Dan Eggen and Paul Kane have an article in the Washington Post suggesting that recent bills on war funding, and FISA, along with the US agreeing at the G8 summit to halve carbon emmissions by 2050, have given the President political victories because the White House showed the ability to compromise. I am not sure how you get to that conclusion when you actually look at the details.
On FISA, let’s just call it what it is: Democratic capitulation, seemingly because of fear that the issue would make Democrats look weak on security, Obama’s supposed soft spot, in November. Since the President agreed to follow the new law (are things this bad that Democrats consider getting the President to agree to follow the law a legistlative victory?), the Democrats gave the telecoms immunity, as long as the the telecoms could show that the Attorney General or the President had assured them that turning over Americans’ phone and web records without a warrant was perfectly legal. That’s a pretty low bar, but of course the story is that the President broke the law by conducting domestic surveillance without a warrant, and thanks to the new bill, no one will ever have to hear about how the White House used the telecoms to obtain Americans’ information without a warrant. So, there wasn’t much of a compromise here. This is pretty much the same story as last August, when the 6-month “updated” FISA bill, aka the Protect America Act, was passed. Patrick Radden Keefe explained in Slate why that was also Democratic capitulation.
On War Funding: It’s true that the President agreed to the passage of the G.I. bill, which he opposed all along, and extended unemployment benefits to secure $162 in funding for the war operations, but in this case, he had no choice. He faced a veto-proof majority in Congress. Republicans, already worried about their prosepects in November, sided with Democrats on economics and support for the soldiers, both of which are big issues. When you don’t have a choice, it’s not much of a compromise.
On the G8 meeting: Yes, the President committed to halving US carbon emmissions by 2050, but he didn’t say how he would do it, and anyway the treaty won’t be negotiated until the end of 2009, so this is an easy decision for him. He can sign it knowing that he doesn’t have to do anything between now and the end of his term to set the country on this goal, or even get the country to agree on this goal. He has to do nothing, and he gets to take credit for trying to be green. Where’s the compromise in that?
The President has not compromised at all.
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
