We can hold Obama to his pledge to filibuster the Fisa Amendment.

Yes, we can!

Jus Cogens!

Yes we can!

Q: I know it doesn’t do any good to call or email senators or reps who are out of your jurisdiction, but do faxes coming from an out-of-jurisdiction phone number also get summarily tossed?

Change you can count on!

Christy – There are times when I am not sure at all that I am being very effective. I try to write a cogent, boiled down piece to fax or email, with all the important arguments. And then I wonder if it would be just better to write, “Listen you bonehead, if you don’t fight this thing, I’ll do everything short of summoning up some horrific demon to make sure you never get reelected again.” It’s hard sometimes to know what is best.

On the first opportunity to lead an issue, Obama failed and failed miserably. He should have shouted from any venue available his opposition to retroactive immunity for AT&T and Cheney/Bush last week, before the House vote, and he didn’t. Instead he took the low road and his triangulated stance, just like the DINO’s in the House. How hard will he “try” to strip immunity from the FISA bill in the Senate? Is this the Presidency we can expect, triangulating issues and chipping away the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Obama Campaign: 866-675-2008. Wait for announcement and hit 0. If that doesn’t get you a live person redial wait for announcement and hit 6.
From comments I’ve read online, the conversations are input to their database (all the better to triangulate you my dear)

There’s simple petition to sign, asking Obama to stand in the Senate in opposition to immunity. So far only 368 people have signed on. Please sign & get your friends to sign also.

http://my.barackobama.com/page…..commentary

or

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

I have been to Kathy G.’s site earlier. I read the part before the jump,but saved the rest for later. I agree that he is a badly flawed candidate, but he should be far more open to pressure from the left. Which is why I supported him of Hillary. We might be able to force him to do the right thing.

I confess I never liked the Obama slogan: “Change we can believe in.”

My mentor, before he died, said to me: “It’s the believing part that causes problems. Don’t believe…think, assess, adjudicate.”

When I saw Obama’s slogan, I thought of Arthur’s last lesson to me. I don’t want to believe, I want to think, assess, and adjudicate. At this point all I can do is hope: I hope Obama gives us more than a new belief balloon.

That’s why I put a link in to Feingold’s fact sheet — it’s quite helpful,k I thought.

booga boooga terra.

I made my calls to my senators and OB and Reid.
In the Nixon days, Democrats didnt enable the cover up, they exposed it.
The demo leadership fails that test and would have been Republicans back in Watergate days.
love to all and let’s stop telco immunity.

this jetblue dog makes it almost impossible to read my computer,how do i avoid him please?

Christy and firedogs –

Question: Is someone, some entity (like MoveOn)somewhere just straight up saying to these co-conspirators -

“We know it was you Fredo. We know this is all about covering up any trace of your complicity in Bush/Cheney lawlessness”

I understand negotiations – even those of a backroom nature are delicate dances at best – but is anyone keeping it real with them and where might that lead ???

All candidates are flawed — none of them is ever going to vote exactly like you would want them to, otherwise it would be you running. That’s just a given, because they are human beings. Which is one of the big reasons we didn’t endorse anyone through the primaries but, instead, pushed on issues where we felt we could be most effective.

The key is to pick the candidate who comes closer to you on most issues — and then find a way to nudge him or her toward where you want them to be on the rest. That’s the part we’re working on…every single day.

tru dat,always analize

Fired up…ready to go…to the phones and fax.

What jetblue dog? if you have a weird ad, they come in from an ad broker sometimes and we can’t always control which ones pop up. But if you refresh your whole screen, you get a whole new set of ads…and hopefully one that is less annoying. So try refreshing and see if that helps.

You know that KO had a segment on Countdown the other night that suggested the Dems support for the bill had alot to with concealing their compliance for the spying regime.

danke,im wrist challenged since the operations

As a constituent, I have recognized this particular issue is not Obama’s strength.
It took me a while to get over early visits to the Senator’s Chicago office as the whole wiretapping issue unfolded to my ultimate support.
I entirely concur with you assessment. On the balance there is far more to like than dislike.
But on this issue, the Senator needs some help.

ok to the phones………….bbl

And we can’t walk away from the responsibility. What if the founding fathers, who had a lot of disagreements, had said that since they couldn’t agree on everything single thing they were just going to quit and go enable or join the other side. This is our country and we don’t have a choice but to work for the best for all of us.

Change We Can Believe In . . .the Complicity We Expect

and yes, I’m dialing away !!!

Faxes/calls/letters from “out-of-staters” don’t really count with Senators, except to suggest that there might be constituents who hold the same view. But to them, it’s all about who will/won’t vote for them in the next election.

That’s why I suggested on prior threads that we concentrate on NUMBERS [of faxes/calls/letters] and not worry about eloquence. The Senator is never going to see what you wrote, no matter how articulate you were. He/she has a staff whose sole job is tallying incoming communication by issue and then crafting a response [and putting the Senator’s signature on the outgoing letter with the “autopen.”]

We can do more good by contacting friends, family, co-workers, etc. and getting THEM to write — even offer to compose for them; just get a different name & address on that letter/fax.

Right!
Exactly, and Well Said, Ms. Harden Smith!
I keep that as my “Mission Statement”, trying to remember and relate fully to it at all times.
Obama is our best hope, nothing more.
He’s a darned site better than others who were running, but certainly NOT everything I wanted in the Bu$h cleanup crew.

Given Obama’s background in constitutional law, I have a hard time thinking there’s anything he doesn’t “get” about the bill’s violations of the constitution. He’s quite smart, I believe, and is doing this as a strategic move.

The pressure on him and his pals has to serve as a demonstration of the weakness of his strategy.

if they are committee members you are a constituent :D

huffpo

White House Blocking Army’s Plan To Overhaul Contracting System
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust RICHARD LARDNER | June 23, 2008 07:06 AM EST |
——————————————————————————–

Read More: Army, Army Contracting System, Iraq War, Warwire, White House And Contractors, White House Vs Army, Politics News Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
Buzz up!
In this May 22, file photo, Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, left, and President Bush listen to the National Anthem during the 82nd Airborne Division Review at Fort Bragg, N.C. According to a May 28 report to Congress Geren said a proposed service plan to add five active-duty generals to oversee purchasing and monitor defense contractor performance was submitted for approval in March to the Office of Management and Budget, President Bush’s administrative arm, and rejected. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File)

Share Print View Comments Like this story? Get Alerts of big news events. Enter your email address

WASHINGTON — The Army’s march to overhaul its tarnished contracting system has been slowed by an unlikely foe: the White House.

The Office of Management and Budget, President Bush’s administrative arm, has shot down a service plan to add five active-duty generals who would oversee purchasing and monitor contractor performance.

The boost in brass was a key recommendation from a blue-ribbon panel that last fall criticized the Army for contracting failures that undermined the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, wasted U.S. tax dollars, and sparked dozens of procurement fraud investigations.

Also, if you could let us know how the calls are going and/or if you are getting responses to them or to emails/FAXes, we’d really appreciate it. Thanks!

Thanks. I suspected it might be a waste of long distance charges. I already routinely contact Reid, Ensign, and Porter via phone email and fax and snailmail.

The exception to this would be leadership folks — which include Reid, Durbin, Schumer (DSCC), Leahy and Obama — who are having folks tally all contacts regardless of constituency. But, clearly, if you are a state constituent, your voice gets heard a bit more loudly — so do take the time to contact your state Senators.

I’ll call later today, but I want to direct FDL’s attention to the bulletin I sent out to the 800-1000 Philadelphia Democrats, Progressives, and left-leaning independents that belong to our chapter of Drinking Liberally.

I am writing today to let you know that Bob Brady, Chaka Fattah, and Allyson Schwartz voted to protect your rights.

However, Patrick Murphy (a regular DL visitor who promised to champion progressive values) and Joe Sestak both voted to allow the US government to tap your phones, open your mail, and read your email without any cause and without a warrant, while giving a “get out of jail free” card to Verizon and AT&T: do you think they’d do the same for YOU if you broke the law?

If you wish, you can reach Patrick at (202) 225-4276 and Joe at (202) 225-2011. I’m sure they’d love to explain why AT&T gets protections you don’t get.

