The despicable White House-backed "spy bill" written to protect telecommunication companies from billions of dollars in possible privacy lawsuits that COULD arise from their illegal activities passed a Senate test vote on Wednesday the 25th of June and is now headed toward final congressional approval.
On a vote of 80-15, supporters of the now bipartisan measure, which also implement the most sweeping overhaul of U.S. spy laws in decades, easily mustered the 60 needed to clear a Democratic procedural roadblock. Not that the roadblock was anywhere in view. Nancy Pelosi, concerned that the Democrats would look weak on terrorism (*rolls eyes*) wanted the measure to pass.
This idiotic measure had already been overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives on Friday. It now looks certain that the bill may win needed Senate concurrence before Congress begins a holiday break the end of this week, it being likely to pass cloture.
For those unfamiliar with a cloture vote . . . a cloture vote today means a Friday vote. A Friday vote would allow Congress to send the bill to George "Above the Law" Bush's desk by early next week where the Crapweasle-in-Chief is certainly going to sign it with his trademark "Heh heh heh" and sneer. The fricken' dismally small number of those opposed to the bill shows that the House version strengthened the hands of those who want FISA reform and telecom immunity . . . thank GOD . . . It'd suck if people at the top had to follow the law like the rest of us slack-jawed, cannon fodder, tax-paying sheeple at the bottom! It disgusts me to see how marginal the effort was to derail it.
Incidentally, McSame and Obummmer BOTH flip-flopped on this one and let us down.
Here is a short list of the heroes that tried to block this one:
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Wyden (D-OR)
As it happens, neither needed to rush back for this one since it was doomed to failure . . . but it DOES explain QUITE well why the Congress is about as popular as the idiot-in-chief.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 88
Give me a U!
Give me a R!
Give me a B!
Give me a I!
Give me a N!
What does that spell?!?!?
DURBIN!
What the Republicans fail to understand is that all this extended executive power and dismissal of the law will turn back on them when the Democrats take the presidency and a true majority in Congress next year.
Overall, I really like Durbin. I like him as a person. I like him as a Senator. I like him for IL - even though he has voted opposite of my views a couple times. When I've written to him, he's responded thoughtfully. He has addressed my concerns and made me feel important as someone he is representing.
Unfortunately, his attempt here did not outweigh the attempts of others - whether Republican or Democrats who want to look tough on terrorism.
(Lainie, I expect to see your Durbin article on MY DESK before noon. Or maybe midnight.)
DURBIN
DURBIN
(with a D)
Sheryl, I'd be shocked if the icessant spinning hasn't resulted in cylinders by now! ...And Liebermann makes me ill. Period.
"What the Republicans fail to understand is that all this extended executive power and dismissal of the law will turn back on them when the Democrats take the presidency and a true majority in Congress next year."
Please. That's when they'll start screaming for limits and get them.
Is it just me or is there a suspicion that all this illegal and warrantless wiretapping might be the deciding factor in more than a little Congressional blackmail?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Right on Lori . . . only NJ had BOTH Senators oppose this actively. What a pity.
It IS intolerable Sandy . . . very much so. "And I want to know exactly HOW killing people in Iraq is protecting my freedom? " Well . . . by killing them there we don't have to kill them here and that means you're free to go to the mall without a green zone of installed freedom . . . otherwise . . . you'd have to go to the mall without a . . . HEY! Waaaait a MINUTE! LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
One question, how do we know we'll get the limits with the Democratic congress and president? I mean, right now, the democrats in Congress (with apparently very few exceptions) aren't fighting for limitations when BUSH is in office. Why would they instill limitation when they have that office?
I'm all for believing in humanity, but I'd be pretty naive to assume people aren't necessarily to be trusted when it comes to policing themselves.
Though I hope I'm wrong and Sheryl's right.
http://honestpols.gather.com/ If you want to copy&paste, Lainie.
"...aren't fighting for limitations when BUSH is in office. Why would they instill limitation when they have that office?"
The difference is that the GOP WILL push for those limits to Democrats and the Democrats WILL accept them. Watch and see . . . it's happened time and again over the last several decades I've been watching. The only issue with policing yourselves is trust. The criminally corrupt, filthy, vile GOP have proven they CANNOT be trusted . . . that doesn't mean nobody can. :)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Stephanie, here are the house votes. Kucinich was against, of course. (Excuse me while I mourn what might have been.)
