Comments (94)

Dave wrote on January 24, 2008 2:35 PM:

Can You post a list of how the senators voted?

Bruce Sims wrote on January 24, 2008 2:36 PM:

And neither Obama nor Clinton were present; as such they can forget my vote in both the primary and the election since they didn't think this was important enough of an issue to stop campaigning and address their oath of office; and Bill can kiss my ass as well.

JTL wrote on January 24, 2008 2:37 PM:

That's it then.

No more money from me for Congressional Dems EVER. It all goes to organizations like MoveOn now.

Lookingforhome wrote on January 24, 2008 2:41 PM:

Bruce,

Word of your upset just got to the Obama campaign, and the candidate himself has responded saying it really troubles him...and he hopes you'll reconsider for the good of the country.

The Clinton campaign is refusing comment, but an anonymous source stated that you could kiss HRC's ass, and that once she's elected the IRS will be up yours with a microscope...

lestatdelc wrote on January 24, 2008 2:42 PM:

Bruce Sims wrote on January 24, 2008 2:36 PM

So you want John McCnugget or Mitt Romulan to win in Nov. and shift the balance of the Supreme Court of the next quarter century because they didn't vote to make the bill lose 60-36..?

The GOP thanks you for your support.

consume the consumer wrote on January 24, 2008 2:42 PM:

Pathetic. Favorable legislation, approval of mergers and campaign contributions trump the US Constitution. That's supporting the troops, folks. Supporting them well. Sell what they're purportedly their protecting -- your rights. Enjoy. Meanwhile, the flaws of the pre-9/11 world remain. All W et al have done is put lipstick on the pig and ask it to the dance.

iVoted4Nader wrote on January 24, 2008 2:43 PM:

F-off Dems....

RP (ron paul) for prez

RP (ross perot) was right after all

seanh wrote on January 24, 2008 2:43 PM:

I was watching on CSPAN2, and these are a few of the names of Senators voting to table the Judiciary Committee version that stood out

Aye:
Claire McCaskill
Rockefeller (no big surprise)
Lieberman (no big surprise)

Nay:
Dianne Feinstein

Rockefeller is speaking now on CSPAN2
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

zmulls wrote on January 24, 2008 2:46 PM:

This is why I gave up on Clinton and Obama during the early months of the campaign.

Both of them have exhibited leadership by waiting to see if anyone else did anything first, and then leading behind them. Maybe. Sometimes.

Edwards is not a sitting Senator, so we don't know whether he would have rushed back to be in on the debate -- I hope he would have, but it's a "known unknown."

If you don't stand up when it counts, don't ask me to get too excited about having you as my President...

POed Lib wrote on January 24, 2008 2:47 PM:

Obama and Clinton are not the problem here. Claire McCaskill is the problem. It took 1 DEM NOT VOTING for this.

Olaf wrote on January 24, 2008 2:54 PM:

Please... I second the motion... would somebody post the complete roll call on that vote?

malcontent wrote on January 24, 2008 3:04 PM:

What is it with these people who portend to represent our interests within our government continually voting against our will?

Didn't we already have one revolution because of behavior similar to this?

When do we get to start the second one?

Pepp wrote on January 24, 2008 3:05 PM:

And it should not come to the floor again. Their testimony will be needed when Congress has enough votes to Censure Bush Cheney et al.

malcontent wrote on January 24, 2008 3:09 PM:

Am I banned from posting here? WTF?

Mr Furious wrote on January 24, 2008 3:11 PM:

Obama and Hillary's votes here would not have made a difference. Their presence in the chamber casting the vote might have.

I will reserve judgement until this plays out. Hopefully one or both of them will support Dodd's filibuster, which will be vastly more valuable than Nays #35 and 36.

consume the consumer wrote on January 24, 2008 3:15 PM:

Hilary and Obama took the easy way out. That's the way they roll. Plain and simple. You go for that change mantra. Bipartisanship isn't change. Rather, its just giving the GOP what it wants regardless of whether it deserves it or not because you're afraid of being called a name. And you thought High School Government ended at graduation.

Lisa wrote on January 24, 2008 3:16 PM:

And didn't Claire McCaskill just appear in the first Obama commercial they aired in Western New York last night? Just plain depressing.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 24, 2008 3:17 PM:

I called my senator (Claire McCaskill) asking her to support this amendment. I will not forget her vote. I never liked her to begin with, so it will not be hard at all for me to vote against her in 2012.