Even worse, Barack Obama says he will support this deal in the Senate: that’s right: Obama wants to tap your phones too, while giving a free pass to corporate lawbreakers. That’s sure “change we can believe in”, isn’t it?

If you REALLY want to do something, Visit Actblue’s FISA page or Strange Bedfellows

Let me add that Patrick Murphy’s office was not very happy when I called them up and read the bulletin to them. In fact, they said it was “untrue” that he’d voted that way. I guess they forgot that the House’s roll call is publicly available, so I told them I’d had enough lies for one lifetime.

Greenwald today:

The prime goal of this campaign is to prevent the Democratic Party — which is assured of continuing to control Congress — from continuing to be dominated by the fatal New Republic Syndrome.

since they are assured of controlling Congress, try, for a change, in your plaintive or angry calls faxes and emails, saying that if they cave and further eviscerate the Constitution they swore to uphold, that further donations and votes are cut off, and you will support 3rd party or Independent candidates who will not shame your district by siding with the (R)’s and their despised little dictator.

Really, unpteen bazillion calls and faxes and emails have been sent urging the Boston Shamrocks to really play this time, to really, really try to defeat those Harlem Globetrotters, but they always seem to have the ball taken away from them, as if they weren’t trying to win. (hint – they’re not)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…..ketball%29

So, work to get some new players on the field, a new team. Try to get it ready for the 2016 political Olympics, so finally the paltry false choice between Least-Worsts can be put to rest.

$300,000 raised in a week is impressive, don’t just pour it into (D) primaries, where it will have little legacy if they do not surmount the formiddable obstacles to incumbency.

I disagree.

There ought to be a good balance between the analytical and the emotional. Think of it like yin and yang. You need both.

Also, it’s a good idea to contact these folks at local offices — which don’t often get calls and FAXes, so when they do get several on a single issue, they get a bit more notice. And sometimes you get a much more receptive ear from the staffer on the issue as well.

It can be especially useful to talk with the local office because, occasionally, you’ll get a heads up on a potential local appearance and information on how to get a sit-down or at least an opportunity to talk with your Senator in person when they are in the area. THAT can be very, very useful.

bobbyg at 4–

Q: I know it doesn’t do any good to call or email senators or reps who are out of your jurisdiction, but do faxes coming from an out-of-jurisdiction phone number also get summarily tossed?

======

half the time they don’t ask where you’re from, unless you are requesting a written response, which i do most times……..and if they have commented on a bill or affected a vote or are on a committee, then they DO have to deal with you………..

i’ve been mentioning blueamericafisa’s fundraising for ads of dems that voted ’yea’ for immunity, that might affect them directly……and donna edwards.

and don’t forget it’s not just the immunity, it’s the loopholes contained in the bill to get out of being prosecuted for breaking the law.

and medicare benefits running out july 1st unless they extend it, no time to consolidate the bill before it expires, was already under extension no reason in the world they can’t address this, is important……

and if they allow blockade of iranian’s shipping traffic, without un approval, is an act of war–is in the works…….inform them of that.

===========

and here’s a site that starbuck posted that has an itemized list of votes—votes color-coded, easy to follow, to make calls to those that betryed and those we should thank……this page is the fisa vote list……..

http://www.govtrack.us/congres…..=h2008-437

also has a tracking feature for reps,,,,,,,lots on there,nice site………

number i use for switchboard–1-800-450-8293

Wow, I LOVE that!!!!

Two additional thoughts: write/call/fax the DCCC, DSCC and DNC. They’re in the business of raising money, and they should know that a goodly portion of their funding source is PISSED.

In writing to friends, family, etc. to encourage them to write, I usually include a link or two to Marcy, Glenn, or others who’ve provided a succinct explanation of the issue. Thus I don’t have to take the time to “educate” folks — and they’re more likely to read a short incoming than a treatise.

Finally: got an e-mail today from Mark Warner soliciting my $$$ [reception in my neighborhood]. I guess they thought the “big draw” was the opportunity to meet event co-sponsor Steny Hoyer.

I politely declined, stating exactly why, and offering that my would-be contribution to Warner was going to ads in opposition to Hoyer. I’m sure I’ll get a sweet note back. /snark.

I sent Debbie Stabenow an email with the heading “No Retroactive Immunity” and got this response (obviously carelessly the wrong canned message):

Re: NO RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY

Thank you . . .

. . for contacting me about the issue of immigration. I appreciate you sharing your views with me.

As you know, the Senate debated legislation last year in response to the serious problems with our nation’s immigration system. While I consistently voted for tough enforcement provisions and to provide the resources necessary to secure our borders, I voted against this final bill because it would not have done enough to protect Michigan jobs. In addition, I opposed amnesty and Social Security for illegal immigrants.

President Bush’s guest worker program opens our borders to hundreds of thousands of new guest workers every year. Importing cheap foreign labor is wrong for Michigan and wrong for America. We need an effective immigration system that works for our communities while protecting the basic rights of legal immigrants who are such an important part of our state economy. In the end, the 2007 immigration legislation failed to strike the proper balance between security, fairness and preserving Michigan jobs. I will keep your strong views in mind if the Senate considers this issue again.

Thank you for contacting my office. Please continue to keep me informed about issues that are important to you and your family.

Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator

I responded:

This is a very strange response to my request that you vote against the FISA bill coming up. I’m not afraid of immigration….I am afraid of losing my rights as congress and the senate and the president seem determined to kill the 4th amendment. I’m also puzzled by why you would think it’s a good idea to give retroactive immunity to companies who may have broken the law. As Jonathan Turley said: its like a bank robber robbing the bank and then getting congress to write a law to say it’s legal. John Dean said the other night on Keith Olbermann that this is a very poorly drafted law. I can’t think of any good reason for this law to be passed. FISA will not expire…..just the bad Patriot Act.

Once again PLEASE! NO RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY. In fact, this bill should be rejected in its entirety!

So far, no response. But it seems they’re not paying attention in her office anyhow.

I’m ass-deep in “The Audacity of Hope” at the moment. Yeah, he knows about the constitutional ramifications of the new FISA bill. To the extent anyone really does. I challenged The Great God Glenzilla on a couple of points the other day, and the best he could manage was to peevishly cite a number of other ostensible constitutional heavy hitters who also saw things his way.

forgot one—-obama’s endorsement by doing an ad for barrow over blue america candidate regina thomas, this kind of thing has to stop right now.

Can’t help thinking how the current Dem “leadership” is putting Obama in a difficult position. Reid, Hoyer, Pelosi could’ve and still can do things to delay this FISA fiasco until the next Admin, when it would be much easier to alter. Instead, once again, as in the last few months of the primaries, Obama has to walk an incredibly thin tightrope, since the Old Guard Dems have allowed this to get to this point. You’d think they’d want to do whatever they can to help Obama become Prez, wouldn’t you?? (assuming you believe they are actually concerned about DemocratIC ideals).

Booman had a nice write up about this as well:
http://www.boomantribune.com/s…..11019/8886

Thanks for this post among the many others here, since we still have time to influence the issue, especially with Obama.

Don’t you ever get tired of preaching the “don’t bother, vote for a third party candidate” refrain — which gets us absolutely nothing inthe current context in which a third party candidate does not control Congress? How, exactly, does this make any difference whatsoever on the current FISA issue?

Honestly, what would you do? What solutions do you propose? Not in the long run — but right now? This week? On this issue? Anything at all other than “don’t bother,” because that simply is not an option for me.

Stevens? You’ve got to be kidding me! Is he worth the twenty cents a fax will cost me? What are the odds?

Stevens? Why not all the Repigs? Stevens? How about Inhofe? Geez!

I did not mean to imply we should eschew our emotions, did I? For what it’s worth, I try very hard to walk the middle way. I was commenting on the notion of “belief” and it’s replacement status for reason.

Stevens is currently in a very tight race for his Senate seat — in some polls he’s running behind. And he’s getting desperate. So, yes, there are reasons he’s on that list…

one more—call wva rep rahall, chair of natural resources, and thank him for his stand on oil and gas permits and leases on 68 million acres of PUBLIC LANDS, to have to drill and start dispensing that oil and gas within 10 years or lose their permit……..hurrah……..

I wonder how many printers or fax machines have been targeted without FISA protection!?

