Comments (23)

Michael A wrote on January 22, 2008 4:13 PM:

I for one don't want it extended. The original fisa law was fine and doesn't need to be changed. I find it ridiculous that the administration has a "hard" time getting a warrant. Give me a break. It's almost a rubber stamp anyway, but at least there is a third party making sure that there aren't any outrages going on by the administration, like tapping journalists.

brianm0122 wrote on January 22, 2008 4:20 PM:

I think they need to put an end to the surviellance before the general election. I wouldn't put a little "recreational listening" beyond the republicans.

Bholl wrote on January 22, 2008 4:33 PM:

Bush's Republicrats, led by Sen Reid are the ones who need to go.....

Can't stop the war. Go along with illegal subversive activities of the Admin...These people must be defeated in the next election. Hell, we are better off putting Freshmen Senator Republicans in place of these guys.

Carolyn wrote on January 22, 2008 4:38 PM:

I'm with Michael. The old law was just fine. Someone told me yesterday she had a gut feeling the repubs were going to win in November. Is the country really that stupid? Or is it about diebold? We have got to bring an end to this somehow. Vote absentee if you are in an area with e voting. We MUST have a paper trail.

DB wrote on January 22, 2008 4:40 PM:

This is getting beyond flaccid; it's bordering on mental illness. Reid should simply come out in support of more presidential powers, seeing as that's what he's obviously for. But I suppose he reasons such a stance would put his tenure over a fractious Democratic caucus in serious jeopardy.

I would hope that he's in serious jeopardy as it is. But no, we have to be subjected to this ridiculous kabuki show, minus the cool costumes.

elwood wrote on January 22, 2008 4:44 PM:

What a remarkable statement from Reid.

"Failure to extend the present law for one month could lead to the laws no longer being something that guides what happens in this country," Reid said, adding "some may want that."

So - if we don't pass the law that the President demands, and we fall back to the earlier FISA bill, the President will just ignore the law.

And the Majority Leader will excuse him for it.

oldtree wrote on January 22, 2008 4:50 PM:

It is clear that Mr. Reid values the paycheck he receives from the telecom donations far more highly than the one he is given for doing his constitutional duty.
Sir, it is time you recuse yourself for attempting to influence so many things you are directly involved in. You should consider retirement, or perhaps just change to the republican party now.

Dave Bowman wrote on January 22, 2008 4:50 PM:

Makes you wonder what dirt the Republican 'data plumbers' got on Reid to make him so pliable to their wishes, doesn't it?

Seems like they got the goods on a few more Dems as well...

frogmarchbush wrote on January 22, 2008 5:03 PM:

I agree with elwood. That line struck me as wrong as soon as I read it.

wagonjak wrote on January 22, 2008 6:13 PM:

Reid can take the whole bill and shove it where the sun don't shine...

The more I see of this sad shadow of a Dem leader, the more I despise him...

CranialRectalLoopback wrote on January 22, 2008 6:55 PM:

There are an infinite number of ways for Reid to lose his position in the Senate. All it takes is someone who cares.

melior wrote on January 22, 2008 7:07 PM:

How many tries will it take Reid to learn to hit the spin ball right back in Cheney's face?

The Republicans are obstructing bipartisan efforts, and they should righlty be made to eat that.

anon wrote on January 22, 2008 7:50 PM:

...How many tries will it take Reid to learn...

Huh? Have you been paying attention? As far as anyone can tell, on all the important issues, Reid is on Cheney's team. If the issue is already decided, he might take a token swing but otherwise he's playing short stop on Cheney's team.

Can you name even one kinda important issue where Reid worked against whatever Cheney had in mind?

Bob wrote on January 22, 2008 7:50 PM:

Reid had a choice as to which bill to bring before the senate..the one with telecom immunity or the one without. How much did the one without donate to his campaign?

Chris Bond R-MO...ok Ashcroft(annoint me in oil) from MO, Roy Blunt (Sibel Edmonds accuses of money laundering and selling nuclear secrets to foreign enemies, and whom CREW says is one of the most corrupt reps in congress) rep from Mo whose son is Matt Blunt...Gov of MO....You've just been introduced to the Good ole boy republican political ring from MO....the Blunts, Ashcroft and Bond.

johnnydoughey wrote on January 22, 2008 8:20 PM:

So...
How is the Democratic leadership different than the Republican?

I keep forgetting....

FreakyBeaky wrote on January 23, 2008 12:56 AM:

Umm ... the Democratic leadership thinks the illusion of rule of law and separation of powers must be preserved lest the horrible truth come out, whereas the Republicans really don't give a damn?

oleeb wrote on January 23, 2008 1:20 AM:

Who the fuck cares if the current law expires anyway other than the lilly livered pansies posing as Democrats on Capitol Hill? Reid is by far, the worst Democratic Senate Leader since before WWII. What an abject coward and weakling he is!

katerm wrote on January 23, 2008 1:50 AM:

Harry,

Re the bill:

Let It Expire

Don't bring it to the floor. Let Bush keep breaking the law, then hold his ass accountable! How difficult is that?

PatriotActor wrote on January 23, 2008 3:19 AM:

"Failure to extend the present law for one month could lead to the laws no longer being something that guides what happens in this country,"...

Ignoring for the moment the obvious point that laws already no longer guide what happens in the executive branch... The statement is absurd.

If people are going to do something that would be illegal, and so you change the law to make it legal, the law isn't _guiding_ what happens at all... Extrapolating the gist of this a little, if you decided that people were going to murder other people, you wouldn't (I hope) make murder legal for the sake of preserving the rule of law - I'd hope that you'd instead take measures to enforce the existing law that makes murder illegal.

Al_G wrote on January 23, 2008 7:06 AM:

Is Harry Reid a Republican? He certainly acts as if he is on occasions.

Steaming Pile wrote on January 23, 2008 8:57 AM:

So if there is a date certain (2/1/08) when the law expires, that means all Chris Dodd has to do is keep talking up until midnight 1/31 EST.

phil james wrote on January 23, 2008 1:11 PM:

Rather odd isn't it that the minority party determines to what extent the majority party leader actually leads. Cowed, uncertain, ambivalent, restrained, timid, obsequious, demure, measured, constrained, forceless (I made this last one up). All terms that apply to Harry. But leader? No...nunh uh. He needs to go back to Vegas and run a chain of pink wedding chapels.

Dennis wrote on January 23, 2008 4:18 PM:

Can anyone remember a single time that the Democrats have won anything regarding the lies of Iraq or illegal spying on Americans?

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.