Bruce Sims wrote on January 24, 2008 3:22 PM:

Lestatdek, I live in CA and can write in whomever I want for prez; can you?
And if the IRS wants to audit me, they are more than welcome to given my financial status.

Slim wrote on January 24, 2008 3:25 PM:

Totally planned capitulation... Glen Greenwald has an excellent post.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/24/rockefeller/

I swear, these people are scum. It is so pathetic that this is what we call "representation".

Atheinostic wrote on January 24, 2008 3:27 PM:

Democrats voting down anti-immunity bill: Rockefeller, Bayh, Mikulski, Pryor, Salazar, Johnson, McCaskill, Nelson (FL), Carper, Nelson (NE), Landrieu, Inouye

pseudonymous in nc wrote on January 24, 2008 3:31 PM:

Remember this when they ask for your money: offer a donation in exchange for their phone records, because that's what they've essentially done today.

nellieh wrote on January 24, 2008 3:35 PM:

Doesn't the current bill expire soon? If so won't they have to abide by the original FISA bill designed when the FISA Court was formed? This may not be a bad thing because immunity is still an idea, not a law.

Quintilius Varus wrote on January 24, 2008 3:40 PM:

thats that...
i'm done with this party. go ahead... elect people to drive the thing off the cliff... i'm joining the 'bucket o popcorn' party.

Scud wrote on January 24, 2008 3:42 PM:

Yep. You lost me Dems.

I considered this vote a bellwether for the future of our liberties. The fact that neither Hillary nor Obama even bothered to show up means they have lost my confidence and support. As for those of you who will claim that this type of stand may mean giving the presidency to the Republicans I say, that's the breaks. Frankly, that may be what Democratic politicians need to see for four more years: if you don't take a stand and do what's right for the country, versus what's politically expedient, you won't be trusted with our votes come election time.

But why should Democratic politicians worry? They know we'll just keep giving them the benefit of the doubt, seemingly forever.

J Linder wrote on January 24, 2008 3:45 PM:

I'm reserving judgement until I see what (if any) version DOES pass. It's possible there is a compromise amendment out there (or one to be offered) that makes sense, and we may not be aware of yet.

I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of partial PAST immunity for the telecoms. The reason being that at least in some cases, I am certain they were acting under what they believed to be lawful orders of the US Govt. (What, like the FBI, et al haven't lied before about what they can legally do?).

I'd have very little problem with a good faith immunity provision, where if the telecom could document (burden of proof on THEM) that they were acting under what could reasonably be construed as law, then immunity from puntitve action might apply.

J Linder wrote on January 24, 2008 3:48 PM:

Regarding Obama/Clinton/et al - Yeah, have to admit they should have showed up for this one.

As someone pointed out tho, when the alternative is someone like Huckabee or Romney, well, yeah...they'll get the benefit of the doubt as the lesser of two weasels.

consume the consumer wrote on January 24, 2008 3:52 PM:

Yes, the PAA expires Feb. 1. That's why all of the chicken littles are trying to make the PAA permanent, because they didn't put in the immunity in that version, opting instead to wait until the last minute and give in anyway. The "solution" to the whole FISA mess is to just do nothing, let PAA expire and go back to the old FISA law. It has 'immunity' for the telecomms provided that they followed those rules, which they didn't so we now all know why they want FISA part II. It's not to protect America. It's to protect US corporations and government officials who blatantly broke the law and don't want to face the repercussions. So they claim that this "fix" is needed and that breaking the law saved lives. Of course, they never show us the proof of any of this. We're just expected to lap it all up like the good doggies we are because W, the hater of all things government, is a benevolent dictator who only has the American peoples' best interests at heart (when he's not sucking on the royal Saud oil tit, of course).

Cliffy wrote on January 24, 2008 3:54 PM:

J Linder--

I understand that impulse, but the telcos were not unsophisticated actors on this -- they all have high-powered legal counsel who would have known what the government could and couldn't do.

OTOH, wasn't it Qwest that told the Gov't to fuck off and ended up getting persecuted for its trouble? That's a similar, and to me more compelling, argument.

consume the consumer wrote on January 24, 2008 3:56 PM:

Yeah, but the risk is that all those loyal Dems, who've watched this charade of protest masking capitulation, could likely decide that 'change' is not something anyone is really selling and stay home.

About the only really good reason to vote for Dem for President at the moment is vacancies on the US Supreme Court. And I'm just so certain that most folks fail to even take that into consideration. As for the rest of the pressing issues facing this nation, there's not much difference below the surface rhetoric.

