« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senate OK's New Wiretapping Law
The Senate overwhelmingly approved a new federal wiretapping law this afternoon by a vote of 69-28.
After last month's approval of a similar measure in the House, today's vote essentially clears the way for the bill to go to the White House for a final signature.
The bill approved includes sweeping and retroactive immunity for telecom companies that provided information about customers to government officials without a warrant as part of the Bush Administration's surveillance program imposed after September 11, 2001.
The vote was all but assured after the senators struck down three key amendments this morning that would have overhauled the spying laws without granting immunity to the telecom companies.
Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for the bill.
Moments before the final vote, a handful of senators voted to filibuster the vote, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and Tom Harkin of Iowa.
So what does that mean? It means that the nations largest telecom companies no longer have to worry about a batch of multi-million lawsuits filed by customers angered that the companies turned over their personal information to the government without a warrant.
It also means that if you are at home making an overseas phone call to a suspected terrorist, the government can monitor that call without a warrant.
And it's not clear how intel agents define who is a suspected terrorist.
Late Update: This post has been revised from its original version to correct the reporting of Hillary Clinton's vote on the motion for cloture.
Comments (664)
what it REALLY means mr tilghman is that there will be NO DISCOVERY as a result of the civil immunity.
July 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to be a great thread to pull all the Freepers and hyperventilators.
July 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
and a great thread for mindless apologists such as yourself to be stupidly dismissive.
July 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, enjoy voting for McCain or Nader or whatever then.
July 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
and right on cue with the stupidly dismissive. like a trained monkey you are.
July 9, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, McCain was nowhere to be found for any of the votes. Not the amendments. Nor the final FISA bill.
He couldn't fly Cindy's private jet, or the "Straight Talk" Boeing 737 to the Senate Chamber's to vote today?
McCain: A profile in political cowardice.
July 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
And also notice the Freepers on TPMC never mention that: how really awful McCain. No, they want Dems to focus on shooting their own.
July 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell's a Freeper and should I be concerned about them stealing my underwear?
July 10, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I would have liked to see immunity removed, and have been following this case from the EFF site since the beginning.
However, Obama absolutely did the right thing. This bill fully restores the FISA court which is very important and the best option going to pass anytime before January 2009.
It was important for Obama to show political wisdom in supporting a compromise that, flawed as it is, was the best possible option on a pressing matter. Anyone who thinks this bill could have been blocked till January, filibustered, or whatever, is just delusional. All that would have happened is a worse bill passed and Democrats done worse in January for having blocked a compromise on a national security issue.
July 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like that political wisdom he showed when he swore that despite not being a Senator at the time he would have voted against the Authorization of Force that he beat up Senator Clinton for during the primaries?
The political wisdom he had during the spring while the primaries were going on when he told the voters he would never vote for immunity?
If political wisdom is lying and taking every position possible then Saint Obama is knee deep in that shit.
July 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he didn't say that. Geeting your news from FOX Noise I guess.
Nice try at Freeping though.
July 9, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the fact the we were perfectly well protected by the NSA, FBI, CIA, and FISA (since it was, is, and would still be in place irregardless of the vote on this bill) makes this bill even more of a travesty. All it did was make legal what should be illegal and got Bush and the telecoms off scott free. You go ahead and celebrate what a great move this was and listen for clicks and buzzes on the receiver when your talking to your friends and family over seas.
Uncle Sam just got added to your friends and family network this day...
July 9, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever. You don't know what you're talking about.
1) FISA was reasserted today, meaning that taps require a warrant, and legal protections against spying are as good as they've ever been since it was passed in 1970.
2) There was an overwhelming demand to pass FISA legislation, and there's no way this could have been blocked until Jan '09. Not without changing about 20+ seats in the Senate towards more Progressive Dems.
3) You and I may not like it, but 69 Senators out of 100 did. So, this was the best compromise possible. It was only going to get worse if attempts were made to block it.
4) There are 100 Senators, some serving for decades, and all of them elected for very different reasons from very different constituencies with different issues, across 3000 miles and 300 million people.
5) That's reality. Whining doesn't help.
July 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look. The bill passed so I am not going to go on about this. Wouldn't want to be called a whiner. However, it is clear that you have no idea what was in this bill, things like legalizing blanket warrants and wiretaps, wiretapping domestic calls overseas (formerly just overseas to overseas and yes they will able to do it without warrants) and data-mining.
