So what now? I can only send the same fax so many times.

Boxturtle (Frustrated)

Christy,

Was watching last night when Turley said this. Made me think of you …and the other firepups.

Would not know what to do, how to engage on this issue without your hard work, research and compelling writing.

So a big tip of the hat and thanks to you.

Wish I had an answer that was a lock on fixing things, but I don’t. Am working on it — talking to a number of folks this weekend, trying to come up with something. But the fight will be in the Senate this week — so that’s where the effort needs to be concentrated. But how to best do it? Still working on that.

If anyone has any ideas, I’m all ears…

(And thanks for sending all those FAXes!)

Thanks, hon — it’s been an immensely frustrating coupla weeks. (Not the least of which because both of my in-laws are in the ICU at the moment, and we’ve been frantically trying to deal with that as well. Feel like I’ve had the phone growing out of my ear for two straight weeks…)

btw, while I’m thinking of it, how is your mom doing?

hypnosis?

Christy,

I think we have you all to thank, for your tireless leadership, stewardship, and other ships.

We will have your back, no matter what.

Ohhh, can we lose weight, too? *g*

For my part I post on Oback Obama’s site my .02 on this farce….My only solace is my congressperson Anna Eschoo voted against it…. somw solace but not very much… Christy please keep us informed as to waht we can do to wake these fools up to the fact that the American people really and truly don’t want retrocative immuntiy for Cheney and his telco friends.

How are you doing lately? Seems like my threads never coincide with your online time lately. How’s life for you?

My goodness….so sorry to hear about the grandparents. Best wishes to them and to you guys — will include you all on the wish list to “upstairs”.

I have no answer about how best to proceed on this issue. My senators will soon be Dole and Burr … lost causes. But I will call others and continue to chant “Donna Edwards, Donna Edwards”. Am hoping some of this vote was by Reps. who fear being seen as “soft on terror” — jackass premise though that is.

I have never liked trusted Hoyer and keep being reminded of why.

Oh, and for folks keeping tabs — we’re at $297,322 and counting as of today in the BlueAm FISA PAC. (Name to be determined *g*)

Well, I sent messages to Cornyn and Hutchison….lots of good that will do, plus contact to Obama to speak out against lawlessness, etc. Hutchison is the one, of course, who call the Plame leak a “technicality.” And she’s a lawyer, they say. Maybe we ought to get State Bar Assoc. to notice lies from lawyers’ mouths. The call is to uphold the profession, blah, blah, blah.

Thanks very much Christy.

I never knew anything about FISA until I started reading your posts.

Big props to Olbermann too. AFAIK, only place in legacy media that covered the disaster.

ooooo! i love KABLAM boobs, liars, assholes, and mofos! that’s got to be the name!

Thanks for asking. She’s “so so” but am in the process of moving from NYC to live with her.

She’s on oxygen every night, rarely dresses etc. etc. Her mind is still sharp though. The next doctor’s appt. is on the 30th. My guess is he will say COPD and congestive heart failure.

As you can imagine…..going from the UWS of Manhattan back to rural eastern NC requires a healthy sense of humor. *g*

I think I’m going to call it (to myself) the “Let’s Kick the Bastards in the B*lls” PAC.

With all due politeness and speaking only metaphorically of course.

Oh by the way great post Christy here is a little Digg for your efforts!

Hey Pups don’t forget when you digg it brings more traffic to the Lake and that gets clicks and the Lake gets paid for those clicks:>) So please do your part and DIGG this Post Christy brought us!

As do you, ma’m.

As do you.

Well done!

You can bet they’re hearing from some of their constituents in the “Strangebedfellows.”

Your post was a good reminder for me to start calling some of the GOP reps in my state.

Dugg

Thanks for the link.

And, yes, I do realize I’m showing my age with a Sinatra video and a reference to Laverne and Shirley. *G*

Dang, this sucker just keeps rising up out of the swamp, doesn’t it?! I told Mr. Obama that I’ll not be sending any more moohla his way (like I’m a heavy hitter, right?) unless he gets on the right side of this issue. Likely his staff is all a-quiver at the prospect. Urgh.

