home

Feingold: Democrats Are Bush Enablers

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via MYDD:

"Anybody who claims this [FISA Capitulation bill] is an okay bill, I really question if they've even read it." "Democrats enabled [this]," Feingold went on. "Some of the rank and file Democrats in the Senate who were elected on this reform platform unfortunately voted with Kit Bond who's just giggling he's so happy with what he got. We caved in."

Glenn Greenwald has video:

< Today in McCain Land | Defending Obscenity in the Age of Google >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Feingold: Democrats Are Bush Enablers | 166 comments (166 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTW, if Masel's theory on (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    the Libertarian split is right, what a compelling choice for a Vice President.

    Having the other half of McCain-Feingold on the ticket would be. . .interesting to say the least.

    Not going to happen. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:33:24 PM EST
    I can't see Feingold joining any ticket that won't take public financing.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be the holdup (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:33:57 PM EST
    But I think he'd get past it if he thinks he could help.

    [ Parent ]
    My sense is... (none / 0) (#66)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:06:12 AM EST
    ... that he'll get past that about the same time that Hillary gets past dropping universal health care.

    [ Parent ]
    You think she wouldn't take a place (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:33:59 AM EST
    on the ticket? I do.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#91)
    by Montague on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:54:51 AM EST
    Feingold means what he says and says what he means, and he sticks by it.  He's been around long enough and understands the issues deeply enough that no one is going to be able to talk him out of his positions.  It's really sad that we can't have him for president.  

    [ Parent ]
    So Sad (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by tek on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:03:19 AM EST
    he will speak out on FISA against the people who support it, and yet, he followed the lemmings and endorsed Obama even though Obama approves the FISA sellout.  Oh, and Obama is rejecting his campaign financing ideas.  Good job, Feingold.

    [ Parent ]
    Believe me... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Montague on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    That's the one thing I'm mad at Feingold for!  Now, admittedly, did Feingold endorse BEFORE Obama caved in on FISA and public financing?

    In the end it's not going to matter that much.  We'll have McCain for four years.  Obama's chances in the GE are lousy.  But of course he has now set back public campaign financing several decades.

    [ Parent ]

    The clueless dupe endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#124)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:12:30 AM EST
    and dissed the candidate who was outside the Washington system who could act a little more independently.

    Why is this inneffectual man so widely admired by the cough cough ...left

    [ Parent ]

    Wait a second, you guys love ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:15:41 AM EST
    ... Feingold and you love Hillary Clinton. Guess who they're supporting for the Presidency.

    ANSWER SHEET: If you said McCain, you're wrong!

    [ Parent ]

    Not much of a fan of Clinton. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    grew to respect her.  I was in favour of Edwards.

    [ Parent ]
    It would be better and more useful (none / 0) (#136)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:52:10 AM EST
    if you would address your comments to specific posters, instead of the plural "you guys", for example

    Who do you mean?

    -ta

    [ Parent ]

    thank you Salo for some honest to goodness truth! (none / 0) (#129)
    by fly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:24:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Uh? (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    Ineffectual man? Pernicious? Wow you must be a right winger.

    He is so widely admired by progressives, because of his voting record, and positions like the one BTD just posted.

    [ Parent ]

    Voting record (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:58:58 PM EST
    he's never been able to get people to follow him.  He's just there hanging out acting cool for a subgroup.

    [ Parent ]
    Hell, a McCain Feingold ticket would (4.33 / 6) (#13)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:55:30 PM EST
    be more interesting to me than ANY ticket with Obama on it.

    [ Parent ]
    That sounds like something a ... (2.80 / 5) (#16)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    ... Republican -- strike that -- a conservative Republican would write. Oh, that was snark! Nevermind.

    [ Parent ]
    How quickly people (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by tree on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:52:20 PM EST
    forget that Kerry asked McCain to be his Vice President. I guess Kerry is a conservative Republican then?

    [ Parent ]
    kerry was bush's frat brother. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by sancho on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:07:38 AM EST
    ever wondered what that might mean in terms of his committed "electability"? as feingold must know, the dems (for the most part) are an opposition party in theory only. one party divides into two and increases its donors. the dems are ecstatic about FISA too or they would not have arranged it. and obama wont renounce its powers, i bet, if he becomes head of the corporate state that is the usa. he may even like having FISA powers. most "leaders of the free world" likely would.

    [ Parent ]
    NO (3.66 / 3) (#102)
    by tek on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:05:05 AM EST
    Obama is a conservative Republican.  He wants to have meetings at Focus on the Family campus in CO Springs and he said, "Folks aren't reading their Bibles."  Yahoo! News headlines.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a new headline for BO? (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:19:16 AM EST
    On Yahoo?  

