GOP Laughing At Surrender Steny And No Spine Nancy

Via Greenwald:

Not even the media establishment and the GOP can refrain from mocking this pretense they're trying to peddle. What's amazing is that they're actually as devoid of dignity as they are integrity.

. . . [T]he GOP couldn't even wait for the ink to dry on this "compromise" before publicly -- and accurately -- boasting that they not only got everything they want, but got even more than they dreamed they would get. To The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau, GOP House Whip Roy Blunt derided the telecom amnesty provision as nothing more than a "formality" which would inevitably lead to the immediate and automatic dismissal of all lawsuits against the telecoms, while Sen. Kit Bond taunted the Democrats for giving away even more than they had to in order to get a deal: "I think the White House got a better deal than they even had hoped to get."

(Emphasis supplied.) Everyone, Dem or Republican, is contemptuous of you Surrender Steny and Clueless Pelosi. You look like the weak dupes you have become.

Speakng for me only.

< McClellan Testifies About Valerie Plame Leak | ACLU On Surrender Steny: "It's Chrismas Morning At The White House" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    RedState is having a field day (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    As Lambert says, "we get. . .?"

    We get stripped (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    of our Consitutional protections and the opportunity to once more feel sick about the alacrity with which are representives sell out our rights.  

    And exactly (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    why should we give these losers even more power? It seems they learned nothing from being out of power. They have become the Democratic version of Tom Delay.

    I anticipate the Dems LOSING (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:58:23 AM EST
    seats in November.  And with BO as president, he will happily be holding hands across that aisle all the time.

    Women's rights?  Forget about it!


    I sometimes wonder (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    if McCain and Obama are fighting for republican voters.

    Sometimes? (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    I was being generous. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM EST
    That is just plain silly (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    Hoping the Dems lose, so that conservative Republicans can have more power, makes no sense from a Liberal standpoint.

    The Democrats will gain seats according to all....


    You obviously don't understand... (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    It doesn't matter if we elect Democrats....they are actually more against us than the Republicans.  

    As Eleanor Roosevelt said"  We must be able to show people that democrary is not about words...BUT ACTION".

    And NOT the kind of action "our" Democratic Congress has been giving us.


    "More against us" (1.00 / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    than Republicans....

    I assume you mean more conservative....That is ridiculous.  


    Maybe he means the leaders right now (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    Pelosi. She started out great for a week. Then it is roll over. And Steny. He wanted the top job. Either he is throwing her under the bus, or he is just like her. Either way, these two should not be in charge of Congress. That does not mean getting rid of all Dems. It means, you need a Feingold type of Congressman leading the bunch.

    ridiculous? (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by angie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    How ridiculous was "impeachment is off the table"? How ridiculous was not ending the war in Iraq? (well within Congress's power, by the by). How ridiculous was the FISA vote? Either you are not paying attention, or you think these are "liberal" actions.

    I agree with not pursuing (none / 0) (#157)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    Impeachment.....You need a supermajority in the Senate....

    For those who want to pursue Impeachment, a Republican Congress is not what you want.....


    How about the other two I mentioned (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by angie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    or does Iraq & FISA not matter?
    Further, I call bs on the supermajority for impeachment rationale -- it is no excuse to not do their JOB and expose the crimes of the administration on a public stage. The conviction itself is not the only reason to do it.

    FISA should have been bottled up (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:38:21 PM EST
    by Pelosi....there should never have been a vote.....A new bill with a new Democratic President could have dealt with this much better...

    I would like to know how Pelosi let this happen.

    On the war funding, my original position was that taken by Lincoln Chafee:  vote against the war authorization but for funding to support the troops (but I am probably less liberal than most here)....The funding votes are now largely symbolic....

    It takes a Democratic President to change policy in this country.  


    Don't count on Obama to change anything. (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    He has flip-flopped on all of his primary "statements" and can't seem to get things straight.

    An improvement on FISA from Obama....I.  Don't.  Think.  So.

    Where is his statement RIGHT NOW?


    For what? (5.00 / 8) (#84)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    We have the majority now and still hide in the corner from the big bad Republican president (who has an approval rating in the mid 20's)

    This was a battle that the overwhelming majority of American's agreed with us on nad yet we lost!

    What will more fake Democrat's in Congree do?


    The Insidious Thing About This So Called Majority (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    is that the minority in the senate can (and usually does) bottleneck legislation with that 60 vote filibuster clog.

    I'm not savvy about congressional culture so I've never understood why the Dem majority doesn't MAKE the Repub opposition go ahead and filibuster to their hearts' content and let the nation see why the people's work is not getting done. Rather than constantly rolling over to it.

    Something must be done to return the actual majority (51) to an effectual one.


    So why (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM EST
    didn't the Dems bottleneck legislation when they were in the minority?  These people have made a GD art form of giving up without a fight.  If that were an Olympic sport, they'd be able to plaster the walls of the House and Senate chambers both with gold medals.

    Sometimes (none / 0) (#153)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:19:25 PM EST
    They did.

    Again, I'm not a veteran congress watcher, but the first time I really started hearing about this strategy being used in a repetitive way was actually when the Dems were in the minority under W.

    Maybe someone else with more expertise can illuminate it better.


    Democrats are not in a majority in the Senate. (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    They hold 49 seats, the Republicans hold 49 seats, and 2 independents (whose votes gave control to the Democrats) hold the others. One of those independents is Joe Lieberman, who is practically a Republican. A number of House Democrats are very conserative and would have been Republicans before the far-right drove the party to extremes.

    A well known blogger (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    once said he'd be glad when Harold ford lost.   The rationale being that only through losing will dems learn the errors if their ways.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    Harold Ford was running in Tennessee for Pete's sake....A tweak here and there in his campaign and he would have won....

    If Ford had won, that would have meant 52 Democrats in the Senate and the ability to send Lieberman packing right now....


    i prefer to just come out and say it (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:35:27 AM EST
    the blogger in question is a moron.

    Oh Really! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    And Harold Ford is such a reliable progressive vote?