I don’t have a congressperson. I have John Kline. The Red Dog’s red dog. And one of my senators is Norm Coleman. How could these things happen in the land of Paul Wellstone? How???

Here’s my question: lots of things have passed the House since 2006, only to “die” in the Senate. Why does Harry Reid sound so plaintive about being unable to stop this horror? He controls what comes to the Senate floor, right? So why can’t he just not call a vote?

He could take the heat for our prez nominee from the wingnuts (which is coming anyway since Obama voted against this outrage last time) and let the House Blue Dogs go home to defend their atrocious vote as they seem to think they need to do.

What say you to some pressure on Leader Reid: Just Say No, Harry?

Amen!

we fought as hard as we can fight and we are losing with only one more battle before failure

we have to get another filibuster, we cannot allow these crimes to go unaswered, we cannot allow them to have the cover of law for all they have done against this country

we need one more filibuster and we need obama to stand and DEMAND the democrats filibuster untill imunity is rescinded

this cannot go forward if obama is to have my support, if he allows this I will simply think we have a mccain in the white house acting like a democrat

he will be a lieberman, I will not support him

Why does Harry Reid sound so plaintive about being unable to stop this horror? He controls what comes to the Senate floor, right? So why can’t he just not call a vote?

I want reid out of office if this goes to vote and I want him to know we will hold him to account for it

wasn’t it reid that submitted this bill instead of the feingold bill?

I want him out

Believe me when I tell you that question has been asked…a number of times. And I wish I had answers for you on it.

Christy, You Rock !!

All we can do is keep on rockin’.

Clearly I am missing something here. Could someone please help me understand the rationale among Dems who are supporting telecom immunity? I just don’t get it. ‘Course, there’s a lot I don’t get lately, so maybe it’s just me?

Off the top of my head: AWARE

Americans
Wary and
Alert for
Rights for
Everyone

Dugg

Thank you Christy. And Marcy, Jane, bmaz, and everyone of you who have been working tirelessly on this to keep us informed and inspired.

Thank you, Christy for keeping us (well, me at least– acn’t speak for others) so informed and being a great leader in this worthwhile fight.

PS, One of my sons came home from school on te last day of school with the contents of his desk bulging out of his backpack — papers going back to October, stuff like that; a chip off the old block. Anyway,turns out in social studies (we used to have seprate geography and history) they were doing the 50 states and each kid got one and he got WVA. All sorts of stuff about WVA was in that desk.

We simply must accept that, for all his forlorn appearances lamenting the bill’s progress and likely passage, that this is exactly what Harry Reid wants.

As the wise and utterly corrupt Nixon consigliere John Mitchell once said, “Watch what we do, not what we say.” I put Harry Reid’s words — and actions — in that category. He alone has the power to stop this, and he is not.

Many thanks to Christy for all she does and so sorry your in-laws are ill. In defense of Harry Reid, he has only 49 democrats, Lieberman and Sanders in caucus. To get anything through the Senate takes 60 votes. The rules are not hospitable for action.

I think what’s driving the whole issue is that the Democratic leadership was complicit with the Bush Administration. Retroactive immunity for the Telco’s is more about insulating the GOP from the consequences of their actions. Since the Democratic leadership was complicit, they want to bury the evidence of their complicity. Dems not in leadership posts don’t want to anger their leaders.

OK, call me uninformed and naive, but I don’t get why this even comes to the floor and why they (i.e Reid & the Dems) don’t wait until after the election and we may not have to deal with it — or at least not retro immunity.

I believe the actual rationale has several parts:
1. $
2. $
3. $
Also, fear of being called “soft on terror.” And heeding the leadership, which has legal exposure for having known about this extraconstitutionality and done nothing.

Money and CYA.

Yes, the odious Mr. Lieberman is a thorn in so many sides at once, it’s tough to know which irritant he’s engaged at any one time. SIGH

But inaction — which is all that’s really needed here — is utterly plausible.

So why not in-act?

Hi all, and thanks Christy for all your very hard work.

The question of why Reid submitted this bill instead of the other one has come up frequently. On this one, he gets a pass.

