Naming Names

As an unusually long editorial in The New York Times expresses,

it was distressing — and depressing — to watch Congress wrench Americans’ civil liberties back to where they were in the days before Watergate, when the United States government listened to our phone calls whenever it wanted.

From Republicans (all of whom voted for the FISA bill except McCain who was too busy trying to be noticed to show up at the one place he might have been noticed today) this is what we expect:

Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there was nothing to fear in the bill “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”

From Democrats we expect more. For Senators Baucus, Bayh, Carper, Casey, Conrad, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, both Nelsons, Obama, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Webb, and Whitehouse, and for the United States Constitution, this is a dark day indeed.

< Late Night: Choosing and Losing (FISA Edition) | A Better Approach to Driving While Suspended >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    More? (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by DoggieDaddy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:56:47 PM EST
    Not from this party.
    No more, not gonna happen.

    I wish I could express how disappointed I
    am in both my government and its leaders,
    but I can't, so I'll let my vote do the talking.

    No more, not again.
    Time to clean house.
    Vote ALL of them out of office.

    It's times like this that I wish (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:28:22 PM EST
    they were all up for re-election at the same time. Then we really could throw them all out.

    Would appear that Thomas Jefferson (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:39:32 PM EST
    was right that a revolution should happen every 20 years or so, just to keep the people in charge.

    (Reposted from another thread) Unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by wmr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    the best we can do is find and support primary challengers.  For better or worse, that's our system.

    But look at what happened to Ned Lamont.  The greatest number of people will say either "No unknown will beat the Republican" or "Look at all the seniority OurGuy has; you want to give that up?"

    And don't give me any 'come the revolution' crap.  Any revolution in this country will go against us, because the corporate media will make sure that the revolution will be televised.

    Updated: This is not intended as a counsel of despair, just my assessment of the difficulties of the current situation.


    There's a reason that in modern (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:49:28 PM EST
    revolutions the rebels first attack the TV station, and take it over, then they proceed from there.

    How about a leveraged buyout? (none / 0) (#22)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:59:17 PM EST
    I thought there had already been (none / 0) (#27)
    by RalphB on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:26:58 AM EST
    a buyout.  That's what we would revolt against  :-)

    THE station? As in ONE? (none / 0) (#43)
    by wmr on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    And how will that work out in our case?  You think the rebels can simultaneously take over all the networks, cable, Dish TV, satellite radio, etc?

    Definitely think it is time for a new 3rd Party (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:06:42 PM EST
    simply named "The Throw The Bums Out" Party. The initials don't spell anything catchy but I think the name gets the message across.

    I've thought for years that a party that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MarkL on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:09:52 PM EST
    was conservative, in the old-fashioned sense, would be favored by large numbers of voters. Now, that is not my preference, but I'd rather have an honest to goodness conservative than a Republican.

    Right but it doesn't have (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:43:47 PM EST
    to be conservative, it could be old-fashioned liberal as well.  In my youth in Texas, the democrats were socially liberal and fiscally conservative more than anything else.  I guess that would be old-fashioned conservative in other parts of the country.  :-)

    I think any party that was genuinely concerned about the little guy, and showed a bit of common sense, could clean up with voters.


    Populism (none / 0) (#29)
    by phat on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:46:39 AM EST
    That's pretty much it.

    Pepper in some old-school progressivism (not the new-fangled version) and you win votes, I suspect.

    Of course you need to avoid the Lou Dobbs version of populism in the process, which is not easy, not because of the losing of votes but because it's just wrong.

    This is what a lot of people seem to think is Libertarian nowadays.


    If there were a Hall of Shame, those (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:03:31 PM EST
    who voted for this bill would be first-ballot inductees.

    Worse than the vote, I think, was the rationale offered in the debate; I just can't imagine wanting some of what was said today to be memorialized in the Congressional Record, for all time.

    I'm still struggling to understand how this happened, and wondering how on earth it will ever be set right.  When did we become so afraid and so easily manipulated that these people actually think that it is better to pass a bad bill than no bill at all?  Did the Dems not ponder the meaning of Bush being happy about this bill?  When Bush is happy about a bill, even my dogs know it's not a good thing.

    And in the midst of it all, there was Obama, grinning at Jay Rockefeller's reference to the next president fixing everything.  Grinning.  In the middle of selling out the Fourth Amendment, Obama can grin because he just so wants to be president, and that is just ever so exciting...wheeee!...really now, that's about as puerile and inappropriate as it gets, isn't it?

    Disgust does not begin to cover it.

    Of the Democratic senators who voted yes (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:10:36 PM EST
    there is not one that surprised me in the least -- except for Sheldon Whitehouse and, truth be told, he's been telegraphing his support for this travesty for weeks now.

    The rest of them? Par for the f&cking course.

    It's really a very interesting feeling I have at not being affiliated with any political party for the first time in 30 years.

    Whitehouse (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Platypus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:27:37 PM EST
    He was very good during the U.S. Attorneys hearings and has a good voting record on the whole... but he has been terrible on FISA. Re: telegraphing his support: already in February, he had voted for an earlier version of the bill that had immunity. He did vote for the Dodd amendment ala Obama today, but who gives a damn.