EH wrote on January 24, 2008 3:57 PM:

I'm not entirely opposed to the concept of partial PAST immunity for the telecoms. The reason being that at least in some cases, I am certain they were acting under what they believed to be lawful orders of the US Govt.

J Linder: I can't imagine why you're "certain" how the telcos were acting, since you don't deign to document your opinion, but that you don't know that good-faith immunity is already a part of FISA, it's possible that you just don't know what you're talking about. Nice apologia, though. Here's a question though, are you "certain" that it's Constitutional to legalize crimes that occurred in the past?

blackdog wrote on January 24, 2008 3:58 PM:

Senator Pryor is from AR, not AK. But his voting pattern has proven to me that beyond a shadow of a doubt, he is a jerk.

I've actually met this jerk, and voted for him.

Never again.

oleeb wrote on January 24, 2008 4:15 PM:

Yes, McCaskill is a major league problem. I voted for her but while holding my nose, but thought she would at least be better than this. She is cowed by corporate power.

Atheinostic wrote on January 24, 2008 4:28 PM:

"I'd have very little problem with a good faith immunity provision, where if the telecom could document (burden of proof on THEM) that they were acting under what could reasonably be construed as law, then immunity from puntitve action might apply."

The original FISA law already gives good-faith immunity to the telecom companies.

The new immunity they are "debating" is for immunity when they can't show they were acting in good faith doing what they thought was legal.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 4:28 PM:

> Among the Democrats voting to kill the SJC bill were Sens. Mark Pryor (AK), Daniel Inouye (HI), Claire McCaskill (MO), Mary Landrieu (LA), Ken Salazar (CO) and Tim Johnson (SD).

These pseudo-Democrats are the enemy.

They must be purged.

Kelly Burnett wrote on January 24, 2008 4:37 PM:

Sad, money trumps the law. I am a democrat but not for much longer, my party has turned into the party of eunuchs, not another dime for these hypocritical liars, who care more about corporate interests than their constituents. They might as well be Rebulicans.

Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 24, 2008 4:45 PM:

I knew the other shoe would drop when McCaskill endorsed Obama. His supporters were so happy to get her endorsement. Hey, happy now? Oh, and look, Obama's mentor (Lieberman) was one of the Senators voting to table the Judiciary Committee version. Jeez, will wonders never cease.

Powkat wrote on January 24, 2008 4:50 PM:

Who cares if they thought it was a lawful order from the government? If they had a good reason they can stand up in court and a jury can decide. If corporations have 'personhood' they should have to follow the same rules. I am so sick of what we have become. This is not a democracy - it's an oligarcy of corporate power. We are no different from the poor suckers in 'The Jungle' except the work is not as physically taxing.

I have one question: Is it hypocritical or merely ironic if I buy my pitchfork at HomeDepot?

Bruce Sims wrote on January 24, 2008 5:05 PM:

For those not watching CSPAN, it has become apparent that Kit Bond(R-MO) is leading the Bush Admin position on this bill and he has already objected to an amendment to the bill that would give U.S. citizen's working/traveling overseas the same rights of 'privacy' re wiretapping as if they were working/traveling in the U.S.
A true fascist.

dr2chase wrote on January 24, 2008 5:06 PM:

It's ironic. I bought Dead Kennedys' "Kill the Poor" from iTunes after Katrina.

MJ wrote on January 24, 2008 5:14 PM:

Both Clinton and Obama knew that flying back to DC would be a waste of their time. Their people were probably on the phone with Reid's people the entire time. Believed me, vote count is known before it is even brought up. You should be more mad at the coward Dems that still vote with the Repubs on everything.

electricphoto wrote on January 24, 2008 5:16 PM:

Telco Immunity is actually IMUNITY FOR BUSH - this is what this is about... the lets help our cooperative phone companies is a bush COVER STORY...

Heres the details:

Telecom immunity includes by definition the approval of two condition precedents:  Bush had constitutional authority for the warrantless surveillance and the surveillance was determined to be lawful.  Under the doctrine of Congressional ratification, the effect of this approval is to retroactively "legalize" Bush's authority and program. This means that Bush may have immunity from prosecution.  Moreover, for years, Bush could not cite any statutory authority for his theory of unitary presidential prerogatives. Bush will now have precedent.

Dewey_m wrote on January 24, 2008 5:19 PM:

I completely concurwith JTL::

JTL wrote on January 24, 2008 2:37 PM:

That's it then.

No more money from me for Congressional Dems EVER. It all goes to organizations like MoveOn now.

