If I were not a person who respects this community and is ordinarily not given to profanity anyway, this whole page would be covered with: #*&^%$@!!!!

This is so #$@^&*+!!!

And I can't get any more $#@&*^%$# than I am right now!!!

This breaks my heart. It really hinders my motivation to give a damn anymore.

What agostage said. My incentive for working within the system is dying. It's sickening.

So the House bill is still without immunity, correct? With such a large margin in the Senate I'm assuming that won't last long. Can anyone give me a reason to hope that the House can somehow keep this from being final? I understand it's not going to happen....just feeling desperate.

FYI-Evan Bayh is from Indiana, not Iowa.

Jim Webb? That's a huge disappointment. McCaskill is another sad loss, but she's be consistently against Dodd/Feingold on this issue, so it's not unexpected.

When this issue inevitably fails, I hope at least they manage to keep settle on something like the Arlen Specter Judiciary committee compromise. In that case, at least the investigations will continue with the government as defendant, even if the telecoms aren't being held accountable.

Good for Obama; and that's a good question: Where was Hillary?

Why isn't this atrocity on every page of every newspaper, the lead story on every news station, the lead presidential debate question?

This is the most overt action of corruption I've ever seen. I'm watching cspan with pure unadulterated hatred as this transpires.

One unambiguous lie after the next, all printed in the once-respected Wall Street Journal.

It pisses me off that 85 to 90% of American citizens will wake up tomorrow entirely ignorant of what happened today.

What else could we have done?

Totalitarian movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

Fucking abominable.

...That's all I can really contribute.

It may be time for a good ol' fashion revolution.

cowards

This is all about money. Our senators have been bought; they are owned, all of them. They were either rich to begin or got rich by being in government, no exceptions.

and yes it is a very sad day

Whole heartedly agree.

Not important enough for Hillary to be there?

Should make us all consider how to iumprove the majority in the House, and to get an actual majority in the Senate. Even nicer would be a super-majority. Best, would, of course, be a veto-proof bloc.

Can Hillary deliver that? Can we do it independently of the presidential campaign?

I agree. It's discouraging. There was enough time for everyone to be fully cognizant of what the bill and amendment meant and ... bupkis. This is why we worked for a Democratic majority in 2006.

Thanks at least to those that voted nay but to you others... kiss off!

If your guy or gal voted for invasion of privacy, send them this for future reference. It's a bit from an old document I found somewhere:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Pathetic. These companies violated the fundamental right of privacy and must be help accountable. Any acquiescence in the name of patriotism only permits them to violate our rights in the future.

Patriotism is the courage to stand for our convictions, not the temerity to undermine them out of fear.

Now they they can read our email, tap our phones, and take our notebook computers at the airports. And we have a right of free speech.? Funny thing is the GOP calls the Democratic party Big Brother, can someone tell me isn't this what Big Brother does.? With a 50-50 split in the senate a bill like this should never get through. It is time one of our 2 candidates I don't care which one it is stand up with some backbone Now and say this is the line in the sand we are not crossing, and show us who is going to lead this party the next 4 years. Talk is cheap, block the vote on a free ride to break the law by this president, be a leader, we need a leader.

"This makes me sick to my stomach. And Hillary couldn't even show up to vote? It's Potomac primary day fer cryin' out loud."

Of course she couldn't. She is constitutionally built this way. She calculated, "hmm, well it won't win anyway, so if I don't vote, I won't upset the conservative independents who might consider voting for me." These old time dems just can never realize the main beef with them is not your votes, it's your lack of principles.

It's like a reflex action for these Dems. You can at least respect Republicans for being committed lunatics. At least they have principles, no matter how warped. These Dems have nothing except polls and advisers to guide them.

Better go give Herb an earfull...

http://kohl.senate.gov/

Jim Webb? Wow, what a huge disappointment. I campaigned for him, something I have rarely done in my life.

Oh, and Jay Rockefeller -- I guess we can expect Part II any day now? (snark)

If your senator did have enough spine to vote yes, it's important to let them know you appreciate that vote. There are some weak reeds there (I was worried about mine, but she did come through), and we need to thank them for good votes as well as chastise them for bad ones. There's always another battle coming, and we want them to remember that progressive voters are paying attention, and recognize the good as well as the bad.

I can't even begin to describe how absolutely angry this makes me.

"Where was Hillary" is the wrong question here.

The correct question is:

Where were Hillary and her repeated questions about Obama voting Present in Illinois?

