Wow, Christy, thanks for the mention. Glad I could be of help. I could have input the info if I hadn’t been at work.

hey christy, g’morning

marcy made a point yesterday that she is pretty sure obama doesn’t know that fisa does not expire

I’ll get the link but he needs to be educated

Go Christy Go!!!

No problem — it’s incredibly useful. I’ll be doing a lot of data entry this morning because a lot of folks sent in tips yesterday. Boo yah!

Actually, I think Marcy was making that point about Greg Craig — who spoke for the Obama campaign in the article she referenced. But I’m certain the campaign is aware of that error at this point. *g*

Good Morning Christy and Firedogs,

here is McJoan’s post on yesterday’s Court ruling

repudiate much ?

here ya go

http://emptywheel.firedoglake......s-they-do/

This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.” [my emphasis]

Either Greg Craig is not the guy the Obama campaign should have discussing–much less advising him on–these issues, or Craig is simply repeating Obama’s profoundly erroneous logic.

so, either obama is uninformed or lying, I would rather think uninformed and he needs to be contacted and educated, I believe there are some at the lake who can get the message to him

You can also sign up to be a citizen co-sponsor of the Dodd-Feingold Amendment to strip retroactive immunity from pending FISA legislation.

Yeah — I’m hoping to have something coming up in a bit on that as well. That ruling was nicely done.

I would hope that if they were aware they would see fit to ammend their statement at least, or their position at best

But I’m certain the campaign is aware of that error at this point. *g*

I get it, somebody made him aware, I am hoping it was either you or marcy and hoping we are certain obama himself is aware of the error

Is there a site where we can follow the whip count by senators’ names once we have placed our calls?

Good Morning Christy!

You are making it pretty easy to make it hard for Senators to hide over the Holiday, and it’s just the holiday to pressure them *g

go get ‘em pups!

and digg pups, digg

digg Blue America Launches Whip Count Call Tool On FISA

digg Blue America Launching Tool To Help Organize Community

Once you finish the call, the count information should pop up. And we’ll update as we get particular information on it. We wanted to gather as much as we could and then update likely on Sunday evening or Monday morning so we have fresh info going into the vote.

Hi Perris. Glenn Greenwald called Greg Craig yesterday:

After I read him his quote, explained that FISA won’t expire, and pointed out that his comment in the NYT therefore made no sense, Craig paused for awhile and then said that he meant that the “warrants under FISA would expire in August,” and Obama supported the FISA “compromise” to prevent that from happening. When I asked Craig if he was referring to the surveillance orders authorized by the Protect America Act that allow the Government to spy with no individual warrants (which have a one-year duration and do expire in August), Craig said that this is what he meant, and that Obama wanted to avoid having those surveillance orders expire.

While that last version at least generally comports with reality, it makes no sense whatsoever as an explanation for Obama’s FISA position. Back in August, when he was seeking the Democratic nomination, Obama voted against the Protect America Act. Therefore, had Obama had his way, there never would have been any PAA in the first place, and therefore, there never would have been any PAA orders possible. Having voted against the PAA last August, how can Obama now claim that he considers it important that the PAA orders not expire? How can he be eager to avoid the expiration of surveillance orders which he opposed authorizing in the first place?

I asked Craig that question several times and received completely incoherent replies, after which he started insisting that he already answered me and had nothing else to add (he then changed the subject to talk about the “improvements” the current bill achieves over the Rockefeller Senate bill). The fact is that there is no answer. In the past, Obama has opposed the type of warrantless eavesdropping which those PAA orders authorize. He’s repeatedly said that the FISA court works and there’s no need to authorize eavesdropping without individual warrants. None of that can be reconciled with his current claim that he supports this FISA “compromise” because National Security requires that those PAA orders not expire and that there be massive changes to FISA. It’s just as simple as that.

It’s bad enough that Obama is supporting a new warrantless eavesdropping scheme. They should just candidly admit that he changed his position rather than feeding incoherent and insultingly false rationalizations to the public — whereby they throw around the terms “National Security” and “balance” enough times and hope that nobody notices or cares that what they’re saying makes no sense. One of the strengths of the Obama campaign has been a willingness to have adult discussions about complex political issues, assume a fair amount of rationality and intelligence on the part of the voting public, and avoid manipulative, obfuscating sloganeering like this. It’s just adding insult to injury to resort to nonsensical justifications of the type Craig put into the New York Times today.