Senate rules have the Committees listed in a priority order for bill submission in case of duplicates. The oommittee this one was sitting in ready to go to the floor had priority over the committee that had the bill with no immunity in it. Yes it would have been much easier to start with the other bill and swat the Rethugs down trying to amend it.

But he had no choice. So, on this at least, he gets a pass.

On what happens next - this is in his court. He controls “WHEN” the bill is voted on - and the best case scenario is that it never gets on the calendar.

And that is typically how the Senate ‘kills’ bills it doesn’t want to deal with. So - let’s go for it!

I think the shrewd tactical decision Jane and others have made is to go after Steny. He’s a lot more vulnerable and putting pressure on him indirectly puts pressure on the other two.

The comments I’ve seen floated were along the lines that the leadership, including Reid know about everything from the beginning. They don’treally object to it a nd were caught off guard by the opposition from people they need (i.e. us) and basically strung us along by saying stuff that sounded good and doing meaningless stuff that looked like they were putting up the fight we wanted. Waited awhile and figured now that the campaign has started, they have our support no matter what and can get rid of the FISA thing. Finally.

Don’t know about that, but I’ve seen that speculation.

I would think that is how it will play out. Not sure of course but it is a distinct possibility to leave the question moot until next year with I hope more democrats and a democratic, if flawed as they all are, president.

That was the technical argument I got from his office — but my reading of the rules also allowed for him to submit his own bill, an amalgam of the two, if he chose OR (and this was my preference) to bring the RESTORE Act from the House and calendar it instead of the Intel Bill. But that didn’t happen, and we’ve all gone round and round as to whether that was or was not really possible under the rules and regs — and under the current Senate structure in terms of workability and comity.

It’s one of those questions for which there may be no one good answer, I’m afraid. Frustrating, but there you go.

How is Stainy WHore vulnerable? he is running virtually unopposed. He got in last time with over 82% of the vote in his district. Many people are of the opinion that whil Nancy Pee sits in the Sp;eaker chair, it’s really Stainy who runs the show. Not much vulnerability that I can see…

You’re looking at tactically and strategically incorrectly. Try this - it only takes 40 votes to stop it

I lurked here and at emptywheel for quite some time, but I signed petitions, called congress critters and wrote letters, on the net and on real paper to the local newspaper. But I never felt much of that was doing any good. When I stopped lurking at the Lake and got involved with this site and you, Christy, and Jane and Glenn, I felt like it was not all for naught. Now we have lost this battle too. We did well delaying it, but I always feared this eventual outcome. I well recall and cherish those nights going to sleep knowing that this horrific bill had been stopped. I kept saying, “It hasn’t happened yet!” Those nights are gone.
Thanks for the thanks, Christy. So, I’m left with the rest of what is sounding like the majority of Americans everywhere, WHAT NOW? What do we do now? Except STOP sending Obama money. THAT’s a done deal. and yeah, I told him so. in email, phone message and that petition.
The Founder’s cried last night. I heard them.

Well, they have definitely known about opposition from me since 2005, I can tell you that. But there would have been no catching them off guard on opposition on this for the last year for certain — from several sources all at once. That would not fly as an excuse. It may be they weren’t expecting any of us to have readers who also vociferously and vigorously objected — but that’s their lack of research, now isn’t it, if so…

His district demographics are changing, but he’s still playing the old Steny pol show. And the folks moving in are not so likely to fall for that schtick. But his political folks have failed to take note. This one is long ball…

What does “go after” look like? I’m guessing Steny Hoyer doesn’t give a rip about what barbara from Minnesota thinks. (Yeah, fine, I’m being naive again. Be kind.)

Well, there’s always the conference committee, where the People’s will has prevailed so often. Perhaps, in the dark, the Democrats will insist on the restoration of our Fourth Amendment rights!

hahahaha

Thanks Teddy. Needed a good laugh today!

Do we know this or do we “just” suspect it? (Please remember that I only get here randomly of late.)

I found this petition to Obama. Please sign.

To: Senator Barack Obama

Senator Obama:

On Friday, June 20th, an unconstitutional FISA update bill passed the House of Representatives, which will legitimize the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. It will give extensive powers of surveillance to the executive branch and provide an avenue for retroactive immunity for the telecoms companies that illegally spied on American citizens.