The sad thing is because this bill was passed we are NEVER going to know exactly what they are or were doing.
July 9, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
nonsense. I've been following this issue and related issues at the EFF for years, and you're totally hyperventilating.
This bill does reiterate the need for FISA requirements for wiretapping. And some degree of data-mining has been an eventuality since way back with TIA. Unfortunately, that's our culture overall: paranoid, xenophobic, and militaristic.
Regardless, this, or something worse, was going to pass. So, I'd rather have a a pragmatist who does the best possible under circumstances and preserves some influence, rather than a panderer who pleases the choir but isolates himself in the Senate and accomplishes nothing but posturing and protest votes.
***
You want to know the real reason crap legislation like this passes?
Cultural issues like gun control which stops Libertarians and moderates from voting for Progressive Dems, and sticks us with corporate Dems like Feinstein who panders to the left wing on social issues, or Republicans who panders to rt wing on social issues. And almost all social pandering candidates, right or left, are also corporate whores.
Notice that Tester (D-MT) a social moderate/libertarian, voted for the Dodd Amendment. If we had 10 more like him we'd be a LOT better off.
We can have pols who support issues like gay marriage and handgun bans, and keep losing on issues like FISA while accomplishing nothing else, or we can elect social moderates who bring a coalition to take care of civil liberties and the middle class economically.
Until we stop dividing ourselves on cultural issues between left/right, we're not going to have a winning coalition on civil liberties between Progressives/Libertarians, urban/rural.
Feingold and such may be a good activists for the net-roots and the choir, but he's lousy at actually accomplishing much legislatively. Look at McCain-Feingold, his biggest accomplishment. What a joke it is. And when he's taken a harder line he's accomplished nothing.
July 9, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold would be the first to admit McCain-Feingold isn't perfect. The result of bipartisanship....
July 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you seem to miss the point: that as bad as it is, it's still better than nothing, which is what Feingold gets when he doesn't compromise.
People need to stop whining about our culture overall, and stop pretending leadership could just make everything OK.
This childish refusal to compromise or work pragmatically within political realities, on both the left and right, is what ultimately divides and renders the public ineffectual, ceding power to where it naturally coagulates, in corporate entities.
Again, if we had ran more candidates like Tester (D-MT) and dropped cultural wedge issues a decade or more ago, we could have had 10 or more like him in the Senate, and many more in the House, and we'd have had the votes to pass a better FISA Bill, without immunity, and perhaps even investigate and then impeach Bush for his crimes, with popular public support.
July 9, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're projecting onto me.
July 9, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
and re: Feingold, that was point.
July 9, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
typo...my point, that is. I agree.
July 9, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm responding to Feingold and your parroting him.
I agree collection should be more restricted, better defined, and that protections are insufficient. However, this is a step in the right direction to define digital surveillance and place this stuff squarely under FISA. Previously the Admin was using wiggle room and the public technology ignorance to get away with it.
However, Feingold is exaggerating the problems with this bill very badly. He likes making hyperbolic and maximal rhetoric. As such, he renders himself a one sided advocate, taking verbatim the opinions of groups like the EFF, which hurts his ability to lead or his reputation for impartiality.
***
Anyways, I also expect that will be readdressed and better defined to protect civil liberties over the next four years, presuming a larger Democratic majority in Congress and a Dem President.
Additionally there there are a wide range of privacy and law enforcement issues that need to be defined over the next four years. When all of these issues are addressed together it will create a larger narrative of privacy in the digital age, which should aid a nationwide discussion and inform the public. I'm much more confident we'll bet better legislation after that process rather than before it.
July 9, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't disagree with your overall thoughts here, they seem well thought out. I respect that. I do disagree with you on how one should have voted on this bill, however. No one's gonna change my mind at this point really, and I'm sure you could say the same.
Ultimately, and for many on my side of the issue it is an issue of principle (protecting the Constitution, privacy, 4th Amdt. et al), certainly backed up by dubious acts performed by this administration and possibly the telecoms.