    Trading him for Lieberman is an advance? Did you even think about what you posted it before your fingers started moving?


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    Great statement!  Thanks for the belly laugh.

    Yes, of course, I did (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    Harold Ford is better than Corker....And Harold Ford won't be speaking at the GOP convention....

    It is not a black or white choice, good v. evil....Some are more liberal than others....The best you can get in Tennessee is Ford; for Connecticut, you can do a lot better than Lieberman.

    This saying about the perfect being the enemy of the good really does apply....

    I don't like the FISA bill either...But the answer is not to burn down the whole structure....


    You said (none / 0) (#173)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:36:52 PM EST
    "...the ability to send Lieberman packing right now".

    I just questioned what you said - which in this case you didn't answer.

    I highly doubt that with Ford anyone would have sent  Lieberman packing. That was a silly thing to say in so many ways if you really think about it.


    Kicking Lieberman (none / 0) (#176)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:41:11 PM EST
    off the Homeland Security committee would be a good thing--we could have had real hearings on Katrina....

    LIke the hearings Obama HASN'T (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:47:05 PM EST

    Tom DeLay (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM EST
    actually got his way....He was the ramrod behind the Schiavo legislation....Would that Pelosi be as effective as DeLay.

    How is it that Pelosi couldn't find a way to stall this until after November?  It's just four months, and after the conventions everyone would understand waiting just another two months until after the election....

    Pelosi could have run out the clock by saying she wanted to be careful and not have politics intrude...


    why didn't Pelosi wait? (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM EST
    because Congress is in campaign mode 24/7 and the telecoms had to know who to reward with donations.
    btw - where's Obama??

    Where's Obama? (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:20:26 AM EST
    Hiding behind his writers who are putting together another "greatest speech evahhhh" to tell us why we should love the FISA legislation and just trust him to open dialog on it....blah blah blah blah blah.

    Oh, wait - still no speech...just crickets.


    He's with Waldo (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST
    Pelosi wants this to pass (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:56:20 AM EST
    Bill brought up now, according to Turley, because sponsors thought public interested had died down.

    My comparison (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    is based on the fact that Pelosi seems to do exactly what Bush wants just like Delay. Same tired corrupt and out touch reasoning too.

    BTW, Pelosi's stated standard for an (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    acceptable bill? One that "does not violate the constitution of the United States."

    Thanks Madam Speaker!

    Ooh, and she says (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    that it's this bill or the Senate bill. Apparently, NO BILL is not an option.

    No, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Kevin on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:56:30 AM EST
    This time, I think you're speaking 100% for everyone.  What a pathetic joke.

    I think EVERYONE can agree on that Kevin (none / 0) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    Oh great - an Obama Presidency along (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    with Pelosi and Reid.

    We are truly doomed.

    Flip...meet flop.

    Better than McCain, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TomP on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    McConnell, and Blunt.

    That's reality.

    Build a populist progressive movement for the future.  Perhaps there will be more space to build it under Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  In any event, better than the alternative.  


    Populist (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    progressive movement under whom?!!!

    Now that's funny.

    What freaking evidence do you have for saying that?


    I think Pelosi fired (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:06:11 AM EST
    after Obama loses, the House loses some seats, etc. is a good outcome.  A new, stronger leader in the House is the best outcome -- someone who will stand up to the Republicans.

    Leaving Pelosi as speaker so she can continue to fight for her corporate interests with Obama and Reid also fighting for corporate interests is a losing strategy for the country.

    They need to LOSE power because of this capitulation, not gain it.  Only in the loss of power at the hands of voters will they learn that they have to FIGHT for the voters, not the corporations.  Four years is nothing in the long run, trust me.

    And then I'm wishful thinking.


    They do need to lose power... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:12:22 AM EST
    ...that's the only way to get them to notice what we, the people, want.

    We have leverage and power in our hands - please, do not continue to follow like lemmings over the cliff.

    "Only in the loss of power at the hands of voters will they learn..."

    Amen, Teresa!!!


    As If Losing Power Teaches Pols Anything (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    Apparently, you didn't live through the Reagan-Bush years?

    Or even during the '90s when Dem Bill Clinton was blessed with that Repub majority congress?

    Or most of the last ten years when we ALL were blessed with absolute Repub rule?

    I take a back seat to no one in my contempt and disappointment with the capitulations of congressional Dems leadership in both houses. But it is still better having a Democrat in power than a Republican.


    In other (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    words, nothing teaches politicians.  Certainly rewarding bad behavior won't teach them anything.

    So I will from hereon out vote based on who I think is the better candidate.  The whole straight party line "good Democrat" stuff went out the window after 2006.


    I Always Vote For The Best Candidate (none / 0) (#138)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    or at least, that is, the one I think will best reflect my values.

    I'm pragmatically registered Democrat because the archaic electoral system in my state says that's the only way I can participate in the nominating process, but I am no party-line genuflector.

    I happen to think either of the Dem candidates (Clinton or Obama) is superior to McCain, so, in that, I DO wish you would vote for Obama.

    But if you disagree, don't.

    I only wish I could vote out Pelosi and Reid and Hoyer--at least out of leadership.


    I have a feeling this more about Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    than anything else.....

    Dumb Democrats for FISA is more... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:22:18 AM EST
    about Hillary than anything else?

    You were against Obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:23:46 AM EST
    and talking about voting for Republicans before FISA.....

    I never talked about voting for (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    Repubs downticket - just against BO...always!

    But now I am actually considering throwing a few other Dem bums out of office, too.


    I'm confused (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    You think it's okay to have democrats in office who vote like republicans as long as they have a D by their name?

    I see a difference (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:39:56 AM EST
    between Democrats who vote for FISA and Republicnas who also vote for war, torture, drilling, conservative judges, tax cuts for oil companies and on and on.....

    I don't know what you mean (none / 0) (#79)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    here. Do you mind expanding?

    What is " more about Hillary..." and why?