    You're kidding, aren't you?

    He wants more people reading their bible but he snubs Muslims.

    Great candidate!

    [ Parent ]

    That (4.20 / 5) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:19:07 AM EST
    article was interesting. Obama is MORE concerned with making these people happy than McCain. More and more this election is reminding me of 1976. The problem I see with a lot of this is that the voting public is so over the whole evangelicals running government thing after having W for two terms. Obama is trying to refight the 2004 election, which outside of national security, really doesn't have much to do with this election.

    [ Parent ]
    Just what we need... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by magisterludi on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:47:42 AM EST
    stronger, more potent Kool-Aid for the masses.

    [ Parent ]
    Certainly a stretch.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:09:38 AM EST
    ...of what the REAL story is.  

    From the Horse's Mouth (via the Rocky Mountain News):

    "Last week, DuBois, a former Assemblies of God associate minister, called Minnery for what Minnery described as a cordial discussion. He would not go into detail, but he said Dubois offered to visit the ministry in August when the Democratic National Convention is in Denver.

    A possible Obama visit was not discussed, but Focus is open to one, Minnery said.

    McCain also has not met with Dobson. A McCain campaign staffer offered Dobson a meeting with McCain recently in Denver, Minnery said. Dobson declined because he prefers that candidates visit the Focus on the Family campus to learn more about the organization, Minnery said."

    [ Parent ]

    nicely done (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:16:39 PM EST
    christians have as much right to be pandered to as us atheists....

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry, A Conservative Republican? (none / 0) (#131)
    by daring grace on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    Nope, but then neither was McCain back then. That was a different incarnation for him.

    [ Parent ]
    I would not be surprised in the least (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:01:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I was surprised as well ... (2.33 / 3) (#20)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:07:27 PM EST
    ... until I realized it was cleverly disguised snark. The very best snark is hard to decipher as snark.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds Good To Me (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:38:37 PM EST
    I had not even considered it possible, but maybe. Of course I would prefer Feingold as POTUS miles over either Obama, Hillary or Edwards.

    I still do not understand how he could have possibly voted for Roberts, though.

    [ Parent ]

    He had an explanation for it (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:40:59 PM EST
    But he never said he agreed with Roberts views.


    [ Parent ]
    Views? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:59:42 PM EST
    Those were secret. BushCo refused to release hundreds of documents. So much for advice and consent.

    "These records are important because they are a window on Judge Roberts's approach to the constitutional rights that are the birthright of every American - rights that touch all our lives in so many ways every day," Mr. Leahy said in a statement.

    [snip]

    Earlier Friday, Mr. Kennedy released a letter he had written to Judge Roberts, noting that his recent responses to a committee background questionnaire played down his work in the solicitor general's office while it was highlighted on a résumé that Mr. Roberts submitted in 1991, when he was first up for a federal judgeship.

    Mr. Kennedy asked that Judge Roberts "submit as promptly as possible" a supplement to his earlier responses to the committee, by providing "a full description of your activities" as a deputy solicitor general.

    NYT

    Hello Bob... Anyone home?

    [ Parent ]

    Well OK then (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:05:49 AM EST
    Capitulator he is, then.


    [ Parent ]
    Certainly Not As A Habit (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:21:17 AM EST
    He was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:30:27 AM EST
    He's not a capitulator all the time like the rest of the Dem party.

    But he did have his Capitulating, Bush Enabling  moments.

    Confirmed Ashcroft too, it looks like from one of your links.


    [ Parent ]

    Ashcroft Vote Was Different (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:38:19 AM EST
    And out of principal:

    Senator Feingold has repeatedly stated that he believes a president deserves to have his cabinet nominees confirmed regardless of ideology as long as they are capable of doing the job. This is different from judicial nominees, as Senator Feingold explains in this great 2002 Progressive Magazine interview:

    The Robert's vote was a F*up, imo.


    [ Parent ]

    I had heard he made the same deference (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:41:03 AM EST
    To Presidential authority with respect to the Roberts nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    In Response To Grahm (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:58:10 AM EST
    "I believe that the president does enjoy some deference here," said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) Graham said the central issue is whether the Senate will allow Bush "to fulfill a campaign promise ... to nominate a well-qualified strict constructionist to the court."

    Feingold agreed, saying the "central reason" he broke with other Democrats to vote for Roberts is that he expects the same deference to the president and his choice for the high court "when my party retakes the White House."

    link
    But this is not a principal because he voted against Thomas, Alito  and others.