I think I understand what you are saying, but the “believe” part of the equation is the yang. It’s the part that engages the heart, not just the mind. Just a thought.

Tell them no telecom immunity — period

or else …. nothing.

I’m just offering what might be a useful or else to add onto these messages.

Why are the Congresscritters not free to ignore the netroots again and again and again, knowing that there is some self-imposed obligation to vote (D), no matter what?

OK, is the point here to merely insert a poison pill (by removing immunity) on the assumption that the rest of the unacceptable bill will go down in flames with a veto? Or is it really only the immunity part that has riled ya’ll up?

I want any spying on ANY American citizen, no matter where they are or who they call, to require a warrant. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Getting a pass on unconstitutional spying on American calls or emails or chats that go offshore on the mere say-so of the Prez or one of his/her blowup dolls is unacceptable. Just as unacceptable as immunity.

just saw this,kinda …is my feelings on the subject
“
And that is what Reid, Pelosi, and Hoyer now ask Obama to acquiesce to. A matzah ball that big can overflow the bowl. It is wrong to put the responsibility for preventing this miscarriage of justice on Barack Obama’s shoulders. Not now. Not with so much already on his plate. But they have done it. And now we must ask Obama to take a stand and undo what they have done.”

The fact that we’ve managed to push off full telecom immunity for three years running now is a huge thing. That we have a shot to continue to do so is equally huge.

We’ve worked on primaries for incumbants int he past, what makes you think we aren’t willing to do it now as well? It took two election cycles to get Donna Edwards in, but she took her oath of office on Friday and voted against the FISA bill. And there is more in the works where that came from. Marathon, not a sprint…

Optimism and hope are the yang. “Belief” is a blind substitute for the rational part of the equation. As I see it, that is. ;>)

the next administration can handle that…its RETROACTIVE imunity that teh sukkkkketh…imo

At this point, it’s the poison pill — because other folks are trying to work on other provisions and are not getting a lot of support. It’s a strategic maneuver, but the most likely one we have. Joan goes through it a bit in her post.

Nice letter.

Ugh…McNerney again…

Good to see Bill Foster and of course Donna Edwards on the side of enlightenment. Baby steps Liberal soldiers…baby steps….

yea no Blind Faith cept for good geeeeetar

Anyone know the senate status of HR 6304 today?

I contacted both my Pennsylvania Senators this morning and after speaking with staffers got the impression that Specter was more prone to vote against FISA than Democrat Casey. Hit the phones.

stevens’-ak, challenger is on these contest lists, but you don’t have to vote for him…..i voted for someone else.

you don’t have to give lots of info to vote…i think just state and email and zip.

contests for candidates to win $5,000 for their campaigns–

http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/candidates/
russ feingold’s progressive patriot’s pac, info on candidates and vote

========

http://ga4.org/pacforachange/c….._vote.html
barbara boxer’s pac contest

http://www.pacforachange.com/candidates/
candidates list for boxer’s pac, but all candidates aren’t on there. duh.

======

ok, doone for noooow, thanks christy, i’m off to therapy……

This seems to me to be a good time for Tom Allen, Jeff Merkley, Al Franken, Mark Begich, and other challengers to hold a press conference at the Capitol and challenge Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, and Teddy Stevens to stand up and protect the civil liberties of their constituents by voting against immunity (I would say Rick Noriega and Jeff Slattery as well, but let’s be honest that Roberts and Cornyn will never, EVER vote for civil liberties). Allen, especially, could make good hay over this, as he voted against the bill in the House.

It would be great earned media, and would put the challengers on notice that this will be a campaign issue against them if they decide to once again carry George W. Bush’s water.

Nothing has been scheduled as yet.

HA…yea lots of damage to repair on the old Hespares{sic}

“So, it’s not really a capitulation. It’s a strategy.”

The Oracle of Santa Monica weighs in on Obama/FISA

Good morning, all!

I happen to be off today, so I can actually post for a change. Just to let you know of my experience contacting Sen. Obama. In both cases, I was unable to talk to a real person, and the voice mailboxes were full. I hope that is a sign that he’s getting hammered on this issue.

I also contacted his campaign via the web over the weekend, and asked to be taken off his mailing list. I also indicated I would be sending my political contributions to organizations like Act Blue and Moveon.org instead. I don’t know if it will make a difference, but it felt good.

the delay till now is commendable. Donna Edwards looks like a real Progressive.

but, in reply to my persistence on the alternatives to the (D), that is also a marathon, not a sprint.

and, I think having viable alternatives out there could potentiate (D) reformers, by allowing them to pull further left and have the centrists and the leadership go that way, for a change.

(bows) Konnichiwa, sadlyyes

How many babies ya got left?

Hmm,, I’ll have to call casey. After I sent out a similar bulletin earlier about his FISA cave-in, he quickly saw the light.
-sigh-. I hate to annoy Casey, but hey, whatcanyado?

Maybe we should just tell them that we know about their complicity and we won’t care about it if they do the right thing now. ?

yea i read it ysterday,i dont agreee,he was the junior Senator,i dont think he was privy to all the Shiiite! the others Pelousy and Stenchy were…imo

Heh, right you are. Straight outta my remote youth.

One of my reasons for finally settling on Obama was the fact that he is a Constitutional law lecturer at University. I figured that meant he would know how to read the fourth amendment, and therefore, would have adequate knowledge to determine that what they are promulgating as legislation is unconstitutional. But who would have standing to challenge it in the courts?

The other day, I believe it was Keith’s show that had John Dean on, and he thought maybe Obama was kind of playing possum, thinking that he could vote for this FISA fix now, but it would only affect criminal cases yet would not prevent his administration from going after the perpetrators criminally. It was just an off the wall conjecture, and I don’t really buy it, but he is the lawyer and IANAL, so…

Very good post by Marty Lederman yesterday at Balkinization about open questions about the consequences of the bill. The key quote is that only the members of the executive branch know what new powers they will have because of the bill. The firepups may want to use any of it, especially on minimization.

Those calling McCaskill may want to emphasize that this immunity provision is very far from Specter-Whitehouse which she said she supported. That may have been the one strong thing about my call.

4…im glad your here…a good Bplan has arisen…a lady with a big barn and other barn cats said she would take the 3 boys…im thinkiin its NOT near a road….they could live hapily therer TOGETHER ,and i can keep tabs on them..the little girl is spoken for…….gah she has taken my heart
ok whatcha think?

Any word on when they’ll be voting?

Hold the animosity for a moment. I read both your argument and his and it seemed you were arguing apples and oranges. You both made sense in different contexts. Maybe give it another look?

Just a thought…
:)

The other day, I believe it was Keith’s show that had John Dean on, and he thought maybe Obama was kind of playing possum, thinking that he could vote for this FISA fix now, but it would only affect criminal cases yet would not prevent his administration from going after the perpetrators criminally. It was just an off the wall conjecture, and I don’t really buy it, but he is the lawyer and IANAL, so…

Well I am a lawyer [or at least was one until I stopped practicing] and Dean was just spouting hopeful bullshit. He may be “technically right,” but the scenario is just crap. He’s been called on it on a couple of sites [sorry, I can’t remember which ones to provide you a link].

Nothing has been scheduled on FISA yet. Will let you guys know if and when anything hits the calendar.

1,882 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Fine post not only because it is a call to citizen action and it calls upon our responsibility as citizens to force our leaders to do the right thing. This is where I am more’n a bit less sanguine than some around here about how effective our efforts can be without strong,vocal and visible leadership on the floor of the Senate and NOT jest from the usual suspects or from Obama leading 35-40 “progressives” to a fatal compromise that could terminate Obama’s presidency before it begins. No, I’m talkin about gettin the junior senator from New York and Barbara Boxer to join Dodd, Feingold, Leahy and Whitehouse in a frontal assault on Harry Reid and the corporatist elected leadership in the Democratic Party.

If there is to be a fillibuster it must be led by Dodd,Feingold,Boxer,Whitehouse, Leahy and Mrs. Bill. If we don’t see an aggressive effort on the part of the senior Democratic leadership in the Senate on this and I am especially lookin’ at the junior officeholder from New York here, I think we can look forward to another situation like that in which Carter found himself: a corporately owned Democratic legislature that completely circumscribes any Presidential efforts to address national problems.

