Jesse Jackson’s Empty Threat

Yesterday, an angry Jesse Jackson threatened to slice off Obama’s testicles. Jesse Jackson apparently does not realize that Obama has no “nuts” to cut off.

Obama is a political eunuch who will never stand his ground. Rather, Obama will cower across the aisle and submit to Republican demands.

It’s a day like yesterday that we at Big Pink know beyond dispute that we are right and the incense burners are wrong. Democrats want a Democratic President who will fight for Democratic values.

It is not only Obama who lacks testicular/ovarian fortitude. It is Obama supporters who are getting the leader they deserve. Obama supporters deluded themselves with a creature of their own creation. Now, Obama supporters lack the fortitude to do what needs to be done to rid us of this Chicago flip-flop-flim-flam contortionist.

We have known all along that:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Those 5 simple sentences are now beyond dispute. Without meaningful rejection, Obama incense burners will prove themselves to be political eunuchs too.

As long as Obama “supporters” persist in supporting the unqualified, flip-flop-flim-flam Obama, any threat, even a Jesse Jackson type colorful threat will be empty.

Yesterday Obama slapped his supporters in the face, not only on the FISA vote, but by telling them to suck it up, there is nothing they can do to make Obama change:

Senator Barack Obama on Tuesday forcefully addressed concerns that he had moved too quickly to the political center, acknowledging complaints from “my friends on the left” about his statements on Iraq, his approaches to evangelicals and his remarks on other issues that have alarmed some of his supporters.

At a town-hall-style meeting in Powder Spring, Ga., on Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama said that while he was progressive on many issues, he believed in personal responsibility and faith.

“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he told a crowd gathered at a town hall-style meeting in this Atlanta suburb. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

In one word: ‘suckers’.

Obama yesterday voted with Republicans, every Senate Republican that voted. “A more complete abandonment of an unambiguous campaign promise is difficult to imagine.”

One of our arguments in the series (right hand side column) Voting For Barack Obama is that with an untrustworthy bunch of Democratic? leaders like Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi it is better for core Democratic values to fight Republicans who control government than to trust to unqualified flip-flop-flim-flam contortionists like Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi. Our argument yesterday had an echo:

What is most striking is that when the Congress was controlled by the GOP — when the Senate was run by Bill Frist and the House by Denny Hastert — the Bush administration attempted to have a bill passed very similar to the one that just passed today. But they were unable to do so. The administration had to wait until Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress before being able to put a corrupt end to the scandal that began when, in December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the President had been breaking the law for years by spying on Americans without the warrants required by law.

Obama supporters and superdelegates must reject Obama before the convention. Hillary is our nominee. Excerpts of Hillary Clinton Statement on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008:

One of the great challenges before us as a nation is remaining steadfast in our fight against terrorism while preserving our commitment to the rule of law and individual liberty. As a senator from New York on September 11, I understand the importance of taking any and all necessary steps to protect our nation from those who would do us harm. [snip] Nonetheless, I could not vote for the legislation in its current form. [snip]

While this legislation does strengthen oversight of the administration’s surveillance activities over previous drafts, in many respects, the oversight in the bill continues to come up short. For instance, while the bill nominally calls for increased oversight by the FISA Court, its ability to serve as a meaningful check on the President’s power is debatable. The clearest example of this is the limited power given to the FISA Court to review the government’s targeting and minimization procedures.

But the legislation has other significant shortcomings. The legislation also makes no meaningful change to the immunity provisions. There is little disagreement that the legislation effectively grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. In my judgment, immunity under these circumstances has the practical effect of shutting down a critical avenue for holding the administration accountable for its conduct. It is precisely why I have supported efforts in the Senate to strip the bill of these provisions, both today and during previous debates on this subject. Unfortunately, these efforts have been unsuccessful.

What is more, even as we considered this legislation, the administration refused to allow the overwhelming majority of Senators to examine the warrantless wiretapping program. This made it exceedingly difficult for those Senators who are not on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees to assess the need for the operational details of the legislation, and whether greater protections are necessary. The same can be said for an assessment of the telecom immunity provisions. On an issue of such tremendous importance to our citizens – and in particular to New Yorkers – all Senators should have been entitled to receive briefings that would have enabled them to make an informed decision about the merits of this legislation. I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.

Obama voted for the FISA legislation that Hillary Clinton voted against.

The New York Times editorial board whined about the FISA legislation but like Jesse Jackson the words published are devoid of any meaningful threat. The most the New York Times editorial board could do was note how untrustworthy, impotent, and useless Obama is:

Senator Barack Obama, who had once promised to filibuster against immunity for the telecommunications companies, executed a deeply distressing pivot in recent weeks, hewing to the “best we could do” line that was adopted by many Democrats. Today, he voted to cut off debate on the bill, and then voted for its final passage.

Fortunately, Mr. Obama seemed to have no influence over Democrats who opposed the bill. None of them joined him in changing their positions.

A New York Times commentor reminded us of Benjamin Franklin’s warning to a young nation: “Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.”

Those who persist in supporting Obama now have no excuse. They can no longer claim they did not know. They can no longer say they have not been listening to Obama. We have warned them enough.

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Empty threats will not be enough. For the sake of Democratic values, for the sake of the nation – Obama must go.