Feingold is a like him or leave him type of guy. I can't argue against your points on him. They all could very well be. All I know is I'm very glad to have him. I'm very glad someone can see how we are pissing are liberties and rights away for security. I'm glad someone could vote against the Patriot Act (98-1) and take a stand against this bill, a principled stand. Does he maximize? Absolutely. However, worst case scenarios can and do happen. Especially, if left unchecked (which is key here). Feingold is not the problem. I do agree we could have done much to improve our position now years ago, but hindsight is 20/20.
So, to sum up: Respect your points. They are valid. After consideration, agree to disagree.
Obama 2008! Please consider the Supreme Court when you vote in the fall and how that will affect FISA and many other important Constitutional issues. (that's for everyone).
July 9, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and I'm breathing just fine, thank you.
July 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, the idea this could have been filibustered when it was passing with a large majority... :rolleyes: Hillary is just posturing and playing political games as usual. I'm sick of Senators who posture and never actually accomplish anything. I'd rather have a Senator activly working to support legislation and influencing it to be the best possible outcome, rather than protest voters who never accomplish anything but pandering to the choir.
And "straight talk" McCain didn't even show up to vote on FISA or any of the amendments. What a coward.
I'm so glad I supported Obama as opposed to Hillary, and plan to vote for him in November as opposed to McCain. I supported the Dodd Amendment to strip immunity, but never expected it to pass, and respect Obama for 1) showing up to vote, 2) making the hard decisions and pragmatically supporting the best possible option on the table.
July 9, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...FISA was reasserted today..."
Only an idiot thinks we need to 'reassert' laws?
Maybe we could violate the constitution and then 'reassert' it when we are done!
July 9, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you're the one being exceedingly idiotic with your incredibly shallow notion of how government works.
I agree FISA always applied and the law was broken. That and $1.50 will get you coffee.
The fact is the Admin was getting away with wiretapping and data mining because much of the public didn't know or care, and much of Congress didn't care. If the people and 3/4 of Congress don't care, what magical authority do you expect will enforce your interpretation of the law? Not the courts, because all of this can easily be classified under national security.
So, yes, it absolutely did need to be clarified and reasserted in regards to electronic surveillance. To clarify the law for Congress and the Administration, and define what will be allowed going forward. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's how government actually works in the real world as opposed to civics textbooks.
Also, there was enough wiggle room on FISA regarding data mining, as opposed to straight up wire tapping, that litigating these cases towards any sort of win would be exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, the idea there would be "discovery" in civil cases is a bit absurd, because all the Administration would have to do is declare everything "classified." And if a future Admin wants to declassify what happened, it will do so regardless.
July 9, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Congress need to "reassert" existing law, apart from Congress' abject failure to protect the original law from the law-breakers, i.e., the President and his henchmen. Perhaps Congress can pass it again tomorrow and TRIPLE-DOG dare the President to break the law again.
FISA, FISA II, bride-of-FISA, FISA-goes-Hawaiian, etc. are irrelevant if Congress doesn't assert its authority to protect the law. I don't see how giving the President a BJ is a sign of assertiveness.
July 9, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because this isn't a civics textbook, it's the real world. In the real world, government breaks laws all the time and gets away with it with the consent of Congress and the people.
If you actually want government to change and hold to a course you agree with, then change the culture and get more people elected who you agree with.
But expecting Government to do what you like because the law is on your side, even when most people and most of government doesn't agree or care with you, or want to enforce that law, is an incredibly naive notion of government and humanity.
July 9, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dearest kozmik,
I don't really care where your unbridled pragmatism comes from, but your utter disregard for truth, the rule of law, and the Constitution when trying to explain away the disgusting abomination that the Senate passed yesterday indicates that your attitude doesn't come from anywhere I want to be.
The current (albeit only until Little Georgie signs the bill into law) is the EXCLUSIVE law pertaining to electronic eavesdropping. No amount of spin and bullshit coming from the administration and its apologists undoes that.
The abomination does not explicitly allow for unbridled monitoring of anyone, anytime. However, the oversight defined within the abomination precludes any effective oversight from deterring unlawful, unconstitutional monitoring of anyone, anytime for whatever reason the President dreams up.
The 4th Amendment is clear. A warrant is required.
If you wish to contest this. If you wish to assert the pragmatic right to overturn the Constitution. You are a traitor.