    [ Parent ]

    A principal is not applied (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:09:00 AM EST
    With absolute consistency, and one can certainly believe a president loses any expectation of deference by displaying a complete inability to provide adequate main stream thinking nominees for judgeships.

    In short, things change.


    [ Parent ]

    Things Do Change (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:17:42 AM EST
    But his voting record is consistent regarding cabinet conformation votes, and that is according to his stated principal. Judges he is pretty good on. He let a few slip through, but by and large he is not being deferential at all.

    Here is his voting record.

    Pretty good, imo.

    And of course he is great on the war.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is what Obama said (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:26:47 AM EST
    On the topic:

    In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

    Benefit of the doubt.  Deference.  Elections have consequences.  Whatever words one chooses to describe it is OK by me.

    Lets just give ourselves pats on the back for being able to discuss this without smearing the person we disagree with as Bush-lite or something stupid and ignorant like that.

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh! (none / 0) (#148)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    And you think I ought to write my senator?  That's him!

    [ Parent ]
    Feingold (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by tek on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:06:30 AM EST
    is a capitulator.  He's like Hagel, he comes out swinging and then votes with the neoCons (not as often).

    [ Parent ]
    Feingold as President? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:14:38 AM EST
    This says all you need to know about the thinking process at work.

    [ Parent ]
    Feingold as VP (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:24:08 AM EST
    would be a permanent thorn in Obama's conscience.  I don't think Obama will sign up for that.


    [ Parent ]
    sorry, but a black-Jewish ticket is (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:34:34 PM EST
    not gunna happen (IMO)

    Because it might hurt us in. . .Georgia? (4.25 / 8) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:37:10 PM EST
    Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    All I can say is that it's too bad that (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:37:47 PM EST
    Senator Obama has chosen to take his cues from Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer instead of from Russ Feingold.

    If I were Russ Feingold, I would not be holding my breath waiting for a possible President Obama to make any inaugural address promises to undo the constitutional breaches the Bush administration has committed, especially when, in all likelihood, Obama will be one of the Senators voting for the compromise - or voting "no" so late that it won't matter.

    That would really tear it for me. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Jake Left on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST
    If he holds off until passage is assured and then votes an ass-covering No, he is worthless. All talk, no walk.

    [ Parent ]
    That would "tear" it for you because ... (1.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    ... McCain is going to vote "no" on a FISA compromise and attempt to fillibuster it?

    You do know that McCain's top campaign staff is literally infested with telecom lobbyists, don't you?  

    [ Parent ]

    You seem to be under the impression that (5.00 / 21) (#23)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST
    being upset with Obama for either voting "for" the FISA compromise, or voting "no" so late that it doesn't matter, is an automatic approval of whatever it is that McCain would do, instead of realizing that we can be upset or disgusted about what Obama does or doesn't do without reference to McCain at all.

    Not everything is comparative - sometimes things are just wrong because they are wrong - and that someone on the other side is just as wrong doesn't lessen the extent of it.

    If you want Obama to do the right thing, you have to stop making it okay for him to do the wrong thing.

    [ Parent ]

    May I suggest that instead of criticizing Obama (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:13:37 PM EST
    or his supporters, you, and all TalkLeft comments take some action to prevent the passage of FISA in the Senate.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean like calling Obama's office (5.00 / 18) (#33)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:34:01 PM EST
    to plead for him to do the right thing?  Or calling and e-mailing and faxing our own Senators?

    I would like to suggest that Obama start listening to his constituents, and to the people whose president he wants to be, show some leadership and the courage of the convictions that trip so easily off his tongue.

    Seems like a fair request to me.

    [ Parent ]

    I gave a suggestion in my other comment (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:49:10 PM EST
    and I've been working all day on the phone and a variety of blogs trying to convince Obama supporters that this issue is a place where Obama should make a stand.  

    I think a huge groundswell from Obama supporters requesting/expecting the Senate and especially Obama to fight the immunity on the basis of the need for discovery
    would sway the Senate.  I've also written to a bunch of Impeachment groups, such as the PEN and others, and even some right wing sites because conservatives who are anti-government get this kind of stuff pretty well.  

    The legislation is dangerous.  More people are engaged these days because of the close primary.  This is a good time to reach out and use our connections to make a stand against it.


    [ Parent ]

    Thank you. (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:55:20 PM EST
    It is sad that Obama supporters need to be convinced though :(

    [ Parent ]
    Young Democrats don't understand the complexities (none / 0) (#48)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:02:16 PM EST
    yet.  That goes for young Hillary supporters as well.  They haven't been paying attention, they only recently got caught up in the primary race.  They have a lot to learn.  

    But it's a huge amount of energy if we can tap it.

    [ Parent ]

    You should be wrangling them to pester the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:24:02 AM EST
    Then a shorter A-to-B route is to tell oPods why multiple sock-puppet ID's on HRC-friendly sites -- or those not still actively engaged in the Derangement -- with the intent to pester is at odds with helping them Move On and intelligently promote Obama's platform (whatever he stands for in his head this week.)

    HRC supporters seem quite capable of assessing these issues and acting upon them.

    It's time the for the contingent that claimed to be in front to turn and face that way, and unleash teh awesome Pester Power on the Senate instead of, you know, buzzing useless pap about "healing" on people who aren't politically sick.

    Sickened, yeah, who wouldn't be?

    [ Parent ]

    60+ votes and filibuster proof (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:24:17 PM EST
    As it has already been suggested in the print media that the senate is filibuster proof with upcoming YEA votes on the FISA bill, don't use up too many of those long distance minutes. I'm afraid this is a done deal regardless of what Obama, or Clinton, or Feingold might do.

    The blogs are all blustery over it, but negotiated compromises (they do call it that) are usually sure things or they would never be brought to the floor for a vote.

    [ Parent ]

    No need to have 60 to filibuster; GOP always do it (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Ellie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:32:24 AM EST
    This is a false metric that the Dems keep citing as an excuse not to act courageously or act at all.

    The Repugs get everything they want whether in the majority or minority because they hang together and Dems keep ambling over in big clumps to help them do it.

    Senator Obama has repeatedly stated and shown he prefers to help out the GOP dominant status quo rather than challenge it.

    This is his moment to provide a shining example of the Change he promised. If he won't do it meaningfully by now, and on this particular issue, he won't suddenly be a courageous President should that opportunity materialize.

    [ Parent ]

    where does hillary stand on this (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 07:59:45 AM EST
    hmmm, awfully quiet over there in NY.  Of course Obama should LEAD and filibuster, but where is Hillary?  

    [ Parent ]
    you know most of us worked ourselves to (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:13:13 AM EST
    death on this very situation before and numerous others where we hoped they would listen. the emails, phone calls, letters, even personal visits to their offices were made. guess what? they went ahead and did what they wanted. so please don't talk down to us. we have every right to criticize obama and the rest of the democrats on this issue. it isn't a case of our just sitting around our computers whining all the time you know.

    [ Parent ]
    Hello there, hellothere (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:31:32 AM EST
    I don't mean to talk down to anyone who has worked, is working, or will work in the future to effect positive change in our democracy.

    There are plenty of readers and posters who have not participated in fighting these attacks on our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  If they can benefit from my comments and suggestions, then I will continue to post them.

    Please trust that I have the utmost respect for all who try to make our country a better place.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks, it is good to know that a dedicated (none / 0) (#83)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:49:41 AM EST
    citizen is working for our rights.

    [ Parent ]
    you forgot to say /snark (none / 0) (#88)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:15:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    it wasn't snark. it is sincere. (none / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    no matter what the political thinking is, i want citizens to hold our politcans' feet to the fire and you are doing that, thank goodness.

    [ Parent ]
    why should we have to beg and plead (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:38:26 AM EST
    with a CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer to do the right thing regarding the Constitution????
    Oh wait -- Obama's positions and votes AFTER he became a U.S. senator are the most problematic.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't want us to beg. i want us to (none / 0) (#150)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    hold them accountable in the most serious way. and josie you are right it is sad beyond belief that we are supposed to hold our noses and vote and/or beg. i can't and won't do that. i'll hold them accountable.

    [ Parent ]
    Calling My Senators Would Be Very Effective (4.92 / 14) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:54:45 PM EST
    My Republican Senator Kit Bond who's just giggling he's so happy with what he got to quote Feingold. Or how about my NEW Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill who has supported and voted for Bush's position on each and every FISA bill that has come to the floor.

    McCaskill is a prime example of the NEW Democratic Party member who values her shiny bipartisan creds more than the wishes of the voters who contributed and worked to get her Senate seat. She got the votes because she had a D after her name and I'm sure that she thinks by the time she is up for reelection people will still consider her the lesser of two evils and continue to vote the D no matter what she does.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm looking forward to see (4.66 / 3) (#51)
    by Rhouse on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST
    how Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Bob Casey (D-PA) are going to vote on this, since Specter has been making noises that he doesn't like the immunity clause.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:25:20 PM EST
    My guess is that Casey will watch for Specter's vote, and then vote with him.

