The following comment by mcjoan:
A President Obama and a Congress with a larger Democratic majority–if it had the political will to do so–could repeal the changes contained in the [FISA] bill, except for amnesty. Of course, given Obama’s willingness to support those bad provisions, too, that possibility is waning.
got me to start thinking. This quote seems to suggest that if Obama is willing to support a compromise bill with these provisions in it as a Senator, then he would be willing to support – and use – those provisions as president.
While I don’t particularly agree with supporting the FISA bill, I think jumping to that conclusion ignores the completely different dynamics of being the President vs. being in the Senate when the opposing party is controlling the Presidency.
In the current situation, Obama is a Senator. He is, of course, not an ordinary Senator being his party’s presumptive nominee for President, but he is still a Senator (and despite what kos might say, I don’t think he has the influence yet to say “stop the bill” and everyone would fall in line).
Obama, whether he likes it or not, still has to work in a situation where Bush is President, the Senate is favors Bush on this issue by a significant margin, and the house is still close enough for the Blue Dogs to pass bills over the majority’s wishes. Despite the railings that the democrats have no reason to go along with “Mr. 24%,” there still exists the dynamics where people will be put into the position of either opposing a very bad bill that will pass over their objections, or supporting a bad, but not quite as bad, bill. That seems to be where we are today with the FISA bill.
If Obama had any faith that his word would become law among the entirety of the democratic caucus in both Houses, then I’m sure he would dictate that everyone should oppose the bill, and then it would go nowhere. However, Obama is well aware that he won’t have that much influence over his party’s Congressional members as President, much less as the presumptive nominee.
So basically Obama, whether we like it or not, is doing what virtually all good politicians do: they’re using their support to pass a less-bad bill over a more-bad bill that would almost certainly pass anyway. This is nothing new in the world of politics, of course (and of course, one can argue whether we are currently in such a situation).
Now, how would this compare to a situation where Obama would be President? Well, suddenly he goes from being 1 in 100 votes in one of two chambers of Congress to someone who can, by himself, kill a bill unless 2/3 of both houses of Congress disagree. Basically his power grows from 1/200th of Congress to the equivalent of 2/3 of Congress (a 133 fold increase in power, if anyone is keeping track).
Suddenly the issue of passing a bad, but not as bad, bill vs. a very bad bill no longer becomes an issue, unless 2/3 of both houses support the bill. A situation where one would compromise in the Senate suddenly turns into a situation where you just veto the bill as President.
Also, since we’re looking at an increased majority for Democrats in both houses of Congress under the next President, a President Obama may very well have enough influence to push through a repeal of the law just passed (except for immunity, as mcjoan points out). If for some reason Congress refuses to repeal the law, then Obama can just scale back how his administration does spying so that it is constitutional, regardless of what the law says and/or allow the law to lapse by vetoing any extensions, when it expires in 2012.
Remember the law gives the President the ability to do things, but doesn’t require him too. A President Obama, once in office, could just issue a couple of executive orders saying that the CIA or FBI or whomever can’t do this or that, even if the bill technically would allow them to.
Of course, if part of Obama’s point of view is that a lot of that other stuff doesn’t necessarily matter, because he won’t do it once he’s President, it would beg the question of “well, what if you lose in November?,” but I think one should keep this difference in dynamics in mind when discussing what Obama may or may not do in regards to FISA if he does become President.