    Oh (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Nadai on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    we're all just a bunch of whiners, don't you know.  Hillary dead-enders.  We don't actually care about any legislation.  We don't actually care when the Democratic Party sells us out to the telecoms.  All we care about is that our widdle feefees have been hurt because Hillary didn't win.

    If I rolled my eyes any harder they'd fall out of my head.


    I oppose the FISA bill (1.00 / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    My comments were not directed to that opposition or to those questioning Pelosi.....

    Supporting Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    1.  Supporting Clinton gets in the way of your thinking objectively.  2. Your previous support clouds everything.  3. You look at everything through a pair of Clinton campaign colored glasses. 4.5.6.....  yawn?

    You don't gain power by losing (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:15:00 AM EST
    It just doesn't work that way....

    You want to hand the Republicans a win to give Progressives more power?



    Nope, not the argument anyone's making (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:27:09 AM EST
    We want these Dems to lose power so we can get some better ones in that don't capitulate on every thing, small or large.

    These ones are never going to stand up for anything important, if they couldn't even run out the d*mn clock on FISA and pick it up again after the GE.


    You (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    definitely don't gain by rewarding hideous behavior.

    I want divided government this time, because right now I fear what either R's or D's will do with unchecked power.  And I want both Pelosi and Reid replaced.

    And BTW: Progressive, shmogressive.  Do you think this FISA capitulation is progressive?  LOL!  Th Democrats in power are not progressive.  If you want progressive Democrats, these folks need to be replaced.


    You want the status quo, then (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    We currently have a conservative Republican President and a Democratic Congress....

    There are a number of moderate Republicans who like that idea....

    With McCain as President you will have a war in Iran toot-sweet, and more and more of Iraq....Forget all those liberal ideas--they will have zero chance under McCain....

    If you are a middle-of-the-roader, then McCain might be your guy....But most of the people here who say they will vote for McCain are more liberal than I.


    No (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:41:57 AM EST
    I don't want the status quo.

    I want a Democratic President who is a leader, with a Congress with leaders.

    Those aren't going to happen this time regardless of who is elected.

    Therefore, what I want as a last resort measure is for Democrat leaders in Congress to be fired and replaced with real leaders.  

    I want the Democrats to run a strong candidate in 2012, rather than the Pepsi commercial they're running now.

    I fear that Obama will govern to the right without even the slightest bit of resistance from Congress.  

    With McCain as lame duck president and a strong Congress, we'll have stagnation this time.  That's better than what we'll have under Obama.

    And the Iran war hair on fire stuff.  It's pretty outrageous.


    Amen! Dems and a leader who don't run away (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:09:10 PM EST
    ... from an issue. Obama and Congressional Dem leadership have been AWOL on this and other burning issues for far too long.

    (I think Obama said he was pondering this or considering pondering -- he wasn't up front, unequivocally showing ACTUAL LEADERSHIP though.)

    This hooey about being doomed if these Repug enabling losers don't get more money and power is a laugh.

    Obama's been kissing right wing @ss for months and kneecapping fighting Dems cause they threaten his ego, and Dems have been playing along with him out of sheer greed.


    So, Status Quo for 4 years is ok? (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    And, you assume McCain is not a hawk....There is nothing to suggest that is the case....

    "Strong Congress"?  I thought everyone here said they are just like Republicans.....

    You reasoning doesn't work.....unless this is really about Hillary in 2012, and then all this makes perfect sense, a perfect rationalization.


    You (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    aren't listening to me, are you. Therefore I'm done with this argument.

    It's Funny (none / 0) (#128)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    The things you fear about Obama are the things I feared if Clinton was elected. I would have voted for her anyway, because the alternative is worse.

    I guess that's where we disagree.


    Congress wants Obama so they (none / 0) (#195)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    can hide behind him...yes, sir, yes, sir...whatever you want.  

    That way they don't really have to do the people's work.  And when Obama fails...it will be his fault.


    You don't gain power by (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    going against the will of the people who gave you the right to speak for them. You gain power by standing up for what's right.

    Reality is winning TomP (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    Doesn't seem to matter that we have the majority. I know you are thinking that Obama will sign everything. Then, why do this now? Hmmmm? They could have waited this out. All lawsuits will be dropped. AND, why not have the stipulation that the telecoms have to tell what happened. At least we would get something out of it. This is a very very bad deal.

    I wish (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    what you are saying was true. However, how is this legislation anything different from what the people like McConnell would have put through?

    The future is NOW -- I waited long enough (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    For the Dems to obey their oaths of office and represent, wither as a minority or as a majority. They haven't done so in my voting life.

    The time to do what they were elected to do IS NOW.

    The time for Obama to show leadership is NOW.

    Not around another freakin' corner -- that just means they're going around in circles, as usual.


    I absolutely disagree. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    more like kiss our meet a$$e$ goodbye (none / 0) (#21)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    FISA cave-in (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    Pathetic and unconscionable.  Speaker Pelosi has forfeited any moral authority for her leadership. Any Democrat who voted for this deserves to be voted out of office.

    This is NOT what we elect Democrats for!
    Is this the change we've been waiting for?!
    I don't think so. No thank you.

    Who will stand up for the civil liberties of Americans?

    Who will stand up? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    No one, it seems.  Maybe President McCain will surprise us - at least he's against torture.

    Were you being snarky here? (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by oneangryslav on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    I hope this was snark and you don't really believe that McCain is against torture?

    no, he isn't (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    He's flip flopped on the issue and voted for cloture in the habeas bill in fall '06.

    Jeralyn, why isn't this user deleted? We're all upset about FISA but outright inventing positions that Republicans don't hold should cross some kind of line on this site.


    No, he's not (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    He has changed his position....He says it's okay if the CIA does it.....just not the uniformed services, although he is waffling on that as well....

    Hillary will not be the nominee.


    Who's talking about Hillary in this (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    discussion?  Oh, you are.  Dooh!

    You guys (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    finally got what you wanted Obama vs. McCain but for some reason you can't stop talking about Hillary. What's the deal?