If you don't understand the dangers of unfettered monitoring of anyone, anytime, for whatever whim of the President, then your naivte' will be your inevitable downfall. It's not at all germane whether YOU mind if YOU are monitored. I don't care if YOU have nothing to hide. And it's not about me. I have nothing to hide. It's about ALL our Constitutional rights. It's about intimidation of freely expressed communication by the Government.
In case you never learned. The Constitution is designed to protect We The People from the power of the government.
And if you're so afraid of the little brown men who are going to get us... I pity your sorry cowardly ass. You're pathetic.
You're a stooge and an idiot. If you're not intentionally trying to put lipstick on this abominable pig, then you're a fool as well.
Somehow, we shall overcome this unconstitutional abomination. Somehow, we will come out from the darkness that the penumbra of Little Georgie and The Big Dick has spread over America and the world. Somehow. But evidently not with your help.
July 10, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
and there's the 'mindless apologist'.
July 9, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The FISA Court never went away!!! Once the temporary legislation expired, the old FISA law went back into effect. There was no need whatsoever to hurry this legislation through. I can only conclude that a large number of Congressional Democrats were just as afraid of being exposed as collaborators in lawbreaking as the Bush Administration was if the lawsuits against the telecoms had been allowed to proceed.
This is an abomination, and shame on Obama for allying himself with it.
July 9, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you're talking about and just repeating some nonsense you heard from someone else probably.
First of all, FISA was de facto not in effect because the Admin was interpreting it not to apply, and most of Congress didn't care or even supported th Admin, and the majority of people didn't/don't know or care either. So yes, it absolutely did need to be reasserted and redefined to make clear the consensus view of the law going forward.
Secondly, there is no way this FISA bill with 69% in Congress could be blocked. If Dem leadership refused to bring it to the floor, there would have beena walkout or such poltical theatre to force it to a vote, and Dems would have suffered a huge legislative loss. Additionally the legislation would have been revised to be even worse as they'd no longer have any incentive to compromise and had the political upper hand.
Lastly, the courts were never going to reveal facts through discovery or otherwise resolve this issue against the will of the Admin and Congress. That was a complete delusion. All the Admin would have to do is classify everything as National Security. And if a future Admin and Congress wants to redress this issue and open the facts to the public and media, they'll do so regardless.
July 9, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to rationalize this, but I see an opening here. This gets Obama to pick Clinton as VP without pissing off the independents and republicans....
July 9, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her answer will be:
Clinton in 2012
July 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've been over this: Not Clinton, but fogu2 in 2012!
July 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not with $12 million of debt to vendors there will be a Clinton in '12. Every vendor is going to demand cash upfront in her next Presidential run because they don't want to be the last in line to a campaign that could go hugely into debt.
July 9, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoo boy. I didn't realize Clinton was going to vote against the bill. There's going to be some gloating on the right side of the screen, I suspect.
July 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's easy for her to do so in NY isn't it? You can bet if she was running for President still she would have voted for it.
July 9, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like how Saint Obama used to gloat about not supporting the Authorization of Force amendment in 2002?? Funny thing though, Saint Obama was an Illinois House Rep back in 2002. Sure takes a lot of political cajones to claim you'd vote one way when you weren't even elected to cast that vote.
July 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
She also voted against the filibuster.
July 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, she knew this would pass and she didn't want to do anything to endanger it. Her no vote was a mere formality.
July 9, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. She voted against cloture. That's what I get for trusting stuff I read on TPM...
July 9, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Glenn Greenwald and Firedoglake, Clinton voted against cloture, not the filibuster. Fact check please, Andrew.
July 9, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just checked the roll call. She voted against cloture.
July 9, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, with that fully worked out, let me say once again, "hoo boy!"
I'm actually okay with this bill, and I fully understand that the difference between HC and BO springs mainly from the fact that BO is now the nominee.
But one can still appreciate, on an aesthetic level, Hillary's gesture here. Among other things, it's the nicest, most elegant possible way of saying "f--- you" to Markos, isn't it?
July 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha,ha... good point. I suspected she had that card up her sleeve.
July 9, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
While you're at it....could you interpret these chicken entrails for me and tell me if Britney will find true love in the next year?
July 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
69 Senators need to be primaried.
It's gonna be a tough slog, but it's the only way. Not a dime to the sellouts - fund the challengers!
