectively prohibits any civil penalties being retroactively invoked against the phone companies (so you can't sue the phone company for spying on you). It doesn't exclude the possibility of criminal charges though (which to me is more important anyway--our society is too litigious for our own good: winning money doesn't make everything better).

Obama had made a big statement about how he was going to fight the FISA bill, and many media outlets are reporting that he said he would filibuster it. I did some research and found that his campaign reported that he would support a filibuster, not that he would actually perform it:

“Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.”

You can read more about FISA and Obama here.

So the bill came to the Senate floor last week, and Obama did not participate in the vote.

He didn't vote for the FISA bill. He didn't vote against the FISA bill. He simply didn't vote at all. You can see his voting record (and other Senators votes) here.

Of course, I wish that Barack had been in a position to fight harder against this bill giving immunity to the telephone companies that illegally provided information about Americans to the government. Here is some criticism from the far left. And apparently the most popular group on mybarackobama.com is calling for him to take stronger action against FISA.

But let's pause here for a reality check: FISA passed 80 to 15.

The Democrats overwhelmingly supported the FISA bill (only 14 voted against it).

Barack was one of four Democrats who abstained from voting: The other three Dems who didn't vote were Hillary Clinton, Edward Kennedy, and Robert Byrd!

Every Republican voted for the FISA bill!

--except John McCain't didn't vote

(I don't hear anyone complaining about that).

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Barack would not have been able to stop anything with his vote. People who are angry that Obama didn't vote should first knock on the doors of their own Senators, like Feinstein (who actually voted FOR it!). Or maybe we could email the 31 Democratic Senators who supported the bill: "What the f**k? The whole party is voting for FISA?"

Seriously, why is it all up to Barack? We've all got to do our part: Obama's part right now is to win the election. The rest of the party has to tow the line: why are we pointing fingers at him when practically the whole party displayed cowardice through their votes on FISA?

and about that FILIBUSTER: Senators Feingold and Dodd were the ones who promised to filibuster, and as far as I could tell, no one is blowing up their email or calling for them to account for their lack of filibustering. They did vote against the FISA bill (along with Kerry, Boxer, Biden, etc). Amy Goodman spoke with Feingold before the vote:

Amy Goodman: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?

Sen. Russ Feingold: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through....We will also - Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor....

Amy Goodman: Would you filibuster, though?

Sen. Russ Feingold: That's what I just described.

As far as I could tell, there wasn't a filibuster. If there was one, I couldn't find any evidence or media coverage. So this makes me even more confused about why people are mad at Obama: he said he would support a filibuster if there was one and no one even tried. As for a filibuster by Obama (even though he never said he would do this), it would have been a ridiculous waste of time that would have been "spun" by the GOP machine as Obama holding hostage a captive audience of Senators for his own political purposes.

Barack Obama responded to the criticism from within his party about abstaining from voting on FISA on his website, and three of his top advisors were available online to respond to people's comments and questions. Read Barack's remarks and the full commentary here.

Barack Obama: Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.

I know that Barack said he would fight FISA, but there are some battles you know you're going to lose. In that case, you have to sit out in order to focus on larger goals.

When Obama wins the White House, he can repeal many of these unconstitutional laws that have been passed by the Bush Administration to the detriment of the American people. I'm sure Obama has a running list of unconstitutional legislation to strike from the books on his first day in office.

Barack Obama: The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I’m sworn in as President -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Even Russ Feingold commented that "When President Obama is president, he will, I'm sure, work to fix some of this...".

Barack Obama listens to Americans, he cares about America, and he wants to build a movement and a government that can sustain the diverse people of this nation:

I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable.

I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too.

I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country.

That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.

Barack Obama has called us to employ an "all hands on deck" approach to rebuilding this country's economy and shared destiny.