Bruce Sims wrote on January 24, 2008 5:21 PM:

Republican Kyl(AZ) acting in place of Bond just objected to Feinstein's amendment that stated only FISA is the authority for wiretapping of U.S. citizen's.

Owen Gray wrote on January 24, 2008 5:21 PM:

I just got off the phone with Mikulski's office (answered on the second ring, and quite professional) They claim that she will be supporting amendments to remove retroactive immunity from the intelligence committee version, although I must confess that the prospects of that succeeding appear a bit dim to me at the moment

Don in Texas wrote on January 24, 2008 5:26 PM:

The Bush-Cheney regime is desperate to give the telephone companies immunity because, if they do not, the entire unconstitutional "high crimes and misdemeanors" (violation of the fourth amendment) involved in warrantless wiretapping of Americans will jump up and bite them in the ass.

Kit Bond (R-MO) is the ranking member (vice chair) of the Intelligence Committee and is carrying the Bush regime's water in this matter.

The Republican strategy is clear: object to bringing up ANY Democratic amendment, pushing action right up to the arbitrary "deadline" of February 1st when the "Protect America Act" expires and the FISA law reverts to the original statute from 1978.

Make no mistake, the real issue is whether BushCo can violate the constitution with impunity, gather enormous power in the Executive branch and destroy the rights which we, the people, have reserved to ourselves.

Bruce Sims wrote on January 24, 2008 5:27 PM:

Majority Reid just stated he would vote against cloture for the intelligence cmte. bill because Repubs will not allow ANY amendments to the bill.

Yarnman.ret wrote on January 24, 2008 5:29 PM:

Maybe Johnny Edwards can go sit on the Senate steps to emphasize by his presence in Washington how he would have voted, if he were still in the Senate, and to show up the no-show duo of Obama and HRC.

Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA wrote on January 24, 2008 5:32 PM:

So much for Professor Obama.

Apparently he was a great teacher of Constitional law, but when it comes time to stand up and defend it? Not so much.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:32 PM:

Bruce Sims --

If Reid is openly against cloture of Chris Dodd's filibuster against the Intelligence Committee bill, it's not very likely that ten Democrats would go against him and vote for it -- although eleven Democrats voted to kill the Judiciary Committee's bill.

Sixty votes are needed to invoke cloture.

This is high drama, indeed, and we need to let our Senators (especially those eleven)
know that we oppose the Intelligence Committee bill.

redford wrote on January 24, 2008 5:36 PM:

I was listening to the vote and as soon as my senator, Bayh, voted for it, I sent a scathing e-mail to him. He's a Democrat in name only. What in the world makes him think he could be a Democratic nominee for President?
Currently listening to Harry and Mitch... which sorority were they in, in college?

Mauimom wrote on January 24, 2008 5:36 PM:

Mikulski (Sellout-MD) is such a slimeball.

peterboy wrote on January 24, 2008 5:47 PM:

Clinton and Obama are dead to me unless they join the filibuster. I would rather walk away than vote for a hollow Democrat.

Bruce Sims wrote on January 24, 2008 5:48 PM:

Reid just asked for and got, the vote on cloture to be held next Monday at 4:30pmEST but recorded as occurring at 12 noon the same date. All those whose Senators voted against the Judiciary bill need to be screaming at those Senators as well as getting the word out that the Repubs would not allow ANY amendments to the intelligence cmte. bill to be offered/voted on.

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 5:52 PM:

Glad to see the DNC is using their new found subpoena and committee power to defend the Constitution. [/snark]

How is this vote to "grant or not grant immunity' relevant: Only the Courts, not Congress, can grant immunity on issues of ongoing litigation. To pretend Congress "can or cannot grant immunity" is a false belief that they have judicial power. This Congressional vote amounts to an illegal assertion of judicial power.

JimBob wrote on January 24, 2008 5:55 PM:

Can't help wondering how many of those senators friends and/or relatives will be working at well-paying jobs in the telecom industry within, say, a week?

Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 6:00 PM:

36 votes against tabling. 40 needed to sustain a filibuster. Where's the leadership in the Senate to make the GOP filibuster on these bills? Oh, that's right: Filibuster is only something that is threated to be denied; not something that is required nor compelled.

US is exporting this "model" of governance abroad? It's a reckless mess. Doesn't inpire confidence in the American voters. Solutions are possible.