I'm comforted to know Kucinich was against it. I figured he had to be. I can completely identify with Kucinich. Pity this country doesn't seem ready for him.
"It's obvious they need some new leadership there to actually put up a fight for once. "
They don't have the votes to stand up against them . . . simple as that.
"It's obvious they need some new leadership there to actually put up a fight for once. "
More importantly than new leadership (though I don't disagree) would be to have more votes so they CAN do something.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Actually, they BOTH flip-flopped on this issue and you might be being a tad unfair against Obama who is campaigning and whose return would make no difference what-so-ever in the outcome. I included them since BOTH were on record against and NEITHER showed up.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Other Links:
McCain's Flip Flop.
And a reason . . .
Campain staffed by Telcom Lobbyists!
I so agree with you, Paul. It seems all the Republicans have to do is threaten to start calling them names of some sort and they back down. Like the American public can't see through that (well, at least the more intelligent Americans - not the Rush-supporters).
Stephanie - I think you misread what I was saying. I agree with you - I don't think anybody who gets into Washington and a seat of power should be trusted NOT to try to misuse that power if provided with the chance. My point was that the Dems will have a wide-open door set on precedent to misuse power and over extend the power of the presidency. I don't like ANY party having that power. But, now that the Republicans have been fighting so long to actually place that power in Bush's hands, it's going to be hard to go back when their party does not control the WH (but, as Doyle points out, I'm sure they will try - they seem to have short memories when it comes to policy stances - they do what suits the party at the moment.)
Sigh. They represent US. I think they will do that when they see US doing that.
Frankly . . . granting immunity for lawlessness is really just another tool in their arsenal to do that very thing!
I'd say "I love you" too but then it gets all . . . you know . . . awkward and gay-ish. Think I'll just go with the barely visible head nod. LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I agree, Sandy, but sometimes I feel totally powerless against the machine. Lieberman was interviewed on NPR yesterday during my drive home - I almost puked and drove into another car I got so upset. He was saying over and over again that he will always do what HE thinks is right, to follow HIS heart. These reps don't think of themselves as representing ANYbody other than themselves. He got elected by Republicans in CT after the Dems rejected him. I guess they agree with how his heart feels, but I don't.
Who doesn't?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The republicans will introduce a series of laws like this and the democrats will play ball in an attempt to look strong on trashing the constitution and violating people's right.
This is what's wrong with the electoral college (need to win certain states instead of what the majority wants) and the two-party system.
Wait a minute . . . how is it spineless to realize his vote would have No Meaning so continue to campaign? That's hardly "caving" . . .
"Where is Obama on that list? Talk about pandering. "
Obama, Clinton and McCain all missed the vote.
Doyle and I had a discussion (can't remember where) about how things trickle up and down. He convinced me to believe it works both ways. I believe the 'attitude' of the person at the top of any group (family, business, country) filters down. e.g., violent, cocky, and proud of being mean and dumb became popular over the last eight years. On the other end, I believe grass roots activism filters up. When those guys at the top see that the people the control are not going to take it any more, they have to at least consider making some changes.
Sherrod is a man of principle. I know him, worked really hard on his campaign and will fight to keep in there.
Wait a minute . . . how is it spineless to realize his vote would have No Meaning so continue to campaign? That's hardly "caving" . . .
Exactly. They know how the vote stacks up before it takes place. If his vote is not going to make any difference and he misses, that's not the same as changing his mind. I think the man has demonstrated more spine than most anyone we've seen in years -- he's up there with Kucinich, Feingold, Murtha, and Byrd on my list of who's-got-balls.
Alternatively, if it is true that his vote would make no difference so whatever...why all the vitriol to people who might vote third-party? If Obama can skip a critical vote because he thinks his vote would have no impact, then why can't everyone vote their conscience without it being turned into a hatefest?
See, change I can believe in looks like this: Obama stops campaigning for a couple of days and goes back to DC before the FISA vote. He gathers the elected members of the party he is claiming as his and explains that they are going to take a stand and vote against FISA. Perhaps all that accomplishes is providing moral high ground, but maybe it would have changed enough votes to matter. What leaves me dismayed is that he didn't even try.