July 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh... well, the Dems anyway.
You know what I mean.
July 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Congress of the United States is now offically an accessory, after the fact, to felonious acts committed by the Bush administration and condoned by the Justice Department.
What happens when all three branches of government place themselves above the law?
July 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congress was an accessory anyway. Why should this make any difference? It will be interesting to see how the Republicans flip on all these new Presidential superpowers if/when Obama gets elected.
July 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it won't. It will be a boringly predictable retread of the Clinton years.
July 9, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The absolute weirdest part of that is that I will actually be on the same side as those Republicans maybe for the first time ever. That will definitely be uncomfortable for me.
July 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"After a long train of abuses..."
The people should assert their right to revolution.
July 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that it would actually happen, but it would be nice to think Americans still had it in them. I don't think they do though. Too old. Too fat. Too stupid.
July 9, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Careful what you wish for. I'm as fed up with our Congress as the next person, but I don't think I want to live through an armed revolt. I like my city the way it is, not riddled with bullet holes and IEDs.
July 9, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of us would like living through an armed revolt, and I'm sure the generation of 1776 didn't much like it either. But sometimes you have to make a choice between trying to stay comfortable and staying free.
July 9, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Revolution comes in more than one form Agio. It needn't be an armed revolt. If that's what it would take of course, it might be. Personally, I think that peaceful methods of noncooperation and Satyagraha would do the trick if tried. Problem is, Americans lack the will. They prefer getting screwed to actually asserting the power of the people.
July 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens Walrus, is that "We the people" becomes an anachronism.
July 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoo boy. I didn't realize Clinton was going to vote against the bill. There's going to be some gloating on the right side of the screen, I suspect.
She voted against the filibuster, which, given that there was obviously more than a majority for the bill, was the only vote that mattered, and in Obama's place (as presumptive nominee) almost certainly wouldn't have even gone as far as she did. If anyone gloats about that they're a total idiot.
July 9, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do a fact check. Other websites (Firedoglake and Glenn Greenwald) are reporting just the opposite: that she voted against cloture, not the filibuster
July 9, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And it's not clear how intel agents define who is a suspected terrorist. "
Well, until recently Nelson Mandela was on the watch list, so I think it's safe to say that "suspected terrorist" = everyone.
July 9, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY) voted against the filibuster and then voted against the law a few moments later.
So what does that mean?
It means that Barack Obama and Clinton both hold AT&T, Verizon and several all telecoms in far higher esteem than American citizens or even the US Constitution.
It means US citizens are under corporate rule and you can bet that Obama will tell any lie that he has to, to keep you under corporate rule.
It means Obama will as with many Dems protect corporations from lawsuits and but in no way will protecting American citizens from unlawful act by corporations.
But I wouldn't worry, if its between Republican Obama or senile Republican McCain - I think the Obama's giddy mindless rock-star fans that are what is left of the Dem Party and Republicans will go for Obama anyway.
July 9, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
damn disgraceful
July 9, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't vote for him.
July 9, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me cynical, but I really don't give a damn about FISA and I am amused at all the online bloggers acting as if this is the end of the world.
Newsflash, the govt can spy on your anytime they want! They will tap your phone, take your picture, whatever the hell they want.
Watching all the posters at the Dailykos have little temper tantrums is kind of sad and amusing at the same time.
July 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
*wipes ass with constitution*
*hands it to you*
July 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, you are a moron.
July 9, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will vote for Obama.
What a sad day for the United States of America though- this will be looked upon with much disgust by future generations, much like how we look upon the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918. I hope we will overturn it like those bills someday as well. However, as far as telecom immunity goes- the damage is done. Bush gets off the hook on this as well.
July 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone explain to me why Congress had to vote on this now? I know about the old bill's sunset clauses and all, but why did they have to pull the trigger now and not wait? Of course, with these numbers, I guess it would pass regardless of what happens in November. Has anyone taken a poll about what (if) the average American thinks about this bill?
July 9, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The old FISA bill wasn't expiring, it was the stuff that they rammed through after 9/11 that was sunsetting, along with some warrantless surveillance programs.
I wonder what Cheney has in his files on so many Congresscritters that keeps them from doing any more than talking about doing the right thing.