    Because that is the cause (2.00 / 4) (#104)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    for the over-the-top opposition to Obama....

    Nope (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    The reason for the opposition to Obama is Obama himself. He's the one responsible for the way people feel about him not Hillary. Quit blaming others.

    For me (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:59:42 AM EST
    the cause of the "over-the-top opposition" to Obama is that he's not qualified to be president.  And it's that he doesn't take any stand on positions, so you don't know WHAT you're voting for when you vote for him.  I don't trust the man as far as I can throw him.  Yes, I trust McCain more.  He has a long history in public life

    For me, I wouldn't vote for Obama even if he'd run unopposed in the primary

    That has nothing to do with Clinton.  If you think it does, you're scapegoating her.  You need to stop.


    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    The immunity issue was a major rallying point of the netroot community and was used effectively as a fund raising tool. It isn't about Hilary to me. It's about standing up for the Constitution and core party values.

    Constitution and core values (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM EST
    I agree that the issues are the Constitution and core values - core democratic values, not only core Democratic-party values.  The democratic Constitutional values far outweigh party values.

    I used to read netroots posts about this issue last year.  Glenn Greenwald is still worth reading on this issue.  There was one poster on DKos who was also really good on this issue-- mcjoan?  Since I refuse to look at DKos anymore, I won't go there to verify it.  The so-called "progressive" blogs lost all credibility with me during the Obama-Clinton race. I won't trust them to stand up for any bedrock liberal, democratic or constitutional principles since they no longer know how to or care to evaluate issues independently.  If the Democratic nominee, a constitutional law professor, doesn't say anything on this issue, then why should they anymore?  

    Does anyone know if there enough votes in the Senate to stop this?  S.O.S Senator Feingold, wtih help from Senator Dodd and Leahy.  Do any other senators want to be true patriots?


    What Moral Authority (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:01:11 PM EST
    To me she lost it when she tried to shoo Hillary out of the primaries and urged her fellow Dems in Congress to declare.  Those dems who want this bill, it seems to me, want Obama rather than Hillary because he is more likely to let them have their way on this.  According to Turley, some Dems want this legilsation as CYA.

    Just like 2002. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TomP on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    It will be a long struggle to reclaim the Democratic Party.  Yet, the two party system forces us down that path.

    Look at the power of the netroots and the "creative class."  Perhaps they are not as powerful as they like to believe.  

    They have no power (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    They don't even get scraps. That's why RedState is laughing at them.

    Boston 3rd Tea Party Now ! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    this just makes my day.

    I hope it's the voters who will be laughing in November.

    What Is There To Laugh About? (none / 0) (#132)
    by BDB on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:08:59 PM EST
    This was a bipartisan effort.  Meaning it doesn't matter who wins in November, on these issues we're screwed.  The GOP is relentless and the Democrats are weak.  That isn't going to change January 21.

    I hope that some voters (none / 0) (#167)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    will get to laugh at surprised incumbents.

    It's because they are complicit (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by irishkorean on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    The dem leadership knew about this and let it happen.  Even helped I bet, being the unthinking turds that they usually are.

    They're trying to get themselves off the hook.  Telco amnesty is a pardon for them too.  

    It's times like this I'm glad I'm an independent (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    At one point I would have felt obligated to try to understand why "My" party was once again caving in to the Republicans. Now I can step back and simply observe a political battle. I still think the same thing - that the Dems are getting something in exchange for giving the White House this. It really isn't as big an issue as the netroots makes it out to be. There is no way that we're going to hold the big telecoms responsible for giving out data to BushCo. How can you prosecute somebody for violating laws that are so unclear that you can't find 10 members of Congress who agree completely on what they say, much less 10 citizens who understand them?

    This is about Bush taking more power than he is due, and the proper way to resolve it is to reinforce and clarify the laws that make this illegal.

    Oh stop bragging dianem.... :) I am sure (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM EST
    there is going to be a multitude of dems running for their mailboxes to send in their new indy cards!

    Now we know for sure why Pelosi worked so hard to get Hillary out of the picture.  Hillary would have made Pelosi look even more incompetent than she already is....she would have been found out.
    Those who supported her have been hoodwinked, bamboozled and okie doked!!


    And so Hillary spoke up (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    yesterday or today? Do you have a link? I would very much like to read what she had to say about this.

    If Clinton opened her mouth right now... (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:24:32 AM EST
    ...it would be perceived as her trying to show up Obama, who has not (as of this writing - 16 hours into this debate) spoken out. Besides, why should anybody pay any attention to her? She's just a Junior Senator right now.

    So she is as bad as the rest of the Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:32:03 AM EST
     You make excuses for her. More is the pity.

    Huh? (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:35:05 AM EST
    I don't recall making any excuses for Clinton. I stated a simple truth. She is a junior Senator from New York, and her words on FISA are no more relevant than the words of any one of 50 other Junior Senators. She is not at this time running for national office. She has no special voice here.

    Not running for national office excuses her (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:39:23 AM EST
    from speaking up? Just a junior senator who got 18 million votes in a national primary?

    I don't see it that way. I think they ALL have an obligation to speak up. No excuses for rank or lack there of.


    Not wanting to compete with Obama does (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    Clinton is just a Junior Senator from New York. If she speaks up, she is going to be accused of rightly trying to take up the spotlight that should be his right now. She has no authority to speak for Congress, only herself, but she  is further limited in what she can say because of the recent primary (remember that?) and the fact that she has agreed to step out of the spotlight in order to let it focus on Obama.

    Then why doesn't she speak for herself (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    on this issue?

    I'm sure that's what (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM EST
    Obama wants her to be...just a junior Senator.  Therefore that's what she's being.

    And if he were to nominate her for vice president(only hypothetical since there's no chance of that)?  She'd be even less likely to speak.


    I don't give Obama a pass (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:46:28 AM EST
    why should I give Hillary one?

