BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
A JOURNALIST'S FIRST RESPONSIBILITY:
TO PROTECT HIS FAVORED CANDIDATE, OR THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW?
As anyone who has regularly read my column is fully aware, I've been one of Barack Obama's most fervent supporters since hours after he first declared his intention to seek the presidency, and I continue to support that effort. But I was bitterly disappointed with the position he's taken on the FISA bill now before the U.S. Senate, and I've been quite vociferous in making that disappointment known to all who would listen.
On June 20th Senator Barack Obama announced that he was supporting the current FISA bill before the senate. That bill gives retroactive immunity to all telecommunications companies against all private law suits for cooperating with the Bush administration's program of spying on the American people without a court order, as currently required by current law.
If that bill is passed, it will preclude private law suits that would reveal when they started spying on the American people, who they spied on, their justification for spying on them (in cases where it was unjustified), and who the information went to.
Bush claims that it wouldn't prevent criminal charges from being brought against administration officials for abuse, but if the administration remains true to form, once the bill is passed, Bush will simply give a blanket pardon to all those involved.
Obama's position on this issue is a complete departure from the position he took during the primaries while running against Hillary Clinton. While he "missed" the vote on a similar bill by the senate on February 12, he issued a statement indicating, "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty."
I've been roundly criticized by fellow Obama supporters for bringing this issue out. They say that "I'm hurting our candidate", and "I'm not seeing the big picture." But in response I suggest, when truth becomes a hindrance to a candidate's viability, truth is not the problem--the candidate is the problem . And when the "greater good" involves journalists keeping the people in the dark, the nation has a problem. It's not up to journalists to keep Obama's candidacy viable--it's up to Obama.
While I desperately want to see Obama become our next president, we simply cannot allow him to take our vote for granted. We must support ideals, not individuals. What is the sense of voting for a class of people who feel safe in ignoring us once they get into office. I understand that Obama is going to have to make some compromises, but we're talking about modifying the United States Constitution here! If he'll do that, what else might he do?
I'd like to ask my fellow Obama supporters a question: Would you think your arguments regarding remaining mute in order to get Obama elected still be valid if he came up with a reason to justify supporting an assault on the Voter's Rights Act, or a Woman's Right to Choose? Would you still be as adamant about keeping it on the down-low? Well, his position with respect to FISA is every bit as serious, and as a journalist, I have an obligation to inform the people of that fact. We simply cannot pick and choose what rights are important, and which ones we can do without.
When a journalist start saying to himself, I can't tell the people that, because it may hurt my candidate , it's time for that journalist to stop writing, because then, he's no longer a journalist--he's a political hack. If I did it, I'd be buying into the very same philosophy that too many journalists have embraced over the past seven years with regard to Bush.
My first allegiance is to the people, and the American ideal that keeps them secure within their person, and only then, to a particular political candidate. I can't allow myself the luxury of getting so caught up in a personality cult that it obscures my objectivity. Thus, I'm not at war with Obama due to one isolated decision--I'm at war with a political class who feels free to ignore the will, and best interest, of the people. Therefore, I'm not moving away from Obama, he's moving away from me.
We've already gone much too far down the road of comprimise. As I mentioned in an earlier article, they started chipping away at the constitution when Ford pardoned Nixon. Then they went a little further when Reagan was not impeached after Iran/contra, and he flooded the Black community with drugs to finance his illegal war in contravention of the Boland Amendment. Now congress is refusing to address the lie that Bush told to take us into Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and allowing Bush cronies to ravish the treasury, and take away our right to due process.
And now, in spite of the fact that Bush's job approval is at 28%, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich spent over five hours listing 35 articles of impeachment against the Bush/Chenney administration, they've been buried by this Democratic congress because Democratic Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is insisting, "impeachment is off the table."
Now, this brother comes along talking about change, yet, not only supports blocking an opportunity to investigate Bush's spying on millions of Americans, but gives retroactivity immunity to both the administration officials, and the communication companies involved, precluding any law suits by private citizens, to bring out the facts regarding this abuse of the American people. So exactly what do they have to do before I have permission to speak out?
So to Sen. Obama: I urge you to reconsider your position on this bill. Your current position is not only a gross assault on the rights of the people, but it's greatly undermining your credibility among many of your most ardent supporters. The entire thrust of your campaign has been about change. So I have but one question begging to be asked--when?
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
1 comment:
I woke up in the middle of the night thinking about Obama and America. I guess it occurred to me that what is currently going on is not the free exercise of decision making by the American people, but, frankly, the ultimate in bullshit. The obscene amount of money being spent on this election should send us all a message. People do not invest money in a losing cause. They expect a return on their investment, they expect to see some more money in their pockets after the election. And the symbolic value of Obama is not that a black man can become president, but that if a black man does become president he will not act differently from a white man.
He will not paint the White House black, there will be no ribs and grits served at state dinners, there will not be loud parties and fights on weekend nights. Oh there will be some stylistic changes, and more African Americans and women will be able to feed at the money trough, but nothing substantial will happen.
America, you see, is about money. (Oh, you know that already!) We have spent enough on this election to provide meals for every hungry child in the nation. Or to end homelessness, or to provide for every wounded veteran in town. Ask yourselves why we have a mortgage crisis, why the government keeps bailing out failing industries in what is supposedly a capitalistic nation where the "market" is supposed to decide the fate of big businesses. Ask why individuals are permitted to build in forests susceptible to fire, or in flood plains, on on hurricane-prone sea shores and why, in every case when nature does the expected it is taxpayers, the governments that put out the fires, rescue people from floods, provide insurance for lost homes and permit the victims to build all over again in the same location. An endless succession of money-making disasters.
Ask why our government permits commodities speculators to force the prices of oil and foods up so high that millions of people will not be able to heat their homes and feed their families this winter. They can stop the speculation, but that might interfere with that so-called freedom people with money like to talk about. It is all an illusion, my friends, simply bullshit. We don't have to permit CEOs to make those obscene salaries; we could just as easily declare a maximum wage as a minimum one. We could make rules for mortgage purchases, we could change how we look at building and occupying homes, we could even do something about education if we really wanted to. But there are investments by unions, school boards, politicians that hold back any changes that would bring education into this century. Summer vacations, having education controlled by non-professionals on school boards, tenure, etc. are all out of the past and not part of any reasonable future. But there are dollars involved and we wouldn't want to interfere with that, would we?
The main thing I am realizing is how we subjugate our own common sense to the ridiculous thought that we are electing a President to serve the needs of the masses.. Barack will be an interesting change only because he serves different masters. The war is no longer popular, but don't forget that it once was. Billions of dollars have been made on that war, but time has run out on them and all that are left are oil revenues to be divided up.
Do I sound cynical in this rant? Of course I am. But no matter how much we want to change the subject, America is not about race, or religion, or skin color--it is simply about money. Money will determine the next president, what kind of laws he supports, whether or not we stay at war, what we do about global warming, and so on down a long list. I'm tired now. I'm going back to sleep. Just like the rest of my fellow Americans.
Peace and love to you all
Post a Comment