This fight is gunna draw the intraparty battle lines for the first two years of the next administration. Obama can’t enter his presidency needing to build an effective power center in the Congress and Senate, the “big guns” hafta step up now and this is the issue for them to do that.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, CITIZENSHIP IS A FULL TIME JOB!!

bmaz has hit it, for one…

blind faith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq5oJaqDf7U

Thanks.

Huh. I simply don’t agree that Obama “controls” the DemocratIC Party. In fact, I think there are plenty within the Party that might be trying to undermine him for a variety of reasons, namely the DLC wing. He’s between Iraq and a Hardin place.

Yes, I agree that “compromising” on the Constitution is unacceptable, and Obama has said he’ll work to get the “immunity” removed, but of course, who knows what that means and if he’ll actually do that.

So, putting pressure on him is great right now, but I haven’t understood the quick reaction to dismiss Obama already when he hasn’t even revealed is cards yet. To the phones!

well said

BTW, y’know how a number of state constitutions have rather more rigorous privacy codifications? These are now rendered nul in this area once FISA passes (should this language remain):

SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

(a) In General- No State shall have authority to–

(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider’s alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider’s alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or

(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.

Of course, we’ve seen “federal pre-emption” claimed in a raft of areas (e.g., environmental, myriad consumer protection), so this is not exactly new.

Christy,

Here’s what I sent on the National Journal rankings:

Obama is emphatically not a ‘leftist,’ (and neither are Pelosi nor Biden, for that matter.) The idea that Obama is a leftist is based on a National Journal article. The rankings are based on 99 votes selected by the editors. The National Journal claims to be non-partisan, but I have my doubts about their editorial slant. One blogger whose opinion I respect says that NJ is basically a Beltway consensus publication. They have writers all over the map, but the editorial slant is to the consensus inside the Beltway.

The rankings are crap, in any event. Obama is more liberal than HRC because of two votes: The first was an amendment sponsored by Lieberman to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity. Obama voted in favor, Clinton voted against. Joining Obama were such famous liberals as Charles Grassley (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), Olympia Snowe (R, Maine) and (wait for it…) John McCain (R, Arizona). The second vote was on Bingaman’s amendment to the Immigration Reform bill. The amendment would have eliminated a requirement that Y-1 visa holders leave the country to renew their visa. Obama was joined on the liberal side (favoring the amendment) by Chuck Hagel and Tom Coburn.

How about some more evidence that the rankings are crap? Obama is ranked higher than Bernie Sanders (Vermont). Sanders is a self-described socialist. Obama is ranked higher than Russ Feingold. And the NJ ratings have been used for political attacks before. In 2003, John Kerry was the most liberal member of the Senate, and the R’s attacked him for it. Source of the rankings in 2004? It was The National Journal: quelle suprise, nez pas?

The whole methodology is flawed. The editors picked 99 votes, and assigned liberal and conservative to the ayes and nays. One of the votes was on a bill requiring 100% inspection of containers shipped into the US. The editors decided that the liberal vote was Aye, favoring the bill. Why is that the liberal position? Because the editors said it is. In the House, Ron Paul (R, Texas) voted for the same amendment. Does that make Paul a liberal? Please don’t make me laugh.

The problem with the methodology is that it can be gamed. Statistical discrimination methods can be used to identify the critical votes, then scoring functions used to assign the liberal/conservative position. If you play this sort of game, it will generate anomalies exactly like ranking Obama higher than either Sanders or Feingold, and pairing Obama on certain votes with reactionaries like Coburn.

Here’s a link to a fairly cogent deconstruction of the NJ’s rankings for 2007: http://mediamatters.org/items/200802080004 .

Basically, if you want to know what Obama thinks about things, read his position papers and listen to his speeches. Then make up your mind.

Thanks for the help.

BC

funny dat

send a link please!!!!

Yay — glad my links were useful for you!

I think it has more to do with his support of the bill itself and his statement that he will “try” to strip immunity from it. It implies that if he can’t strip it, he’ll still vote for this “important” bill. :P

He must be told to vote against the bill itself because it’s wrong on so many counts.

Has she agreed to get them their shots and have them neutered? If not, that would be a deal breaker for me. Same goes for the little female. If low cost is not available some folks just let it go and that’s not healthy. Is the little female spoken for by you by any chance? *g*

Well said.

im doing that….

Shit, piss, fuck, c**t, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits, George Carlin is dead.

Is the little female spoken for by you by any chance? *g*

no hahahahaha,an adorable red headed little girl who will be on vacation til next week,and she carried her around (Flossie) for 1/2 hr,before she left church”g” i wil do pics

oh she will be hard to give away

The Media Matters link was especially helpful.

If I could get my hands on the Senate’s 2007 votes, it might be fun to run a regression tree model to show that McCain is a liberal and Obama a conservative. Fun, fun, fun.

BC

No, he claimed unequivocally that the exact language of HR 6304 explicitly required that the courts had to automatically dismiss telecom suits once the AG citing the magic incantation. That’s not what it says. He then said essentially that “well, the language is disingenuous; they don’t really mean it.” That may be true. Legislative weasel wording is the highest lowest of the semantic arts. (And I also note that Bu’ush will of course issue a signing statement saying he’ll comply with the parts that suit him and ignore the others.)

But all I did was ask for clarification on the point. I found it wanting.

I got a comment caught in moderation. It announced the death of George Carlin. Apparently there are still some of his 7 words which can not be used even here even now.

??? Fuck that.

I also have a concern about them being neutered this early. Most vets like to wait a couple more months.

LOL — Lemme take a peek — I think I know which one trips the SPAM filter for porn purveyors… *G*

RIP

I can keep em a few more weeks i guess,or just give her the certificates i purchased,guess we can round em up in a few months,they feed everyday which is good…you think this is not a good plan?

Heh. It’s gotta be “tits.”

i have 5 other cats,and 4 litter boxes…………..@#$%^&*!!!! + 3 dogs

It’s the C-word that does. Imagine my surprise when I got moderated for quoting John McCain. ;-)

H.R.6304 – All Congressional Actions

The bill is on the Senate’s legislative calendar — there was no objection to waiving the Senate Rule XIV provision that first and second readings be held on different legislative days.

A determined objector can positively prevent this bill from passing before Sunday.

Deeply Troubling

and as always, I blame that Hamsher woman :D

Do you dogs show as much interest in getting into the litterbox as mine do?

I’d heard that FISA reauth w/indemnity was gonna be bundled with other stuff like the Iraq/Afghan funding and unemployment extension. Anyone know?

Hi cboldt. It’s great to the A-team tracking this piece of crap. Thanks.

OT – here is a great story about how Cindy McCain has tried to thwart Mothers Against Drunk Driving in order to sell more booze…(that is if you trust the Los Angeles Times)…

http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..3885.story

Just got off the phone with HRC’s DC office. They told me Sen. Clinton was opposed to telecom immunity. Person who answered the phone had obviously received a lot of calls before mine.

Seconded.

If you’ve already got certs for them, I’d give them to her. I’d also ask the vet what their preferred age to neuter is and then tell the lady. Outdoor cats just don’t live as long as indoor and the better chance they have goin’ in the better. They’re obviously thriving. And ya can’t break a little girl’s heart. I’m a firm believer in teaching youngsters to love and be responsible for other critters. We’d end up with fewer Pelosi’s and Hoyer’s.

I guess I am somewhat concerned that there will be a slide on the immunity portion in response to pressure (we can all hope…or with luck unseat Carney, et al in the House in the Fall) only for the rest to remain and that being seen as a good compromise on the “compromise”.

Such an outcome would STILL give Bush/Cheney everything they really want, would essentially make Richard Nixon’s illegal spying crimes crimes no longer (it really would then be “If the President does it, then it is not illegal”). It is the retroactive rejuvination and rehabilitation of Nixon and all he did that is behind Cheney’s motivations. He really does believe that a President is above and beyond the law. Dumping immunity while keeping the rest would do all that.

And probably read my fax as well – I sent to HRC, Schumer, and Obama. And emailed everyone in my address book with talking points and asked them to write, fax and call as well.

the Sagacious One is making the undeniable point that he is now in a position to stop/influence/delay this – recall his laying the smack down on PAC/Lobbyist monies the day after he clinched – jes sayin’

I can understand why people get frustrated with the “marathon, not a sprint” nature of all this. Certainly have my own moments with this.