Bibblesnæð wrote on January 24, 2008 6:17 PM:

Clinton and Obama never fail when it comes to underwhelming me. What the hell good would they be as president if neither one can bother to try to lead now, while they can. They're both U.S. senators, and as such, they have ways to lead and shape people's opinions that few others among us do. But they're scared to lead, since that would mean they'd have to stick their necks out, and they can't have that.
I'm reminded of a speech Clinton gave back in the fall, where a woman jumped up and scolded her for not, you know, leading on Iraq. She defended herself by saying that there was no way to get anything done since it takes 60 votes to shut off debate and there are only 50 and a half Democrats, but not to worry, since when she was president, we'd have more Democrats and she's be a kickass leader and blah blah blah.
It never seemed to occur to her that she could try to lead now, while she's in the Senate and maybe sway other senators to her side. Instead she just whined about how hard it was. Made me think of Bush at that debate in 2004 almost crying that being president is such hard work.
And Obama's no better. Where's his famed oratory when it could maybe make a difference in the Senate?

fisharcade wrote on January 24, 2008 6:28 PM:

Hey, it's obviously time for a major effort against the forces that have hijacked our nation. If a few thousand ragtag insurgents can defeat the US military, why can't we? It's time to take up arms. Violence may not work in the long run--though you'd never know it given the speed with which we launch it around the world--but it certainly will show our elite that we're not going to stick our tails between our legs and allow them to have their way at our expense. I'm sure China will arm us, or Venezuela. Why quibble over these hyper-ambitious ego-maniacs. Just get rid of them!

Michael's Mom wrote on January 24, 2008 6:30 PM:

Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 24, 2008 4:45 PM:
I knew the other shoe would drop when McCaskill endorsed Obama. His supporters were so happy to get her endorsement. Hey, happy now?

No happier than Hillbots for HRC's campaign to have Evan Bayh, Barbara Mikulski and Mark Pryor's support.

slb wrote on January 24, 2008 6:33 PM:

>> Majority Reid just stated he would vote against cloture for the intelligence cmte. bill because Repubs will not allow ANY amendments to the bill. <<

Huh? How is that the Republicans' call to make? Aren't the Democrats supposed to be in charge?

OTOH, if that's what it takes to get Reid to find his, maybe that's all to the good. :-|

Oilwellian wrote on January 24, 2008 6:37 PM:

No wonder Rockefeller was feeling cocky this morning. He knew he had the votes. Perhaps if Obama or Hillary had returned to the Senate and showed the leadership skills they claim to have, they could have changed the mind of just one of those senators who voted to to kill the judiciary version of the FISA bill.

ft wrote on January 24, 2008 6:58 PM:

Don't forget to the Dem primary voters, too. Iowans could have sent the message to Clinton and Obama that stopping domestic spying mattered by giving Dodd more than 0.2% of the vote. With that showing, which forced Dodd out, HC and BO might have concluded that FISA isn't a priority for the party's rank and file.

Of course, this is all too complicated an analysis. No Bush, no Republican majority, and maybe no one named Rockefeller pretending to be a Democrat, and there's no domestic spying.

DaddyD wrote on January 24, 2008 7:04 PM:

Just a thought... instead of blogging your complaints, why don't you (all of) call the Obama and Clinton campaigns and demand they stand against telecom immunity? Ask them to go back to WDC and use their formidable leadership skills to persuade others to flip sides. Ask them to participate in a filibuster. I'll start you all off with Obama's campaign headquarter's number: 1-866-675-2008. Tell 'em your a supporter, but you expectd more leadership on this... now they've got until Moday to deliver.

fisharcade wrote on January 24, 2008 7:07 PM:

Liquidate them!

mocasdad wrote on January 24, 2008 7:25 PM:

I looked pretty hard but I couldn't find a true democrat in that list of "democrats" who voted to kill the bill. I'm just astonished that even more of the GOP-lites we have masquerading as democrats didn't jump on board. Baucus, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Leahy, Biden, Lincoln, Reid, Schumer, Reid, just to name a few.

rreddy wrote on January 24, 2008 7:34 PM:

What's with the Obama supporters? McCaskill, Nelson, Johnson. See a pattern here? Is this the change they're talking about. DINOs.

Melonie Wright wrote on January 24, 2008 7:54 PM:

disappointed in Obama & Clinton?? Here's what John Edwards did:

Senator Edwards sent the following email to supporters this afternoon.

When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can find your Senators' phone numbers here or call the Senate Switchboard at 1-(202)-224-3121.

Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.

But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.

Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.

Thank you for taking action.