    Why are you obsessed with Clinton? (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM EST
    There are 100 Senators right now, and 435 members of the House of Representatives. There are 2 Presidential contenders. Why on earth should one particular member of Congress be more reponsible than others to speak out on political issues? YOu might as well say "Why should I give Barbara Lee (CA 9th District) a pass on making a comment on FISA?".

    Obama, on the other hand, is the single presumptive Democratic nominee for President. That means that he is obligated to comment on matters of interest to his voters, or at least that it would be prudent of him to do so.


    I am obsessed with ALL Democrats on this issue (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    Why aren't you? As an independent seems to me you should be obsessed with all Democrats and all Republicans on this issue.

    I know I am. I give none a pass.


    Because One Fanclubbers Opines (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    Please, Hillary is about the only person who has been able to unite the Democratic leadership to take a strong stand against something.


    Hillary is the one, but when she acts like all the other lilly livered warmongers gaining power from the WOT at the expense of our liberty, she gets a pass. She is like Obama and most other successful Politicians who weigh every public statement against the political gains or losses.

    Right now most americans are sold on the WOT, and could care less about losing privacy. It is not a popular fight.


    You know that she had made a statement... (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:16:53 PM EST
    ...back when she was actually a national figure running for President? Here. It's not her place right now to do anything but vote. Obama has the stage. How he uses it is his business.

    So Did Obama (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:21:26 PM EST
    But where are they now, when it is time to speak up. It is up to Hillary as my Senator to pander to me and urge others to vote against this bill. She has a lot of power and should use it, but my guess is that her people are still reviewing it.

    One last time (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    Clinton is the one member of Congress who can't say anything before Obama does. She stepped out of the spotlight in order to give him a chance to establish his credibility with the public after the primaries. She has no special voice right now. She pulled out of the primary, and she is merely another junior Senator. There is no reason that she should have any special responsibility to come forward and every reason for her not to do so.

    Sadly your last paragraph is right (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:56 PM EST
    even here, its just an opportunity for someposters  to bash some politicians and not others

    Plus, it would force a response (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:10:18 PM EST
    from McCain as to his defense of this. No, Obama needs to address this first. Hillary is not the nominee, unfortunately, and she has to be in the background or otherwise she inflames her supporters more, like me, not to vote for Obama. If Hillary speaks out first, it once again shows up Obama as to who is the real leader.

    BS (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    It is up to every Democrat in congress to force our leadership to represent our views be it Hillary, Feingold, or Leahey.

    Hillary is my Senator and should speak up for me.


    i think its just in response (2.00 / 1) (#123)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    to the idolization of a certain New York senator here. She hasn't said a word about this and she's one of the leaders of the party. That doesn't excuse Obama, who should have ABSOLUTELY spoken up on this as he has done in the past...but when push came to shove, he stayed quiet. I'd expect him to release a statement tonight, after the vote.

    Like I said downthread, the progressive movement will get into the weeds if it becomes about a particular politician instead of a coherent set of policies.


    dianem, why downrate this? (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    Not sure I expressed anything controversial or untrue here.

    Hilarious. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    Cultists (2.00 / 1) (#168)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    Do not like it when their deity is called out. It has become fashionable to downrate everyone who questions Hillary or defends Obama.

    As if they would listen to Hillary? (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:48:34 AM EST
    Please, Hillary is about the only person who has been able to unite the Democratic leadership to take a strong stand against something.  Unfortunately it was her own campaign.  It would be nice to see them go after the Republicans with the same vigor they had attacking Hillary.  

    With the morons we have running the party, we'd probably be more likely to get them to oppose if if Hillary came out in favor of the bill.  


    More excuses. (3.50 / 2) (#102)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    So, you would prefer that Clinton act in (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    a way that might undermine our nominee?

    I prefer all Democrats to vote (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    against this constitutional travesty. I prefer them all to voice opposition. Clinton speaking out no more undermines the nominee than Russ Feingold or Pat Leahy or Rep. Wexler- all of whom have taken a stand in opposition (At least last I heard) to this blatant travesty of a bill.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:26:07 PM EST
    that all democrats should be speaking out. However many of your posts are concentrated on Senator Clinton specifically. If she is your Senator then I will absolutely agree it is appropriate to call for her to speak on your behalf. If she is not, you should be focused on your specific Senators, as well as those who represent your own voice, such as national figures Obama and Pelosi. Had Clinton been our nominee she would deserve the brunt of all our ire because she represents all democrats. However she is not, and only represents New York. So to me, focusing on her is counter productive because unless you live New York, she does not speak for you.

    I prefer that our defeated candidates (none / 0) (#161)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    not spend their time showing up the victors. I'd like for Obama to win this election, and that requires some degree of unity. We cannot afford headlines aout Clinton "going against Obama".

    Yes Yes And Yes (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    It would force Obama to move to the left on this issue. But of course Hillary would never do that because she is exactly the same as Obama on this issue.  As far as we have heard.

    Left (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52:26 PM EST
    Opposition to this bill would not be moving to the left. Obama's (the party leader) failure to speak out against it, after using it as a campaign tool, just demonstrates what his character really is. He's nothing more than any of the other self interest politicians in DC. Change is a cheap word. I prefer actions over words.

    Of Course It Would (2.00 / 0) (#200)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    But I guess your comment was meant to be a plug for Hillary because she would, in your fantasy, speak out against the WOT and the bad FISA bill.

    Not an excuse (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:42:25 PM EST
    My point is that Hillary can make a statement but it is not likely to have any impact on the Dem leadership.  I hope we do hear from her on FISA yet don't have any expectations that it will help change the course the leadership has chosen.    

    And it isn't as if the leadership has been very concerned with the 18 million who voted for her during the primary.  How many times did they come out with remarks ranging from controversial to insulting in an attempt to get her to suspend her campaign.  Sorry, but they have for the most part taken her supporters for granted.  


    I do not suffer CDS (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:22:55 PM EST
    You do not know me or my history here.  I am not giving Obama a pass either. Do I suffer from ODS too?