    [ Parent ]
    Specter? (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:35:32 PM EST
    Specter is one of those that loves all the bluster and then always backs down. Every time he starts to knock heads with the White House I think, wow Specter is going to take a stand this time, and then he goes limp like a 90 year old that lost his viagra.

    He loves to make the headlines with his principled stands, but when push comes to shove he goes home to take a nap. He's always threatening to huff and puff and blow the house down but mostly he just blows bubbles.

    I believe I have set a TL record for useless metaphors.

    [ Parent ]

    No, no (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:41:44 PM EST
    I thought they were excellent metaphors!  Especially the last one, the mental image of which gave me the giggles.

    [ Parent ]
    Specter is willing to vote... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Alec82 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:13:46 AM EST
    ...for legislation that he believes (and announces publicly) is unconstitutional, openly stating that he hopes a court will strike it down.

     So much for that oath he took...

    [ Parent ]

    Well then look up some other state's zip codes (none / 0) (#46)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:58:42 PM EST
    and make up a fake address to use when you call Senators who would possibly take a stand against this.  

    When the people lead...

    [ Parent ]

    I'll take McCaskill (none / 0) (#98)
    by stxabuela on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 07:53:30 AM EST
    If you'll take John Cornyn . . . please.  

    [ Parent ]
    Did that. Doing that. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Jake Left on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:35:23 PM EST
    Called fifteen senators. Emailed every Democrat and, just for the futile heck of it, wrote to the two ditto head senators from my state. Still have the right to complain here if I want.

    [ Parent ]
    "just as wrong" (1.25 / 4) (#25)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:13:51 PM EST
    You wrote "just as wrong." Care to reconsider that language? Will you also vigorously defend all the telecom lobbyists on McCain's campaign staff?  

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not defending McCain in any way, (5.00 / 13) (#32)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:29:46 PM EST
    shape or form, and am certainly not defending any telecom lobbyists.  Defending McCain is not automatically the flip side of criticizing Obama - a concept that really should not be all that hard for you to grasp.

    If Obama and McCain vote the same - assuming either one actually shows up to vote - and they both vote for the compromise bill - that makes them both wrong.  Period.  It doesn't elevate one over the other.  Obama gets no break just because he has a "D" after his name.  Every other Senator who votes for the bill will also be wrong - as will every Republican.

    Wrong is wrong.  Is that simple enough for you?


    [ Parent ]

    So... (4.75 / 4) (#31)
    by santarita on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    assuming that Sen. Obama has no telecom lobbyists on his campaign staff, and assuming that Sen. Obama caves in on retroactive immunity, what will his excuse be?

    [ Parent ]
    Two wrongs don't make a right (4.50 / 2) (#29)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:26:06 PM EST
    What aspect of this well-known proverb don't you understand?

    [ Parent ]
    Also, Anne, you may ... (1.20 / 5) (#26)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:23:33 PM EST
    ... want to consider whether you are prejudging the situation in haste. Do you know what Barack Obama is thinking on the issue of FISA? Do you have complete access to his battle plans? Do you even know for sure how he'll vote? A lot of people have thought they knew what Barack Obama was all about, but they were wrong.

    Along the same lines, do we know what Obama gained from the temporary setback? Of course not. This is one hand in a long poker game, and our side (or at least my side -- the Democratic side) still has most of the chips.

    Now, before I'm accused of chattering, it's off to watch Seinfeld. G'night! ;)


    [ Parent ]

    Obama's battle plans?! (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:25:51 PM EST
    And you accused ME of making a snarky comment elsewhere. Well done, sir, well done!

    [ Parent ]
    WHOAAAA... (5.00 / 15) (#42)
    by fly on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    It seems to me so many excuses are being made for Obama over FISA..Those are my constitutional rights you are making excuses for..

    Let me play mom here..when my teenager wanted to do what his friends were doing ..and i said no..no meant no...My son could tell me till pigs fly over the moon..
    what his friend joey was doing and it did not change my rules..and what i believed was right or wrong for my child.

    I don't care what McCain is doing..i care about what the man who is the "presumptive nominee of my party is doing, period.

    IT'S CALLED RESPONSIBILITY..OBAMA HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT CONSTITUTION OF MINE..

    STOP PASSING THE BUCK FOR HIM.. this is giving law breakers a pass after they broke the law..no different than a robber asking for immunity after they robbed the bank..and giving them a free pass...no different that a murderer getting a free pass after committing the murder..it's call rule of law..and one of the foundations of this nation and our constitution.

    There is no excuse..we do not give a free pass to criminal behavior..we hold criminals accountable, as appropriate to the law of this land.