July 9, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Big DIck has all their electronic communications and those of their friends, families and business associates. Or at least, that's what he's told them.
Which is why the 4th Amendment is so important. It's not what you have to hide; it's what the other guy has to hide.
ITMFA
July 10, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
matyra,
The reason they had to vote on it now was because Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Emmanuel and numerous other top DC Democrats got paid a hefty sum by the telecoms and all of the aforementioned are gutless whores. There is absolutely no excuse for this bill having come up other than the powerful Democrats got their money and so gladly bent over and squealed like the pigs they are.
July 9, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hope all you Obama contributors got your money's worth on this one.
Who is representing here again?
July 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the primary season I spent countless hours ripping Clkitnon in favor of Obama. Now that Obama returns to his well appointed telco slave quarters along with all others that voted for this 4th amendment abortion I wish Clinton would try to steal the niomination from this most duplicitous failure at the Cpnvention.
It appears Clinton may courting Obama supporters that have been betrayed by Obama's unprincipled cowardice about face knee bound telco fellatio capitulation on FISA.
Politics is a bitch, especially for Judas Obama.
July 9, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duck stab...
we all know what our government can do with their spies but they needed to get warrants and so forth to be able to do all of that...FISA just says go ahead do what you want and we'll deal with it later. I suppose you dont mind that the habeaus corpus gets compromised either!
July 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why this is SO depressing even though I knew the capitulation was just waiting to go to the presses, but it is.
Which "freedoms" are left now, I can't recall. They keep flying out the window so fast I'm not sure I won't open the draperies one morning to find I'm in the USSR of the 50's. It's almost that surreal.
And I'm equally amazed at the commenters who think "they" must know something we don't to pass this crap. That's what I kept hearing as we marched into Iraq. It was bullshit then. It's bullshit now.
July 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How long do you suppose people on the left will crab about this before we're on to other issues? I'm guessing this has an effective lifespan of approximately two weeks.
July 9, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting question. I'd say one week. About a week after Hillary conceded, people stopped worrying that she had a secret plan to blow up the convention. So that seems to be the life cycle of these obsessions.
July 9, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
....for me, the length of this thread. Time to get back to attacking McCain. Obama 2008!
July 9, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not for me. I just left the Democratic Party. I'll be donating $1K to the ACLU, which are funds I had allocated to the Obama campaign.
I know my piddly $1K isn't much, but it's something.
July 9, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, it's worth a shot. If we all pitch in, maybe we can put McCain in the White House after all.
July 9, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're getting plenty of help from Sen. Obama on that project.
July 9, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Roll Call Clinton voted AGAINST invoking cloture and thus in favor of the filibuster. So enjoy: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00167
July 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by Duck Stab
July 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I work for an unnamed federal agency I can confirm that you are correct Duck. On split screens I am watching and listening to your neighbor screwing your wife and you giving to some barely of age male prostitute. There goes your raise. By the way, I know your attorney's e-mail and look forward to pilfering through their files once the divorce follows. I know you like it.
July 9, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn....
July 9, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like it hasd happended to you several times before that it has become boring. I am not surprised.
July 9, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sen Barack Obama (D-IL) voted for the bill."
Obama will regret this.
Not because the left is disaffected and angry, which they are. He will regret it because he has repeated a mistake Republicans rarely have any trouble getting DLC type Democrats in Washington to make which is to transparently try and posture one's self to the right of where their best judgement and principles genuinely lay, thereby opening themselves up to far more and more potent criticism than they were trying to hide from. The cowardly, corporate DC Dems do this to try and avoid criticism from the Republicans for being "soft" or insufficiently tough, etc. with respect to national security. This has been going on for decades. Nearly all you have to do is whisper "national security" in front of a DC Dem and they nearly wet their pants in fear before heading for the first right wing posture they can find! It reminds me of Marty McFly's Dad in the original Back to the Future who was such an abject coward he would do anything Biff ordered him to do no matter how humiliating. Today's FISA vote is a perfect instance of it. Pretty sad stuff and pretty sad how quickly Obama fell in line on it too.
