My purpose was not just to find out their position on telecom immunity, but to find out where they stand on the overall FISA bill.  Basically, the staff couldn't rush fast enough to assure me that all of them oppose telecom immunity in the most strenuous terms, blah blah blah.  But only Sen. Menendez' office was willing to go so far as to say he would vote against the final bill if it still contained telecom immunity.

Only a few senators, by the way, know just what those companies did.

Nancy Pelosi and Jane Harman in the House, and Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid in the Senate, were the Democratic members of the Gang of Eight in 2001, through 2006, when Reyes replaced Harman.  Rockefeller claims to have been so opposed and concerned about what they were authorizing that he wrote a letter which he secured in some fashion to prove it.

"Leadership" in the technical sense failed because the leaders in question are protecting themselves from the consequences of going along with illegal activity - they could easily - easily - have kept these terrible pieces of legislation, including the Protect America Act that was passed in a big "the terrorists are coming" hurry last summer from even coming to the floor.  

So why didn't they use the power of their majority to stop it?  It's the immunity, stupid.  The thing that will not only shut off the trail that leads to Bush is also going to protect the Democrats who were also in it up to their eyeballs.  I know Reid has spoken out against immunity, but I think he has gotten his marching orders from Pelosi.

As for Obama, he's not, apparently looking at the constitutional ramifications of passing this dreadful bill, he's looking at the dynamics of the Congress and deciding he wants the current leadership there to be his friend and not his enemy because of the votes they will help deliver and - assuming he is elected - because he doesn't want to start his term as president with enemies in the leadership.

The anti-Clinton wing of the Democratic Party put the Obama campaign in the forefront & dragged his lame, caucus-based, limping effort over the finish line--exactly as oft-noted here @ Talk Left.

The other issue was ending the occupation of Iraq. While continuing to lobby for this goal, it became increasing apparent that the Democratic Party and subsequently its presidential nominee had no intention of actually ending the occupation. Draw down some troops to give the appearance that they were going to end the WAR. Sure. Actually end the occupation anytime in the near future. No.

But the question is now, as always, how do we as people get them to show some spine?

I submit that the only effective way of "holding their feet to the fire" is to withhold our votes, and see at least some of them defeated. If, indeed, they are motivated only by purported electoral consequences, how can they be made to acknowledge that they have made a mistake in backing down over FISA if Democrats support them as before at the polls even when they behave egregiously?

If you don't like what Obama is doing on FISA, isn't the right answer to refuse to vote for him, in the hope that, finally, Obama and the Democrats start to realize that there is a downside electorally to their cowardice?

Lautenberg's office could not tell me definitively, but said he has been strongly against this in the past.

I begged them to have their senators speak with Obama and try to change his mind, to give him a spine transplant.

Clinton: 202 224-4451, and 212 688-6262

Menendez: 202 224-4744 and 973 645-3030

Lautenberg: 202 224-3224 and 973 639-8700

Here, speaking only of Obama only, is he:

1. Afraid that he will appear soft for not supporting a bill that is ostensibly anti-terrorism?

2. Simply interested in keeping the telecommunications companies happy because they have so much power and money to donate?

3. Actually supportive of the idea that there needs to be increase domestic surveillance?

Been reading these comments and they are interesting. haven't  commented here for awhile, but read at times.

Punchy and Flyerhawk:  LBJ worked-arm twisted congressmen to get his legislation through. That's how it works-not literally, figuratively.  He cut deals with them, traded votes, and knew what the vulnerabilities of each (knew the skeltons in the closet)--that is how it is done!