As the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party–and most likely the next President of the United States–your words and actions in the Senate carry a lot of weight. Therefore, we ask two things of you:

1) That you speak out against the bill in its entirety and encourage other Senators to vote against it when it comes up for a vote in the Senate next week.
2) That when called to vote on the FISA Bill, that you vote against it in its entirety.
[snip]
To sign the petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/…..ition.html

Yeah, fertile ground there….Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson, etc., really easy to hold that caucus together. What was I thinking!

I think the fact that they are all flawed in some ways is a good reminder for everyone in all of this. Not one of them is ever going to be everything to all of us at the same time — it just isn’t humanly possible, because we all have our own, individual priorities and each district make-up is different as well and requires tending.

The fight is really the important thing — because it at least forces them to stop and think which they might not bother even doing otherwise. The key is to come up with more effective ways to fight. A win is nice, but the fight for long-term change is even better. Marathon, not a sprint…and, in the meantime, I keep repeating to myself “McCain does not get to do new SCOTUS appointees if I can help it, so help me God.”

I’m pissed off like everybody else also,but the bright side is living up here in Wi.8 cong.dist. I think back to a few years ago when we didn’t even have a Dem. on the ticket and now have Steve Kagen.

This is a great idea, I think. Christy? Can FDL weigh in like this (via petition, and yes, I would be incapable of writing were there not parentheses)?

Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger, barbara. I can assure that Nancy Pelosi cares not a fig for what Teddy from San Francisco thinks, either. They have proved that this week, and the Senate will prove it next week.

As Jonathan Turley said to Keith Olbermann, there is absolutely no public support for this bill. None whatsoever. It is simply Congress acting in their purest fashion, as Matt Taibbi wrote: ensuring their campaign donors get what they want.

And that is typically how the Senate ‘kills’ bills it doesn’t want to deal with. So - let’s go for it!

with obama claiming we need this bill even with the immunity this is an uphill battle, we have to get on his case and get him on board

he cannot tell the democrats this is acceptable “because” it has some things he likes

he is the head of our party, now he has to act like it, he works for us not the president and not the telecoms

he works for the constitution and we didn’t get him in this position to lay down the very first time we need him

Couldn’t agree more! I think Donna Edwards’ victory made my nothing-burger representative John Sarbanes actually vote the right way this week!

First: Boundless thanks to Christy and the other FireBigDogs for articulating our situation and providing access to the tools of citizenship, this many a year. Without this leadership, this community could not have formed, nor made itself felt to any effective degree.

Second: As to what to do now, I would say first, be absolutely as active as possible w/r/t the Senate starting this very minute. Sending the same fax yet again is fine. The point — the entire point — is to make a commotion that will be noticed. I find the idea that the D leadership has sort of bluffed here, and is keeping an eye on us-all to see whether we’ll take it lying down or not, pretty plausible. So don’t let’s cave ourselves, this is absolutely the wrong time to rest, much less give up. Second, give money. I gave $100 to Stange Bedfellows and it felt great; I recommend the experience even if only from a purely hedonistic POV. (Insert wry smiley here.)

I think we need to form an SOB pac (sick of bullshit) and clobber ‘em with it.

I urge you to do just that.

That’s politics. But what if, as I believe he will, he ignores you and does his ‘disappearing’ act?

What then?

Will you let this guy stand for the progressive movement?

Will you vote for him so he can become POTUS and really show his true colors?

At what point does ‘Hope’ become a lie?

“the people have spoken and they take a stand, they do not want crimes forgiven, they do not want future crimes given the hope new law will be written and their crimes will go unpunished.

no American can support this bill untill criminal behavior has the promise they will be brought to the bar of justice”

that’s what obama has to do

Obama expects to be President, and he wants these powers.

A President who is inaugurated with these powers in place will be much more powerful than a President who had to fight a compliant Congress for them.

Think about it: our next President will be more powerful as a Unitary Executive than George W Bush and Dick Cheney put together. The infrastructure is all in place; no need to invent it. It’s the way the guy before you did things, so it must be okay.

Then think: do you want that next President to be John McCain, or the GOP replacement for John McCain? I don’t.