And, oh gee, Clinton's vote doesn't matter now does it?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
He's OUR man!!!
I can't help but notice that the comments from you seem to center on Obama and you seem to hold him responsible for not initiating the type of change YOU seek . . . like a candidate that does not campaign at all because he's seat-belted to a Senate seat and, therefore, will lose.
"Perhaps all that accomplishes is providing moral high ground, but maybe it would have changed enough votes to matter. "
Well . . . he already has the moral High-ground sinces he's Pro-America. As to the votes, that's a little . . . pardon me . . . naive. Three-Fifths are required. 48 are GOP . . . 2 are independent . . . and they face 15? Democrats both can be and have been tied down by these GOP members who want to campaign on the Dems "Do nothing" Congress and are doing that because they are essentially not allowing legislation. People unfamiliar with the system . . . as well as their power base (basically the lesser educated) will never "get it" that THEY are the reason nothing is getting done.
"And, oh gee, Clinton's vote doesn't matter now does it? "
I've no clue what this means. She's a United States Senator entitled to vote.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
You should know full well by now I have no serious detriments to expressing myself. :P
"Pro-America" is a meaningless phrase. I hear it from both sides and it is just noise. I look at action, not rhetoric. Color me unimpressed with the *actions* I see so far.
My Clinton comment was in response to you posting that McCain, Obama and Clinton had all missed the vote. You write it as if the three were all still running when, in fact, only two of them are. So your pointing out Clinton's absence seemed a bit like needless snarking.
And my next question is why it is perceived as shoving it down our throats for gay people to have the rights that heterosexuals have. I just don't see it that way. Gay people are taxed and work and love just as straight people. Pensions, insurance, the right to enter into loving relationships should be a right for them as well.
Obama and Clinton and McCain should have all voted. It always irks me that politicians go on the campaign trail when they've already taken on a job to represent the people of their state. I think it is wrong.
I think that KM's point was that it was symbolic. I agree. I am disappointed that he didn't take the time to stand up and be counted, even if it were futile, on this subject, which is pivotal and speaks to Obama's background on the Constitution. If we give up because it's futile, it always will be.
Much of the anti-Obama raving leaves me cold or makes me roll my eyes at the triviality. But this, I consider, important. I don't change my mind, but I'm disappointed. And, if he's going to be the leader we need him to be (and I hope he is), he's going to have to be able to take our criticism as well as our praise.
Henry Kiss-Off
And, he can't make any of the real changes unless he gets elected, which is why he's wearing himself out on the campaign trail.
It's a bigger issue than just Obama, this conflict between a paying job and a campaign trail. But I don't have to like it. And this was a Constitution-related topic.
Everyone has to make compromises. That doesn't mean I can't be disappointed when someone chooses differently than I would. For me, as a voter in November, his willingness to ensure the job he has today is done properly is a factor in my confidence in him in the White House.
That's how I see it.
"The reality is that Obama needs to convince undecided voters that he is would change things in DC."
If you cannot see the depths of the corruption in DC . . . I can't help you. There's really no comparison, in my opinion. I also do not accept that he needs to convince undecided voters . . . although he will clearly convince some, it seems clear to me at this point he'll never convince you. That's fine. I'll never understand it though. Just as I never understood why anyone at any time would ever vote for Bush.
Olga . . . Always a pleasure! ;)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
OMG - as usual, Sandy and I had the exact same reaction. You giiiieeezzzz! You are so funny! I'm glad I'm a woman and don't have to make all sorts of justifications and testimonies about how feminine I am just to tell my friends that I love them. Holy crap - thanks for the laughs. I really needed them today as the f-ing stock market continue down the crapper. : - )
Aha! Something that might actually matter to those who support that party.
Look at it as if this was a job interview for CEO of the country. You hire this guy to work in some middle management job (Senate) and he spends almot all of his time running around the office telling people what a great job he would do if you would just promote him. Meantime, he is not doing the job for which he was hired. Does he get the promotion in your business? As a CEO, he doesn't get a second interview at mine.
Doyle, "but his job is being done properly" Really? Like my book is getting written while I babble about politics? How's that work if he isn't there? WTF do you think his job is?