    Lord spare me please.


    all I see is people making excuses (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:36:41 PM EST
    Putting out a statement wouldn't steal Obama's thunder. Hell, she could've done it jointly with Feingold or whoever for even less press impact. She hasn't. I'm done making excuses for any politician. Obama's wrong not to speak out and so is she.

    NO (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    Hillary can't be the first to speak on this.  She's been put in a place by the MSM, Obama himself, and my best frenemies Pelosi and Reid themselves, where she can't say or do anything without being perceived as divisive.

    IF Obama speaks up and then Hillary remains silent, we can talk.

    All else is dreamland.


    Isn't That Why Obama's Lips Are Sealed? (3.00 / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    The double bind is that, going up against this bill is not popular. You are assuming that Hillary is willing to risk political capitol, or that she is anymore against this bill than Obama is.

    Pelosi is an elected official. Do you think her support of this bill is going to cost her votes. My guess is that she decided that going against it would cost her more.


    She's MY Senator (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by daring grace on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    For me, that's a 'special' voice. All New Yorkers would care, whether she is 'junior' or not.

    Also, being one of the few who stands up against this, like Leahy and Feingold, puts that voice in rarified company. People notice.

    Having said that, I don't care whether she speaks up or not. It's not something I would hold against her.

    Perhaps she's waiting for the senate vote to take a stand on this now.


    Will there ever come a time when you (5.00 / 6) (#143)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:14:35 PM EST
    hold Obama accountable on the basis of whether he is doing the right thing, one-on-one, Obama-to-issue, or will you always be there with an excuse as long as you can find one person in his peer group who also failed on that issue?

    Based on what I have seen here, I think I know how it's going to go, and in my opinion, I think that approach may be at the root of why we have a Democratic Congress that is both spineless and useless and repeatedly fails every leadership test they have been presented with.


    See above (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    I give NONE a pass on this. NONE.

    what is with these red herrings? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    I've been on the phone ALL MORNING to every Obama office I can find a listing for, both Senate and campaign offices. I've been exchanging e-mails with my representatives and others who might flip.

    It won't change my vote but I'm extremely disappointed in just about every Democrat today, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who have both said NOTHING.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    Follow the thread. There is no favoritism going on here.

    Molly Bloom is responding to this nonsense:

    Hillary would have made Pelosi look even more incompetent than she already is....she would have been found out.



    If HRC wanted to do the right thing (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:36:33 AM EST
    she would formulate her statement and send it to the Obama campaign to put them on notice and give Obama the opportunity to speak first. If Obama remains silent, then she lets it rip and let them say what they will - simple.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    Maybe she has, and they are still 'reviewing it'.

    Getting a little late if that's the case (none / 0) (#82)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:41:33 AM EST
    More likely (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:46:08 AM EST
    " Hold on sweetie, I'll get back to you."

    Or More Likely (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    Her staff is reviewing it as well.  

    I don' t think she can say a thing (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    before Obama makes a statement. She is in that position right now. If we were still in the primary selection process she could. And it would also force Obama to make a statement. So, Hillary, at this point, can not be brought into this. She is suppose to be in the background until Obama tells her she can come back out of the naughty corner for daring to run against him. She is more of a lame duck Senator until the GE. Then she can emerge as a leader. AND Pelosi didn't want her. What does that tell you?

    Where's Obama's leadership? He should lead (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    As a candidate who's unqualified to lead the party and for the office of President the onus is on him to show leadership.

    He should be showing EVERYONE what makes him think he's should be privileged to uphold and defend the Constitution: his main responsibility as President.

    If you haven't held Obama responsible for this FIRST, worrying about what Sen Clinton's position is just Clinton Derangement Syndrome.


    Come on in... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    ...the water's fine in indy land. :-) Although I don't think that Clinton would have been working too hard to show up Pelosi. Clinton is a politician, and a good one. Good pols don't make people look bad - they make people do what they want by making them look good for doing it.

    A conviction of Telecoms is not needed (none / 0) (#65)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:33:39 AM EST
    Having the ability to drag them through the courts is enough to make them not engage in illegal activities (regardless of the legal wording or the likelihood of conviction). Giving them immunity from prosecution on the most blatant of illegal activities opens the floodgates to all kinds of illegal activity and skulduggery in cahoots with the criminal politicians.

    What you are advocating... (none / 0) (#72)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    ...is using the courts to harass corporations into compliance with social policy. I don't think that is responsible. Charges against individuals or groups should be brought because there is a belief that they have committed a crime and a reasonable expectation of a finding of guilt. I believe that it's wrong to use the legal system as a means of punishment if there is no likliehood of conviction.

    A judge will dismiss the case if there (none / 0) (#159)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    is no likelihood of conviction.

    There is nothing problematic about pursuing meritorious legal claims in order to shine a light on scurrilous practices by corporations and government.


    This bill effectively quashes (none / 0) (#130)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    the ability to "drag" telcos to court. It's my understanding that this bill allows Federal District Court to determine if telco spying was done after telco received writing authorized by President indicating the spying was legal. & if so, there's immunity in effect.  

    Legal Recourse? (none / 0) (#154)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
    Can the courts strike this down as unconstitutional? Can Congree pass laws that rewrite it?

    This has nothing to do with being an Independent (none / 0) (#80)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:40:40 AM EST
    If you believe your rights are being needlessly eviscerated it affects you the same whether you're dem, repuke, or neither.

    If you think this whole thing is OK, again it doesn't matter - you support it - affiliation or non-affiliation has no consequence.


    "Democracy" (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by dead dancer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:08:21 AM EST
        I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
     I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
             And I'm neither left or right
             I'm just staying home tonight,
       getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
           But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
                that Time cannot decay,
           I'm junk but I'm still holding up
              this little wild bouquet:
          Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.


    they get away with this stuff (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    because the majority of folks TRUST them to do the right thing and because people have 2 jobs and aren't/can't paying attention.

    But not for long. I predict the emergence of a 3rd party or Hillary jumping back in as an Independent.