John Edwards
January 24, 2008

Instead of sending $$ to Cong. Dems including Obama & Clinton, send it to John Edwards, our only hope now that Kucinich has dropped out. (and NO, I do not work for Edwards...just a fan)

Susan wrote on January 24, 2008 8:33 PM:

Edwards says this: "Here's a radical idea. How about having a president who actually believes in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights?" His entire campaign is based on turning this country back to its citizenry, taking it back. Back from those holding us hostage, infringing upon our rights. That's why he won't take a dime from lobbyists and special interest groups. He's not for sale.

Would he have been in Senate Chambers? Not a doubt in my mind. He'd have been there to urge others to do the right thing and been there to do the right thing for the people, fighting tough. To uphold The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. We've just seen what Hillary and Obama chose to do. So, vote wisely. Vote Edwards. He represents the grown up wing of the Democratic Party. Beyond that, he represents the 99% being controlled by the 1% elite. If you work for a living, Edwards speaks for you. For all of us.

Dennis wrote on January 24, 2008 8:40 PM:

Those who support the immunity are no better than those who authorized and did the actual spying.

My country and my countrymen are under seige from their own government.

Political party makes no difference. In the past three months I have posted a good number of messages directly to the Democratic National Party site, and I have not received an acknowledgement for a single one.

It is amazing how LOW our politicians will go to remain in office - even to the point of protecting law breakers and selling out the country.

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

Susan wrote on January 24, 2008 8:44 PM:

Edwards says this: "Here's a radical idea. How about having a president who actually believes in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights?" His entire campaign is based on turning this country back to its citizenry, taking it back. Back from those holding us hostage, infringing upon our rights. That's why he won't take a dime from lobbyists and special interest groups. He's not for sale.

Would he have been in Senate Chambers? Not a doubt in my mind. He'd have been there to urge others to do the right thing and been there to do the right thing for the people, fighting tough. To uphold The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. We've just seen what Hillary and Obama chose to do. So, vote wisely. Vote Edwards. He represents the grown up wing of the Democratic Party. Beyond that, he represents the 99% being controlled by the 1% elite. If you work for a living, Edwards speaks for you. For all of us.

Note: I'm not a member of JRE's campaign staff, either. Every dime or dollar I can scrimp or find goes to support Edwards in this campaign. He's the first ever to get so much as a dime from me, that's how his authenticity impresses me. Being older'n dirt it takes top quality to impress me.

malcontent wrote on January 24, 2008 9:16 PM:

I question the sincerity of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia.

It just seems brutally ironic that the direct kin of America's preeminent Robber Barron is representing the people's interests against the machine.

Who he is, what his name represents, and the energy he exerts defending his fortune should each preclude him from serving on our side of the aisle.

Methinks there might be traitors in our midst.

getaclue wrote on January 24, 2008 9:41 PM:

I'm with the popcorn bunch.

The dems can kiss my tired old ass

lisa wrote on January 24, 2008 10:21 PM:

As others have said upthread, that's it for Clinton and Obama. All talk, no cock.

This was a huge issue to me. HUGE. They both seem to be saying, "Whadaaya gonna do, vote for Republican? I'm all ya got. Suck on it."

Oh yeah? Well,
Suck.
On.
This.

Not voting for either one of ya. Just because you have a D after your name doesn't guarantee you my vote.

You need to earn it. And you just threw it out, like so much toilet paper.

Have a nice election, assholes.

lisa wrote on January 24, 2008 10:30 PM:

Oh, and Edwards sent me an e-mail well after the vote on the Judiciary Committee version was dead.

No one can say whether Edwards would have voted the right way. No one. His past behavior in the Senate suggests, actually, that he would have voted with the Bayhs and Nelsons and McCaskills of the bunch.

We can't know. Either way.

So he can't weigh in and declare bravely what he would have done. It's moot. He's a nonentity in this discussion. He gets no points subtracted, but certainly none added.

Laura wrote on January 24, 2008 11:53 PM:

Hey, Greg: I noticed you said you contacted McCaskill's office to urge her support of this bill. You didn't happen to get any kind of explanation from her as to why she voted to table it?

I'm genuinely curious to hear what possible benign explanation might be given for being one of the handful of Dems who wouldn't support it. I don't expect to actually hear any explanations, but still....

Also, (forgive me if this is a stupid question), most of the timid Dems are from "purple" or "red" states. But what's up with Inouye of Hawaii???

pollyanna wrote on January 25, 2008 12:01 AM:

Lisa,

"Not voting for either one of ya. Just because you have a D after your name doesn't guarantee you my vote."