"I want a fighter in the WH who will stand up for demcocratic principles and not play nicey nicey, and to me, Obama isn't the guy right now."

He just did and Hillary didn't. What are you talking about?

Same with the Iraq War vote. Same with Iran. She doesn't vote for principles. She votes for triangulation. "The principled people will stick with me because they have no choice. How do we get the indecisive right leaning people?" And that's the core complaint I have about her.

What evidence do you have of her standing up for your principles here?

Just talked to staffer in Sen. McCaskill's office. Essentially said that she voted against because she thinks the appropriate action is to go after the Government (DOJ), and not those who were given assurances (Telecoms). Complete BS. Perfectly capable of upholding the law on both accounts. She is wanting in moral courage, like the others who voted nay!!!

BTW. Chalk another win for the Taliban. Much more of this and our government will be not better than them. Thanks Tim Johnson.

Goddamnit!

Fuckin' incredible!

We are so Fucked!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

In Germany, Hitler used the youth to gain his authoritarian rule...
in our zest to be capitalists, we have decided to go the corporate route...
The end, however, will be the same... no more democracy

Thank God for the Democratic Congress!

God bless them, each and every one of those spineless bastards who kowtow to a Repug minority and a President at ~27%.

Dear Senator Feinstein,

I am writing you to express my extreme disappointment in your vote to keep retroactive immunity for the telecoms. This administration wants to say, we were always right. They relent now, only to say mistakes have happened, yet they will not say what those mistakes were, or how our new policies going forward will fix those "mistakes" from happening again.

The telecoms got themselves knee-deep in the felonious proposition that the President defines the law. If he asks you to do something, it must be legal--that's what granting immunity to the telecoms means. That proposition is wrong.

If we do not investigate the telecoms for breaching the 4th amendment in an unprecedented way, effectively spying on all domestic internet communication, then what means do we have to guard against this happening again?

Usually, I keep my correspondence with representatives very cordial. I hate the idea of levying threats of, "you've lost my vote" or the like that must become a kind of comical rage in the eyes of senators and representatives. But on this occasion, I cannot help myself. You have lost my confidence, Senator. I will not cast another vote for you, and as your election approaches I will be sure to remind people of the vote you cast to defend the telecoms and this administration from facing accountability for breaking the 4th amendment.

Sincerely Enraged,

Shane Celis

Davis, Ca

I am thinking of just getting a skype wi-fi phone. I don't think its possible to tap those. Sure, its not that convenient, but then talking on the phone is overrated anyway. :-)

Cambridge, your logic depresses me. Democrats [such as Clinton] didn't fight hard enough for their principals, so Obama [who did fight] isn't the right guy to fight for democratic principals in the future!?

I know it is kind of a dirty trick to paraphrase someone else's argument to shoot it down, but honestly, what am I missing here?

One of my senators, Barbara Mikulski (D-Verizon) voted against the amendment. I've already informed her that she'll never receive another vote from me. It's little enough, but there's not much I can do to influence her.

Dear Hillary,

So. The Democrats buckle again. They just passed telecom immunity. It's just the lastest capitulation by a party that was specifically elected in '06 to stand up to Bush. Kissing Bush's ass has proved so popular that Congress' approval rating now stands at 11%.

You, Hillary, are closely identified with this craven wing of the Democratic party. In fact, you were the only Senator who failed to show up for the immunity vote.

But the vast majority of Democrats want to see the Bush administration held responsible for its crimes. Ironically, we seem to be in the middle of a presidential primary where niceness is at a premium. Barack Obama has successfully branded himself as the "positive" candidate - and you and your campaign have been left to mimic his wide smile and vague rhetoric. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it is not often a successful strategy.

Why not chnage the dynamics of this campaign and come out aggressively in favor of prosecuting the crimes of the Bush administration?

I, personally, as a voting Democrat, want to see this administration held accountable for its crimes. I do not want to see them all swept under the rug in the hoopla surrounding the election of our first black president. A president whose skin-tone alone is supposed to rectify all that has gone before him.

George Bush lied us into a devastating war. He spied on us illegally. He tortured prisoners. He condoned the sexual humiliation of prisoners. He funnelled billions of dollars to his friends in the oil industry. The list of his crimes goes on and on. The American people - and most especially members of the Democratic Party - want to see this criminality punished. Since Mr. Obama seems to have chosen the path of concilliation, this seems to be the perfect moment for you to become the champion of holding the Bush administration accountable.

