FISA: Giving Bush What He Wants

That is what a Democratic Congress, with the support of the Democratic nominee for President, will do today:

Efforts to confront President Bush over electronic surveillance laws likely will end abruptly in the Senate, with the White House the clear winner and Democrats dropping the fight until a new administration takes office. . . . Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., said the bill ended up being essentially what Bush wanted. “There really is not much that is significantly different, save some cosmetic fixes that were requested by the majority party in the House,” said Bond, who strongly supports the bill.

(Emphasis supplied.) Way to go Dem Congress! You have truly earned your 9% approval rating.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< My View: I Do Not Believe Obama On The FISA Capitulation Bill | Lessig Rips Obama Campaign On FISA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's possible Dems will lose (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:46:00 AM EST
    seasts in Congress in November - with this horrible record.  Really pathetic.  And they seem to expect that we'll just keep putting them back in their seats and roll merrily on our way.

    It's not going to happen.  Sooner (hopefully November '08) or later American Voters will expect and demand more.

    So sad.

    Nah, it would take an epic collapse (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    Though they might lose some seats around the edges, there is a high probability of a net gain.

    You have a lot of audacity... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Shainzona on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    to hope that they don't lose seats!

    Nah, I just read polls (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    The Dems are going to pick up seats.

    9% seems altogether too high (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:46:52 AM EST
    There can't be that many people working in the executive branch!

    There are not (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    but there are more in the Cheney 4th branch.

    But what dose a 9 approval rating mean for our (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salt on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    country I'm not sure but I am greatly concerned that this pits the people who are the true power if they choose to act in their own interest, against our government who they obviously believe are acting against their will.  If I had a not approval rating of 91 percent I would be fired, regardless of any spin and should be, likewise Pelosi and Reid need to go they have failed US.

    I'm hoping my Senator Brown sticks with his NO....
    I've noticed he's not afraid to take a position and stick to it.


    I am sick (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:52:30 AM EST
    What part of "Please stop the abuses of the Bush administration" did these folks not get when they were given the majority in both houses?

    I'm starting to think we need to completely clean house. Primary the 'leadership'.

    On the 9%... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by northeast73 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    Everytime I see a Dem talking head on TV these days (I find them so utterly annoying this year, and their arguments fall on deaf ears (mine)), they always mention Bush's 23% approval.

    And they always seem to forget....Congress is worse than Bush.  Worse.  Worse because I dont EXPECT Bush to be good.  I did expect Congress to be, well, good enough.

    Not even close.

    Between this and the blatant Obama promotion whilst throwing HRC under the proverbial bus, I amd so done with the Dems right now.  So done.

    Ah, yes the wonderful Senators from MO (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    Both so eager to give away the rights of the citizens and both will be so, so proud of their accomplishments on this. It is a shame that the Senator with the "D" after her name shares the views of one of the worse Senators with a "R" after his name.

    My sweetie Claire better pray that Obama wins and gives her a place in his administration so that she does not have to run for reelection.

    9% (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    would be family and staff, right?

    Rewarding bad behavior (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Mike H on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:23:39 AM EST
    I don't understand why people argue that we MUST put more Democrats into power, when the ones that we DID put in power haven't done what we put them there to do in the first place!  

    They haven't even really TRIED, they've just put on political kabuki theater to make themselves feel better about not even trying, and to try to trick us with their "oh, but vote for us in 2008, THEN we'll get things done, really, no, we mean it this time!"

    I am utterly disgusted with the Democratic Party.

    Why are they trying to (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    stop Bill Nelson from speaking?!?!? I don't get that?

    Maria Cantwell is doing us proud. Also nice to see her willing to yield some of her own time for Senator Nelson.

    Go Cantwell!! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:44:36 AM EST
    That's my senator!  Now what say Murray?

    (my rep shamed me on the vote, so I'm happy to have one thing to be proud of)


    I love Cantwell... (none / 0) (#33)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:45:28 AM EST
    I am a Florida voter currently living in Victoria, BC. I adopted Cantwell as my Senator when I moved here.

    Because he is against immunity but he got to speak (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salt on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    and state his opposition anyone see Brown?

    I was very proud of (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    Nelson there. As well as Cantwell.

    Dreamers (4.00 / 1) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    The Dem's must feel that all they have to do is sit back and all the negatives will fall on the Republican's. They better hope no one has been paying attention to the last two years of their leadership.

    congressional approval ratings (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:00:45 AM EST
    what would happen if you created an aggregate value of congress based on the individual approval ratings of each member?

    That would be interesting (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    I used to have arguments with my Republican friend at work and tell him that the low approval of congress was because of the Republican obstructionism.

    I don't argue with him anymore since I am just as disgusted with the Dems as I am with the Reoublcians.


    well the more direct point us (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    johnny congressdude isnt gonna care about the approval rating of congress.

    But he will care about his approval rating in his own district.


    the two parties (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:14:34 AM EST
    have become like to spoiled siblings.  what they need is a NEW sibling.
    time for a real third party.

