67 senators voted NO on removing the immunity clause

[slipslidingaway]

back in February and that was when the fight to defeat this should have begun.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015

Obama did not speak on the floor that day, although he was there to vote on all the amendments. If he had made it an issue the media might have covered his speech that night and Senator Clinton could have done the same thing.

And as I've said over the past few days, and to a lesser degree back in February, if our party really wanted to defeat this bill, or strip the immunity clause, they could have rallied support from the American people in their travels across the country and interviews in the media.

To come in at the 11th hour and say 'I'll try' knowing full well 67 senators voted against removing the immunity clause in February is a little late.

:shrug:


Here is a list of all the speakers that day, you can see the video and read the remarks by clicking on any name.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/69850&date=2008-2-12&hors=s


Also we should not just focus on the immunity clause and ignore the rest of the bill.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

"...Most Americans don't realize that the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade..."

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

[gateley]

1. Not ONE Republican voted Yea -

However, about 19 Democrats voted Nay. :grr:

[slipslidingaway]

2. All too often that is how works out, so they can try another

amendment to strip out the immunity clause, but there were 67 senators who said no the first time and 68 senators voted to approve the final bill.

So I have to agree that this is just to give the appearance that we tried, I would like to believe otherwise. If the Dem candidates had united to fight this and educate the public it could have been defeated, IF that is truly what they wanted to do.

:(

"...So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy..."

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

[sandnsea]

3. Well look who chose not to vote at all

And never spoke a peep about this for months. I quit watching cable news. Has this been on it at all? Or has it been all St Timmy and Mean Michelle. The people who were offended about the complaints about the Russert coverage can't turn around and be outraged that this isn't in the news.

[slipslidingaway]

4. S. 2248 [110th]: Related Votes

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?bill=s110-2248

The battle was waged back in January and February, if prior votes are any indication there is enough support to easily pass this legislation.

[slipslidingaway]

5. Morning kick n/t

[DevonRex]

6. Senator Clinton did not even vote that day, so she certainly would

not have made a speech. Senator Obama voted to remove the provision.

All in all, I kinda think that in February both senators were really, really busy. Do you want them to be in the senate full time or do you want them to campaign? I guess they could have cloned themselves so they could be everywhere at all times, fighting every fight, being all things to all people. Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, blah blah blah.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Repeat from the OP...

Obama did not speak on the floor that day, although he was there to vote on all the amendments. If he had made it an issue the media might have covered his speech that night and Senator Clinton could have done the same thing.

And as I've said over the past few days, and to a lesser degree back in February, if our party really wanted to defeat this bill, or strip the immunity clause, they could have rallied support from the American people in their travels across the country and interviews in the media.

To come in at the 11th hour and say 'I'll try' knowing full well 67 senators voted against removing the immunity clause in February is a little late.


And as they were campaigning against the Republicans it would have been easy to mention the illegal wiretapping under Bush and that the Republicans now wanted retroactive immunity for the companies that broke the law.

There is only one reason I can think of that this issue was not brought to the people and that is because too many in our own party wanted the bill with immunity to pass.

If you want to fight for an issue then use all the tools available, they did the same thing with impeachment, single-payer health care and the Iran war drums being played by this administration...they have not fought or pushed back on these issues.