This is your chance to turn the smiley-face campaign into a real discussion of what we stand for as Democrats. The perception is that you represent the interests of lobbyists and the powerful more than you represent the interests of regular Americans. You could change that, even at this late date, by showing that you would be a president who would prosecute the crimes of the previous administration. Mr. Obama is not well-positioned to take on the mantle of Prosecutor-In-Cheif. He has staked his political reputation on getting along...with everybody.

I do not want a president who gets along with everybody. I do not want a president who "gets along" with criminals. I want a president who will defend the Constitution with everything she or he has got.

In the coming weeks, with their dearth of primaries, Mr. Obama's nice guy routine may start to wear thin with voters. There is also bound to be considerable disgust at the Democratic Senate's capitulation on the illegal spying bill. This is the perfect opportunity for you to capitalize on Obama's lack of specific policy proposals by spelling out exactly which crimes of the Bush administration you would investigate and prosecute.

I am an Obama supporter - but I would be willing to change my vote (my primary is not til May) if you showed courage on this issue. The idea that Democrats are just going to play nice with the most criminal administration in the history of this country galls me. I want the murders and the lies and the torture and the pay-offs at the very least investigated.

Therefore, I am announcing here and now that I, Cheesemoose, will vote for the Democratic candidate who promises me that he or she will prosecute the Bush administration crimes to the fullest extent of the law, and encourage the legislative branch to embrace its duties to investigate the wrong-doing of the previous administration.

The choice is yours, Ms. Clinton: Accept the Cheesemoose Challenge - and boldly turn around what now seems to be a losing campaign. Or choose the craven, triangulating path of Pelosi/Reid/Rockefeller and of your husband during his administration (when he chose to look the other way at Bush Sr.'s criminality) and go meekly down to a well-deserved defeat.

Your friend,
Cheesemoose

I'm pissed. I'm sorry. We need a dem in the white house, but we DONT need these spineless dems in the congress.

I'm all for the Obama revolution, but if he can't persuade his democratic colleagues to vote with conviction, than I doubt he'll be able to persuade these morons side with him on important issues.

And where was Hillary?

Yes, ALL the amendments for judicial adjudication of the pending lawsuits were defeated and cloture for debate/amendments passed. I suggest all concerned tune in CSPAN2 to watch what is happening as there might actually be more amendments offered(somehow); Feingold is speaking; Cloture had to pass for Dodd,etc. to 'filibuster'. People really need to be aiming their dis-satisfaction at Rockefeller and Reid.
During yesterday's session, Feinstein brought up a program called 'Shamrock' that existed for 30 years prior to 1976 and had the telecoms 'spying' on American's during that time;FISA was passed against it and no prosecution of the telecoms was done at that time.
I sent the following to the addressees via fax last night(faxing is more effective than email or snail mail); I would ask others to not stop fighting and flood their Representatives and Pelosi and Senators with faxes letting them know where you stand.
2/11/2008

To: Senator Feinstein
Senator Boxer
Representative Susan Davis

CC: Senator Reid, Senate Majority Leader
Representative Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Senator Baucus, Chmn. Senate Finance Cmte.
Senator Dodd
Representative Conyers
Representative Wexler

Subject: Senator’s Boxer and Dodd floor speeches regarding “Stimulus”, FISA legislation

Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Representative Davis;

I am, again, writing to you as your constituent after watching the CSPAN Senate proceedings over the past week –and earlier- regarding the voting on the ‘Stimulus’ legislation and S.2248, the FISA amendments. I am copying the other Democratic Senators and Representative I mention.

I watched the ‘discussion’ between Senator Boxer and Senator Alexander regarding what had occurred regarding the legislation and the ‘tone’ of the speakers. MANY kudos to Senator Boxer for stating what needed to be said to Senator Alexander, namely ‘it’s the truth’. The effort by the Republican leadership to hold out the passage of this legislation as a ‘triumph of bi-partisanship’ was so false to anyone who watched the debate and knew the data that Senator Boxer’s speech and response gave me a glimmer of hope that the Senate actually might understand what is happening to the ‘people’. Senator Reid unfortunately set a ‘tone’ that more reflected exhaustion from negotiation than one of acceptance of a battle lost but a strong commitment to continue the struggle to do what’s right.