    Somehow missed the signals (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:15:40 PM EST
    so Whitehouse's vote came as a surprise to me. As you correctly stated, the rest voted for Bush as usual on this issue.

    Still haven't processed how I feel about not being affiliated with any political party after all these years.

    A Hall of Shame needs to be established in D.C, for all the Representatives and Senators that voted in favor of this atrocity.


    A Hall of Shame could be put (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:43:19 PM EST
    on the internet with the content also on FaceBook, MySpace and other popular sites. Same content, but just multiple locations. Get some press for it and have weekly or monthly Hall of Shame postings. Then the Shamers start to get ratings depending on how many times they land there. You could actually make quite a useful site out of it . . . Kinda like some of the corporate accountability sites. Pehaps ahve suggestion space for primary challengers etc, lol!~ Of course an auto email would be sent to the Shamers each round.

    Honestly, (none / 0) (#25)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:17:51 AM EST
    this is an excellent idea.

    Why do half of them ALWAYS hang with the GOP? (4.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:42:10 PM EST
    It's not just the handful of Blue Dogs (and Whiny Joe Lieberman), either. On major issues and core Dem principles half the chickensh!t Dems predictable shamble across the aisle to vote with lockstepping Repugs.

    Oh, but the super genius "cunning" part is the CYA of spreading the d0uche so while it's always (needlessly) approx. half the Dems, it's never the same ones so they can individually pimp their respective "heroism" back to the suckahs back home.

    I couldn't find the classic Sinatra/Brando vid I wanted (The oldest established permanent floating crap game in New York from Guys & Dolls) but this alternate, also from G&D (revival) is an equally fitting musical tribute to our fighting Dems!

    Sit Down You're Rocking the Boat!


    Oh, man (none / 0) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:49:41 AM EST
    I went looking for the original and gave up after the 500 millionth citation with Frank Sinatra.

    If you like the music, please look up the original cast album with Robert Alda.  I like Sinatra and I like Brando, but the movie frankly sucks by comparison (except for Stubby Kaye!)


    OT but a moment to honor Stubby Kaye, please? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:12:54 AM EST
    Here's Stubby Kaye doing Rockin' the Boat. What a beautiful singer.

    Yeah, what a flat movie the Sinatra/Brando G&D was. The show's so lively but in the movie, everyone seems wooden and weirdly uncomfortable. I like most of the singing, though. (Brando's so hot but his singing, so NOT.)

    I'll definitely check out the soundtrack with "The Other" Alda! I'm sure we have it deep in the bowels of the archives at my salt mine.


    I changed my party affiliation after 40 yrs. made (none / 0) (#39)
    by suzieg on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:01:36 AM EST
    a photocopy included it with my democratic party membership card and basically told them to go to hell - I'm now an independent and I've never felt so liberated!

    It IS liberating (none / 0) (#41)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:28:47 AM EST
    I don't have to settle anymore.  Nope, not a bit.  I no longer feel at all compelled to support someone just because they have a (D) next to their name.  No longer have to say "ok, well, I can choke down this travesty over here because this guy voted slightly better than Satan over there."

    Campbell Brown read a sampling (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by zfran on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:28:04 PM EST
    of reaction to Obama's FISA vote on his website and the general consensus was that this was the first time "we the people" got to see Obama's allegence to the constitution and he failed! They are very disappointed.

    They should be disappointed (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:43:00 PM EST
    as should the rest of us, whether we were a supporter of not.  Like it or not, he's gonna be the nominee and we deserve better.

    Obama failed (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by sassysenora on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:08:56 PM EST
    But this was hardly the first time. Haven't they been listening to what he said about Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolten? How about his new position on the DC gun ban or his support of the death penalty for people who rape children? Those were all Constitutional issues. And Obama has sided with the conservatives on all of them. And that was just in the last two weeks.

    The netroots... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:45:27 AM EST
    This is a big story for the media because the netroots has been so in the bag for Obama from the start (of course so has the media but that's never stopped their rank hypocrisy).

    And the netroots cares passionately about a few things and little else.  FISA is one, net neutrality is another.  Maybe there's more -- oh yeah, intellectual property law, that is, copyright.  All important issues but not the only issues.

    I think one of the biggest mistakes made during this campaign was believing the netroots were progressives.  (or liberals or whatever we're supposed to call ourselves that's cool this week).  They're not.  They have a few issues they will jihad over, are all issues very closely entwined with their own interests, and that's it.  They just claim the mantle of progressivism, but it's just cover.  If it doesn't affect them, or they don't have some sort of intense intellectual fascination for them, forget it.

    Look at how little pushback Obama's gotten on his myriad alarming statements on abortion from the netroots.  There's hardly even an effort to rationalize it -- they just don't care, unless they're using it to scare people into voting for Obama via SCOTUS.  And the rank sexism and misogyny that blazed across the community like a flaming steamroller?  Gender equality is not a value to be held and fought for, it's just a rhetorical tool trotted out when purpose suits.