    Its her time!  She will rise from the ashes like the Phoenix! ~

    its crazy by its possible.  Feel the rage!

    What's the reason for voting Dem again? (5.00 / 12) (#29)
    by votermom on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:10:27 AM EST
    I forget.
    I was planning to vote for downticket Dems in November, but at this rate, why bother?
    (This is my first comment at TL, but I'm a long-time lurker.)

    Welcome votermom....and that is a valid (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:12:19 AM EST

    Welcome, votermom (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    You're not alone in your concern. It's beginning to look like we've almost completed the merge of the two party system into one.

    Votermom - you're so right. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    OMG - could I vote straight Republican for the first time in my life?



    yes, you should! (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    Vote for the people who pushed the bad bill we're all disappointed in today, instead of the people who just caved on it! Great plan!

    Check on what your downticket Dems (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    did on this and other issues.  Reward the good ones!

    I have to admit to complacency myself.  Since my Congress people are Kennedy, Kerry and Markey, I usually assume they did the right thing and were outmanuevered by the Republicans.  Obviously I was drinking an older version of the Kool Aid.

    But this primary campaign was a big wakeup call on that one.  So check their votes.

    My state Dems are pretty good, and I've been keeping an eye on them since the gay marriage amendment.  So they get my vote too.


    I agree. (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    I may not even vote PERIOD in November.  Unless the Democrats can give me one good reason to -- and saying "we're not the Republicans" doesn't hold as much weight as it used to --, I may just sit this one out.

    This race is reminding me more and more of what I heard about McGovern's race.  Record-breaking high number of voters in the Primaries followed by a record-breaking LOW number of voters in the General.

    And a Republican President at the end of it all.

    Oh, and Welcome, votermom!


    I'm so pleased with my Rep. (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    Jay Inslee stood up for the people without giving an inch. Had he been less forceful, I would have been surprised, though. He's a solid democrat.

    Congratulations. Send him our "Thanks". (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:15:49 AM EST
    I will (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM EST
    He also stood firm behind Clinton, and I haven't heard him change his support to Obama yet.

    There aren't many like him left in DC, it appears.

    Doesn't it make you wonder how the people who support a Republican ticket as a matter of course can possibly think this bill is okay.


    Jay endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#117)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:59:57 AM EST
    when Hillary suspended her campaign.

    Scroll down to the bottom of this article.


    and it's unbelievable (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    that they want us Voters to give them MORE power!  Why should we continue to support the Democrats if they're so damn eager to roll over and get tummy rubs -- and swift kicks to the ribs -- from the GOP every chance they get?

    They're going to have to start earning my vote from here on out.  No more straight ticket voting for me.

    I sincerely regret the day I cheered Nancy Pelosi being handed the gavel.  What a f*ckin' embarrassment she's been.


    Hoyer wet-kissing Roy Blunt (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    The Democratic Party is DEAD.

    It's time to move on (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:20:27 AM EST
    ???  We are mired in Iraq, we have a lagging economy, we are in need of an energy debate and govt is broken.  We are proud that were able to agree on legislation and the American people are pleased that we are able to reach a compromise, it is what they demand of us.  Now, let us move forward and represent the people who have elected us to office to find solutions to the important issues they face.

    (I have stock in the telecom industry and do not want the hit to my investments)

    I am glad I live in a blue state and get to vote Repub.  I am disgusted yet again.

    Wha??? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by A little night musing on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:24:14 AM EST
    the American people are pleased that we are able to reach a compromise, it is what they demand of us.

    Speechless. I'm just speechless.


    Extreme sarcasm ..... (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    I'm not a 'we' I didn't have a vote.

    I'm done (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    donating money to Democrats.  I will donate a dictionary though since the Democrats apparently have no sense of the meaning of the word compromise.  

    1 a: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things - Merriam Webster

    What part of mutual do Pelosi and Hoyer fail to understand?  They are a joke.  I have had it up to here with the talk about compromise and post partisanship.  There is nothing wrong with partisan politics, especially when one side is so clearly wrong.  We are supporting the Republicans, even when we elect Democrats.  


    Hoyer and Pelosi MUST go (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by pluege on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM EST
    its as simple as that - we NEED challengers with the complete backing of progressives. (same goes for Reid when the opportunity arises)

    Watching the vote on the floor..... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    How can you tell easily how bad the bill is?

    Answer: Every republican is voting for it and the dems are split.

    This will be one of the votes that shows who needs some primary challenges.

    Paging Senator Obama (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:46:42 AM EST
    You can stop this.  Do it.

    Doubtful (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    In a few seconds, it will pass the House with a veto-proof majority.

    Couldn't he filibuster it in the Senate? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    I'd love for his and Hillary's joint campaign event next week to be a Senate Filibuster of this bill.

    He could, but he won't (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    Probably not (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    but thinking about it prevents me from blowing a gasket right now.  Whatever gets me through the day, ya know?

    The Senate can filibuster. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ramo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    Not that it likely will...  

    Frankly, I'm astonished that Pelosi played us like this.  Hoyer of course is an ass and always has been, but Pelosi helped to kill telecom amnesty last time.  I wonder what changed.


    She's sitting on what she thinks is a lead (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    in the November elections. Not rocking the boat. She thinks Obama has enough Dems locked up to win, and carry the congressional elections with him.

    Constitution?  Who cares?


    I still don't get it (none / 0) (#199)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    It wouldn't have cost Dems anything to sit on this until after the GE.  The worst, very worst thing that could happen is McCain wins and takes the position Bush already has on telco immunity.  Then they're no worse off than before.

    As Speaker, she does that sort of stuff all the time, mess with the schedule, stall stuff in committee, etc.  But she stampeded the herd toward this vote.

    And at the same time she could have pleased a whole lot of voters, not just Democratic ones.  She and Reid have already thrown the base under the bus, but now she's throwing the base of the 'New Coalition' under the bus too.

    So now, even the most far-fetched theories of conspiracy and corruption sound plausible.  