Far from protecting them, this craven and poltroonish defensive move, weakens Obama among voters overall. Why? Democrats like Obama who make this bad decision then find themselves (as he already does) not only the target of ire from the left, but they are more importantly instantly subject to right wing criticism that the move was "only" made for political reasons (which is actually true), it was a flip-flop (also true) and so that clinches the lack of "credible" national security credentials or "toughness" argument, and it also serves as "proof" to the average American voter of all persuasions that once again the Democrats offer up a weak-kneed, lilly-livered, sissy/fraidy cat and and after all, how can we afford to elect a man President who won't stand up for his principles on the floor of the Senate?
Obama made all these things true when, had he only had remained consistent in his position on FISA, none of those things would have been true. He would not have flip-flopped, he would not have made a transparent "political" move simply to "look" tough on terror and he would have demonstrated he has the courage to stand by his position because nothing he objected to previously in the bill had changed (though he tried in vane to make it appear so in his FISA capitulation announcement).
In my opinion and in the opinion of many, many others, Obama's vote today for the FISA bill was disgraceful, cowardly, and intellectually indefensible given his previous position on the issues involved. But far more importantly, in terms of the election (which those that defend the flip-flop use as the reason it "had" to be done and was such a "smart" and "necessary" move), he has provided the Republicans with all the ammo they ever needed to go after him hammer and tong from now till election day about being weak on national security. Other than the overall underserverd and (pardon the pun) unwarranted victory today, that is why the Republicans are so filled with glee.
He would have been better off---far better off in fact, standing on the right side of this issue which is entirely defensible in every way. Sadly for him and perhaps for us all, now that he has flip-flopped and so obviously made this move as a political calculation to "defend" himself from criticism he has created a vulnerability and opened a wound for the Republicans to exploit that he otherwise would not have had to deal with. I still think that he can win despite the cowardice, hypocrisy and flip-flopping on this issue, just from a purely win/lose point of view he should have showed some guts on this. By doing as he has done, he hasn't made it any easier for himself.
July 9, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put.
July 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear.
Very disappointing.
July 9, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. In trying to stake out the center, Dems continually push the right further to the right.
July 9, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I'm deeply disappointed in Obama today, just as I was disappointed when Hilary Clinton expediently voted to authorize executive war-making. It's disgusting to see such smart people betray their political commitments for political power (or even the prospect of political power). This is a kind of Change(tm) we didn't need.
July 9, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Piffletosh.
The left has been saying this stuff (verbatim) since 1980, and it never did help us win. We won in the 90s, because the DLC stopped smoking this sort of nonsense.
Yeah, McCain will say "flip-flop!" But then Obama will say "You know, frankly, I care about solutions, and not about ideology." And it'll re-establish his centrist cred, which got a little shopworn in the primary.
This move looks weak to you, because you don't agree with it, and so you can only assume that Obama is insincere. But centrists who agree with the decision will think it looks principled.
July 9, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DLC is not the left, it's the more pro-business, economically conservative part of the party, and in any case it wasn't even formed until 1985.
Funny, though, that the DLC was being pilloried around here when Obama was being touted as the great hope of the progressives, but now suddenly the DLC is seen as the model of good sense.
You can't say "this stuff" has never helped us win, because Democrats haven't gone full-throttle behind a truly progressive candidate in a very long time.
July 9, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Alex, this move looks weak because it IS weak.
The left may have been talking about this stuff but the left isn't the problem here. The problem is that the Republican wing of the Democratic Party (as represented so very nicely by Obama and others today on FISA)keep insisting that this proven bad strategy is our only hope. The more times they get gullible candidates and campaigns to follow this advice, the weaker the Democrats become in Congress and the more races we lose. The failure is squarely on the shoulders of the DLC/Corporate DC Dems who keep selling out, chickening out, and screwing their constiutuents on behalf of big money and corporate interests.
July 9, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What worries me is the thought that this might not actually be to the right of where Obama's "best judgement and principles" genuinely lie. I have suspected all along that Obama was never as progressive as his most vocal supporters seemed to think he was; I always thought it worrisome that it was Joe Lieberman he took as a mentor when he first joined the Senate. And if you read his speeches closely, there was little in them that made any firm commitment to progressivism. It was impossible to try to convince the true believers of that, though.
I think this means we on the left need to keep holding Obama's feet to the fire to keep him from getting too cozy with the right. We need to let him know we want more from him that just "Thank you for your opinion."
July 9, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink