« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
“Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration,” is how Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) put it.
Yesterday, the Senate enthusiastically endorsed the Administration's wireless wiretapping program (and voted to stop the 40 or so lawsuits against the telecoms for cooperating with it). Now the question becomes whether members of the House will stand by their bill, which contains stronger court oversight of the spying and does not contain retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
The early signs from the House leadership have been that they will strongly oppose the Senate version. The chairmen of the two relevant committees, House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) and House intel committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), both say they oppose the Senate bill. Conyers has said outright that he opposes such immunity, while Reyes says he needs more time to review the documents from the program "to make a determination." The House leadership has been making similar noises.
But it will indeed be a battle. The administration has put the pressure on any way it can. It's threatened to veto any bill that does not grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms. It is refusing to agree to any further extension of the Protect America Act -- which, after last month's 15-day extension is set to lapse this Friday -- and is revving up for another round of excoriating Democrats for attempting to extend that deadline while simultaneously warning what a calamity it will be if the bill does lapse.
And, as in August, when both houses passed the administration's sweeping Protect America Act, a group of moderate Democrats in the House are set to bolt. From The Los Angeles Times:
Senior congressional aides said there was no clear path to a compromise on the issue. But a series of recent defections by moderate Democrats in the House raises prospects that the White House position -- or something close to it -- eventually may prevail....Reluctant to be portrayed as depriving the government of a key tool in the war on terrorism, 21 members of a bloc of moderate House Democrats signed a letter endorsing the Senate approach. Senior Democratic aides said those defections suggested there might be enough support in the House to pass the Senate bill.
The back channel negotiations have already begun. And as no one seems to be able to tell what might happen next, we'll just have to wait and see.
Josh
Zachary
This is the endorcement from our "elected" majority that we will assuredly never know the extent of the Bush "spy on your own people" program.
With few exceptions, Congress has failed the people it represents. Are they signing on to another six years of GWB policies? Have they no direction of their own?
Compounded disappointment to the lovers of personal freedom and to the "old American" way of life. And a finger to minority ideas dreamed of by MLK.
February 13, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, the White House got from a Democratic Congress, what it could not get from a Republican one: approval of its lawbreaking and immunity for its minions.
And, what will the Demcorats get in return for playing nice with George w. Bush? Will the White House refrain from accusing the Democrats of Treason in November?
Of course not.
Tell me again why we electged a Demcoratic Congress in 2006, please.
February 13, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to be pedantic, but it's "warrantless wiretapping", not "wireless wiretapping", yes?
February 13, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop being pedantic.
February 13, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks the Dems or Repugs care a lick about our liberties is just fooling themselves. The members of the unitary executive and good-ol' boys legislature only care about the consolidation of power.
To them, the electorate is just a bunch of ignorant children who need to be placated with pleasantries and the occasional spoon of slop from the trough. They tolerate us because they know we won't do anything to break up their grip on power. Can any of you honestly say that you see any real difference between the two parties? And if you do, you're probably just seeing opposite sides of the same coin.
February 13, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given this sellout by the Democrats, when I go to the polls in November, I'm going to put on a blindfold before I push any buttons. That's how much difference there is between sellout Republicans and sellout Democrats.
This nation is no longer "free".
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
February 13, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are these 21 Democrats that signed the letter? Does anyone here know, or have a link to said letter?
February 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here!
Lets name some names, rather than feed us "I've got a list in my pocket...."
Just who are these 21 jellyfish? We need to know!
February 13, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Conyers is the only hope, as I'm sure Pelosi is already pressuring Reyes to go along with the "Cheney/Rockefeller" bill.
Reyes "needs more time to review the documents"?
He'll do what Pelosi tells him to do and I believe that will be to go along with the Senate, or obfuscate.
Pelosi gave him that Committee Chair over ranking member Jane Harman because, 'arguably', Harman was not aggressive enough with the Bush gang.
Ironic, isn't it?
February 13, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
“Some people around here get cold feet when threatened by the administration,” is how Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) put it."
This is pure trite and garbage! Those clowns are not afraid of the president or anyone else. They are nothing more than opportunists wiling to sell out their own country for some power and money. A good percentage of them will be making a bundle (and retaining power) even after they are gone from elected office by opening their own lobbying firms in Washington and other capitals of the world.
the only time any attention is paid to "WE the People" is just before elections, when they want us to remember their names.
They know full well that most of their electorate will vote for them not because they have a good track record, but because the voters recognize their name...
those of us who actually relish a democracy will eventually just have to move elsewhere if we desire to actually live in one... IMHO
February 13, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
a
February 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday on the floor of the Senate Mitch McConnell put the number at 31, not 21 as this piece reports. If Mitchs number is correct, the Rep. have the votes to pass with a simple majority. I don't know which number is true. but Mitch said he had a letter signed by those 31 BushDogs saying they will support his Bill. Someone should whisper Donna Edwards name in the ear of theses Dogs.