“Marathon” and “baby steps” arguments are more about staying motivated, since that’s the key for long-term success. It’s so easy to get pissed and say, “Fuck it, I’m outta here!” (RIP George), but this is what BigMoney counts on. BigMoney is the real evil we face, and it’s gonna take generational vigilance to fight it…forever.

“It’s called The American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.”
-G. Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

As usual George nails it. A lot of what he said seemed like a “I give up” sorta attitude, but I always felt he was trying to wake people up so they’d go out and make it better.

Right now, I’m one of those using the stick approach on Obama. We’ll see how that goes. Frankly, this is the reason I wasn’t supporting him – he won’t take a stand, even when he knows he should. I think if he hears from enough progressives that their support will go elsewhere if he caves on this, it’s at least possible he’ll put a stop to it.

Don’t let anyone kid you, he can put a stop to it if he chooses. He’s the party’s presidential nominee. Even Harry Reid isn’t fool enough to risk a confrontation.

Welcome to the wonderful world of porn spam. *g*

I have asked my representative to back the constitution. Imagine having to ask?
2 of my representatives will vote to shred the constitution. I can only hope it costs them their freedom.

I just described this FISA business as a “campaign” over at my place. It sure feels like on to me.

FISA stands on it’s own. It’s not bundled with the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill.

Tracking action in the Senate is apt to be “complicated,” just in that the Senate will probably multitask the Appropriations, Housing Bailout, and FISA – it takes close attention to separate the exact procedural stance of each, when more than one matter is running concurrently.

For example, Reid could move to proceed to FISA, get an objection, file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed (that takes about 30 seconds), then IMMEDIATELY take up the Supplemental and have consideration of IT run in parallel with the cloture clock on FISA.

I half expected him to do that (file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to FISA) on Friday. The fact that he didn’t is a signal that objection to FISA won’t be strenuous, i.e., won’t use all the parliamentary options available.

If you read Feingold’s fact sheet, you’ll see that there are a number of issues being pushed at once — but since this is time critical, I’m working the one in which I think the netroots can make the biggest impact. And there are other groups and folks pushing the other issues as well.

There is a LOT to work on…

Gotta love the ever-predictable National Review:

…Frustrated in its efforts to attack the administration directly — because the public supported aggressive surveillance against the enemy and because the government can assert its state-secrets privilege in court — organizations such as the ACLU and CAIR set their sights on the telecoms. Numerous lawsuits were filed, confronting the telecoms, their shareholders, and customers with the prospect of billions of dollars in liability…

…The public wants aggressive surveillance against our enemies, and we need it as a nation. Adult Democrats know that. Too bad Sen. Obama can’t be counted among their number.

OT – I know the pattern is to sugarcoat radical heroes after they die until they look like Cabbage Patch versions of themselves, but here is a choice Carlin quote, especially for the Firepups:

As Carlin himself put it:

“Don’t confuse me with those who cling to hope. I enjoy describing things the way they are, I have no interest in how they ‘ought to be.’ And I certainly have no interest in fixing them. I sincerely believe that if you think there’s a solution, you’re part of the problem. My motto: Fuck Hope!

eeeew! More and Better Party for Moderately Insignificant Progress within the Constraints of Political Feasibility – is that a catchier motto?

Yet the way he lived his life gives off tons of hope – you don’t need to keep your powder dry, and you don’t concede and roll over and give up because you ‘don’t have the votes’.

1,882 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen BargainCounterTenor:

The National Journal is a corporatist mouthpiece the way the Brookings Institution has been a catapult for DLC “third way” horseshit. Remember that Obama has had to navigate the cross currents of established political power in a short time. To do this, he has consciously and effectively kept himself from bein’ identified as “left wing” in the eyes of the voters by goin’ around the microphones of the corporate media and playin quite effectively to the base of the Democratic Party and the greater mass of American voters.

Obama uses a vocabulary and syntax that speaks to more than one set of ears atta time in each sentence and carries a number of different messages in the same statement. Now, the difference between mindless, vacuous politicians using a vocabulary and syntax of patriotism, motherhood and apple pie and a political poet like Obama is that Obama has messages in his communications with people. Remember that Obama’s syntax and use of language developed as a method to communicate beyond the master’s house to reach the workers in the fields and,later, the congregants in the one room churches.

Obama is a leader that will follow us wherever we organize ourselves to go. It’s kinda like what my father said about Gen Patton: “We called him ‘old blood and guts’…our blood and his guts’”. And THAT, friend, is the definition of a real political leader.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE MUST6 TELL OUR LEADERS WHERE WE ARE GOIN’ SO THEY CAN COME WITH US!!!

I’ve been using “Pageant”

if Selise were here, I’d ask her to re-link her diaries on the “choreography” – good golly it’s spot on

I removed myself from his campaign’s mailing list with an explanation why. I have also removed myself from any and all Demcrapic party lists with an explanation.

I am rock solid on this. I will NOT vote for Obama in the Fall if this bill passes with him merely going through motions to kill it or certain (immunity only) portions of the bill. It simply looks to me like someone who covets the unconstitutional spying powers engendered in this bill – and someone who covets those powers is unfit to actually hold those powers.

No vote for Obama unless he actually stands up.

As someone else wrote (can’t recall where): If he cannot stand up for the Constitution, then he needs to stand down. If he cannot stand up for the Constitution, then I will not stand up for him.

And, as McJoan pointed out in the quote above:

Strategically, if immunity is removed, the bill is once again veto bait.

Thanks.

Talking points for Virginians — I got to bug Webb about this at a congressional fundraiser a couple of months ago, and he said his primary concerns are privacy and accountability. (Unfortunately, I didn’t get to talk to him long enough to find out how that could possibly square with his vote on the previous Senate bill.) Since this bill is inarguably worse than the previous one in those areas, those may be a fruitful points to hit on.

(He apparently also favored the Boxer amendment to let the FISA court decide the suits last time around, which isn’t a good sign, but he’s not dumb, so there’s some hope that he knows what a sham the court provisions in this bill are.)

That means that even Feingold is to let us down. And Dodd.

They appear to have caved and are merely “working within the broken system” to do what will NOT happen.

Don Quixotes when there is absolutely no reason to tilt at windmills because they have it in their actual power to tilt at the real enemy (Reid and his fellow travelers, the ENTIRE leadership of the Democrapic party).

I so much appreciate your comments and your clear thinking…..and your sense of humor, as well. thanks.

Fine. Let him veto it. I dislike the whole thing, so the Dim Son will make me happy by vetoing it.

Ok. :)

Thanks, Praedor. Why didn’t I think of that. Solve two problems with one action.

I’ve been asking around and nothing has been scheduled as yet…and there has been quite a bit of debate as to how to proceed, and even whether to proceed. Which is why a lot of attention being paid to this on the front end is useful for nudging purposes. It allows the people that I want to be making the arguments the leverage to point out that people ARE paying attention to civil liberties issues and that they ARE PISSED.

Citizen Praedor:

See my post at #129…I feel yer anger and I’m right there with ya, but it ain’t for Obama to lead this fight on the Senate floor, it’s for those like the junior Senator from New York and Boxer from California and all the others who will be wantin’ a piece a the action after January of 2009.

The Senate COULD have been working on H.R.3773, which has been in the Senate since March 31st.

The timing and contents of the introduction of H.R.6304 is no accident. It’s carefully orchestrated to AVOID open debate and careful public deliberation. IMO, “the fix is in.” All negotiated and considered by our betters, out of sight.

Constitutional rights are often compromised and given away by politicians (especially Congress), acting in the name of the people.

I think the strategy advocate here is about the best that can be mounted. Fire as many of the perps as you can, use the opportunity to get people interested in their government.

w00t!

multiply that determination by a million other netrootsians, and it will alter the political calculations of the amoral, devoid of principle politicians of the (D) Party, who think they have a lease on the loyalty of everyone left of Lieberman.

And this is bad because ???

The other thing I asked of Greenwald was “what parts of HR 6304 are unconstitutional, and how so?” He did not respond.