Let’s be clear on this. Contrary to what Obama and his spokesmen have been saying, Obama is NOT concerned about FISA (which in fact has no expiration date) but about the expiration of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL year-long surveillance programs authorized under the Protect American Act during is six-month lifetime from August 5, 2007 to February 17, 2008. Those unconstitutional programs will start expiring on August 5, 2008 and will all have expired by February 17, 2009. And that is why Obama uses the word URGENT every time he talks about HR6304 (The FISA Amendments Act of 2008), which is designed to cut holes in FISA big enough to drive a truck through:

* H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

* H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

* H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

* H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

* H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

[…]

Source: ACLU.

Oops. I neglected to include the link to Glenn’s stuff: http://www.salon.com/opinion/g.....index.html

What the great ‘Constitutional Scholar’ needs a bunch of DFH to ‘remind’ him about this. Shame, you are screwing up his clever little plan which goes, ‘Oh, really! I did not know that.’

To which my reply will be, ‘Oh, really! I forgot to vote for you. What a shame!’

Yes it is indeed a shame but the shame will not be on our part, despite what some here would say, not on my part either.

It’s Mr. Magic Man who should feel shame but apparently does not.

On a more positive note I put this out with linky to my list. They are an active lot and will be lighting up that tool. As well as sending me emails condemning all who support the ‘compromise’ as….

‘Fascists’, ‘Tools’, ‘Traitors’….

No issue gets my folks as angry as this one and in the Fall we are gonna be partying down at Pelosi’s mansion to make the point that she should be turned out of office.

This caught my eye:

defendants’ attorney in this matter stated in open
court during the hearing herein held on April 23, 2008 that, while
he conceded that “Congress sought to take over the field” of foreign
intelligence surveillance (Doc #452 at 29:2-3), whether the
president actually had constitutional authority under Article II to
order such surveillance in disregard of FISA remained an open
questio….

It’s an “open qusetion” whetehr the Prseident can disregard FISA? Thankfully, court didn’t buy into that.

Won’t Bush sign the bills and attach signing statements that make the bills the way his handlers want? Congress never complains about signing statements. The MSM ignores them. It’s hard to see anything real being accomplished with Bush in the mix.

When I asked Craig if he was referring to the surveillance orders authorized by the Protect America Act that allow the Government to spy with no individual warrants

in other words, obama is saying there needs to be no individual warrants and he is comfortable with the president just stealing our information wherever and whenever it suits his personal whim

is obama out of his frigging mind?

how can progressives support this candidate?

yes, Greg Craig. Glenzilla did a piece on this that I linked to at my homeblog earlier. Scrambling hereabouts, so prewrote another for this afternoon…this posting giving specific action tools will make a great link for the ending…

You rock, Christy. Your hard work, your leading inspiration, are true citizen activism in action. FDL and Blue America are hope builders.

how can progressives support this candidate?
reply

He’s the lesser of two evils. That is the best I can say of him.

Take a look at my #16 on the Glenn’s call to Craig and the implications.

christy - i’m glad you are pushing the cloture vote, because that one seems a lot more doable (v slight chance vs almost no chance?) than the immunity amendment (40 votes required vs 51).

by pushing the immunity amendment as a first priority i think we are leaving senators the loophole of voting against immunity but then voting for the bill - may i suggest that when lobbying everyone makes it clear that the first priority is to vote against cloture? thanks!

yes.

yes.

don’t think i can.

Yes…

given a choice between opinions from Wes Clark or opinions from Greg Craig, I’ll take Clark any day.

I sent an email to Congressman Sestak asking for an explanation for his yes vote on the FISA legislation, HR6304. He answered it, and it was quite a long and detailed response. I would include it here, but as I said it was quite long.

One of the things he did say was that the legislation would sunset in 2012. I have not read the actual legislation myself, but I don’t think he was making that up.

Here’s how I look at it — taking the longer view: Bobby Kennedy wasn’t exactly Mr. Civil Liberties when he was AG under JFK. But he became much more of an advocate for that and civil rights and other issues as he was exposed to folks around the country who educated him about them. Same with Teddy when he first became a Senator and look where he is now. Same with Sen.Byrd — I mean, honestly, think about his history and where he is today on civil liberties issues.

They can be taught. But we have to help teach them. When you think about it that way — because that is how it has always been in American history — you see the importance of an educated and active citizenry. This is why I blog. And why I hope a lot of you get involved, too. Because it is what we must do to make things better — one decision, one bit of education, one vote at a time.

And, you are absolutely right that McCain is far worse. Ugh.

But I’m certain the campaign is aware of that error at this point.

no - last i heard it is NOT

By my count, we may have about 22 votes (and that’s a generous estimate) to depend on for cloture at this point. Pushing on all of this is really, really important.

Oh no, it’s aware. They may not admit it out loud publicly yet — but they’ve definitely been told about the legal error.

there’s nobody here who is going to vote for mccain but before this fisa thing I was a very persuasive advocate for obama when in political discussion

now, not so much, he has really taken the wind from my sail

oops sorry about that…. should be:

no - last i heard it is NOT an error. the campaign is lying to glenn.

From dailykos:

District Court: What FISA Did, What the FISA Capitulation Does
by mcjoan
Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 06:45:53 AM PDT

Yesterday Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California issued an opinion in Al Haramain v. Bush, one of the cases challenging the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. EFF has the decision, which is a clear a repudiation of what the Democratic Congress of the United States is doing with the FISA Amendments Act as any post any left blogger has written….

Read the rest of the article: http://dailykos.com/

“..they can be taught” - a sign of more intelligent lifeforms is that they are capable of learning and changing. Unlike Bush, Cheney, and many others who are locked into a world view/ego statement.

Is he?

Really?

If he wins, doubtful but possible, do you think the possibity for real change in the Democratic Party go up or down?

Are you happy with another 10 to 20 years of what we are seeing now?

Voting for someone who does not represent your fundamental principles because they are the ‘lesser of two evils’ does not work in the political arena.

You want more Pelosis, Schumers, Hoyers and Emmanuels vote for Barkey and….

That’s exactly what you will get.

More of the wonderful same.

LOL The “Dick Cheney Says it, so jump and ask how high on the way up” category of obeisance? *g*

I believe we can “teach” politicians do do “the people’s” work, but only after we remove corporate sponsorship from their camaign

till then any industry can buy our law

There, at this point, is no empirical evidence to support you assertion.

None.

Exactly, Christy.
.

Grabbed a couple local links for anybody interested in watching or listening to the Obama appearance in Fargo–billed as focusing on military and veterans issues [Fargo has a large VA medical center].

Watch Obama’s speech in Fargo [scheduled for 12:30 CT] live here

or listen to the preliminaries and speech on radio here [coverage begins at 10:30 CT].

Yes, and all those third party votes for Nader and others worked out so swell for the last 8 years of Bush/Cheney, didn’t they? You make up your mind how you want to vote — other people will make up theirs how they want to vote. It’s one thing to argue factual basis with folks. It’s another thing to harangue them because they see things differently from you.

Try more of the former, and a bit less of the latter, please…and we’ll all be able to have a conversation instead of an escalating name-calling match. It’s been a long two weeks of family crisis at my house, and I am truly not in the mood to mediate a squabble in the thread due to continuing pie fights.

It’s a holiday, someone share a BBQ recipe or something…

but they’ve definitely been told about the legal error.

sorry about my confusing comment (the submit button got engaged instead of my brain).

… my point is that the campaign (last i heard) is NOT calling it an error. instead they are lying to glenn. sure seems to me that the lies are an attempt to cloud what is obama’s new position. here’s glenn (after his phone call with craig:

It’s bad enough that Obama is supporting a new warrantless eavesdropping scheme. They should just candidly admit that he changed his position rather than feeding incoherent and insultingly false rationalizations to the public — whereby they throw around the terms “National Security” and “balance” enough times and hope that nobody notices or cares that what they’re saying makes no sense.

Is there a good way to find our Senators over the holiday weekend?

If you haven’t gotten information from contacting your local Congressional offices, another option might be to call your nearest daily newspaper, ask if they’ve gotten any press of public events scheduled?

Actually, I’d be up for a ‘flourless chocolate cake’ recipe myself. I’m on a “no grains/no beans” anti-inflammatory diet - which has done wonders for the pain in my joints(and seems to be upping the effectiveness of my statins on my cholesterol - woohoo — but has done zip for my ability to giving my fam a treat that I can share in. And, I’m not gonna take offense at ACit’s comment. I refuse to do so.

Sorry about your home life tension. I’m trying to survive financially myself so I understand offline stress.

Now, I just guess I’ll vote any damn way I please and further, there’s a long time to go before we actually know who we vote for.

I felt my commentary was within the bounds of political discourse…

Having been told it is not I will be leaving. You can take your inflated opinion of what you get to say to me and….

Well you get the idea.

Enjoy your brave new world with a candidate who could care less what you want and need.

Way back in February, a number of friends from Glenn’s blog got together and organized this, which we had printed in the standard size and format for telephone message pads. We have been quietly spreading them around the country. It has been great fun leaving them in places for people to find.

As for barbecue recipes, if you don’t have time to fire up the grill but want a good pork tenderloin, try this one. (The salad part is a lot more work, but also good.)

flourless chocolate cake’ recipe

kathryn in ma has a killer recipe - i haven’t made it, but i’ve had it twice now (once at revdeb’s before she moved and just recently at ecahn’s) when kathryn made it. yum yum.

i should ask her for her recipe too!

Just to echo CHS, what are the options?

I for one am going to vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning who will not give me another Alito or Thomas on the SCOTUS, just for one example.

I have never seen much difference between where HRC or BO are on the issues, and I have not seen any of these folks do the right thing on FISA.

We are living in a world that is ruled by corporations, regardless of anything else. But where the courts are concerned, we have a prayer against them, with BO than with McSame. IMHO.

gotta run - just want to say thanks to all, especially christy for keeping the pressure on.

One of the things he did say was that the legislation would sunset in 2012. I have not read the actual legislation myself, but I don’t think he was making that up.

Targeting authority sunsets on December 31, 2012. This is not an improvement. If they were serious about this, they would do a 6-9 month extension and fix this thing the way it should be early in the next Administration. Giving the FISA a 4 year extension is a way of embedding it in concrete while making it seem like they aren’t. 2012 like 2008 will be a Presidential election year and the same kind of political games will be played then as now. In addition, in 4 years McConnell or his successor will argue that such surveillance has become so integral to the intelligence community’s mission that the whole enterprise will collapse without it. The word to describe the sunset is kabuki.

good morning selise -

did RevDeb provide any feedback/report in the threads regarding her face time with Sestak ? was prayin for her and would like to know how that turned out.

anybody fr. NJ? or anybody else. Lautenberg and menendez can be safely counted in our corner on this right?

you talk to nelson’s office?

[dugg]

both your Senators voted ‘with us’ - but please see Christy’s comments in the thread about pressuring them on cloture.

they’re my ex-senators. was just curious.

flourless chocolate cake–make a chocolate cake- take out the flour–cook it till it’s real nice.

Gonna hit the phones big-time on Monday. I did call prior to Obama’s flip-flop and tried to argue with them based on Obama’s early statements against immunity. With Obama’s stance now, I guess we have to rely on the leadership of Feingold and Dodd, rather than Obama.

I was away for about two weeks and have had a lot of catching up to do. How’s things in O-town?

I got the Sestak letter too and it basically is apologist talking points that could work on someone who is unfamiliar with the legislation. The points on immunity attempt to CLAIM that a district judge would be able to vet any immunity claim, when the truth is the district judge just gets to vet whether the AG asserts that the telco was asked by the president to do the warrantless searches.
It DOES not get to vet whether the search was pursuant to a warrant. All the telco has to do is produce a letter from AG that says we asked them to do this.

In 2009 either Obama or McBush will move into the White House. We can vote for one- vote for the other- not vote- or vote for Nader or some other- which is the same as not voting….

If a person really thinks that there will be zero difference between the two- then don’t vote. If there is a difference- no matter how small- then it is only rational to vote for the better candidate.

CHS: Something that tastes better than these FISA issues. Am off to the grocery for the ingredients to make a double batch of this. It’s become a standard request for the 4th. Maybe we like it because we are Blue Devil fans. *g*

Jane’s Deviled Potato Salad

8 Hard-boiled eggs
6 med potatoes, cooked in jackets, peeled and cubed
(c. 4 ½ cups)
2 Tbs. white vinegar
1 cup chopped celery
1 Tb. prepared horseradish
1/4 cup chopped onion
2 1/2 Tbs. prepared mustard
2 Tbs. chopped green pepper
1 cup mayonnaise(or salad dressing) Hellman’s is best for this recipe.
2 Tbs. chopped pimiento
1 cup sour cream
1/2 tsp celery salt
1 tsp. salt

Cut eggs in half and remove yolk. Mash and blend yolks with vinegar, horseradish, and mustard. Add mayo, sour cream, celery salt, and salt; mix well. Chop egg white; combine with potatoes, celery, onion, green pepper, and pimiento.Fold in egg yolk mixture;chill. Garnish with tomato wedges and cucumber slices if you want it to look fancy.

Makes 6 to 8 servings

The 2012 sunset implies a potential gift to President Obama to use warrantless wiretaps and data-mining as he sees fit. The problem is that it is unconstitutional no matter who gets to do it.

i’m off this week. i’ve gotten used to the sun-clouds-storm summer routine. while I’m at work. I don’t care for it now. at all. it screws up the day. oh yeah. and i’m absolutely terrified of lightning. central FL isn’t the best place to be, I guess. But otherwise it’s OK. Lots of crime & homeless. You know, “The City Beautiful.” The same, I guess. how was the trip or vacation or whatever?

the real problem is it gives cheney and the president unfettered access to steal whatever information they think they will need for their private life once they leave public office

it is stealing plain and simple and extending it allows them to steal more

My issues are health care, the deficits, energy, and the war in Iraq. Who will do the best job? I think it’s a push on the deficits- neither is going to improve the situation…both will expand them….on the other issues Obama has a clear advantage.

I for one am going to vote for a candidate who has a chance of winning who will not give me another Alito or Thomas on the SCOTUS, just for one example.

As long as we are talking about false stands, let me address this one.

1) Obama has said nothing specific about what kind of candidate he would choose for the Supreme Court.

2) Democrats could have filibustered both Roberts and Alito when they were in the minority. Now Democrats are not only in the majority but are likely to pick up several new seats in the Senate come November. So they will be even better placed to torpedo another conservative nomination.

But will they? We all know what weasels they are and what a weasel Obama is turning out to be. So really I find this whole argument about SCOTUS nominations as something of a red herring. The Democrats have always had the power to stop bad nominations. They just haven’t used to. As for Obama, yes, he might appoint someone better than Roberts and Alito but the problem is that person might not be that much better than Roberts and Alito.

Trip was good. Had the kids at a horse show. I came back to find the dogs’ invisible fence system had been hit by lightning.

Do you have any ideas for a strategy for getting Nelson on our side on the upcoming votes? He showed some initial support for Dodd and the filibuster, even taking the floor for a while on Dodd’s big day, but some of his votes disappointed. He’s really an enigma and I’m at a loss for what will be the most effective approach.

In my comments…Cornyn’s (TX) office supports FISA, plus the immunity, No surprise there.

He probably also likes W and Cheney/Shooter (miss the Mark), and Mc the Liar. A positive is that he has a pretty strong opponent in the fall.

Supposing that the new president will appoint at least one supreme court justice- and possibly two—do you believe that it makes no difference which of the two candidates does the nominating? I certainly don’t…

Warts and all, Obama will nominate more liberal justices and at the conclusion of the term, the court will be a bit less conservative with an Obama presidency.

Vote for the lessor corporate stooge?

Vote for the lessor Stalin. Vote for the lessor Hitler. Vote for the lessor Pinochet.

One way or another, no matter which of the two corporate whores you vote for, you are STILL voting for Milton Friedman.

No thanks.

Suit yourself,

In a lot of years of voting there was only one candidate for president who I really liked- so I suppose I should have stayed away from the polls all that time?

I consider voting for prez a PRACTICAL decision-

But McCain HAS said something pretty definite. And it’s that we’d been seeing Federalist Society clones like Alito and Roberts. And he’s said it multiple times — including that he wants to look at overturning Roe.

Which is a very important part of any evaluation — given that McCain’s hope is to continue us down the Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito path and that Stevens, Ginsburg and Souter all want to be able to retire. Neh?

Warts and all, Obama will nominate more liberal justices and at the conclusion of the term, the court will be a bit less conservative with an Obama presidency.

That’s the red herring: more liberal. Obama has given no indication that he will nominate a liberal to the Court. So even if he nominates someone in the mold of Kennedy, we are still screwed.

People here put a lot of credence in Obama on a subject that he has simply not spoken on. I don’t think wishful thinking is a good foundation for a firewall. I think the question we should be asking is why Obama has not spoken out clearly on this issue and made his position known.

Yes, this is critical to remember, because all McCain needs is to replace one justice and..well, it’s over.

At 71 Scalia is the OLDEST conservative on the court- the other three are still quite young. It’s pretty damned important that the liberal members get replaced with like minded justices in the next presidential term.

Sounds like Craig is clueless … or one of those ‘move to the center’ DINOs.

On the other hand, Obama’s people can’t possibly be ignorant of the anti-FISA/immunity movement: the group organized on their own campaign site now has more than 15,000 members.

I’m wondering if part of the problem is that he still thinks that ‘trust’ is a good thing in government.
I realized last year that the Constitution is based on distrust - no branch should trust the others, and we-the-people shouldn’t trust government. That’s the whole point of ‘checks and balances’ and ‘due diligence’ and ‘oversight’ - you don’t trust the other guys to do the job right, you make sure they do it right by watching them do it.

I certainly don’t know- and I’m hardly an Obama fan- but I would imagine that he figures that anything he says on the subject will be turned into a flame issue by McBush. What would he say? I favor more justices NOT like Scalia?

Amen.

we have two choices, like it or not.

From the non-random-thoughts section at Making Light:

“Listen, here’s the thing about politics: It’s not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.”

(Tony Kushner)

Politicians are detestable because of their profession. Their job is to get elected- not to tell the truth or be an advocate for it. By definition, one is always picking the least objectionable weasel

My good friend Arnie Pureheart has been watching presidential elections for forty years- waitin for someone moral enough to vote for. He’s still waiting.

I certainly don’t know- and I’m hardly an Obama fan- but I would imagine that he figures that anything he says on the subject will be turned into a flame issue by McBush. What would he say? I favor more justices NOT like Scalia?

Yes, but this argument could be used about Obama taking a position on anything. How can we in the fact based left side of the blogosphere support a candidate who will not or can not tell us where he/she stands on the important issues? How is this different from Bush’s “Trust me”?

That belief is why we are in the situation we are today. People think they MUST vote for either/or. That they MUST.

That is the attitude of Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, and the rest of the criminal collection. They strategerize how to best serve corporate masters (and ensure their golden parachutes when they leave congress). They keep doing this because they use the logic of “Where are the progressive voters going to go? We’re their only choice so we can do whatever the hell WE want and they have to suck it up.”

There literally MUST be consequence to them for this attitude and practice. They MUST actually lose voters or they will continue without a hiccup. Obama thinks he can become a Rethuglican because “where are my sucker supporters going to go?”

Rewarding those that do wrong does not do yourself nor the country (nor the planet) any good.

“Listen, here’s the thing about politics: It’s not an expression of your moral purity and your ethics and your probity and your fond dreams of some utopian future. Progressive people constantly fail to get this.”

No offense but that statement says nothing. It is a platitude that could be applied to anyone of any political persuasion.

I have thought all along that the Obama campaign was much like the Bush campaign of 2000 in which Bush said next to nothing about what he would do in office except for “lower taxes” (and he was actually forced into saying that).

It’s the strongest way to win a nomination- that is- if you win it by sayin nothing other than platitudes, you have the maximum amount of freedom in the general election and you provide your opponents with the least cannon fodder….

Classic politics.

I’ve been hearing this argument in one form or another since 1968 when some of my basketball team mates of the SDS persuasion were arguing that if we let Nixon win, it would force the dems to the left…

I thought it was a stupid argument then and I still do- only because it doesn’t work.

To clarify, most of the progressives I know are not pie in the sky, impractical types. They are not into purity. They are into things that work. When they see riffs on the same ole same ole, it is not purity that drives them to reject these but an awareness that repainting a square wheel is not going to help it roll more smoothly.

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio–staff doesn’t know his position.
Made it clear that there must be a no vote on cloture. Otherwise it’s like letting a fire spread when you’ve got a fire extinguisher right in your hands.
I told them I’d be calling back every day and was tracking their responses.
Voinovich, same.

New Marcy: Bush considering closing Gitmo

This from Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
“According to the Los Angeles Times, Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee “are toying with a convention scheduling change that has been broached before in theory but never seriously considered: cutting the party’s conclave in Denver short by one day to give Obama an extra day of post-nomination bounce in the crowded August calendar.”

“Adding to the Democrats’ calculation is the growing speculation that McCain will announce his running mate in the brief intermission between the two conventions — a good way to seize the spotlight from the just-nominated Democrat.”

Darn, sorry Wigwam, meant to tell you thanks for that info.

You certainly have a practical empirical approach to politics- and so do I. I don’t know much about Obama–and we probably won’t know much until after the election- other than how good a campaigner he is…

I suspect that we will have to make a decision based on very little evidence- but his voting record and his history before entering politics suggest a person well left of McBush.

I was aiming more at the people who are having a cow because Obama’s not pure enough for them on [fill in topic]. (There are a lot of them, it appears, and they tend to be loud.)

I’m willing to wait and see, for example, how his version of faith-based programs goes, if he’ll vote against this piece-o-crap FISA bill. That’s my no-compromise-allowed-here stand.

And here is the MSM reporting on Walker’s rruling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07.....ref=slogin

Glenn Greenwald nails it in his interview; the push by the Congress critters for this bill is to not renew the Protect America Act by paasing this flawed bill. They just can’t bring themselves to admit what they did in passing the PAA.

It will interesting to here what Feinstein tells me when I ask how the Walker ruling affects her perspective on HR6304.

I hear you, and have been asking myself the same thing.

IMHO, an Obama defeat would hasten the end of One-Party rule in this country. But it might also hasten the end of this country to a yet sooner date.

In any case, if he is going to keep on lying to us, he’s going to defeat himself. Ian had an excellent post on how that works yesterday: http://firedoglake.com/2008/07.....-can-lose/

I called Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor’s offices today (D-Arkansas). Pryor is pretty much a lost cause as he has been the recipient of very generous Telecom contributions. I think he’s “in the bag” even though his staff is playing his position pretty close to the vest, as they usually do. Lincoln claims to have not stated a public position on FISA (as usual) and she has voted against FISA legislation in the past, but I fear that she, too, is feeling the pressure from her largest contributors (not the citizens of the State of Arkansas, unfortunately). I think it’s sad when the number of zeros on a check determines how our Senators vote instead of them actually reprsenting the will of the people. My guess is that every zero trumps an actual voter by a factor of about 1000 to 1. A call to Lincoln’s office may make a difference. Pryor, not so much.

FYI — I added a BUNCH more events to the organizing tool this morning. If there wasn’t an event in your area yesterday, there may well be information about one today — so please check again to see.

Cloture is a dead issue; was voted down. Come next week the voting on the amendments and bill begins.

There is a second cloture vote that will be held once amendment voting has been finalized. There won’t be a filibuster due to the consent resolution, but the vote will still be held due to procedural requirements, according to what I’m told. Which gives us another opportunity to push the breaks, so to speak. This has to be voted on before a final passage vote is held.

Concur; there is too much disdain for the ‘bottom’ simply because of the ‘who else are they going to vote for?’ mentality; that’s why I keep urging people to focus their monies on Congressional,State, and local ‘progresives’. And try to get people to realize that it the Congress which is supposed to be dictating the policies and the executive -except for foreign policy- administering those policies.

The President as ‘leader/king’ mythology needs to be ended.

I did not gain that understanding from cboldt’s postings; but he did say they make the rules up as they go.

egregious meanderings in the new post

Just telling you what I’ve been told by Hill folks. Might as well press any advantage we might be able to gain. Whether or not it follows the procedural rules as we may understand them — I don’t think we should cede leverage on any vote if we can help it, eh?

– There is a second cloture vote that will be held once amendment voting has been finalized. There won’t be a filibuster due to the consent resolution, but the vote will still be held due to procedural requirements, according to what I’m told. Which gives us another opportunity to push the breaks, so to speak. This has to be voted on before a final passage vote is held. –

There is no “procedural requirement” to have a cloture vote before agreeing to vote on final passage. The presence of a cloture motion and cloture vote on final passage is an artifact of the presence of objection to limiting debate - as a matter of right, a single senator can hold up the works, and Feingold/Dodd objected. What they get is a 60 vote hurdle, and, if they wanted to, they could insist on the 30 hours of post-cloture debate.

The short version of the process that will run on Monday is:

5 hours of debate on the combination of Specter, Dodd, and Bingaman amendments, followed by a stack of three votes. The order of votes has not been announced, but the most advantageous order is to have the simple majority “Dodd” amendment vote LAST.

1 hour of debate on final passage of the bill, followed by the cloture vote to limit debate on final passage. “if cloture is invoked, then all post-cloture time be yielded back, and without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended.”

– I did not gain that understanding from cboldt’s postings; but he did say they make the rules up as they go. –

Simply meaning that any rule can be waived by unanimous consent. The UC agreement sets out a process that has substantially different time intervals, from the time intervals specified in the cloture rule. See in the UC agreement “all time be yielded back.” That’s saying, “instead of the 30 hours of post cloture debate required under the rules, we agree to proceed to the vote without further debate.”

Concur and with Walker’s ruling -even tho it is solely about a suit brought against the government- ALL the Senators should have their buttons pushed, especially about the ‘exclusivity’; it would be good to have some ‘ammo’ to throw about the desire not to extend the PAA though.

I’d share a recipe if I had one ;->)

– Cloture is a dead issue; was voted down. –

Cloture isn’t a “one shot” deal. Not in any way.

In this case, there was a first cloture motion and vote on the motion to proceed to the consideration of the bill. There was a second cloture motion, and there will be a second cloture vote on final passage.

Motion to take the bill up is DIFFERENT from voting on final passage.

The two 60 vote hurdle amendments are a concession to the reality that any senator can delay proceeding by refusing to agree to vote on an amendment - and to get around THAT, a cloture motion would have to be filed. Serious opposition to the bill would have forced the GOP to object to the Bingaman and Specter amendments “in regular order,” instead of agreeing to the 60-vote hurdle.

What’s interesting about Judge Walker’s decision is that it shows how unnecessary Congressional immunity is. The plaintiff’s are losing.

– What’s interesting about Judge Walker’s decision is that it shows how unnecessary Congressional immunity is. The plaintiff’s are losing. –

BTW, I think this is a pretty serious pressure point. Why should Congress tinker with the law it set up in the first place, if all the government interests are well handled, and Congress avoids coming off as a bunch of Indian givers by taking a way a statutory right of action, with a hands-off approach, why not take the hands off approach?

So does this “that any senator can delay proceeding by refusing to agree to vote on an amendment - and to get around THAT, a cloture motion would have to be filed.” mean that, despite the UC’s, a Senator can object to a vote on the amendment and then a cloture vote re the objection must occur?

Yes, Walker is giving Congress a ‘heads up’, in a round-about way, do you suppose they are listening?

Oops late to the party again.

I just got this link from the California Dems site http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jr.....?event_id={7445B8C7-F076-421F-AF3C-1A5D6AB69DF8}&content_id={6EC49C16-62A3-40C8-8A78-351965B5B5E7}¬oc=1&noback=1

Could be helpful for some enterprising pups I’m thinkin’

Rus

– So does this “that any senator can delay proceeding by refusing to agree to vote on an amendment - and to get around THAT, a cloture motion would have to be filed.” mean that, despite the UC’s, a Senator can object to a vote on the amendment and then a cloture vote re the objection must occur? –

No, it does not. UC means the Senator consented - how can he turn around and object? Not that UC agreements aren’t changed, they are, often - but it takes UC to change an existing UC agreement.

My comment about the 60 vote hurdles is hard to understand - but it’s basically that a Senator can force a time delay, or he can agree to a 60 vote hurdle without the time delay. In this case, it’s FISA proponents who could have been forced into objecting to limit debate on the Specter and/or Bingaman amendment - FISA proponents wanted the 60 vote hurdles on those amendments.

– The short version of the process that will run on Monday is: –

TUESDAY

Sorry about that.

So, if I’m understanding correctly, the amendments will be voted on, then a cloture motion can be filed re voting on the bill with or without amendments. Is that understanding correct?
Are there any other parliamentary procedures that can occur? Could someone introduce an amendment to extend the PAA?

Just thinking of another way to view Judge Walker’s opinion.

He’s saying that the statutory remedy is worthless anyway - because Congress made it worthless in the first place. Why fight over losing something that’s worthless?

IOW, we ought to be pissed that Congress put a charade on the books in the first place, and now they’re just perpetrating and/or deepening their complicity in aiding the government to conduct surveillance without accountability.

– So, if I’m understanding correctly, the amendments will be voted on, then a cloture motion can be filed re voting on the bill with or without amendments. Is that understanding correct? –

The cloture motion to limit debate on final passage was filed on Thursday, June 26th. So, what will happen on TUESDAY (July 8th) is:

- debate three amendments (5 hours)
- vote on three amendments
- debate final passage (1 hour)
- vote on the already-filed cloture motion relating to final passage
- if cloture is invoked, immediate vote on final passage

– Are there any other parliamentary procedures that can occur? Could someone introduce an amendment to extend the PAA? –

No. The UC agreement covers the entire span of legislative action from taking up the bill, through the possibility of amendment, to final passage. Once passed, if not amended, it’s ready to be sent to the WH (The House already passed it).

If this passes, there is no incentive to extend the PAA or any other alternative.

What you say.

Yet, Judge Wlkaer leaves the impression, somehow, that he is curious, just as are we, regarding whether Congress is paying attention. His ruling is, at least, a wink and a nudge …

Just like the ‘right to petition’ but no enforcement to act on such petitioning.