Been there, done that. I'm a Nader voter from 2000 who has worked hard for the Dems since then to atone for that vote. Please think of the Supreme Court. Truly this country cannot survive another Alito or Roberts. I understand your frustration and I share it. We simply can't afford for good, informed Dems like you to sit this one out. We need an overwhelming majority. I hope you'll reconsider.

castanea wrote on January 25, 2008 12:25 AM:

Amazing. The Democrats opposed the bill by an apparent 3-to-1 margin, and people here are telling them to eff off?

Really?

Yet again the left engages in a circular firing squad. Why am I not surprised?

Look, sane minds understand what a crock it is to support immunity for telecoms, and apparently when it comes to our politicians in DC, the only sane minds belong inside Democratic skulls.

Instead of all the bitching about how "Democrats are just as bad as Republicans," I wish we could figure out the best way to get rid of the deadweight in the party without all the intra-party bitching.

The problem isn't that there is a quarter or a third or whatever fraction of the Democratic Party that marches to the beat of its own drummer, the problem is that the Republican Party is a rightwing monolith. The more we can get that message into the media, the better off the progressive cause will be.

castanea wrote on January 25, 2008 12:28 AM:

pollyanna--

Well said.

An overwhelming majority reduces the need for any real/phony "bipartisanship."

Mike timmons wrote on January 25, 2008 12:32 AM:

You know what? If it means that the Republicans win FOREVER, I

Mike timmons wrote on January 25, 2008 12:35 AM:

Funny how the Democrats always find a way to get 60 votes to the Republican side.

I will never support this flaccid bunch of phonies. Obama and Clinton can both kiss my ass.

You think these Democrats are going to save you? You are just fucking crazy.

bill a bomb wrote on January 25, 2008 1:47 AM:

seems that ralph was right when he says the dems are the same as the republicans...

seems to be the case more often than not.

and you think they would vote different in an hrc or obama admin?

LHinSea wrote on January 25, 2008 2:17 AM:

What would Edwards do?

Edwards has actually sent an email to his supporters saying: "Call your Senators and tell them to stand up for the Constitution."

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/24/144856/068

This underfunded candidate is using his funds to fight for the law of the land so the telecom corps don't get immunity for breaking the law and spying on US citizens.

What a concept. That's why I'm supporting Edwards all the way.

mamiller wrote on January 25, 2008 2:57 AM:

C'mon you folks. Are we served better by Claire et al being removed from the senate and replaced by R's? The votes werent there this time. Rail at the ineffective leadership: Pelosi and Reid; or rail at bogus dems like Rockefeller, but you cant honestly abandon rank and file Dem Senators for representing their constituents when the battle couldnt be won. Why should Hillary and Obama take the time to vote in a losing cause?

pk wrote on January 25, 2008 5:46 AM:

mamiller mentions the senators representing their constituents. Sprint is Kansas City, Missouri's largest employer. For McCaskill its more than just contributions. Many of these people are her friends, associates, campaign volunteers. They aren't just the executives--there are managers, receptionists, janitors, all the support vendors. They've already had layoffs and losing the Sprint headquarters is always a risk. I don't disagree that she should take a principled stand and vote against immunity, just want to point out that there are layers of this in which representative democracy is at work. If these lawsuits go to trial, does anyone have any idea what damages and fines might be likely... after years of litigation costs? Would a compromise solution be to set damage limits that wouldn't bankrupt the companies but hurt significantly and allow the trials to do the truthseeking we as a society need? Finally, isn't there a constitutional issue to the immunity grant--how can something so contrary to the constitution be legislated and not be overturned by the courts? It seems the arguments for overturning that would be heard by lower friendly courts would overwhelm arguments on the other side. Does anyone have an idea what argument would be made that this is constitutional (assuming the gov invoking natl security doesn't keep all the info hidden)?

castanea wrote on January 25, 2008 9:09 AM:

Somewhere, in a cabin in the hill country of Texas, Karl Rove pushes back his chair from the table after a dinner of quail with David Broder, and he smiles. After reading various threads on liberal/progressive blogs on which Democrats are thrashed because they are "just like Republicans," he realizes that his dream of a Republican majority has not vanished at all. It has just taken a two-year hiatus.

When he was a kid watching Twilight Zone, his favorite episode was, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street."

Jane wrote on January 25, 2008 9:13 AM:

Retroactive reduction of penalties appears to be constitutional. Increasing them is not.