9/11 9/11 9/11 Terrah Terrah Terrah Booga Booga Booga.

That’s all I can figure.

IMHO, the Democratic nominee for President is the last place to expend resources. The primary responsibility of the Presidential nominee is to WIN in November. That was the point about all the primary posturing about “electability.” ANYTHING the Presidential candidate says or does will be thoroughly vetted against the possibility of a terrorist attack between now and November. Presidential candidates always move to the center.

Any of the Democratic Senators who are NOT up for re-election in 2008 are much better positioned to stop this abomination. I also give Hillary and Schumer a small pass, because NY has already been hit. Feingold, being from WI is really well positioned, but he needs help.

It’s an argument for focusing sharply on the immunity portion, because if immunity fails the rest of the bill will be in jeopardy.

elevated litterboxes!!!!”g”

– I’ve been asking around and nothing has been scheduled as yet…and there has been quite a bit of debate as to how to proceed, and even whether to proceed. –

I agree that the timing is a bit up in the air, and Reid’s statement last week was “take a run at” FISA. But the fat margin of passage in the House makes it hard for him to argue that the contents of the bill is highly contentious. IOW, he can “blow off” public pressure (pretend there isn’t any) by pointing to the House vote.

He’s going to make a motion to proceed to it, at some point this week. Otherwise he hasn’t even “taken a run at it.” And he’s the one who voiced the steps that caused the bill to appear on the Senate’s legislative calendar as of last week Friday. Note – being on the calendar is NOT an indication that it WILL be taken up – but it (or UC to take it up immediately) is a necessary prerequisite to taking it up.

Obama is the flag of the Dem party now. That is a fact. He, as THE Presidential contender can have a LOT of sway and the party cannot simply ignore him. How would they explain ignoring the man who would be President who actually does NOT, as President, want or need the unconstitutional powers they seem intent on handing to him?

“Congress forcing a reluctant President Obama to be a dictator! They declare that they know better what the President wants or needs than the actual President himself!”

True. No bill at all would be far preferable to this one. And you’re right that Bush wouldn’t accept it, since it’s another get out of jail free card for him.

The 4th Amendment is pretty clear vis a vis warrants. It is unconstitutional to sidestep the Amendments. If that is your desire, you have to actually follow the rules and pass an Amendment that negates the previous Amendment.

Where is the Amendment indicating that American citizens can have their persons, effects, etc, rifled through on the mere say-so of the President when s/he says the magic word, “Terra-ist!”?

Cripes, I should stop typing. That should say “another get out of jail free card for him only with immunity“.

Maybe it got missed. Stuff happens. But your question is answered here:
http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_fisafacts.html

HTH

It means right now Feingold and Dodd’s assessment is that they will be political outcasts and lepers if they fight this. It’s our job to call, fax, and write their peers to show them that they are not.

Congress is a members only club. IIRC, no one, not even Kucinich or Waters in the House mentioned the most venial aspect of this in their public comments. The Democratic leadership wants telecom immunity not for the telecoms (who don’t need it from criminal prosecution), but to sweep Democratic complicity under the rug along with the GOP’s responsibility.

your sensible,as usual

The other thing I asked of Greenwald was “what parts of HR 6304 are unconstitutional, and how so?” He did not respond.

JMO, but I see immunity as a violation of 14th Amendment “equal protection of the laws” clause.

Minimization and reverse targeting in the bill violate the 4th Amendment.

Federal district court review of immunity or FISC review of minimization restricted to procedure and not substance contravene the Article III powers of the courts.

BT has a fresh thread up, for anyone who wants to take a peek…

IOW, he can “blow off” public pressure (pretend there isn’t any) by pointing to the House vote.

Except because of the prerogatives of each House, what the House does would not normally be considered as a reason for the Senate to do anything, in fact the reverse.

Pryor
Lincoln
McCaskill
Schumer
Reid

All had no position as of yet. Also a few offices seemed like they had recieved few calls so far today. Others seemed well versed in multiple replies.

Durbin is A-OK

Clinton and Obama… impossible to reach a human being.

At this point, I would think they would WANT to be pariahs! What do they actually get by going along to get along? Unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law passed!

In a perfect world, Feingold and Dodd would declare that they are leaving the Democratic party over this and becoming Independents…ASAP. Throw the entire question of who runs the Senate into the air!

Think Reid would be so limpdick to move the FISA bill to the floor when his position as Majority Leader is DOA? The Dems WOULD lose control of the Senate if both did this and also announced that they may not caucus with the Democraps.

I’m a bomb thrower by disposition. I don’t like mealy-mouthed “working within the system” or “incremental baby steps” when that, time and again, fails. If I were in the Senate, I would state I am leaving the party. I would pull a Jeffords only I wouldn’t agree to caucus with the Dems unless they scrapped immunity AND the “on the mere words of lying lawyers of the President” crap in the bill.

Praedor, I’m with you.

I see mostly upsides for BO if he were to take a stand on principle here, and I’m like you, pissed that he won’t do it. I’ve sent the same messages to BO’s campaign — no vote from me for him until he steps up and demonstrates a true commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law.

When is a Dem going to pull Bush’s punk card? It’s time. He’s bottoming out in approval ratings; 80% of the country believes we as a nation are on the wrong track. Again, when is a Dem going to directly challenge Bush and tell him: You’re done. Start packing your trash, because we’re not going to allow your trashing of the Constitution any more. It starts now.

Even if BO were to take a true stand on this FISA abomination and lose, it would (to me) expose those DINOs who wouldn’t stand with him. It’s all upside, and it would energize the hell out of me. But, BO has decided to triangulate on this – that’s the conclusion I’ve reached here.

Stand for the Constitution or stand aside.

Starting to sound like Forbidden Thoughts around here. That kind of talk rattles the teacups.

‘Change’ as a poll-tested marketing slogan is not meant to extend to that kind of change, that runs the risk of disrupting the status quo, which is working just fine for those with status.

They get to cash the large corporate checks, they get the grassroots volunteers doing evelope stuffing and free message pushback for the price of some exasperated faxes, calls and emails, easily ignored, as you are finding with Clinton & Obama’s office, and they get to enshrine Bush’s outlaw depredations in law, so they look better. Whats not to like?

No, and entire academic jurisprudential careers have been devoted to ruminating on “conjunctive severability” (the “and” word in the 4th; e.g., “and no warrants shall issue…”). It is by now a case law commonplace episodically separating “unreasonable” from “warrants.” Searches absent warrants have been found constitutional, i.e., “reasonable” even without a warrant. You got stuff like “plain view exceptions” (and its corollary “exigent circumstances”), “administrative exceptions” etc.

So, again, no it is not clear in this case. The HR 6304 language of “persons” — are they referring to targeted individuals (possibly constitutional), or lotsa peeps caught up in digital dragnets (which I would view as beyond the pale). Is there a procedural/oversight potential for “mission creep”? (e.g., using Terrah as an excuse for more general — and unconstitutional — law enforcement or political opposition surveillance)

Separately, is retroactive indemnity “unconstitutional”?

I’m just askin’. But when some supposed expert blows me off with “well, all these other Big Swingin’ Dicks Agree,” I get frustrated.

Change we can count on not counting.

– Except because of the prerogatives of each House, what the House does would not normally be considered as a reason for the Senate to do anything, in fact the reverse. –

I agree. But having watched the skilled liars of both parties, I sometimes entertain my self by speculating as to which lies will be trotted out to make a good show. The GOP used the 13-2 vote in the SSIC, for example, and the fat margin of passage of S.2248/H.R.3773, as “evidence of strong bipartisan support” of the last bill the Senate passed.

You can bet your bottom dollar they’ll be pointing to the House vote of last week. 2.3 to 1 margin for passage, 69% in favor, veto-proof majority, etc. Reid can lean on that support … “although I’m personally against this, Congress thinks it’s a good idea.”

Your frustration is obvious, but you’re talking about going into a very weedy legal discussion with someone who may already be multitasking. It’s quite possible that Glenn would enjoy sitting with a beer and getting weedy with you over it, but such are the limits of communication via the ‘net that one never knows what’s happening with the other participants while conversation takes place.

What do they actually get by going along to get along?