    If we no longer hold those principles to the highest regard, then we have chaos..and just tell me what then makes this country any different than a dictatorship that has run amok of the law???????

    fly

    [ Parent ]

    on this we can agree (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:56:40 AM EST
    Tortmaster: A lot of people have thought they knew what Barack Obama was all about, but they were wrong.


    [ Parent ]
    another Obamabot mimicing Bushies (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:47:49 AM EST
    >>>>Do you know what Barack Obama is thinking on the issue of FISA? Do you have complete access to his battle plans?

    Like Bush, Obama has a Grand Plan that we lowly citizens just can't see with our teeny weeny insight.
    That's why Obama has to keep his positions and votes a secret.
    lol


    [ Parent ]

    Time to ban Tortmaster (2.33 / 3) (#86)
    by shoephone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:10:48 AM EST
    He's nothing but a stoopid troll.

    [ Parent ]
    and one that doesn't understand (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by fly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:01:23 AM EST
    Obama has bundlers who have been kept in the shadows..who may or my not be with the telecoms..who knows ..as they are kept secret!

    As J. Turley said, many many dems in office knew about this program from the get go, and were complicit in the knowledge that this WAS BEING DONE ILLEGALLY..I take that to mean many who are voting affrimative on this were complicit..and i will forever hold them accountable for stealing my constitutional rights and defecating on my rights.
    And i will put all my money and work to my last days seeing them removed from office.

    They all swore an oath to defend my constitution.

    They have become the enemy "within" when they do otherwise..no matter what letter is behind their name.

    I take very seriously those words.."WE THE PEOPLE"
    and i will work diligently to see that those who sign that FISA immunity, get removed from office.

    After all, I am American , before any party.

    fly

    [ Parent ]

    FYI (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by tek on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:08:49 AM EST
    Obama supporters constantly saying that we have to vote for Obama because McCain is scary can just save their breath.  We KNOW what McCain is.  The more scary thing is not knowing what, exactly, Obama is.  Or, seeing that Obama does not keep his word, just as Bush didn't, is pretty unsettling.

    [ Parent ]
    you could not be more right Tek.. (1.00 / 0) (#118)
    by fly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:51:00 AM EST
    Thank you.

    It's the devil you know vs. the devil you don't have any clue about because he hid all his papers!!

    fly

    [ Parent ]

    Rick Davis, for example, ... (1.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:04:24 PM EST
    ... co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. Yeah, if you really care about FISA reform, vote McCain! /snark

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html

    [ Parent ]

    Dumb (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:57:26 PM EST
    it's not really the lobbyists who are the problem. It is the politicians who take their money and let them write policy.

    Lobbying is American. It's part of free speech if you think about it. We ALL have the right to try to influence our representatives. Hell most people here have donated through MoveOn or some other organization that advocates. And advocating is no different than lobbying because what lobbyists do is advocate and donate money to Reps which is exactly what many Liberal organizations do.

    That is what cracks me up about Obama's lobbying game. He has no influence on what people do in congress or who they can talk to. And what? Obama is not going to meet with Telecom Execs and Energy Execs as President? What a load of bull he pull on you people. And you eat it up. Dumb.

    [ Parent ]

    Pretty Lazy Tort (none / 0) (#130)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    You down rate my response to your post but yet you have no rebuttal, nothing to say with why you disagree with what I said. That is weak man. I guess you don't really disagree with a thing I said but a button on your screen is so easy to use for sour grapes huh?

    [ Parent ]
    tortmaster..what part of democratic complicity of (none / 0) (#162)
    by fly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    illegal wire tapping do you not understand?????

    Jonathan Turley was on Countdown and said that some top democrats were complicit in the law breaking..and wire tapping of Americans illegally..
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25274098#25274098

    My take is, anyone who gives these criminals a pass is a traitor to our constitution  and to this nation..i don't care what letter they have behind their name.

    Everyone in office takes an oath to that constitution..each and every dem or republican that signs the deal on this FISA immunity has betrayed their oath to the people of this nation and to the constitution of this nation..in my book they are traitors!

    THIS GUY HAS BETRAYED EVERYONE OF HIS SUPPORTERS.

    Not just with FISA but with NAFTA, and with Campaign finance, stealing the votes of two states...where does it stop??????

    I will keep asking this until one of you obamatrollposters  answers me..