Examples of the data I reference are: both economists and the CBO stating the best ‘stimulus’ was an extension of unemployment benefits; the median duration of unemployment also rose from 8.4 months to 8.8 months (I would hope somebody would point out to Senators Gregg and McConnell that State unemployment only lasts 6 months); that over the past six months, 520,000 self-employed individuals have fallen by the wayside (more than were lost in the entire 2001 recession); (such may be the reason that claims are suppressed - having never paid into the unemployment insurance program, these people are not necessarily entitled to any benefits); that the backlog of continuing claims has spiked up 10% over the past year and the last time that happened was in late December 2000 - the recession began the very next quarter; that the year –2007- ended with 376,000 fewer jobs than were reported a month ago, and 1.14 million net jobs were created December to December. Downward revisions were spread throughout the year. This translates into 95,000 new jobs per month, down from 175,000 in 2006. It takes 150,000 jobs per month (or so) simply to maintain the employment rate, due to growth in the population. The January loss is likely to be revised down over the next year. -Source BLS, Merrill Lynch

I hope that what Senator Boxer stated regarding that this and other issues will soon be back to be enacted turns out to be factually quick.

Senator Dodd’s point that the retroactive immunity sought by Republican’s and the Bush Administration that the issue is not just about immunity but, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW is absolutely correct. I would ask you –as my Senator’s and Representative- to please get a copy of Senator’s Dodd’s remarks on the Senate Floor the evening of February 11, 2008 and read them. And I would ask that the other Senators, and Representative Conyers especially, read Senator Dodd’s remarks as well.

It has recently been reported that the public’s approval rating for Congress is 22 per cent(even though the public do seem to think their personal Senators and Representative are ‘ok’).

As a 61 year old computer professional who has run out of unemployment benefits and is a ‘independent’ registered voter, I would try to let you know that the main reason for such a low approval rating is the unwillingness of the Democratic Party Congress members to be an effective ‘opposition’ party and ‘stand on principle’. As an example of what I mean would be for Senator Reid to publicly state to President Bush that there will be NO FISA amendments that do not incorporate some court adjudication in the legislation BECAUSE we are a nation that lives by the ‘rule of law’ and the law is decided by courts, not individuals.

Another example would by Representative Conyer’s advancing Representative Wexler’s call for Impeachment hearings for Vice-President Cheney (knowing that such will not be finished before the election AND that such hearings can ‘bridge’ Congresses AND that the political party that brings impeachment hearings historically does well in the following election). AGAIN, the situation Congress is faced with is whether the ‘rule of law’ will be that which Congress stands up for or whether Congress will accept the destruction of the ‘rule of law’ (and the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution) and accede to the idea that the Executive Branch is a de facto king.

House Speaker Pelosi and Representative Davis and Conyers: Please stand firm –despite what Bush says- by the legislation passed by the House that does NOT contain retroactive immunity.

Senators, if you cannot support Senator Dodd’s amendment, please support some sort of court oversight of the lawsuits brought by citizen’s whose civil rights have been allegedly violated. As Senator Dodd indicated, “if there is no question of whether the law was NOT broken by the telecommunications companies” –and Senator Feinstein pointed to 18 U.S.C. 2511 as a possible defense- “then why is there an unwillingness to put the issue before a court and let it be over with?”

Senators, if no amendment requiring a court review can be passed, then I strongly urge you to VOTE AGAINST CLOTURE. This IS about the ‘rule of law’ and an opportunity to have your perspective on the ‘rule of law’ ON THE HISTORICAL RECORD BY HOW YOU VOTE.

Yes,....another pro-corporate ruling Republican and Democratic buyoff vote(aka more money from corporate Lobbyists). When will these senators stand up for people's rights and stop the corporate white house weasles from bypassing the constitution in the name of freedom. They are corporate pygmies, nothing more.

I'm hand-delivering a letter to DiFi's San Francisco office today to let her know how disgusted I am with her. She's going down in the next election.

And I can't wait to see Hillary defend herself on this in the next debate.

It sure would have been nice if my Senator, Hillary Clinton, would have taken the time to stand up for a truly Democratic principle and shown up to vote. Of course, she's not really our Senator. She just uses the office to run for President.

To those who said her vote wouldn't have mattered, well, it would have mattered to those of us in NY who she's supposed to be representing.

Maybe that YouTube of her as Big Brother isn't too far off. She seems to support using telecom to spy on citizens.

On to the House:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/12/frustrations-on-fisa/

That should read "Presidential candidates Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) were present for the vote – voting YEA and NAY, respectively."

Barack Obama voted Nay. You have got it reversed up there.

I'd love to flood letters to editor to each of their local papers about how they stood up for us today.

How many of the Nay votes get campaign contributions from the same phone companies? They need to recuse themselves or risk conflict of interest and loss of public trust. Long Beach, Ca.