There is a contract clause problem for the telcos: implicit in their contracts with their customers is an obligation to follow the law and not violate their customers' right not to be spied on. The contract clause has been construed in a very narrow way. But if certan Supreme Court Justices are sincere in their respect for the initial intention of the framers this is clearly a law impairing the obligations of contracts.

On the politics, Edwards and Dodd are clearly lobbying against immunity -- Dodd in the Senate and Edwards by trying to activate his supporters to contact the Senators. Does anyone know whether or not either of the other two have made so much as a phone call to lobby the minority of Dems voting wrongly?

The place to hurt such misbehaving Dems is in a well considered primary.

Mary Michaud wrote on January 25, 2008 9:14 AM:

Why are people acting like sheep? What is it with them? They are so influenced by the media and the people who screw them time and time again in Washington. There are three people in this race for god sakes. If you're sick of Obama and Hillary why are you NOT voting for Edwards? I am so sick of the lame excuses like "well Edwards won the debate, but I can't vote for him because he won't win". Well then you get what you deserve because NEITHER WILL YOU! Go sit on the couch and eat your popcorn becasue that's where you belong. You can't even think or stand up for yourselves or your beliefs. Keep sending these thieves to Washington to "represent" you until they've taken everything away from us and there's no getting it back. At least I won't have that on my concience! GO EDWARDS!!!

Paulie wrote on January 25, 2008 11:57 AM:

I am in agreement with many of the previous posts, the actions of the democrats in the senate are shameful. They are complicit in the further deterioration of civil liberties in our country and are just as much to blame as bush and the repukes.

Mary Michaud, you are 100% correct. After 50 years of muppets we need a man of principle in the white house and Edwards is the man.

lisa wrote on January 25, 2008 1:45 PM:

I held my nose and voted for Kerry last time around because I was thinking of the Supreme Court. But what happened? Democrats welcomed Alito and Roberts onto the court. Welcomed. They didn't fight these nominations. They kissed each guy on the cheek and held the door open for 'em to come in and eviscerate what's left of the Constitution.

So the argument that I should continue to vote for shitty Democrats to save the court is a false one. It used to be my argument. I had to let go of it. You have to let go of it, too. You'll feel better, believe me. The truth will set you free.

And those of you talking up Edwards: Doesn't it make you a little bit uncomfortable that the guy fighting hardest against telecom immunity doesn't trust Edwards?

Wake up and smell the coffee. Sure, the Dems are less evil than the Republicans in some areas.

But not enough to earn my vote.

Josh wrote on January 25, 2008 2:46 PM:

I spoke with Sen. Nelson's (Florida) office today and they said he is in favor of Sen. Dodd's (Connecticut) amendment.

miguel wrote on January 25, 2008 5:45 PM:

Wow, look at all you 'That's-it-I'm-quitting-the-Dems' folks!! All I can say is, What Took You So Long? Even more laughable are those who still think of Obama as some kind of 'progressive'. A vote for Obama is a vote for Hillary, and vice-versa; they are nearly identical. Go read the Green platform and vote your mind AND heart, for a change, instead of throwing it away on the two-party tyranny of 'centrist' political positions.

ImaBelieva wrote on January 26, 2008 8:32 PM:

It is no surprise that people actually believe there's a difference between Democrats and neo-con Republicans. A vote for party, race, gender or creed is pathetic. The point is NO ONE should be arguing for or against spying. It should be a non-issue. It is a blatant abuse of power and violation of the Constitution. It was ill-conceived, baseless, deceitful and has resulted in scaring the hell out of the American people. I don't appreciate anyone forcing me to give up my freedoms for false security. I'll vote for the only candidate who has never flip-flopped, has a consistent record for voting for the people, for protecting the Constitution. He doesn't use gimmicks such as race, gender, celebrity endorsement, crying, ridicule, smear tactics and he doesn't waste taxpayer money.

woody, tokin librul wrote on January 28, 2008 11:23 AM:

Both 'parties' essentially work for--do the bidding, protect the interests, dance to the tunes--of the elite, oligarchic corporatocracy. Both 'parties' are committed to the same project, overall.

Domestically, they both work for and propagate the interests of increasingly coersive authoritarianism, wholesale surveillance, and metastacizing corporate power in the public sphere, all under the twin rubrics of 'national security' and 'crime prevention,' and 'tax relief.'

Internationally, both 'parties' are dedicated to the perfection of the militaristic super-State, the US as THE dominant, hegemonic force on the planet.

Where they differ--and mostly they do NOT, as the performances of Reid, Pelosi, et alia, demonstrate conclusively--it is only in the means acceptable to achieve those ends.