    Today it was my vote stolen, and my rights, what rights are you willing to give up.and do you really give a darn anyway..i think not..you care more about one candidate than this nation, and her democracy.

    fly

    fly

    [ Parent ]

    He Won't Vote No (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 09:58:14 PM EST
    Maybe inside he'd really like to if you believe his past rhetoric on the subject (IF). But if he voted no then the Repubs would tear him a new one on National Security and he might lose the WH. Can't have that happen just for principles and the Constitution.

    Politico says the vote may come as early as Wednesday with a 'Show' vote that won't pass to strip immunity so Obama can vote No on it. Pure theater.

    [ Parent ]

    And a general election ... (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:25:51 PM EST
    ... candidate moving to the center surprises you, why?

    [ Parent ]
    It doesn't surprise me in the least. (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:26:27 PM EST
    I expect him to throw SS under the bus before Nov.

    [ Parent ]
    Have Demcratic voters have now come to the place (5.00 / 15) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:36:57 PM EST
    where helping Bush cover up his illegal acts and dismantling the Constitution is benignly described as moving to the center? Is there anything that you personally believe is a core principle of this country that should never be negotiated away?


    [ Parent ]
    which core principles will he stand on? (5.00 / 9) (#38)
    by noholib on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:50:39 PM EST
    I really wish I could ask him directly --what core principles will you stand on Senator Obama?  Which ones will you hold fast to and not reach across the table to seek common ground with Republicans? -- and I wish I could get a direct answer.

    [ Parent ]
    when Obama admitted his very different (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by thereyougo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:24:41 AM EST
    stance in the primaries on NAFTA vs. after his turnaround when he got the  presumptive nom, and ADMITTED it was politics, you have to think HE WILL SAY ANYTHING to get the presidency.  You can't trust him to stand for what he says, explaining it away at anytime like he seems to do makes it OK,because  he was big enough to admit it!?

    WTF is wrong with this picture? It makes Obama and McCain indistinguishable. ~People will say same old same old.

    Some of us saw it, some are beginning to see it, which is good. The SuperDelegates CAN STILL change their minds.  I suggest we WRITE THEM if they feel this is a very important issue to them as it is for Americans.  

    the litmust test for lots of people will be this vote. If Obama tanks, he and he alone is responsible. I know some people are already viewing him with suspicion as a result. The moondust  is starting to fall off.

    [ Parent ]

    Roe v. Wade (none / 0) (#119)
    by Tortmaster on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:57:43 AM EST
    Getting out safely from Iraq. Fighting terrorists where the terrorists are. Funding education. Curtailing lobbyist influence in Washington. Getting universal health insurance. And on and on.

    John McCain stands for: The Iran War.

    [ Parent ]

    ahhh please.. take that roe v wade off the table.. (none / 0) (#132)
    by fly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM EST
    that little gem does not scare us..and that game is older than you are!!..a tired old game indeed..

    and anyway..we fought for those rights as well..and those core principles..only to have them used as leverage by the capitulating dem party against us..won't work anymore..
    ( besides..i can't get PG any longer..the hot flashes attest to that) now that is your problem..my problems are bigger..saving the constitution for my grandchildren to come ..and future generations to come..as our forefathers did so well and these incompetent boobs now are trying to destroy to cover their own sorry butts!

    If you are worried about Roe V Wade..you best stop supporting Obama ..it seems he doesn't give a rats crap about the constitution...or the rights of the people...he proves it daily!

    fly

    [ Parent ]

    Some of your talking points (none / 0) (#139)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    escape me. Getting out of Iraq safely has morphed to "conditions on the ground and what the military advises". Seems like I've heard that song for 6 years now. I'm also not convinced that expanding school vouchers will improve the quality of education in this country. That panders to the evangelican's that don't want their children exposed to the radical teachings in our society! And acording to one of his spokesperson's, Kerry. UHC is off the table. (The Republican's will never allow it to go through). If the party has already given up these importany issues, what's left?

    [ Parent ]
    ahhh i think your valid questions are (none / 0) (#161)
    by fly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    over his pay scale!!

    Don't wait up tonight for an answer..lol..they have the crap to post but none of the replies that fit the questions!!

    These people are clueless...i only hope when they graduate college and get a real job ..they wake up..to facts..real facts..or they are in for a sorry ride through life!

    Thanks for the dose of reality MMC..
    fly

    [ Parent ]

    Ahem. Well I certainly haven't (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    which is why I'm having a hard time with some members of the Democratic party these days...

    Destroying the Constitution shouldn't be a value for either party!  

    [ Parent ]

    Center?? (5.00 / 10) (#47)
    by talex on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:59:58 PM EST
    Center you say? Where in the hell did you get that? Obama is moving center right - and a hard center right at that.