I object to the corruption. I object to the arrogance. I object to all sorts of stupid being done in DC. I also object to people who selectively read and impute meaning that is not there.
"If you cannot see the depths of the corruption in DC" But I do. What I don't see is a solution to the corruption.
"I also do not accept that he needs to convince undecided voters " This is rather wanting it both ways. If he does not need to convince undecided voters, then why is he flying around the country trying to do so instead of doing his job? So whose job is it to reach out to undecideds?
You don't understand because you are not trying to. Apparently you don't want to. See, I never voted for Bush. Yet you repeatedly conflate positions that have not been taken and pretend they mean something when they aren't even true, let alone meaningful.
Your book is no analogy unless you're dictating it into a recorder to be transcribed. Obama's job, for the record, is U.S. Senator. A person charged with legislative duties and an Illinois constituencey. That doesn't mean he's not permitted to do his job as effectively as he sees fit . . . like working with Republican Hagel this year on the issue of preventing active duty military suicides . . . or with McCaskill on increasing the frequency of hospital inspections . . . and keeping yourself informed you clearly realize he had to cancel his Kentucky campaigning to get back to the Senate for voting . . . and he lost that state in the primary as a result. Of course, you open-mided review of the legislation he's sponsored can be summarized as an example of what HE thinks his job is:
Link!
That's WTF I think his job is.
"I object to the corruption. I object to the arrogance. I object to all sorts of stupid being done in DC. I also object to people who selectively read and impute meaning that is not there. "
Well you must object to me then because I am arrogant. Sometimes even obnoxious. But I call them as I see them and I see YOU selectively reading and imputing meaning into anything is ALSO something you're doing.
""If you cannot see the depths of the corruption in DC" But I do. What I don't see is a solution to the corruption."
That's because you think you see the depths of the corruption . . . but you don't. I know you don't because you admit you don't see a solution.
"This is rather wanting it both ways. If he does not need to convince undecided voters, then why is he flying around the country trying to do so instead of doing his job? So whose job is it to reach out to undecideds? "
My meaning in this comment could perhaps have been made more clear. I was suggesting that undecided voters would be deciding even without any targeted effort on his behalf. Since you have assured me you are SO familiar with the political processes involved . . . please don't expect me to believe that your opinion is that the ONLY campaign goals during a Presidential campaign is to convince "undecided" voters. If ONLY it were that static and easy . . .
"You don't understand because you are not trying to. Apparently you don't want to. "
Pssst. This is a textbook definition for the term "impute" cupcake.
"See, I never voted for Bush. "
No shit. Did I say you had?
Actually I think the you don't want to understand. You seem to think everything I say is somehow pointed at you. I never said you voted for Bush . . . I said I have never understood the type of people that did.
Look! Here's the quote: "Just as I never understood why anyone at any time would ever vote for Bush." See? I'm speaking about ME.
There is a difference and it's an inattention to detail that makes you jump to an assumption that I was speaking or implying it was you. I was explaining where I was coming from and you were being all defensive instead of listening. It's the same inattention to detail that makes it clear to me that you're either not trying or you're a lazy thinker . . . or you have an agenda. ONLY that can explain how one could "miss" the serious and very deep issues in DC to such an extent that you cannot see Obama being a tool to change it.
Anyway . . . that's my opinion.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I was responding to this. How else did you intend that to be interpreted? Let me be clear, I see answers to the corruption. Obama is not it. Better?
Interview. That comes (at least when I was working) after reviewing the resume. It usually includes interaction, personality assessment, getting a feel for what is not on the papers already reviewed.
Ahhh . . . so "...because if I don't see Obama as the answer, I don't understand the problem. " was just more of you putting words in my mouth. Ok. Since you see answers, YES, that's better. Please. By ALL means . . . DO share!
Flit . . . if the nation keeps going the way it HAS been, that might be best! :)
That's the problem with weak analogies Sandy . . . they seldom fit well.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Again he only needs to win the votes of undecideds in swing states. Undecideds in California, MA, NY, ... don't matter. Sorry, I get attacked for this all the time but it's a fact. Therefore he won't even show up in those states in the next four months. Probably once in each but he will spend his time in Michigan, Ohio, PA, Fl, Colorar, ...
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
In politics, it happens all the time and Obama is no more guilty than any other candidate who holds an office, but, like lynn, I have always found the practice unpalatable.
