Hoyer: FISA bill passed to keep the Blue Dogs from demanding a stronger bill. Absurdity.

[madfloridian]

Yes, Steny Hoyer said that right out loud. It amazes me how powerful this caucus of barking dogs who act like Republicans really is. It is more powerful than any of us in the party.

It is more powerful than any other caucus. It has more power than all of us activists calling and writing and begging and pleading.

All they have to do is threaten and they get their way.

Steny Hoyer's words to The Politico yesterday.

How Hoyer got the deal done

Hoyer said that if House Democratic leaders failed to reach a FISA deal with the White House and GOP leaders, as many as “30 Blue Dogs and another 20 to 30 members” could have signed onto a Republican discharge petition calling for a floor vote on the Senate version of the FISA bill, which was even more anathema to House Democrats than what eventually passed. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) confirmed that “there were a lot of Blue Dogs getting anxious” and “a lot” of them would have signed a discharge petition.

“You can take a position and be a purist and sort of sit around yelling at each across the divide and nothing gets done,” Hoyer said. “The American people, they want us to get this done. That’s the whole thing to me.”

Poor anxious Blue Dogs, can't have that. But we can have hundreds of thousands of activists realizing they just got screwed again...this time by their own party giving Bush more spying powers and lessening the role of the FISA Court. That's ok. Making us angry is ok.

That is real power. Steny's office went so far as to deny that he was working on the FISA fix. They were very secretive about it.

The rest of us are "purists." The Blue Dogs are not considered "purists." They are powerful in their demands. They have the leadership wrapped around their little fingers.

Pelosi voted in favor of the FISA bill, and she offered both public and private praise for Hoyer’s work on it. The two held one-on-one talks during the negotiations, with even their top staff cut out, and Hoyer was well aware of what Pelosi would want before she’d let the legislation get to the floor. The two embraced on the House floor after the vote, a visual display of détente between two leaders who have had their differences over the years.

“It’s a very difficult task many competing views as to how we should go forward,” Pelosi said on the House floor prior to Friday’s FISA vote. “Mr. Hoyer handled it all with great intellect and great respect for all of those views. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer.”

That is not true. They totally ignored the hundreds of thousands of voices who opposed it. They just simply ignored us.

Hoyer made it personal, he declared himself a hero for working so tirelessly to push this bill through.

Hoyer knew it was coming, and he persevered anyway. That he did so speaks volumes about who he is: a master of cloakroom politics who can use his friendships across the aisle to strike deals, even if others demand that his party hew closer to the positions that put it in power in 2006.

In an interview with Politico on Monday, Hoyer called the FISA legislation a “significant victory” for the Democratic Party — one that neutralized an issue Republicans might have been able to use against Democrats in November while still, in his view, protecting the civil liberties of American citizens.

..."According to several Democratic insiders, Hoyer was able to keep the talks going by pointing out that he, more than anyone else in the room, was taking a huge political risk by trying to reach a deal. The Democratic leader in the House was also able to bridge the rancor between the two main Senate negotiators and their respective aides, joking frequently during tense negotiations and keeping the conversation going despite an obvious animosity in the room, aides said. Similarly, Hoyer and staff worked closely with his friend Blunt to make sure both sides kept in close contact in the House.

It was all about keeping the Blue Dog caucus happy. To hell with the rest of us and our purist demands about the constitution and privacy and silly stuff like that.

And the House with 58 more YES votes since last year made Bush a very happy man.

[babylonsister]

1. Hoyer is a liar; he must be getting lots of heat for caving so now

he's making it up.

[madfloridian]

3. It's scary to think how our party leaders think about us. And about Democracy.

Gives me chills.

[nightrain]

2. It's also about Dems getting paid (off) by telecom companies, check out the link--

http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

These folks deserve not to come back to the House.

[Catherina]

34. $8,359? Sold for 30 pieces of silver basically. n/t

[madfloridian]

4. Myths about the bill Hoyer is bragging about.

http://www.slate.com/id/2194254/

Myth No. 1: This bill is a compromise.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., calls the deal "a capitulation," and he's right. Why else would the White House express its approval so quickly, after a full year in which President Bush petulantly vowed not to sign any legislation that obliged him to concede too much? Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., offered an honest appraisal: "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped."

Myth No. 2: We need the bill to intercept our enemies abroad.

You see, the new law goes a lot further, basically doing away with warrants altogether in the domestic-to-international context. Under the proposal, the NSA can engage in what David Kris calls "vacuum cleaner surveillance" of phone calls and e-mails entering and leaving the United States through our nation's telecom switches. Provided that the "target" of the surveillance is reasonably believed to be abroad, the NSA can intercept a massive volume of communications, which might, however incidentally, include yours. When authorities want to target purely domestic communications, they still have to apply for a warrant from the FISA court (albeit only after a weeklong grace period of warrantless surveillance). But where communications between the United States and another country are concerned, the secret court is relegated to a vestigial role, consulted on the soundness of the "targeting procedures," but not on the legitimacy of the targets themselves.

