In regard to FISA,.as I’ve already pointed out before, this is a meaningless vote that tells us very little about what Obama will do as President, except that he’s not the kind of guy who will shoot himself in the foot out of principle. What we do know is that as a senator he can’t stop this bill from passing with or without telecom immunity. As for violating the fourth amendment, if it does do that, there are court challenges that can be made, and as President Obama can change the law seeing as how he will have a compliant congress at his side. At the moment, it merely signals that he’s not trying to hamstring the efforts to fight terrorism and make pretty speeches about civil liberties that mean nothing in either the short or the long run. As mentioned before and ignored by you, Obama has for months said that as soon as he gets into office, he will ask his attorney general to investigate any lawbreaking by the previous administration, and prosecute if the case warrants it. This is the real way to curb government abuse of the law, not to go after private companies who were coerced by the government to assist them in breaking the law.

I find it strange that you feel free to declare Obama’s future actions as President already known and determined, and thus criticizable in advance. This is a wondrous crystal-ball you have that tells you the future with such accuracy, but I somehow am skeptical of your abilities. The idea that any President can put out a set of principles and actions during his campaign that he will then follow to a T is a naive fantasy. It’s not even a question of a candidate being duplicitous, it’s that even he doesn’t know how he’s going to respond to future situations. George Bush ran against nation-building in 2000, only to embark on the biggest nation-building exercise in our country’s history two years later. I doubt Obama or McCain will deviate in such an extreme fashion from his platform, but I also doubt either will adhere to it with strict purity either. Ron Paul for some reason is not on either party’s ballot, so if strict purity of principle is your thing, this has got to be a frustrating election. Of course, strict purity of principle never gets anything done, as Ron Paul amply shows. He can make strict promises about such things precisely because he will never have the responsibility of carrying out such policies.

The question of what Obama will actually do as President is a good one, but not actually answerable until he becomes President. Trying to read the tea leaves of very minor or functionally inconsequential shifts in emphasis in his campaigning as signifying incontrovertable corruption and equivalence to the Bush-McCain policy agenda is, well, just not serious. It makes for satisfying hissy fits from the purists, but doesn’t actually change anything real about his candidacy. Politics has always required that we vote and hope, without always knowing what we are voting for. On the other hand, I can understand you general frustration with Obama, in that however you look at him, he’s not Ron Paul, and if that is your prefered candidate, he’s going to fall way short of expectations.

Sullivan is in too deep to back out now. It’s mind-boggling to me how someone could simultaneously say that his/her heart is with Ron Paul while fervently championing the case for an Obama presidency. And HE is the judge of pragmatism???

After reading his response to your post, it’s clear to me he’s on the defensive. Once the Iraq withdrawal issue is essentially off the table (after Obama’s trip, the two parties will be essentially equal in their policy stances), there is no reason to vote for Obama. He will continue to increase the welfare state, continue our military and diplomatic foreign interventions, and he will show little regard to self-government. Change we can believe in!!!

That’s why he can get worked up about one thing, but ignore other outrages, despite any possible oddity to it all. I still read his blog because it’s “important” (largely as a linkblog, but also so I’m prepared when I hear his arguments repeated in my social sphere), but I never expect to agree with him even when we’re behind the same issue.

Also, when you see religious traditionalists and separationists lining up together on these faith-based initiative issues, it’s always worth remembering that Madison – still the shrewdest political operative in American history – was a separationist precisely because intermingling is bad for both government and religion. An Obama presidency is going to lead to a lot of liberals arguing that the Bush administration’s tactics were only bad because it wasn’t our guys doing it. Embarrassing.