If either were to unilaterally block it, and there was an attack, they could easily be impeached. It’s easy for Dems to block any legislation that Feingold or Dodd try to obtain for their respective states. In addition to punishing them, it leaves more pork for other states. Dems can also “primary” them when they are up for re-election. They can fail to inform them of important committee information. “Payback” in Congress wears many, many faces.

I still think they should do it, but there are real political costs to be paid.

Unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law passed!

This isn’t new.

This country supported ethnic slavery and genocide against native American tribes. It prevented one gender from receiving the vote until 1920. The government has routinely spied on lots of people. They opened the mail of the James/Younger gang without warrants using the Pinkerton’s as their front. They tapped MLK’s phone, Malcolm X’s, just to name a few. I do not in any way want to dilute the absolute seriousness of this legislation. We have to fight it tooth and nail. I just think it helps to understand the history and the environment in which politicians move.

False change gets in the way of real change just as much as the overt hostility of the (R) brand does.

Obama is peddling Olestra.

http://www.cspinet.org/olestra/

don’t eat that stuff.

Dutifully called each and every one, plus my own Senators and sent a scathing letter to Obama.

Be the change you seek in the world
Ghandi

I appreciate the energy you bring.

The “bomb throwing” metaphor is apt and I know you mean it in a non-violent kind of way.

I’m just inviting you to consider that a “rifled” approach takes less energy , frequently injures fewer non-combatants, and some times has a better chance of success.

Nonesense…

To continue the rif on the metaphor…there ARE no “non-combatants” in the Congress. They are ALL dirty or in the process of selling their souls to get nice and dirty.

I begin to like the idea of term limits a LOT, for senator criminals and house criminals. No more than 2 terms, then OUT. NO buildup of power, or wealth, or key lobbying contacts…and a rule barring them joining any lobbying firm for a period of 4 years after leaving the Congress.

With two years, no one can get too “comfortable” in the DC cocktail party game. They barely break in their office chairs, let alone get much corporate dick sucked.

Err, I meant “2 terms” not 2 years.

So, to you THE Flagship person of the party, THE Presidential candidate is no one and is of no account, no importance, and of no influence. Just riffraff to be ignored.

I call THAT nonsense. The Prez candidate’s platform deeply informs the party platform.

Maybe they do but put all you want to say on just the cover sheet. I would also suggest targeting in particular those Senator’s on the Rules Cmte. who will be setting the ‘rules’ by which the bill is heard on the floor of the Senate.

YOU got THAT right, Norske!
Great points, all of them!

DMAC, you can thank Rahm Emmanuel for the Barrow endorsement.

Pryor’s not voting against FISA. He voted for the Military Commissions bill and, just now, his staff spent more time directing me to thomas.loc.gov than to explaining whether he was in favor of immunity and blanket warrants or no. Any direct question about his position was met with a) spin or b) obfuscation or c) frustration that I was asking direct questions and not satisfied with a) or b). Also, they admitted that the Senator’s practice is not to divulge publicly his position on controversial bills until after the vote (thanks for the courage, Senator).

Can’t speak for Lincoln, other than her representative conceded that she’d been in favor of immunity in the past.

Makes one proud to be an Arkansan.

Still wish Halter had primaried him.

It wasn’t Boxer but Feinstein -chairman of the Senate Rules Cmte.- that offered the FISA court amendment in the Senate which was defeated. Boxer spoke against and voted against the Senate FISA bill.

That’s not going to happen. I remember in 2006, when calling to inquire about the Military Commissions bill and suggesting to his legislative affairs director that there were some options other than voting for the bill, being told that if I knew so much, I should run against Pryor myself. Pryor clearly has no fear of being ousted and is willing to make whatever deals he feels necessary to play one side against the other.

IMHO, he’s just a more photogenic, less abrasively sounding version of Independent Joe. I’m originally from OK and could not be more embarrassed by Inhofe and Coburn, but Pryor, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing is almost worse. At least Infofe and Coburn have the balls to bs the voters openly.

Somehow I think William Buckley would be against this bill because of it’s perversion of the Constitution; National Review is no longer a mag of conservatives but fascists. REAL conservatives are against this bill.

Senator Reid moves to proceed to FISA, and the presiding officer notes that the motion is debatable … (pregnant pause) … [I’ve heard no objection in 2 minutes of silence, just that the motion to proceed is debatable] … at 15:07, Senator Reid asks if a quorum call is in progress. There is not. Senator Reid files a cloture motion on the motion to proceed to FISA, H.R.6034. 17 DEM Senators signed on to this motion, the clerk read all of their names. At 15:08, Senator Reid noted the absence of a quorum.

Or Wes Clark. Heck I wish he had a GOPer challenger. Must admit his only challenge is a Green by the name of Kennedy. And she would never in a million years compromise on FISA or needless war.

ubetchaiam at 179–oh, i know, thanks, i called him, too….about that and the blueamericafisa pac, and said donna edwards a buncha times…he’s messin’ in a lot of races……..

i think he annoys me more than anyone, gets on tv as a golden boy, everyone talks about how great he is and in the back rooms is screwing everyone…….i don’t get it…….

raum may be whisperin’ in obam’s ear, but that doesn’t mean obama has to listen to him…….

Senator Specter is speaking on FISA, and he is against retroactive immunity.

In theory. Never trust Specter when it comes down to a vote.

The whole ‘civil’ versus ‘criminal’ issue is ‘dirt in the air’. People seem to forget that in a criminal trial a guilty verdict must be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ while civil is ‘preponderance of evidence’; think of the OJ trials. so the argument that a criminal proceeding could address the illegality is false hope.
And what keeps getting left out the impeachment debate (shall we or not?) is that a President cannot pardon someone under impeachment hearings. Are you listening Mr. Conyers?

Okay.

Contacted Sherrod Brown (D – should back Feingold, counting on it!!!)

Contacted George Voinovich (R – hopeless, used different wording on his’n; at this point he & I know eachother’s stance – as in OPPOSITE grrrr, but I repect his office, says she, gritting her teeth, so I was polite, albeit blunt)

Need to simmer down just a tad, then have at that Reid fella, oh sigh…

Thank you everyone. It’s nice to have company like yours – slows the jet of steam coming out the top of my head just enuf to permit limited bursts of activity.

We. shouldn’t. have. to. do. this. for every vote.

Theoretically, we are not dealing with slow, untutored children.

Oh, wait…

keep your lazer eye on him. he’ll prolly find a way to switch so smoothly you can’t even blink or you’ll lose it.

PA-ites: suggest you hammer him, politely of course, with proper respect for his position in the Senate & all, but craft your stance to sound like solid granite. Thanks, and good luck.

Specter just outright said he’d probably vote in favor of the bill.

Sounds like Specter is asking for O’Neill to be approved as Federal judge…it also sounds like his FISA vote to sell out the American people will be in exchange for a promise to vote in favor of this nominee. Did anyone else get that impression?

The following Senators signed the cloture petition, to limit debate on the motion to proceed to FISA:

Whitehouse, Murray, Baucus, Johnson, Salazar, Mikulski, Rockefeller, Kohl, Casey, Inouye, Landrieu, Lincoln, Pryor, Feinstein, Carper, Lieberman, and McCaskill.

quorum call.

bobbyg at 165 and other numbers and other threads—-jayt said he would need an entire weekend doing nothing but reading, with law clerks, a masseuse, etc, to dig through this bill, and you want greenwald to drop what he’s doin and answer your email? it’s only monday, and i bet he has a few other things on his plate…..maybe.

or

maybe he read your post the other day where you were braggin’ about ’calling him out’ on his analysis, maybe that’s it……….he does read and comment here on occasion. good chance.

one of those two would be my guess.

and now you want a detailed answer about what in it is unconstitutional, when jayt said he’d need lotsa help and an entire weekend…….

my bet is it IS taking a few swingin d’s to dig through it.

give the guy a freakin’ break already

it’s only monday……

i bet you jump that high that quick, too, while diggin’ through a haystack.

: )

Sorry. I am multi tasking.. Did you hear that on cspan or do you have a link?

Today is a do-nothing day in the Senate anyway. I was looking for (and saw) a procedural move that sets some parameters for handling of FISA. A cloture vote will happen Wednesday (unless the objectors agree to compress the time provided for in the rules), and then, if the objectors stick to the time frame provided in the rules, the FISA bill won’t be made formally pending until an additional 30 hours have elapsed.