JP
Duhh. The question is, are the candidates doing what they were hired to do?
"I also see Democrats who are already there running after the golden goose instead of staying in Washington and doing the job they have already said they would do and are actually getting paid to do."
So . . . umm . . . where's McInsane today?
" just think it is wrong. I will always think it is wrong."
So what's YOUR answer since ALL Presidential candidates campaign while working other jobs? Boycott voting?
"Realistically there is no time left to be a senator or congressman and do anything else. "
LMAO ! ! ! ! Ok . . . whatever. Take a peek sometime at ALL political candidates for President . . . THEN tell me about reality. I can assume, I guess, that your 40(?) hour workweek leaves NO time for ANYthing else, right? Sorry, my friend . . . but there's absolutely NOTHING realistic about that comment!
"I would not interview for another on company time. "
So . . . there is NO personal time? Even when they're DOING the job?
Thanks Jerry . . . Bennet is a Genius!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I guess my question now is this: what if I do feel this way? What if I am disappointed that campaigning is more important? I don't feel that YOU have to agree with me. I've never asked anyone else to be disappointed, too. I haven't even stopped supporting him. So, WHY do I have to change my mind to satisfy you. Clearly, this is an issue we see differently.
So what? What's the point in upholding the Constitution if we're not allowed to see things differently?
And why do I have to agree with everything he does? I still support him. Why am I not allowed to disappointed at some of the choices he makes? There was no invective or nastiness in my view - it was just different. How does attacking me support his cause?
Fair enough. Now . . . what if your attendance was NOT required and would NOT make a shred of difference AND you could do something else meaningful and valuable that would help more people instead?
"So, WHY do I have to change my mind to satisfy you."
I'm sorry. Please indicate to me where I said at anytime you have to change your mind? Am I not free to disagree too?
"What's the point in upholding the Constitution if we're not allowed to see things differently? "
What? First, the constitution is not being upheld, it's being trampled on. Second, where in the hell did ANYONE say we're not allowed to see things differently? It seems almost like you're upset I'm expressing my differences. Surely that's not it, is it? You're not seeming (to me) like the logical person I know you to be.
"And why do I have to agree with everything he does? "
Where the HELL was THIS said?
"Why am I not allowed to disappointed at some of the choices he makes?"
WHO the F is not allowing you to be disappointed? It simply boggles my mind if my expressing my opinions ruins your ability to wallow in your disappointment.
"How does attacking me support his cause? "
I'm looking and looking for ANY place I attacked you. Help me out here Steph . . . I really don't see an attack and attacking you would be the last thought on my mind.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
To me, making a statement by voting on this issue was a key portion of his job - and yes, even if it were futile. I'm not from his home state so it's really not for me to say, but I was disappointed.
I'm often accused of being argumentative for no reason, but I'm really not. From the reaction to KM's, lynn's and my own thoughts on this subject, I was under the impression that you felt we were (a) not allowed to think this mattered and (b) being completely unfair to Obama. Speaking for myself, this was not an Obama-specific issue anyway. I doubt I could point out a specific instance where I was misused; a risk (and I've been caught that way myself) with communicating only in the written word can have people looking between the lines at things that never existed. I might just be tired. I hate politics.
My husband will gnaw and chew a viewpoint I have that is different than his and pound indefinitely where I, once I've identified we have different viewpoints that aren't likely to change, will generally just go "We see it differently," shrug and move on. It bothers me when he keeps on and it's turned ugly a few times.
I seriously did not want that to happen here. If I jumped the gun or misread anything, I apologize.
So you have the right to your opinion . . . even if it is wrong. :P
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"I'm often accused of being argumentative for no reason, but I'm really not. "
LoL! I'm SOOOO tempted to just say "Yes, you are" to see if you'd argue. Nahhh.
DDC I
Actually, I prefer to have political discussions with people who come to the table with a bit less combativeness and a more open mind. Yet, this is your article and you choose the tone. So, I respectfully bow out of this thread.
~km
Just as I assumed. "Let me be clear, I see answers to the corruption." comes with no answers at all. People often find it easy to criticize things when they have no alternatives to suggest. It's easy to say you have an answer . . . not so easy to provide one.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~