    Will the 2008 General Election (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by HenryFTP on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM EST
    make any difference? Why would the Republicans, Blue Dogs and boll weevils control Congress any less? We have a Party Leadership that consistently refuses to exercise any of its power vis-à-vis a Republican Executive. It is a Leadership perfectly content to be mocked and held publicly in contempt by its partisan opponents.

    They have laid the foundation stones today for the radical right-wing revival. Based on their past form, the Congressional Leadership will probably undermine a Democratic President, with the corporate Media cheering them on.

    Our republic has been entirely hijacked by a corporate oligarchy that can scarcely conceal its utter disdain for ordinary citizens. Obama may talk about "post-partisan" politics, but we're already in an era of "post-Constitutional" politics, with a permanent State of National Emergency allowing arbitrary searches and seizures, arrests, imprisonments and punishments, with spending completely unchecked, tax giveaways to the rich, and no accountability whatsoever.

    The Center-Left coalition that might have opposed the oligarchs has been badly splintered by the Obama-Clinton contest. It will take a massive landslide in the Congressional elections to turn this around quickly -- particularly if new Representatives and Senators are not beholden to the Party Leadership. I urge everyone to support authentic Democrats in these downticket contests and to withhold any support from any Party Leadership-sponsored group. I already wrote my final kiss-off note to the DCCC this morning.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jcsf on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:09:57 PM EST
    Amen on this post.


    We can't support these people (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jcsf on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    If they don't support the Constitution.  We are americans first.  And we support the Constitution, the rule of law.  Not get out of jail free cards, after the fact.

    Will "electing better democrats" do anything to stop this?  We now know that 1/3 of the democratic party doesn't give a damn about the constitution.

    What do we do about them?

    saw this on another blog (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by NJDem on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:14:26 PM EST
    Gallup is reporting today that "just 12% of Americans express confidence in Congress, the lowest of the 16 institutions tested this year, and the worst rating Gallup has measured for any institution in the 35-year history of this institution."

    Remember how hopeful we were when we took back the Congress?  Seems like ages ago...

    Oath (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:17:16 PM EST
    I thought when someone took an oath of office, they swore to uphold the Constitution? There's nothing in the oath about party loyalty. If you believe in the oath you swore to uphold, ther's no conceivable justification to approve this bill.

    Off with their heads! I refuse to vote for any politician that went along with this.

    Maybe they thought it was backwards (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST
    and really meant "Hold Up" the Constitution.

    It certainly seems like a mugging.


    H R 6304 (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    Correct bill?

    And the righteous vote is Nay ?

    I was just checking on Cong site

    My congressman voted NAY - YEAH!

    Sad (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    Lupinski (my congressman) voted for it. No surprise he also voted against stem cell research. And I live in a Democratic stronghold!

    More bad news was that Rahl Emmanuel also voted for it and he's expected to take Obama seat! Things aren't looking up in Illinois.


    MIne Too (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST

    I just sent him email (none / 0) (#193)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:53:12 PM EST
    thanking him for his vote, calling out Pelosi, Hoyer and Emmanuel, and asking him to press the Dem leaders in the Senate on this.

    My rep (none / 0) (#194)
    by RJBOSTON on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:53:18 PM EST
     Lynch did the right thing too.

    Best decision I made this week (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    was to change my voting status.

    Dem leadership continues to be incredibly disappointing.

    They continue to be Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy.

    I am happy to be an unaffiliated Independent.

    Agreed completely, BTD (none / 0) (#119)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
    We don't find much to agree on these days but you're 100% spot on here. I'm disappointed in Dem leadership outside the House for not speaking up as well. Obama should have been on this...and before anyone savages him too badly, let's make sure we realize that NO prominent Democrat has stood strong, including Hillary.

    It's times like these that we as a progressive movement should recognize that no one politician is going to be the perfect embodiment of our ideals and that this is a generational struggle. Regardless, I'm clearly disappointed in the Democratic party today.

    Stop with the Hillary (3.66 / 6) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    nonsense.  Hillary is essentially tied up in the basement.  She can't speak without making the "winner" look weak.

    Whatever (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    Waste all the time you want making excuses for imperfect politicians. Has she or has she not spoken out? Where is her leadership? Where is Obama's leadership?

    I expect more of every Dem elected official, including the current presidential candidate and the one who dropped out a few weeks ago.


    Why do I get the feeling (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    that you'd be crying "Foul!" if Sen Clinton made a strong statement right now?

    You want it both ways.  Admit it.

    He's the leader of the party, and I've been waiting for his "review and statement" since I heard about it last night.

    I'm sure they're all busily trying to find the right words before he opens his mouth...

    which won't change what happened today.  

    What about tomorrow?


    how many times do I have to explain (1.00 / 0) (#184)
    by moe21885 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    that no, I wouldn't be saying a negative word if she made a statement. You guys don't get it. I'm an Obama supporter, yes. But the issues are bigger than the personalities involved. If Sen. Clinton is the first of the two to stand strong, then I'll applaud her and urge Sen. Obama to follow suit. I really don't give a damn whose feelings get hurt in the process - just that this piece of dung not be enacted into law.

    I'm waiting. (none / 0) (#196)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    Not so patiently.

    Uh (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    Why do I get the feeling that you'd be crying "Foul!" if Sen Clinton made a strong statement right now?

    Maybe it is because you are still in some imaginary schoolyard fighting Obama cultists. Many were never in that schoolyard brawl to begin with, and many of those who were have moved on.


    I haven't said a word about Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:54:33 PM EST
    But you sure like to fall back on that excuse.

    A negative word, that is. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by pie on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:55:49 PM EST
    I was assured that he would make a statement.  I've heard it several times now.

    I'm waiting.


    You Don't Have To (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    Because implicit in your comment is a comparison to Obama. The fact that you are making believe that is not the case is dishonest and quite transparent.

    Like I've been saying: (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jim J on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    We don't know the extent of the data the wiretapping has revealed. Apparently they came up with some real good stuff.

    I think it was always intended as a domestic political weapon and had little to do with terrorists.