    You didn'd see him on Fox News Sunday a few months ago didn't you. That was no lefty talking.

    [ Parent ]

    moving to the center? is that what you call (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:25:15 AM EST
    it? hmm, i can think of some other terms but won't use them out of respect for jeralyn. but don't think that we fall for any "move to the center". sir, the center is full of many indpendents who dispise those who take our liberties. i am in the center and don't appreciate your reference.

    [ Parent ]
    If you (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by tek on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 08:10:13 AM EST
    like a centrist candidate, then why all the hullabaloo about the Clintons being centrist?  Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    moving to the center? You are kidding right??????? (2.00 / 0) (#121)
    by fly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:08:20 AM EST
    No this is not moving to the center dear,not at all!! Have you read any history books????????
    People have died for those constitutional rights..did you know that?????? rolls eyes here..For hundreds of years..in fact.

    But i am sure you and Obama don't know what that sacrifice is about do you??????? Heck Obama doesn't even hold hearings about Afganistan and those that are sacrificing right now..today ..yoo hooo...

    Do you have one of those shiny Ipods Obama gives out???? hmmm...i bet you do.

    Look here sonny...we the people know when our rights are being stolen..we get it..we don't compromise our principles, like the ipod kids do..we believe in them , many fought for them and many wore the uniform to protect those rights, maybe you and Obama need to find out what sacrifice is all about, before you tell us all about YOUR IDEA  of those rights ...and that it is merely moving to the center..do you even get it that the center doesn't want their rights stolen either??????/ Do you even try to undestand this???????
    How easily you can compromise these rights..it is rather pathetic, and it is problematic when  some have never sacrificed a damn thing ..and think they have all the answers!

    ..for me there is no compromise..my principles are not for sale.

    I sit here typing with a picture of my grandfather in front of me..with his uniform on..a Navy Uniform..and on his cap is U.S.S. ARIZONA.. he was so young..he had been an Orphan..so he joined the Navy at age 16..

    This was in WWI..he left his eye on that ship as a gunner...and i remember his glass eye as a child.

    My son, as a college student got to raise a Flag on the memorial for his great grandfather, at Pearl Harbor.

    My grandfather and my father and my father in law and mother in law and my husband did not wear the unform of this nation to see someone , with so little experience, steal constitutional rights away from Americans to cover law breakers asses.

    fly

    [ Parent ]

    Brutal and refreshing honesty (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by aquarian on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:00:40 PM EST
    in a stinking sea of of pols being pols.

    Wait? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:30:36 PM EST
    Feingold isn't a Pol?

    [ Parent ]
    somteimes they shed the sludge (none / 0) (#94)
    by aquarian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 06:52:23 AM EST
    and for a brief time turn into a rainbow fish.

    [ Parent ]
    Criminal Wiretapping Is NOT OK (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 10:11:29 PM EST
    Now is the time to get the Impeachment people hammering our Dem senators.  Or just get a bunch of Democrats doing some Action on this.

    Here's a link to start with, and feel free to forward it to friends and relatives.

    Submit this action form to your members of congress & your local paper.

    http://www.usalone.com/no_following_orders.php

    Obama should be straight up leading on this (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 11:39:20 PM EST
    It's time we stopped this farce of newly having to beg, with each impending foregone capitulation, Senators to honor minimally their first duty to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    Think about that. Why do we urgently need to do this every d@mn time?

    When Feingold held up his blackberry and listed who could illicitly be monitored, he also explicitly laid out the blowback that will come of this latest grotesque gift to a corrupt administration and its corporate cronies.

    It turns honest law-abiding people into liars and crooks as the default, for the purpose of bestowing the cover of virtue on those who knowingly lied and behaved criminally.

    It deprives people engaging in daily personal and business activities of the means of knowing whether merely doing so turns us into "terrorists" and criminals.

    It reduces our ability to conduct business with integrity to flying in the dark, and obliterates any meaningful ability to contest the negative repercussions and recover damages.

    I know for a fact that this shatters the foundations of many contracts I've signed during the Bush era regarding conscientious handling of unique creative properties (my own and others') and rendering vulnerable my material assets, such as they are, long into the future.

    It turns group efforts into potentially criminal enterprises open to yet further unprovoked monitoring, with no firewalls to prevent government agencies or corporations from sharing  ill-gotten private information amongst themselves.

    On the political side, I don't have to be wearing tinfoil to assume that this power has already been (ab)used and will be applied against Dems in the GE.

    Seriously, does anyone think Bush et al capable of restraining themselves from partisan abuse of these powers that Feingold asked current presidential candidates to promise in his or her inaugural address?