Not at all.

I found the petition and signed it and added in the comments “Please support the Constitution and the Rule of Law”.

Here’s a little better linky for it - goes directly to the petition page:

http://www.petitiononline.com/.....ition.html

The republicans have been very successful in tying any sort of defense of Constitutional rights as a sign of weakness, or creating special rights, when the opposite is true. It takes strength and courage to stand up for what you believe in even if it’s not popular at the time, and to fight for equal protection against predjudice and hate.

I’m not giving the Supreme Court over to McCain. If you thought this hurt, imagine what it will be like with more like Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas.

I’ve heard many a voice say appointments to the SC is not an important issue. What they fail to understand is that if McShitForBrains is elected and appoints just two right wingers the wingnuts will use the courts to bring their favourite gripe to the SC, where the further right it is the more likelihood of it being settled in their favour. Death penalty appeals would probably never be heard and Roe v Wade would be overturned at the first opportunity. The SC would, imo, at some point turn the country into a corporate state by law as well as in practice. Corporate rights would supercede all others. Appointments to the SC are one of the most important ramifications of this election. No doubt about it.

That’s what I told my Rep congresscritter yesterday, for all the good it did. Hopefully it got him thinking though. They have accrued all this power - do the Rethugs REALLY want Obama to have it all? Or any other Dem for that matter?

You have to pick one of the three. It sounds like you agree with that.

Gender matters. Attacking Pelosi isn’t pragmatic.

Harry won by less than a thousand votes last time. If you attack him, all you’re doing is moving him to the right.

Only 60% of Steny’s district is European American. By attacking him, you’re moving him to the left, whether we unseat him or not. You’re also supporting voter registration among the poor.

Thank you Christy for all your hard work!

cbl pasted this earlier for FISA feedback

http://my.barackobama.com/page.....ard/gG5R42

Exactly. I say this to people and they act like Roe is the only thing there is to worry about and if that’s it, then what’s the fuss. But then I start challenging them with Ledbetter, the eminent domain to hand over to a private developer (that really gets people out west!). This SCOTUS is already deciding cases on about 4 to 1 in favor of corporations. It will be 100% with just one more justice like Scalia et al.

What if everybody flooded their Senators with the same questions:

“How many of your constituents are favor of the current FISA revisions, vs. how many against? Whose will would a Yes vote serve? Is your answer consistent with the oath you swore to protect and defend the Constitution?”

Hi M’man!

Someone pointed out that it may be Obama’s Supreme Court appointees who rule this piece of crap unconstitutional, eventually, should plaintiffs find a way to reach the Court under the new law.

What about a poison veto pill? Can the Senate add a troop withdrawal suggestion, or a minimum wage increase, or aid for the Midwest flood victims? Something to draw a likely veto?

Yes, I want them all out of there. Anyway, It’s still going to be hard to unseat Stainy this time - like I said, the primary is over, and unless you want a Rethug in his seat…

Nancy Pee is being opposed by Cindy Sheehan (running as an Independent). Gender solved.

As far as the rest of them, attack them all!

Opps/ you have to drive down through: http://my.barackobama.com/page.....commentary

Please sign. Currently only 76 people have signed it! :-[

Excellent! Just excellent. Nelson and Martinez will get that question before the sun goes down. Thanks.

Thanks for the link.

I signed it.

Book Salon upstairs

Hey teddy

I thought about that yesterday about Obama’s appointees. I’m not sure of how that wold work itself out, however it would make a lot of heads explode on the right, which is always motivation.

Even sweeter if Hillary wrote the majority opinion.

I’m not sure what “Strange Bedfellows” plan is.

Yes, the primary is over. Any unseating will have to wait for 2010.

As liberals, I think it’s wise to pick targets very selectively, so that we can maximize our resources to the best effect.

Merely removing immunity would be the perfect poison pill, but there are probably other ones that would work. But they’d have to pass a Senate vote.

I’m pretty confident of Jon Tester’s vote, Baucus, not so much. So here goes - pressure on to make sure he commits to doing the right thing.

I like those questions too.

If the Senate floor will entertain amendments (the House floor wouldn’t), here are two good ones.