    My Democratic Rep probably has great approval (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    ratings. He votes each and every time against the atrocities of the Bush administration and is a strong member of the Out of Iraq caucus and votes accordingly. He is also among other things a cosponsor of single payer health care. You can take his votes to the bank. Unfortunately, he is on the losing side on all of these issues.

    My Democratic Senator OTOH not only votes in support of Bush on these issues, she is extremely proud of her bipartisan votes and crows about them whenever possible. Her approval ratings are not so good (47% A vs 46% D IIRC) the last I saw.  I hope for a strong and successful primary challenger when she is up for reelection.  Only that will save me from casting my first vote for a Republican.


    So help me here why can the Dems not stop this (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salt on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST
    vote aka dead on arrival???

    Can not or will not? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:06:08 PM EST
    I now believe that the Dems are complicit rather than capitulating on this and many of the issues I care about.

    Dem leadership can determine what bills reach the floor for a vote and normally know in advance whether the bill will pass or fail.  Also, normal procedural moves in the Senate have been modified to allow Republican agenda items to come up for a vote. Reid honors Republican "holds" on bills and IIRC did not honor Dodd's hold on the previous FISA bill.


    Is the FISA vote (none / 0) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    on C-Span?

    maybe on C-Span2 - the Senate (none / 0) (#13)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:10:05 AM EST
    Dodd speaking now (none / 0) (#18)
    by Josey on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:15:35 AM EST
    Choose C-Span2 streaming - Windows or Real Player -



    Good Lord... (none / 0) (#22)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST
    is anyone listening to Jay Rockefeller?!?!?

    Sadly, yes... (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    I wish he could see the inanity of what he's saying.  This baloney about doing things now and fixing things later is just crazy.  

    I would love to see Feingold bring in a pig, take it around to every Dem who supports this bill, hand each and every one a lipstick, and invite them to apply some to the pig.

    Except that would not be fair to the pig.


    Cantwell's up (none / 0) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:48:03 AM EST
    WA.  She spoke of the fact that the bill goes beyond foreign to foreign surveillance that passes throught the US and crosses in to an area of spying domestically.

    Nelson:  FL, oh the angst, how much they struggled, be reassured that I am aware that can't discuss this, worked with Feinstein (mine)... does not support blanket immunity.

    Bond: referencing capturing parents who communicate with child outside US...communication will not be kept (whew).  They are only capturing data of those who are reasonably found to be in the US (whew)  Can't brief entire congress because then they would have to brief the NYT, "where would it stop?"


    Bond (none / 0) (#37)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:50:37 AM EST
    is ridiculous.

    Can you good folks watching C-Span (none / 0) (#24)
    by NJDem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    please report for those of us stuck in our office?  And what time is the vote?  

    What's Rockefeller saying? (any more Dem presidents and previous nominees he wants to throw under the bus?)  Seriously, what's the skinny?  Thanks :)

    Rockefeller (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    has me stunned. He thinks it is a good thing that the new president will be able to review this bill with congress in FOUR YEARS time!

    He is embarrassing himself, IMHO. I cannot believe some of the stuff coming out of his mouth.


    You can try c-spanradio.org (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    to listen online.  I can't bear to listen, myself, but that usually has the most important thing going on in congress.

    Wow... (none / 0) (#29)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    Senator Casey cut Cantwell off. They are really trying to stifle debate here.

    My Senator (none / 0) (#32)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:44:41 AM EST
    At least my Senator from Florida is trying to get rid of immunity and speaking on it. he does not agree with the compromise on immunity. He spoke of how every time he has tried to propose getting rid of it or whatever it has been defeated miserably.

    Unbelievable! (none / 0) (#38)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:52:08 AM EST
    Rockefeller wants to vote on ALL the amendments at once!!!

    Dodd has got it just right it is up to the courts (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salt on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    3 branches...ok can't take the goof from MO so I'm signing off.

    Feingold/ Dodd Amendment (none / 0) (#40)
    by themomcat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    is being voted on now.

    Bond (none / 0) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:05:52 AM EST
    Want to kick the patriotic telecoms to get at the administration.  President followed advice of gang of 8.

    Casey: two minutes of debate.

    Dodd: CN; MO made my cse, for courts to decide, not legislature.  In 1978, 19,000 warrants granted, 5 rejected, now seek justification for seeking private info of am citizens, false dicotomy, false choice, previous generations gave power in error we should not make that mistake; some telecoms did not .. not legal, they had doubt for justification,  Judge Walker, secret privilege protected, senate is not jusdicial branch three separate branches, the rule of law or rule of men, urge adopt the amendment.

    Bond: 1. President's  terrorist surveillance went to fisa court to get warrants.  Was able to listen to terrorists believed to be abroad, Pres has that right, Clinton did, congress gave Clinton more power, no ban on lawsuits in front of Judge Walker, bi-partison telecoms acted on good faith, not right to punish pertriotic americans.

    Role on first amendment (Feingold/Dodd Amendment): needs 60 votes, previously failed 31-67. (Clinton didn't vote?)

    Some votes (don't hold me to these): Bayh, Rockefeller, kyle, coleman bennett mcconnell Craipo, Prior, gregg no; Leahy, Cantwell, Murray, Klobacher, Acaca Brown aye;  

    Still waiting for final tally....