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!