First, replace “was determined to be lawful” with “was determined by a court of law to be lawful” — this will most likely fail, making a point that can’t be missed, or in the unlikely event that it succeeds, it becomes a poison pill, at the veto stage.

Then, if that fails, the next amendment to propose is to replace “was determined to be lawful” with “was determined by the President of the United States to be lawful” — this one calls the R’s bluff, since they should want this, but actually acknowledging this in the text of the law becomes a poison pill at the court challenge stage. And for now, it shines a big ol’ spotlight on the crux issue of establishing a precedent for the suspension of rule of law.

Now… what Senator will do this work for the people?

Done.

Excellent ideas, both.

That’s why I think if we can mount a serious challenge to Pelosi it would do some good. I’m happy a woman is in the Speaker chair, but it does no good if she’s acting as a front for Stainy and crew.

Even if the race is very close and she wins it would be a wake-up call since she hasn’t really had a serious challenge before. And coming from Cindy, well!

Barrow we should be able to get - Regina Thomas is our Blue America candidate - and the primary is July 15 I think, so we can really work and support her. (Obama endorsement can go to he**)

I read somewhere that a Maryland constituent asked the phone-answerer in Barbara Mikulski’s office, “So, you must be getting lots of calls in favor of this telecom immunity, since she’s for it?” Laughter ensued.

The way I look at them, is that most people are basically the same people they were at twelve years old with a little more knowledge.

Most politicians are the narcissistic kids who knew how to manipulate their fellow students in a way to gain popularity. Of course there are some who do things to make things around them better but on the whole most politicians are those twelve year olds who told the kids in front of the lunch line that they would be the friends of those who were at the front of the line and laughed at those kids later on. They went on to run for ’student whatever’ and most times won. Sometime after, they became adults and ran for public office, and now the favors they ask for, and give, are just more pronounced.

What they (that twelve year old person inside) really crave deep down is that adulation and affirmation of being popular.

Political parties are not genetic

I don’t look at them as Dems and Repubs. I strongly believe that if Joe Lieberman grew up in Kansas and his last name was Little he’d be an Repub because that would be the best way for him to feed that craving

Call and fax them to remind them of what is popular

Call Hillary - she says she’s ready to ‘lead on Day One’. Day One has arrived for her.

Lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way.

and who is out now and unable to vote? Ted Kennedy and Byrd? and who else? On these squeaker votes that will matter. In fact, could this account for why now and so quickly done that House members didnt have more than 24 hours to read?

89!

Barrow we should be able to get - Regina Thomas is our Blue America candidate - and the primary is July 15 I think, so we can really work and support her. (Obama endorsement can go to he**)

Completely agree on Regina Thomas. I sent her $25 the day she chatted at FDL. I sent her another $25 on Thursday when I heard Barack cut a commercial for Barrow. I wish I had another $100 to send her.

Then she’s not exactly Representing, is she?

Good questions. The difficulty is that they tend to view their constituents through the narrow view-finder of partisanship. But I’ll tell you something. This reminds me of why I have to keep plugging away with Rep. John KlineBushClone and Senator Norm Colemeleon. If anyone at all in their offices is honest (by no means a certainty), the opposition weighing in in large numbers has to count for something. Maybe. Hopefully.

I also would love it if HRC would cut a commercial for Regina Thomas.

Hey, we’re a trend! I emailed Feinstein & Boxer.

You are right, but I think the way they read “popularity” now is money. With enough money, they can get votes, which is what they crave. But they need the money, and the telecoms provide the money.

I also wonder how long it will take for us to hear about the fear they were exposed too. Remember, last summer, Jane Harman exposed BushCheneyCo’s fearmongering right after their PAA vote? They came up and talked about actual threats to Capitol Hill, which turned out to be old and unreliable intelligence.

I presume our ‘critters were exposed to that again. It must have been convincing, since Harman managed to vote with Bush again.

Also, has anyone commented on the fact that they waited until 90% of their primaries were over? And that one who faces a primary and is very telecom-friendly, got an ad from Obama (Barrow)? There are now 70 BushDogs, up from 38 last time. Primary season is over, so they can vote with the Preznit now. Wh