    That's not progressivism, and its not even issue activism, it's issue obsession.  And it has hurt us all.


    o/t how do i rate a comment? (none / 0) (#45)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:46:21 PM EST
    i've made sure that it says "yes" after rate at the top of the page. when i click on the comment's rating nothing happens. i thought i'd rated many comments, including this one, but i haven't. i've tried clicking on the rating, on the person's name, and just about everywhere else i can think of.



    Sassy -- (none / 0) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM EST
    Once you click one of the rating radio buttons, you click the 'Rate All' button.  That will enter all the ratings you've done on a particular page/thread.  (I was a bit confused by this at first too, and thought I was rating folks for about a week before kind people explained).

    When you click 'Rate All' it refreshes the page.  So I usually do any ratings for the whole thread first, or I lose which comments are new to me and which not.


    thanks (none / 0) (#48)
    by sassysenora on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 10:30:59 PM EST
    i also found out that i have to use IE. for some reason, i don't even get the box with the numbers in it if i'm using firefox. i probably have pop-ups blocked in firefox or something.

    Campbell Brown (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by anydemwilldo on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:16:35 AM EST
    Might have thought to cover this issue before the vote when the issue actually meant something.  Brown is a republican tool, she ran the story because it shows Obama as weak and the democrats as divided.  She cares nothing for FISA or the fourth amendment.

    As I said earlier, just because Bob Casey has (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Rhouse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:16:37 AM EST
    a "D" next to his party reg., don't think of him as a "liberal and/or progressive".  He was used by the PA democrats to get Rich Santorum out of the Senate and replaced with something slightly more moderate, nothing more/nothing less.  

    why break something, (4.50 / 2) (#40)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 06:48:30 AM EST
    so it can be "fixed" later? this "logic" has always escaped me. as jeralyn has noted, there was nothing wrong with FISA to begin with (aside from the fact that pres. bush was ignoring it), so the only real reason for a new bill was to give the telecoms immunity for prior bad acts.

    if that's the only reason to vote for obama, i'll pass.

    BOTH of my senators voted (4.00 / 1) (#32)
    by splashy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:23:52 AM EST
    For this. I am appalled!

    They act so much like DINOs.

    Did you let them know (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:03:45 AM EST
    how you feel? Give them H!ll if you haven't,
    they need to know.

    Yes n/t (none / 0) (#46)
    by splashy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    What a Real Dem talks like and walks the walk like (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ellie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:23:39 PM EST
    Russ Feingold talks to Rachel Maddow.

    He's got the cheese, baby.
    His cheddah's beddah.

    via Crooks & Liars,
    Countdown: Russ Feingold Talks About FISA, A Sad Moment For Our Country
    July 09, 2008

    He made a strong case for not voting for (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by hairspray on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:41:25 AM EST
    it, but then turned around after telling us the sky is falling, that Obama might fix it later sometime in the future.  We just need Obama at the helm and all will be well.  WTF is that?  Wasn't he watching Obama vote for it?  Or was it all a show to win the election? A lot of wink wink, nod, nod?

    I don't fault Feingold for not tearing into Dems (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:50:49 AM EST
    They sorely deserve the thrashing, and they didn't even pretend to get his back though he's taking one for the team here by giving Obama and the Obama Party the @ss pat.

    Respect due, though. Feingold has more courage than the predictable two dozen or so Dems that ALWAYS, behind the curtain, enable the lockstep Repugs.

    He'd have my vote -- cash, boots, skills, support -- for Prez or VP in a heartbeat.


    Yes, good... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:43:46 AM EST
    I can't help wondering though what kind of pressures caused him to do that. Was it just loyalty like with Hillary? I'm thinking that it was just party loyalty, but it was still painful to watch none the less.

    Quit it, I'm on the verge of wistful tears ... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ellie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:59:14 AM EST
    ... imagining a Hillary Clinton / Russ Feingold ticket.

    I'm going to bump up against the edges of this lovely moment in the hopes that a shred of possibility of willing it to occur might bloom into a chance that it might occur -- and then who knows ... ?

    A girl can dream. (And will!)


    Yes, yes... (4.66 / 3) (#31)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:09:00 AM EST
    this very odd double speak coming from Feingold of all people. He was not good at it. I think he has been standing too close to Obama recently. Good people need to usher him away from that kind of influence.

    I have only one complaint (4.50 / 4) (#26)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:25:37 AM EST
    with this interview and that is that at the end, Feingold begins trying to put lipstick on this squealing pig... trying to turn it into a campaign speech for Obama. That was nonsense. It did not work. Obama's vote was WRONG. Nothing can change that. I like Feingold very much, but his defense of Obama was as awkward and uncomfortable to listen to as it obviously was for Feingold to give.

    Hillary Votes No (none / 0) (#37)
    by john horse on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 05:48:57 AM EST
    Good for Hillary.  She voted against FISA.    

    Thanks for naming names! (none / 0) (#44)
    by blueaura on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    Someone has got to do it.