February 13, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the demos pass bush's spy program against the people of our country maybe they should allocate enough borrowed money to start a national phone company and disband all current phone companys. Less messy you know.
February 13, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security-Hopefully the Dem's that voted along with the Repubs will be feeling very insecure when their seats come up for reelection.
DiFi..I am looking at you..and I will actively work to unseat your smarmy ass.
February 13, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
One democratic Senator was Debbie Stabenow from Michigan, who also voted for the Military Commissions Act. Next time around, she needs to go.
February 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who are these 21 (or 31) representatives?
February 13, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh, Inouye, Johnson, Landrieu, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Stabenow, Feinstein, Kohl, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Carper, Mikulski, Conrad, Webb, and Lincoln. Joe Lieberman also voted against stripping retroactive immunity.
February 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is frustrating and beyond hope. The only real change needed to FISA was to authorize collection of international traffic that passes through a switch or router in the US - a feature of mass digital communications that wasn't anticipated when FISA was originally drawn up. All other collection strategies can be accommodated under current FISA rules - albeit with a little more paperwork than the administration desires. Even if the House caves on this, we should be making certain that the new administration sees and fixes the problem.
February 13, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again Paul, who are these 21 or 31 'moderate' Dem's? We need to know.
February 13, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Daily Kos for list and contact numbers of the "Blue Dogs" who need to be pressured.
By the way, even if Bush signed the bill couldn't it still be challenged as a violation of the 4th amendment in court?
February 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Daily Kos for list and contact numbers of the "Blue Dogs" who need to be pressured.
By the way, even if Bush signed the bill couldn't it still be challenged as a violation of the 4th amendment in court?
February 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Names!
We want names.
February 13, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Where's a copy of the letter?
Blue Dogs are fine as an overall target to pressure, but who are the 21/31 specific letter signers?
February 13, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are the Blue Dogs:
Here are those Blue Dogs:
Rep. Leonard L. Boswell, D-Iowa -- Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608
Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-4076, Fax: (202) 225-5602
Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark. -- Phone: (202) 225-3772, Fax: (202) 225-1314
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D. -- Phone: (202) 225-2611, Fax: (202) 226-0893
Rep. Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, D-Ala. -- Phone: (202) 225-4801, Fax: (202) 225-4392
Rep. Melissa Bean, D-Ill. -- Phone: (202) 225-3711, Fax: (202) 225-7830
Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. -- Phone: (202) 225-6401, Fax: (202) 226-6422
Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga. -- Phone: (202) 225-2823, Fax: (202) 225-3377
Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla. -- Phone: (202) 225-5235, Fax: (202) 225-5615
Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif. -- Phone: (202) 225-6161, Fax: (202) 225-8671
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla. -- Phone: (202) 225-2701, Fax: (202) 225-3038
Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4714, Fax: (202) 225-1765
Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah -- Phone: (202) 225-3011, Fax: (202) 225-5638
Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-4311, Fax: (202) 226-1035
Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn. -- Phone: (202) 225-6831, Fax: (202) 226-5172
Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind. -- Phone: (202) 225-4636, Fax: (202) 225-3284
Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-5546, Fax: (202) 226-0996
Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La. -- Phone: (202) 225-4031, Fax: (202) 226-3944
Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan. -- Phone: (202) 225-2865, Fax: (202) 225-2807
Rep. Christopher Carney, D-Pa. -- Phone: (202) 225-3731, Fax: (202) 225-9594
Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio -- Phone: (202) 225-6265, Fax: (202) 225-3394
February 13, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you tell me what kind of change Obama is going to bring to Washington when the Democrats are their own worst enemy? Nothing of change will ever occur when republican lite democrats keep voting with the republican agenda. And to be very honest, I don't think Obama will stand up for the democrats when this will happen over and over again. His wish of bipartisanship and working together just sounds dandy as long as you are a republican.
February 13, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will these weak-kneed congress critters ever stand up to the criminals in the White House?
February 13, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hate to break it to you but neither Obama or Clinton voted on the issue. I am utterly disapointed
February 13, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody has mentioned Chris Dodd's impassioned remarks. He was on the floor for hours the night before the vote and in the hours leading up to the vote as well. Nobody was listening except those of us watching on C-Span. He was a lion.
February 13, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not all Democrats that lack the backbone, just a small number. Unfortunately that number seems to include the leadership. "The Democrats" giving Bush what he wants sounds like a hopeless situation. "21 Democrats" giving Bush what he wants is a manageable number. We can beat them, either in their own primaries or flipping enough GOP seats that we don't need the Bush dogs.
February 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE QUESTION IS:"Will the criminals in the White House ever let these weak kneed Democrats stand up to them?"
February 13, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink