home

Democratic "Leadership"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:43:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace:

Tomorrow, we will be taking up the FISA bill. As you probably know, the bill has been filed. It is a balanced bill. I could argue it either way, not being a lawyer, but nonetheless, I could argue it either way. . . . [It] is again in Title II, an improvement over the Senate bill in that it empowers the District Court, not the FISA Court, to look into issues that relate to immunity. . . . So that will be legislation that we take up tomorrow. We will have a lively debate I'm sure within our caucus on this subject and in the Congress. It has bipartisan support. I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way.

(Emphasis supplied.) What a dishonest statement. The bill "empowers" the District Court to rubber stamp the fact that the President asked the telecoms to break the law. And Pelosi is proud of this. What a disgrace.

Speaking for me only

< Taguba: Administration Committed War Crimes | The Futile Fence >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Democratic "Leadership" | 173 comments (173 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    In a bipartisan way. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    Thanks for nothing.

    Aren't you afraid (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:53:35 PM EST
    to leave both the congress and the presidency to this crowd?

    The more I think about it, the more afraid I become.  What is their agenda? Or are they just plain incompetent?

    Perhaps, it's a democratic president who is needed, but it's a democratic congress with a spine.  

    [ Parent ]

    oops! (none / 0) (#126)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:54:42 PM EST
    should be "Perhaps, it's not a democratic president who is needed, but it's a democratic congress with a spine."

    [ Parent ]
    There is very little time (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by camellia on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    for us to do anything to prevent this bill.  I have just received an urgent email from the ACLU asking us to act NOW in contacting our representatives in Congress.  I am off now to write emails to my congressman and senators.  For what use that is.

    When the ACLU activates (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    they can be powerful. But Pelosi is for this, so I think we might not have any impact.

    Best bet: get the liberals to vote AGAINST THE RULE in the House (unless that's already been passed, in which case. . .it's over).

    [ Parent ]

    Just recieved this email from Leahy (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    Dear *,

    For many months now, the Leahy for Vermont community and online activists everywhere have urged Congress to fix FISA the right way:  by passing a bill that protects both our national security and our civil liberties.  Together, we have had a huge impact on this debate, calling for legislation that protects Americans from the Bush-Cheney Administration's relentless assault on the Constitution, and we should be extremely proud of these efforts.

    But after months of negotiations, the House today unveiled a new FISA bill that I cannot support    . While I applaud the fact that this legislation includes some of the important surveillance protections we wrote into the Senate Judiciary Committee bill last year, it fails to hold the Bush-Cheney Administration accountable for its illegal wiretapping program.  

    I will oppose this new FISA bill when the Senate votes on it next week.     We must do everything we can to protect Americans from the Bush-Cheney Administration's erosion of our civil liberties and callous disregard for the rule of law -- and this new FISA bill fails that test.  

    Thank you for all that you have done -- and all you will continue to do -- to help America protect our security while honoring our core values and respecting our fundamental rights.  As the Supreme Court wrote in its habeas decision last week, "Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles."

    Sincerely,

    Patrick Leahy
    U.S. Senator

    emphasis his.

    Is he going to organize against cloture? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    I doubt it.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#151)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:51:23 AM EST
    Watch what Leahy, Fiengold, etc. actually do.  If they vote for cloture then against the bill they are worse than dishonest frauds.

    [ Parent ]
    What can we do to support Leahy? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jericho4119 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:59:41 PM EST
    Contact our senators, sure, but it seems like more needs to be done.

    There is absolutely no reason to bring this bill up - especially so late in the day for the Bush Administration.  Why hand GWB a victory on the way out the door?

    [ Parent ]

    I usually get an action email (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:05:45 PM EST
    but I was just going to get on my congress critters via email tonight and the phone tomorrow.

    Pelosi is just pathetic.

    [ Parent ]

    Email Feingold, too -- he's angry (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:40:33 PM EST
    at Obama today for the flipflop on public campaign financing, so tell my Senator for me, too, that the new head of the party -- and a Constitutional law "prof," yet -- better get his head out of his posterior on this issue.

    Feingold is glad to hear from everyone. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has flipped-flopped on some issues (none / 0) (#40)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:50:00 PM EST
    but this whole campaign finance (non)issue is ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain would opt -out with the kind of fund raising he's been doing.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's words are just words (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:07:20 PM EST
    JUNE 2008: Barack Obama Tells The USA Today That He Would Pursue A Public Financing Agreement With John McCain. "On campaign finance. Obama said he'll accept public financing for his campaign -- which would limit the amount of spending -- only if McCain agrees to curb spending by the Republican National Committee. 'I won't disarm unilaterally,' he said." (Kathy Kiely, "Obama Reaching Out To The White Working Class," USA Today, 6/6/08)

    [ Parent ]
    I honestly have no problem with this. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:15:14 PM EST
    This is politics. You do what you have to do (within reason, obviously.)
    Not to mention, McCain refused to put limits on 527 spending, which could be a reason why Obama opted out. Or maybe he would have done it anyway.
    All I know is that opting out of public financing could mean the difference between winning or losing states like Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alaska, ect, in November.

    [ Parent ]
    How could Obama or McCain (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    put spending limits on 527s??
    That seem like another Obama excuse and another rationalization for yet another flip flop.

    [ Parent ]
    It is an excuse (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by RJBOSTON on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:17:43 PM EST
    moveon already has an ad out. Obama hasn't stopped it.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw it tonight (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:22:15 PM EST
    Does Obama stop anything?

    [ Parent ]
    If that's the one with the mother (none / 0) (#139)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:29:42 PM EST
    and the baby boy, it's a brilliant ad, I gotta say.

    [ Parent ]
    NBC Nightly News (none / 0) (#98)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:19:04 PM EST
    ran this story too -- the Obama flip-flop and how McCain is going to do what he said he would do.  

    I thought NBC was the Obama channel?  

    [ Parent ]

    Matthews is pretty hot (none / 0) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:30:38 PM EST
    about it, too.  Can we expect a KO "special comment" shortly? (Hah.)

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#148)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:12:34 AM EST
    KO's head exploded when he heard about FISA.  Fox News has gory pictures of the debris.

    [ Parent ]
    You're saying Feingold has half a brain? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:25:02 PM EST
    He did denounce Obama for his flipflop today.  I do not make this up.

    Of course, Obama does have to flipflop on this -- since he had to outspend even another Dem by as much as 5 to 1 just to end up with almost as many votes.  So he may have to outspend the GOP by 10 to 1 to win.

    [ Parent ]

    Anyone with half a brain (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:28:37 PM EST
    or half an integrity-- wouldn't have sworn on a stack of Bibles he was going to stick with the public financing system unless He Actually Meant It.

    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:55:23 AM EST
    that's the whole point.  He's opting out because he's raised a huge amount of money from the usual suspects.

    That's the way the game's been played.  If you raise a lot of money then you reject public financing and call the system broken. Some beacon of hope and change.  Meet the new boss same as the old boss.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama made strong statement (none / 0) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:29:59 PM EST
    in February regarding telecom immunity & voted against the bill.  It will be interesting to see if he stands silently by while Pelosi creates an issue (I want this acted on before July recess) for no reason, rather than leaving the issue for the new administration to deal with.

    Write all of your Congressional reps, please.

    It is funny to see how people are flipping out at dailykos over this. Finally realizing they may have no influence on BHO.

    [ Parent ]

    yes, Obamabots are amusing (none / 0) (#83)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    exposing their naiveté.

    [ Parent ]
    Note, Sen. Leahy (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM EST
    has no suggestions.  Was he not Sen. Obama's earliest endorser??

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, give Obama a break! (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    He was busy "changing" positions today.

    [ Parent ]
    Changing positions (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:13:07 PM EST
    Yes, Obama was.  I just read on ABC that Obama estimates he will spend 500 million in the last two months of the campaign.  McCain has reaffirmed his promise to stick to campaign refinance and accept the public funds. This makes me so uncomfortable.  

    [ Parent ]
    kind of werid how the parties have switched (5.00 / 12) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:24:03 PM EST
    now it's the democrats that are the greedy evil corporate corrupt party that lies, cheats, steals, doesn't count the votes, doesn't care about the voters, and could care less about integrity. How did that happen, and why didn't I get a memo about it.

    [ Parent ]
    I was looking forward (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:25:37 PM EST
    to the election,. knowing we'd finally be rid of the Worst President Ever.

    Now I'm not sure what lies ahead.

    [ Parent ]

    lesson: never assume worse ever (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    because you never know what the future holds. And you know, things can always get worse. Shiver.

    [ Parent ]
    Worst (none / 0) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:02:53 AM EST
    to date is all anyone can call and Bush is the worst to date.

    Doesn't mean that there won't be a new standard bearer, but whoever wrests last place from Bush will have to make a Herculean effort.

    [ Parent ]

    Coulda told ya so (n/t) (none / 0) (#163)
    by dutchfox on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:10:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He may find that kind of (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:42:44 PM EST
    decadence is just enough to do him in rather than reward him. I would think the entire midwest right now is wishing they had their campaign donations back in their effort to rebuild their lives.

    The timing of his announcement, and the obvious request for donations, couldn't have been more poorly timed. He's running the most frivolous campaign on record.


    [ Parent ]

    Yep, we've been sandbagged (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:44:22 PM EST
    every which way here, bitter and clinging to our Midwest as we are. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    No he is rewarded with maintaining power (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by smott on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 07:56:35 AM EST
    Greenwald excellent as always:

    Despite all of this, The Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported yesterday that Barack Obama -- who has been claiming to be so emphatically opposed to warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, to say nothing of the Iraq War -- taped a radio endorsement this week for Rep. Barrow, with the specific intent to help him defeat Regina Thomas in the Democratic primary (h/t sysprog....

    ...This is everything Obama claims so vehemently to oppose, claims he wants to end. And yet the Congress under the control of his party is about to enact a radical bill to legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and immunize telecoms who broke our country's laws for years. And not only is Obama doing nothing about any of that, but far more, he's actively intervening in a Democratic primary to help one of the worst enablers of all of this stay in power, while helping to defeat an insurgent, community-based challenger.

    None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts. There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens -- either he's the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.

    But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.

    Pressure of that sort should include demanding that he take meaningful action against this Draconian and lawlessness-enabling bill. This is, after all, a bill which his own party is seeking to pass and justifying their behavior, in part, by claiming that they're doing it to protect Obama politically from being attacked as Weak on Terrorism. If this bill passes and Obama does nothing to stop it, he'll bear significant responsibility for its enactment. Here's his campaign's phone number: (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu]. I'll post other contact information as people leave it in comments.

    [ Parent ]

    Just got an email saying (5.00 / 8) (#116)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:15:44 PM EST
    I could declare my independence from a broken system by making my first donation to Obama. LOL!~ I already declared my independence from the broken system when I became an unaffiliated voter  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 0) (#154)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:56:30 AM EST
    that's what Obama meant by 'change.'

    [ Parent ]
    Leahy, I'm sorry to say (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:32:56 PM EST
    talks good but doesn't actually do much when the chips are down.  He'll vote against the bill, but he's not going to support a filibuster or go any further.  I'm very disillusioned with him.


    [ Parent ]
    Madame Speaker's thoughts may (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:54:53 PM EST
    shed light on why we haven't heard anything from Sen. Obama.

    exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:11:07 PM EST
    Pelosi is paving the way for Obama on FISA.
    He had her back on "no impeachment" - now she reciprocates on FISA.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD, that is exactly my reading also (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    The bill "empowers" the District Court to rubber stamp the fact that the President asked the telecoms to break the law. And Pelosi is proud of this. What a disgrace.

    That is just what it does do.  I tried to think of a scenario in which a telecom could be held liable, after reasonably relying on a lawful order by a federal official whose job it is to render such orders.  Note, I don't restrict to an order of the President since I don't think it is limited directly to him/her at all.  The only wiggle room I can see is "reasonable."  If the order is ridiculous on its face, then it would not be reasonable.  Now how would any telecom know this?  They are not privy to the grounds or basis for the order at all.  Let's say the order requests the surveillance of all citizens in Boston.  I think that would be held unreasonable. That is not going to happen though.  

    Pelosi is right; she is no lawyer. I guess she can't read either.  

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by talex on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:41:43 PM EST
    I'll admit that I have not read the bill or a summary of it. But what I'd like to comment on is the issue of the District Court.

    I'm not sure where exactly one would send the issue of immunity other than a District Court. The FISA Court would not be appropriate. They are not charged to try anyone for anything because their sole charge is to review and issue warrants for surveillance of suspected foreign intelligence agents in the US. Again their sole authority is to issue warrants where warranted, not try people, so I'm not quite sure what problem Armando has with this.

    Yes that particular court 'may be' a rubber stamp but where else would one go? Not FISA. At least with a District Court if one gets a unfair or wrong verdict they could take it to a higher court or all the way to the SCOTUS where Justice Kennedy would ultimately decide.

    What is needed here is an unbiased and tough prosecutor or Special Prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald. Then we could get to the bottom of this with Grand Juries and ultimately a trial that  if not in a legal sense, but at least in all intents and purposes, would be a trial of George W. Bush.

    That is what I want to see. And it is possible through a District Court.

    [ Parent ]

    Greenwald has a (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    good post summarizing the bill today.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#113)
    by talex on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:42:59 PM EST
    for the headsup. That summary was an eyeopener.

    [ Parent ]
    It's Civil. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:28:29 PM EST
    The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are EFF and ACLU.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by talex on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:42:08 PM EST
    civil cases can be brought before District Courts as can be criminal cases. This case could qualify as both IMO.

    That said I posted based on Armando's outrage that the district Courts would oversee this case. After reading Glen Greenwald's summary of the bill I now see that if this bill were to pass there would be no trial at all as the AG would wave a magic wand and have all charges dismissed.

    That being the case the only outrage here would be if this bill passes in congress. We have to stop it so start dialing.

    [ Parent ]

    Disgusted (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by KC4847 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:02:39 PM EST
    I am disgusted and angry and demoralized. The Dems wait until the primaries are over and this is how they capstone everything?  Motivating Democratic voters this way?  It is horrible.  And where is Obama?  Hell, where is Hillary?  Where are the Democratic leaders?  Jesus.  

    It's Obama's party now. (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by dk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    The party leaders gave it to him by refusing to allow 2 states to choose a candidate, and through a closed-door session during that meeting a few weekends ago.

    If they can't be democratic in running their own party, why would anyone expect them to be democratic in this case?  They probably figure that they're going to win in November, and they will have the power to grant immunity to whomever they want.  

    [ Parent ]

    If it's any condolence (none / 0) (#28)
    by jtaylorr on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:32:45 PM EST
    a diarist at Kos said he called Obama's office to explain that he was extremely concerned about the FISA compromise and this is the response he got:
    "We hear you loud and clear.  The staff are literally reviewing the FISA issue as we speak.  You'll be hearing from us soon."
    So maybe(?) we'll hear something from Obama. Maybe.

    [ Parent ]
    They're reviewing it NOW? (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:37:55 PM EST
    Uh...errrr...eh?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:11:00 PM EST
    The compromise bill was just released this morning.  It's not like they have a time machine to review bills that don't exist.

    Now, you can still claim that this is an excuse.  But as far as an explanation goes, this is about as good as you're going to get.  Even if Obama is going to come out hard against this bill, fly back to Washington and stage a 48 hour filibuster himself, the response at this point would still be "we're reviewing it."

    Basically: chill, folks.  Call Obama's office.  Call your representative.  Call Pelosi's office.  But don't whine before whining is appropriate.

    [ Parent ]

    I thought he was off the trail and in (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:23:55 PM EST
    DC? And it seems others had time to review and form an opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Who is whining? (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:25:46 PM EST
    It was released to the public.

    Ostensibly the Leader of the Party would've been given a clue or two before the public. After all, it's not like Hoyer has been keeping it a secret that he was in negotiations.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW... (5.00 / 9) (#67)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:31:59 PM EST
    Feingold and Leahy have had enough time to go over it, come up with positions, write statements, and develop response letters/emails to constituents.

    [ Parent ]
    I see no reason (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:37:53 PM EST
    that a review is necessary for a bill that compromises on immunity for the telecoms.  It should be a no starter and since he has come out against it in the past, no reason to change positions now.    

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, my first reaction too... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:11:21 PM EST
    But honestly, I would far rather they/he did reconsider in response to public outrage, than just ignore the reaction.

    That would be a net positive, in my book.


    [ Parent ]

    At their fancy fundraisers (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    Sipping some white whine and barking orders at the caterers while talking shop with the telecom lobbyists.  

     Oh look. Another donation solicitation email.  Not today, I think.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:13:45 AM EST
    "Hell, where is Hillary?"

    The party leadership did everything possible to destroy Hillary Clinton and you expect her to lead on this one.

    Jeez.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton (none / 0) (#168)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    I don't particularly care whether she comments on this or not.

    But it's not unreasonable for some to be waiting for her views. Just because she's not the presidential nominee doesn't make her an non-entity.

    She ran a formidable campaign and she's still a senator. My senator, in fact. Why is it unreasonable to want to hear her voice on this? She could very effectively join Feingold and Leahy in denouncing this.

    And, as an added fringe benefit, if she did so before Obama came out on record...it would undercut his silence. (OK, ok, I threw that one in there for Clinton supporters.) But isn't it true? wouldn't her speaking out on the right side of this issue before he does...I don't know, stir up the pot or even shove him into reaction?

    [ Parent ]

    so please tell me why i should (4.33 / 3) (#131)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:08:31 PM EST
    work for them in the general and donate funds? waiting?

    [ Parent ]
    hey alex please explain why i should (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:34:54 PM EST
    donate and work for the party? waiting? thanks ever so much!

    [ Parent ]
    who will be left (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:07:41 PM EST
    to defend pelosi now?

    Not me.

    I'll defend her in (none / 0) (#15)
    by dk on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    the sense that she's no more guilty than any of the other party leaders.

    [ Parent ]
    if she's a disgrace (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    then I suppose they all are.

    I cant defend the party either.

    I just think its funny.  For better or worse, the Clinton wing was made up of, in my estimation, a different kind on concerned citizen.  We didn't look at DADT or DOMA and see capitulation, we saw political realities and solutions that weren't perfect but also kept republicans from enacted solutions that they wanted.

    Anyway its just a different mindset, hard to say if its issues based or not.

    I think its funny because of instead of embracing a wing of the party that would be most inclined to hear her out here, she pretty much flipped us off and ran to the corner where the second something goes wrong she's gonna get called all sorts of horrible
    names.

    I think its funny.

    [ Parent ]

    Except that it isn't about an Obama wing or... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:30:13 PM EST
    ...a Clinton wing. It is the Democratic Party members, including former supporters of Senator Clinton's run, such as Senator Feinstein, who are pushing this.  

     DOMA involved no compromise at all, as there was not then a call for a constitutional amendment.  So there was no "win" there, either.

     This isn't about the camps within the party, as it seems to touch every conceivable camp, but rather a very, very bad piece of legislation.  

    [ Parent ]

    There is no Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by FemB4dem on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:39:29 PM EST
    anymore.  It's the Obama Party, address:  Chicago, Illinois.

    [ Parent ]
    there is nothing to defend because they (3.00 / 2) (#133)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:09:27 PM EST
    are all guilty. peolso deserves every criticism levied at her. she is a disgrace. shame, shame, shame

    [ Parent ]
    that is pelosi. i am tired tonight and (none / 0) (#134)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:10:16 PM EST
    am not checking my posts very well.

    [ Parent ]
    hey alex, you want to explain why (none / 0) (#142)
    by hellothere on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:34:07 PM EST
    pelosi is not a disgrace. when you give a 1 it needs to be for a valid reason.

    [ Parent ]
    Pelosi is more at fault (none / 0) (#72)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:37:02 PM EST
    She is the one who issued a veiled command to her troops the other day that she wants this bill acted on before the July recess.  Why?  No reason I can think of other than some in Congress get lots of $ from the telecoms. There is no other reason to support this bill.

    Feingold & Dodd are willing to oppose in the Senate.  But the Dems are investigating Dodd because he got favorable treatment from Countrywide, like most prominent members of a community do with good credit, on home mortgage. I understand points were waived.  So, instead of standing up to Bush admin non-sense, we are investigating Dodd.  If Obama does not take a public stand against this, I will have less and less reason to vote Dem.  This legislation smacks of "politics as usual" in D.C.  We need Obama to show us he means what he says.  If he did oppose this bill publicly, I think he'd win over a lot of the doubting Clinton supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    Whew. Now I feel ever so much better. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:14:12 PM EST
    Emails to Dianne Feinstein, whose office previously informed me why telecomm immunity is crucial, and to Brian Bilbray, who is in a most solid Republican district.

    What exactly happened to Senator Feinstein? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:23:46 PM EST
    I cannot stand her these days.  The war, the flag vote.

     Sigh.  Guess I need to shoot off another email.

    [ Parent ]

    DiFi chairs the Rules Committee (none / 0) (#137)
    by imhotep on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:28:01 PM EST
    She is supposed to hold a hearing in July on rotating primaries for the next nominating process cycle.  This will be an opportunity to get in your anti-caucus messages.

    [ Parent ]
    No. San Diego is nice. (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:05:28 PM EST
    Bilbray won't care.....

    [ Parent ]
    Rep. Bilbray doesn't have to do a (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:25:07 AM EST
    thing to please Dems.  Talk about a safe seat; all engineered by the Dem.-dominated state legislature.  

    [ Parent ]
    two corporate parties, peas in a pod (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:18:09 PM EST
    which begs the question, why would you think Nancy is a disgrace? Isn't she just a politician doing what they do. Snark. And since Obama is the "head of the party" now, his silence means he's for this too. Which means... say it with me, he is just as much of a disgrace.

    Sure, it's what they all do, it's what all the party leaders do, you shouldn't expect anything but putrid corporate pandering and greed and corruption. Fine. But I won't vote for any of them that have done that or are silent about it. I'm done looking the other way. My votes may be a waste when I vote for others, but I'll be able to sleep at night at least.

    since they're all cartoon characters (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM EST
    I'm thinking it's time to start writing in real cartoon characters. What's Goofie's last name?

    [ Parent ]
    Mickey Mouse always gets a vote (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:42:45 PM EST
    as a write-in from my spouse, with some stoopid local pol alone on a ballot but for whom the spouse cannot vote.

    It may be a first this fall for Mickey to get a vote for president here.

    [ Parent ]

    Minnie Mouse for President (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by themomcat on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    If I can't have HRC, I'll vote for Minnie.

    [ Parent ]
    I think we've got our write-in. Minnie08 n/t (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:06:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think it's Dog (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM EST
    Goofy The Dog

    [ Parent ]
    Or why not (none / 0) (#119)
    by Grace on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:28:47 PM EST
    Pluto?  The wannabe ex-planet and dog?

    [ Parent ]
    Nice summary and analysis (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:30:12 PM EST
    comparing old FISA with proposed versions:

    http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/howto-analyze-immunity-provisions-fisa-legislation

    I had the same bad feeling about Pelosi ... (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:36:25 PM EST
    prior to her taking over the Speakership that I now have about Obama.

    But everyone said, "No, she'll be great.  Just wait.  Just watch."

    Fool me once ....

    Mmmm... (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by kredwyn on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:36:28 PM EST
    That's the smell of Unity Pelosi's been supporting.

    Pelosi and Hoyer as heavies (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by koshembos on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    It turns out that Pelosi was way too busy harming Hillary and not busy at all performing her Speakership role.

    Postpartnership in action!

    Speaking for me too (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by TChris on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:01:43 PM EST
    on this one.

    There appears to be come big-time Buyer's Remorse (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Gabriele Droz on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:07:29 PM EST
    happening over at Talking Points Memo.  Just read the comments:

    http://tinyurl.com/44ufcb

    That's okay (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:10:31 PM EST
    As long as it isn't Clinton, they'll still be happy with him.

    That's what this election was about...getting rid of the Clintons.  It wasn't about competence, or doing what's right for our country, it's about ruining the Clintons.

    Didn't seem to work, but we sure got a candidate who ISN'T leading.

    [ Parent ]

    "...appears to be SOME..." (none / 0) (#48)
    by Gabriele Droz on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:08:31 PM EST
    Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    Democratic "Leadership" (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:08:02 PM EST
    is a oxymoron.

    No money, no work and no votes for capitulators.

    Tried of excepting excuses and B.S.

       

    Secret Evidence (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by BDB on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:11:32 PM EST
    In addition to all the other outrages, Greenwald pointed out today that we won't even know how outraged to be because the evidence the Government provides to the District Court will be secret.  It can't be released or cited in opinions.  So the Government makes a completely secret case, the District Court grants immunity without telling anyone the basis for the grant and it's done.  

    Because, of course, the real point of all of this is so the people won't know what their government is doing in its domestic spying program.

    Messages (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by KC4847 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:23:29 PM EST
    I called and left messages with my local Congresswoman, my Senators, as well as Senators Dodd, Feingold, and Clinton.  Maybe if Obama doesn't stand up, Hillary will (note: I'm not counting on it).  I'm not an overly active political guy--would have voted for either Hillary or Obama--but this whole mess really bothers me.  I'll take Democratic leaders right now anywhere I can get them.  

    I am so curious (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by miguelito on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:33:43 PM EST
    What will happen if Obama wins and the Democrats obtain a real majority in congress?  This Pelosi crap makes me believe that NOTHING will much change. Sure we'll hear more talk of "change" (though thats been walked back like much since the primary ended), but I would bet even with Democrats in complete power, we will never see UHC, an end to the occupation in Iraq, an end to corporate influences, real environmental progress, a real war on poverty, etc etc.  The Democratic party really has become Republican (lite?).  

    Folks, (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    this is why some of us (in my case, despite initially favoring Obama however slightly) have walked it back.

    People (who I think are sincere) ask what they could say to make us accept Obama. I want to say that you can say nothing: it's up to him. (No comment on you, who may be excellent people!)

    I'm making an effort to keep my mind open. I wish it didn't require an effort, but I am sufficiently close to BTD's "Pols are pols" view that I'm willing to make it.

    But that benefit of doubt is not bottomless. Just sayin'.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's Illinois numbers, for the AM (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:33:46 PM EST
    District Office- Moline:
    1911 52nd Avenue
    Moline, IL 61265
    Phone: 309-736-1217
    Fax: 309-736-1233

    District Office- Springfield:
    607 East Adams Street
    Springfield, IL 62701
    Phone: 217-492-5089
    Fax: 217-492-5099

    District Office- Chicago:
    John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building, Suite 3900
    230 South Dearborn
    Chicago, IL 60604
    Phone: 312-886-3506
    Fax: 312-886-3514

    District Office- Marion:
    701 North Court Street
    Marion, IL 62959
    Phone: 618-997-2402
    Fax: 618-997-2850

    If you are (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jackson Hunter on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:48:20 PM EST
    the same Ben Masel I see in other places, I know that you are an Obama supporter, and I appreciate what you are doing to make him more responsive to all of us.  If the situation was reversed, I would hope that we Hilary supporters would have done the same to her.  And if he does come out strongly against it, and she doesn't follow suit, then I will be very disappointed in her.

    Kudos to you (in the form of a five.)

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    Uh, Clinton already came out (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    strongly some time ago.  He could just copy what she said -- again.

    [ Parent ]
    Ben Masel and others (none / 0) (#105)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:30:08 PM EST
    We've got quite a few Obama supporters here who are reasonable people. Pegasus, and Dalton, and others...

    Oh yeah, and BTD and Jeralyn and TChris! ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Ben, you were for Ron Paul (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:36:11 PM EST
    as I recall?  When did you "come to the light"?

    [ Parent ]
    I thought it was Gravel? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:37:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Feingold, then Gravel, then Dodd, then Gravel, (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 11:36:14 PM EST
    finally Obama. His vote against cloture on FISA last time was the decider. Never supported Paul, tho I argued against some attacks on him I saw as not reality-based.

    Feingold's the closest I get to 'true believer,' but even with regard to Russ I'm on record he's disappointed me now 25 times in the 16 years he's represented me in the Senate. (The most recent was co-sponsoring the boost in Byrne grants for Multi-jurisdiction Drug Task Forces.)

    [ Parent ]

    this is funny (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Josey on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
    Jonathan Turley claims Dems are capitulating on FISA to save their own A**es because they were complicit.

    DKos - http://tinyurl.com/3w9u2x

    But I specifically remember a graphic of Rockefeller's donations from the telecoms zooming up during 2007.

    Hoyer's too (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:41:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That I Believe n/t (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:14:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:20:14 PM EST
    I keep thinking they'll surprise me, but I'm waiting in vain, I fear.

    That unity pony is quite ugly.

    [ Parent ]

    This Is Not A Unity Pony Thing IMO (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:32:00 PM EST
    Unless you are talking about having two parties complicit in approving illegal and unconstitutional activities.

    If Turley is correct in his belief, this is to protect those in the Dem leadership like Rockefeller who were given the information about the illegal activity.

    Obama was not around at the time and his only responsibility now is to not condone the activities by Bush and his colleagues and lead in opposition to this bill.  

    [ Parent ]

    That's (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:35:11 PM EST
    Unless you are talking about having two parties complicit in approving illegal and unconstitutional activities.

    exactly what I mean.  The token resistence by some of the dems is a bit of red meat.  Nothing more.

    Otherwise, show me some different results.

    [ Parent ]

    Yay, Democrats! (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:41:18 PM EST
    Why do I think this is going to be like the vote on the Military Commissions Act last year? There will be some face-saving vote--maybe an effort to remove immunity or a half-hearted filibuster effort. Then the final bill will pass 65-35.

    But at least we know they'll fight for --- actually, I'm having a hard time thinking of something.

    Oh I dunno... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:51:48 PM EST
    But at least we know they'll fight for --- actually, I'm having a hard time thinking of something.

     Money and unearned votes come to mind.  They're lucky they have a closet fascist party running against them.  

     At this point I have two things I am essentially praying for (in that agnostic, secular kind of way):

     1. Obama strong arms them (very unlikely).

     2. Feingold and Dodd fight tooth and nail.

     

    [ Parent ]

    I justdon't understand (none / 0) (#84)
    by pie on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM EST
    why the dems decidedto let this come to a vote at all.

    Why didn't they wait for the next administra...

    Hmmmm.

    [ Parent ]

    Congratulations, GOP (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:46:34 PM EST
    You've managed to move the window over to the right significantly. Truly a master stroke. Now we have people who 30 years ago would have been called Republicans being labeled as far left candidates.

    Touché.

    You speak for me also on this (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:08:15 PM EST
    And Pelosi is proud of this. What a disgrace.

    Feh. And I was so ecstatic in January 2007. What a comedown. I was expecting to come down somewhat, but she (and others) have surpassed all my expectations on that count.

    Democrats unite! (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by GMN on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    Let the protest begin.  Change your voter registration to Independent.  

    The DNC and the Dem leadership will take such issues seriously only when it knows that it must win votes from Independents.

    Please consider this proposal.  

    Why I'm so frackin' outraged... (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    if I had no other reason, is this:

    The claims that we need this bill, or something like it, to preserve our national security, are clearly a batch of horse pucky, even though I agree that FISA has problems (and the NEXT president should be responsible for solving them, not this discredited one)...

    ...because, we (meaning the POTUS and his advisers) actually had intelligence that would have told anyone paying attention that something was afoot involving airplanes, and that there were plans concentrated near 11 September 2001... and the people in power chose to ignore it. And that's with pre-fixit FISA.

    All the intelligence in the world means nothing if there is no one intelligent hearing it.

    And giving any measure of retroactive amnesty to telecos who violated the law (the Constitution!!! The Fourth Amendment!) is setting a very dangerous precedent, for no good national security reason.

    I got hit by the dust cloud of the first tower going down. I will not forget.

    Sorry, this just pushes all my buttons. End rant.

    Furthermore, (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by A little night musing on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:05:05 PM EST
    I commend Steny Hoyer for his important work on this legislation, working in a bipartisan way.

    Frack bipartisanship and the ship it sailed in on.

    The R party owns the disaster this country has become.

    Dems have to distance themselves from this, no?

    WTF is going on here?!

    It is now clear to me that the party (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Anne on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 10:20:25 PM EST
    that decided that Obama would be the nominee (and please - let's not re-hash the whole "he had the most delegates" argument; he would not be where he is without the concerted efforts and manipulations by the DNC) now has a nominee that mirrors its own lack of leadership in the Congress.

    I have no explanation for why people who showed some signs of leadership - people like Leahy and Feingold and Dodd - put their money on Obama, who now shows all signs of letting them just twist in the wind on this; wonder what they're thinking tonight?

    I am more or less resigning myself to becoming one of those people who just has to pretend we have no representation, since by all appearances, we don't, and pursue some interests that do not make me feel like I am beating my head on the wall.  

    Maybe the key is that we all need to incorporate, merge into one giant corporation, and then maybe we could get their attention.

    don't give up! (none / 0) (#121)