I was surprised the Specter shot off right away.

Listening to C-SPAN2.

Well, cboldt, that would appear to be the ballgame. I unfortunately think that the rest of this is kabuki — we can agitate and threaten and yell at them, but it will be to no avail.

That doesn’t mean I think we should make it easy on them, nosirree, but we can’t win this battle. Although, wtf are Murry and Whitehouse doing on that disgusting list?

Anyway, Baucus, Johnson, Rockefeller, Pryor, and Landrieu are unfortunately getting free rides this year. At least Mikulski and Salazar (and Reid and Schumer) are up for re-elect in 2010.

Anyone that votes for this atrocity needs to be primaried, and HARD, in their next electoral cycle.

As for the names of the Senators, I record opening comments, in case anything happens I can play it back and take accurate dictation. That list is accurate dictation.

I don’t think Specter’s fence-straddling position on FISA (I’m afraid it abridges civil liberties, but in this day and age of terrorism, I’m going to vote for it anyway) has any relationship whatsoever to the O’Neil nomination.

and obama needs to climb down from the lofty heights and place his feet firmly on the ground NOW.

Just under the wire, I added Reid, Obama & Reid to my home fellas, only with different wording – shouldn’t be hard for them to feel the mood here.

Still haven’t had time to read all the goodies in the threads here.

Thanks guys.

It takes a country…

Murray, Johnson-NE, Inouye, Pryor, and Feinstein are all Democrats on the Rules Committee.

yep. that pretty much sums it up.

not twice to Reid, though that might have been cute. last one should read Clinton – oops.

I just called Leahy and Sanders my homeboys, and Harry Reid and Obama for good measure.

Thanks.

Thank you to all who are covering. It’s insanely bizzy here, and stormy again to boot, so I just can’t keep track. Will look fwd to catching up later. At least it feels good to have booted the Senators where they needed it most. I do hate to be left out of the action. *g*

The intersection of Senate Rules Committee members with signatories to the cloture motion to limit debate on the motion to proceed to FISA comprises the following Senators:

Feinstein, Inouye, Murray, and Pryor

But I believe any relationship with the Rules Committee is a non sequiter. Leadership picks what comes to the floor as motion to proceed, executive session, etc., without guidance directed by the Rules Committee. Senate procedure is quite unlike House procedure.

And Reid is on the Rules Cmte.; appreciate your postings Cboldt; good to have someone familiar with how things work.

see, I think where we differ is that I’ve never really had a sense that Obama is much a leader. He’s always been a “vehicle” of the Really Big Powers That Be – Kerry, Kennedy, Reid in the Senate and to Emil Jones while in the IL senate – a pretty face, a strong voice but driven by others’ desires.

I don’t think he has a snowball’s chance in hell of having his own opinion on anything related to FISA. Those that are CYAing the situation are in charge and he must be obedient at least until all the votes are in at the convention. He OWES, big time, his patrons in the Dem party.

well then, i wasn’t nuts, or at least that has nothing to do with it.

(my #192)

dang. lightening close. back later guys.

Correct, Reid is on the Rules Committee, but Reid did not sign this cloture petition.

I sent Reid an email when I read about the cloture petition telling him that it’s pretty clear that the Democrats are going to take a dive on the American people’s 4th amendment protections and that my planned contributions to Obama must now go to fighting for my rights and that sadly that now includes fighting against Democrats.

– I sent Reid an email when I read about the cloture petition telling him that it’s pretty clear that the Democrats are going to take a dive on the American people’s 4th amendment protections –

Just the fact the DEMs filed the cloture motion is a sign. 49 GOP + 17 DEM is greater than the 60 votes needed to limit debate. The bill will be made pending.

S.2248, a worse bill (the same one Dodd delayed back in December), passed the Senate on a 68-29 vote, with TONS of pressure being put on the Senate. The Senate then stuffed it’s bill into H.R.3773, and sent it to the House. The House stepped all over the Senate’s proposal back in March, and sent it back to the Senate, where it sits to this very day.

At any rate, I agree. The DEMs are going to facilitate hiding government action from the public. New day, same old shit.

This is a bit off topic BUT does show something I didn’t know and that the media hasn’t mentioned, namely “They could have arrested Bolten and Miers and jailed them in a cell in the Capitol complex built for holding people in contempt of Congress.” http://thehill.com/leading-the…..06-23.html

sherrod brown’s office–yadda yadda,

intern–well, ma’am in the past he has voted against immunity,

me–yeah, i know, what’s he doing now??????

intern–he has not released a statement on how he’s going to vote.

me–why not?

intern–well, ma’am, he’s been very busy and he’s still going over the bill………

me—-(yeah, right. that’s the reason he can’t just come and say he’s gonna vote for it) well, tell him……..(insert phrases here) and send me a response in the mail, please.

intern–your comments will be submitted to him for consideration before he votes on the bill. and someone will get back to you.

have a nice day.

another one bites the dust.

and then added that any influence he could use to get an emergency extension on the medicare coverage being cut off july 1st would be a good thing………

When your party no longer supports the Constitution it’s time to either fight them tooth and nail or find another party. I choose to fight them tooth and nail and to change my voter affiliation to Independent until my Party finds it’s soul again.

That’s the same BS I got from John Yarmuth’s office. He had voted against FISA in the past and assured me in writing that he would continue to fight…he caved in on Friday when he voted for the Pelosi/Hoyer bill.

pmorlan at 223–yep, and same thing for rep charlie wilson, haven’t called his office after his ’yea’ vote yet….i will though, and his local office…….sometimes if you call the local offices you get real aides, wash dc is mostly interns…….i tried to call the local office friday to talk to the one i know, but they were out of the office until monday…….

and i forgot to add, i am asking that each rep and sen be directly asked, how many VOTERS have said, gee, i think the telcos should get immunity……how many? name one..sometimes i get a laugh, others, silence……that this bill has nothing to do with the voters and they should just say that……not one voter i know has said that they want telcos to have immunity, repub or dem.

this is supposed to be a representative government……..

Thank you, Christy!
I used the form provided by Congress.org with the following message:

Recently, the House of Representatives passed a bad bill that would have the effect of granting immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in illegal wiretapping activities. The bill included provisions that seemed to protect civil rights, but in fact set up a blind procedure that accepts at face value presidential assurances of legality, thus depriving the FISC or any other court of oversight review. This has the effect of removing from the courts any review of the legality of the presidential orders, and the culpability of administration officials in approving illegal wiretaps.

The Senate is scheduled to consider this legislation soon. I fervently urge that you
(*) Oppose any bill granting immunity that does not involve full and independent court review of the legality of the orders;
(*) Oppose any bill that does not include “minimization” assurances comparable to the provisions in the original FISA bill that has been the law for years;
(*) Oppose any bill that does not include an “exclusivity” provision equal to the provisions in the original FISA bill that has been the law for years;

This issue is of special interest to me. We can have security *without* sacrificing civil rights. The so-called “compromise” bill approved by the House is not really a compromise at all, but caves in to administration demands for retroactive approval of its illegal actions. I will be following your votes on this matter with considerable interest.

Oops! I forgot to add that no bill was better than a bad bill, and that as you pointed out, delaying consideration was a good idea.

I share your passion on this subject, and I’m traveling, so I depend on your summaries and recommendations!

Bob in HI
Temporarily in Madison, WI

“This fight is gunna draw the intraparty battle lines for the first two years of the next administration.”

This is exactly how I see it too.

I called Leahy’s office and asked what action he was taking, if any, to stop this bill. The lady had no answer and connected me to a staffer on the Judiciary Committee. She referred to the work that Leahy had done on the bill up to this point. That’s it.

Yeah, it’s called “inherent contempt.”

I think that’s perfect.

FDR as your favorite president? Didn’t he put Japanese Americans into interment camps? I think that’s a far sight worse than FISA.

Yes, there’s the problem of national security vs individual rights. But what about the govt intervention that comes with all of these programs designed to “help” us? Do you really want the govt holding your health information? We’re losing our rights indeed, but look beyond FISA. More govt = less freedom.

The change we need is less govt across the board. Slash away. Then we’ll start to get our rights back.