Myth No. 3: The courts will still review the telecom cases.

Perhaps most controversially, the bill effectively pardons the telecom giants that assisted the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program. They will now be shielded from dozens of civil lawsuits brought against them after their involvement was exposed. House Democrats insist that the telecoms are not automatically getting off the hook. Instead, the companies must go before a federal judge. But here's the catch: For the suits against them to be "promptly dismissed," they must demonstrate to the judge not that what they did was legal but only that the White House told them to do it.

Myth No. 4: The Democrats must fold because of the November election.

It's no secret that congressional Democrats wanted to resolve the FISA debate before the August convention in order to avoid the perennial charge that they're softies. After the House vote last week, Barack Obama issued a statement backing off his earlier tough stance on telecom immunity. The calculus seemed clear: McCain had just reversed his own position on illegal wiretapping and was spoiling for a fight, arguing that "House Democrats, the ACLU, and the trial lawyers have held up legislation to modernize our nation's terrorist surveillance laws." You can't stand with the trial lawyers and the ACLU if you want to win a general election.

There's more, if it matters.

[dailykoff]

6. Sounds like he sold Obama a bill of goods

and he bought it. He needs to stop worrying about the freaking Clintons and pay more attention to what he's being told to say or he's going to find himself writing a concession speech in November.

[MasonJar]

26. How did the Clintons get into this conversation? The post said

McCain and Obama. Why does Obama think that we, the people, dislike the ACLU and trial lawyers? We dislike being lied to and tricked.

[Dr.Phool]

5. It looks like my Congressional district will come down to a Repuke and a Blue Dog.

I see at least 2 undervotes coming.

Please spay and neuter your Blue Dogs. It's only right.

[madfloridian]

7. It's very important that the party "distance" itself from people like us.

Or they can't win, you know.

They have scored big Republican points today. And when the yes vote goes down, they will score more.

Once again, the bloom is off the rose for us. We were excited, we had our nominee. Now we see things won't change.

They still can't associate with the likes of us.

The right wing is more important. We only thought we could make a difference.

[ShaneGR]

8. I'm touched by your concern...

Since you've posted so many positive things about the Democratic Party. Every few days you post something related to Democrats you don't like. Then in the same day you post exactly the same thing, you just rephrase it. A couple days later you are completely outraged by something new. At least you've moved on to the National Party now.

[madfloridian]

9. Would you like me to ignore when they lie to us to win?

I am tired of your being tired of what I write. Push the ignore button, or something. You are not obligated to read what I write.

Hoyer pushed this through to benefit a small group. He was wrong. Our party is wrong to give Bush more power and to exempt him from punishment.

[defendandprotect]

15. Can't resist saying . . .

Nader was on the right side of this ---
too many Democrats are on the wrong side of this -- including our candidate !!!

[rug]

10. Neville Chamberlain would approve.

[madfloridian]

11. They extended spying powers, and some tell me not to criticize?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/22/politics/animal/main4200909.shtml

However, there are also several negative aspects of the bill aside from telecom immunity, and two of them stand out to me. First, the old FISA allowed NSA to conduct a wiretap for up to 72 hours while waiting for FISA approval. The new bill extends this to a week, allows the surveillance to continue during appeals, and permits the government to use any of the information it collects even if the FISA court eventually rules that the tap is unlawful. This pretty obviously opens the door to some fairly serious abuse in the future.

Second, and more fundamentally, the bill gives wholesale approval to bulk monitoring of electronic communications (primarily email and phone calls). This is the issue that catapulted FISA into prominence in the first place, and it's getting surprisingly little attention this time around. As near as I can tell, this is because bulk monitoring is now widely accepted on both sides of the aisle.

They are gutting the 4th amendment again, and doing it to look tough and strong and take the issue off the table so we can win.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We really weren't using that amendment anyway. And besides, you know what they say. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have no need to worry.

[defendandprotect]

16. ...sad, but if you tell Dems that it's a way to win 2008, they'll go for it -- !!!!

My heavens . . . will they ever wake up???

[paulk]

12. Three Democratic Reps from my state voted for FISA

only one is a blue dog. One is a moderate and the other is considered a liberal. The "blue dogs" are a powerful caucus because without them as Democrats, we'd still have Speaker Hastert - but pinning the blame for FISA on the "bluedogs" is a stretch. SOP for you, though.

[madfloridian]

13. I used Hoyer's own words. He said it, not me.

What is your explanation for why they are gutting the 4th amendment and bragging about it?

And why do you keep irritating yourself reading my posts? I know it upsets you.

[paulk]

14. but you used his words as a jumping off place for your own rant

basically blaming the bluedogs for FISA, which isn't true. As I pointed out, the blame for FISA extends to a lot of other Democrats.

Why do I read your posts? Because I think it's important to discuss what you post. To point out the absurdity of your reasoning. I realize you and your sycophants see DU as place to get your daily fix of outrage - I think there's a need to question your true motives. To ask why you spend 95% of your posts attacking Democrats of one stripe or another...

[madfloridian]

17. Hoyer blames them....in his own words.

And yes I am ranting. Did you read what he said? Why are you mad at me and not him?

[Just Bob]

19. You're not the only person who is upset

I don't know if this has been posted, but...

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

[madfloridian]

20. Wow, just yesterday it was 316, 000...big jump since then.

I donated. Glad to see I am not the only one.

[Doremus]

41. Thanks for posting that! Just donated! n/t

[MasonJar]

28. I am with you, madfloridian. Keep up the good work. Constant vigilance

is obviously the place to be, n'est pas? If the Bushistas are doing it, why cannot we? We'd damn well better. Thank you, madfloridian!!!!!!!!!

[madfloridian]

37. I am very upset at the efforts to hush us

It is rather scary.

[NoodleyAppendage]

18. Hoyer. The best representation the Telecoms and Israel can buy.

At some point the American people are going to wake up to the FACT that our government is run for the corporations and whim of the Israeli government.

J

[madfloridian]

21. Froomkin's Fisa Watch

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/06/24/BL2008062400869_pf.html

"FISA Watch

I wrote in Friday's column about the latest greatest congressional cave-in. The House approved a warrantless surveillance bill that would broadly extend Bush's powers and essentially guarantee immunity against civil lawsuits to the telecommunications companies that participated in Bush's program. The new law would prohibit federal judges from addressing the merits of these suits, effectively telling them to simply make sure each company received a permission slip from the president.

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board writes: "The cover-up is nearly complete. With congressional approval, the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mail for nearly six years will be spared the third-degree treatment by any judge or jury.

"At the same time, Bush or his successor would have virtual free rein to continue the massive antiterror surveillance sweeps of communications to and from this country.

"Whatever the risk from another terror attack, Americans' privacy would be the assured casualty from these antiterror tactics."

[Catherina]

22. Bullshit. The bluedogs wrote that bill in secret meeings with Republicans and the Telecom Lobbyists

before the Pelosi brigade took it to the floor with a 24 hour notice to ram it through.

They must think we're really stupid and going to roll over for them again.

[orleans]

23. steny's 2nd biggest contributor is COMCAST. FUCK HIM! nt

[xxqqqzme]

24. so instead of enabling these publlican in

Democratic clothing why not call them out? Let's have their names; stop giving them funds for their campaigns and give them crap committee assignments. We can find progressive voices to promote & run in their place.

What? not practical - excuses on top of excuses. Hoyer & Pelosi don't give a shit as long as their coffers are full.

[madfloridian]

38. Here are some names...the Blue Dogs who wrote Pelosi about FISA

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2308

Long list.

[BklnDem75]

42. Why are they even called 'blue' dogs?

Red dogs are more like it.

[MasonJar]

25. Hoyer must be getting blackballed from the old dems' club! I hope so!

The calls must be multiplying so he is scapegoating. I'll bet in 2010 there will be a strong opponent in his Maryland primary. I hope so. The Blue Dogs could do nothing if Pelosi refused to bring it to the floor. They forget that we learned the shams at the feet of the masters...12 years of PUG leadership.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. The Republicans had a "majority of the majority" rule, we don't have that

Meaning that they can discharge the bill. Pelosi could stall it by doing things like scheduling the vote at bad times, but she can't hold it up forever.

[Dinger]

27. Murtha Would Have Been Better imo (nt)

[MasonJar]

29. IE'sO (In everyone's opinion) Pelosi tried to get Murtha; the DLCers

stopped her.

[Dinger]

30. Yup, She Caved ,

Not an impressive start.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. His facts aren't wrong unlike the Republicans did, we don't have a "majority of the majority" rule

The blue dogs and the Republicans had the votes to pass this bill and that's ultimately what got it to the floor.

[madfloridian]

33. Then Blue Dogs stood with Republicans to weaken the 4th amendment

So that is to their shame.

[madfloridian]

35. I did not get attacked and alerted on for this post.

Just saying.

[madfloridian]

36. Not a good reason

.

[madfloridian]

39. The use of the word "purist" by Hoyer against FISA opponents...

will not be forgotten easily.

[Doremus]

40. Oh please. Blue dogs + DLCers = Corporate Party

The DLC and blue dogs and Repukes are all complicit.

Corporatism by any other name .... it's all obscene.

I swear, it's up to US, the netroots, to save the country. Never give up!