Some thoughts on Mikulski's vote Friday...

[Neecy]

Looking through the list of the 16 Senators who voted for the monstrosity on Friday, only one stood out as an unlikely foe of Constitutional rights, or someone not easily frightened by GWB's fearmongering. I've always liked Barbara Mikulski and it's been on my mind why she would have been the key 60th vote to pass the Abu-Gonzo bill.

Just a theory, but remember the vote-swapping allegations when the Senate voted a blank check for Bush's war funding? It was suspected that some candidates - Obama and Hillary, I believe - were able to vote no because they'd swapped their votes.

This brings me back to Mikulski - who was she trying to benefit? Let's see - she's the unofficial 'dean' of the women's caucus, isn't she?

Just sayin'. I don't have a dog in this fight yet - haven't decided - but it would explain a very odd vote. And I don't like my Constitutional rights being turned into a game.

Flame away, but I think I'm right.

[Jack Bone]

1. As a Hoosier...I'm trying to figure out why

Evan Bayh voted for it, when Dick Lugar couldn't even stomach voting?

:banghead:

[Bumblebee]

2. I think you are right. They wanted it to pass, despite all the

qualms, and all the candidates voted no because they did not want another vote like the Iraq war vote which would haunt them, so there was, as you say, vote-swapping of some kind. Rookie senators who could stomach it were chosen, I am sure, because they are not up for a reelection for a long time -- that explains, Webb, McCaskill, and Klobuchar -- and Reid made sure that in the end there would be 60 for, and that also explains why Landrieu kept changing her vote -- hoping, maybe, that she can vote "nay" but then her vote was needed for 60. Reid orchestrated it to give themselves cover for why no one is filibustering but then he still wanted to appear to be critical of it. And Mikulski is both safe and loyal plus they thought it was so unusual for her, it just won't stick. Don't blame the senators who voted for it -- some of them fell on their swords for the party. They are all responsible. One word: cowards.

[Neecy]

5. yep

The Landrieu vote changing was a dead giveaway.

We've really been had.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Oh great. I felt bad enough when it was just a bunch of defectors

but you are making sense that this was engineered from the top. Fuck all of them.

[orleans]

10. how did you find out Landrieu kept changing her vote? n/t

[Bumblebee]

11. By watching it. Others saw it too.

[orleans]

14. sorry--i don't get how you can see how one person votes...

cspan puts up a generalized tally without names--or did they break it down for every senator's name on the screen?

[Bumblebee]

16. They call out people's votes -- it's the Senate, not the House...

[orleans]

24. ah.....n/t

[TahitiNut]

3. When our civil liberties are BARTERED for political advantage ...

... we're truly, deeply f*cked!

[dkofos]

4. Are you trying to say Reid forced the measure to pass, even tho he voted against it??

What a leader!!

[Neecy]

7. no, not Reid

I think the entire sham was centered on next year's presidential race. Reid is a spectator.

[Bumblebee]

9. Precisely. They were giving them cover -- and at the same time luxury

to vote against it. This way, they thought,they won't be blamed if something happens -- after all it passed; but then they can also say they rejected the attempt to shred the Constitution. If there were less than 60 votes Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd would have been asked how come they did not try to block it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Chair of Campaign?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=1474

but I thought Hillary Clinton didn't like illegal wiretapping? So I don't think it was that.

The only people Barb was benefiting was Bush and Cheney?

[Neecy]

12. it has nothing to do with core beliefs

An attack goes down, Democrats avoid blame - ridiculous, I know, but that seems to be their thinking - and Hillary's chances aren't hurt next year.

An attack doesn't go down, Hillary can point to this vote as defending our Constitutional rights.

It's kind of strange, isn't it, that the Chair of Hillary's campaign casts a vote that's at huge odds with her record - and one that's a political win-win for Hillary?

[Bumblebee]

13. I am not sure it's a political win-win for any of the Senate members now

given how betrayed the base feels. The only beneficiary of this debacle is Edwards, which is fine with me.

[Neecy]

15. they're looking beyond the base...

That vote was about the general election.

[Bumblebee]

18. True -- but it's hard to do much without the enthusiasm of the base

I am sure that was their rationale -- but, as in the Iraq war resolution, I think they miscalculated big time.

[shireen]

19. i don't understand why...

how would the Dems benefit by letting this legislation pass, to weaken our civil rights which much of the country opposes? I can't imagine most Americans agreeing with this nutty legislation.

I don't get it.

I emailed Mikulski's office, asking her to explain that vote. If she responds (and they usually do to my emails), I'll post it.

That theory you proposed disturbs me. I wish politics were not so manipulative and calculating. Just a simple yes/no vote to represent the rights of the people would be nice. Simple single-topic legislation would be nice. Honesty would be nice. These games they play are ridiculous.

[Bumblebee]

20. Unfortunately, people do get scared by scare tactics -- they always assume

the government knows something they don't know. Bush would have not gotten more than 30-35% of the popular vote in the last election if scare tactics did not work... And the Dems know it all too well but instead of exposing and confronting the fear-mongering, they just get scared themselves of the prospect that they would be blamed for their inaction if something happens. And we are all the more screwed because of it.

[speedoo]

28. I am totally disgusted.

I've gotta check to see if my passport is current.

[partylessinOhio]

17. I believe each Senator/Representative should vote their own conscience.

This game playing/deal making is just plain wrong. I feel so strongly that I would eliminate bringing them all to DC.

Let them stay at home in their individual offices and forbid any communications between them to prevent vote deals on legislation while voting is continuing.

With today's technology there is no need to gather together as a body.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

21. I just e-mailed my senator (Mikulski) asking for her to resign so Gov. O'Malley can appoint a real D

She knows she is a safe seat in 2010, unless old age/health gets her before, I can only hope. I have no tolerance for this bullshit anymore. I will not forgive or forget. These are my personal freedoms and she represents a bigger threat than any terrorist behavior. Live free or die.

[shireen]

23. no point throwing out the baby with the bathwater,

and i would not count on O'Malley to appoint a "real" Dem. He's too much of an establishment player and belongs to a prominent Maryland Democratic family so there are appearances to maintain. He endorsed Hillary (as did Mikulski) quite early, which was disappointing. I don't have anything against Hillary, i just don't like it when prominent political figures endorse candidates before primaries, especially this early in the season. They unfairly bias the primary field by influencing lazy voters who simply vote for whomever the state political leaders endorse. If voters won't do the research and think for themselves, they have no business voting in primaries (general election is different since many traditional Dems or Repubs vote along party lines).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. I don't think so

you might find Martin would vote the same way?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

22. K&R Your post makes sense of the situation. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

26. Utterly needless horse-trading at the expense of our civil liberties

But why let facts get in the way?

TOP TEN MYTHS ABOUT THE ILLEGAL NSA SPYING ON AMERICANS

MYTH: This is merely a “terrorist surveillance program.”
REALITY: When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.

MYTH: The program is legal.
REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.

MYTH: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows this.
REALITY: The resolution about using force in Afghanistan doesn’t mention wiretaps and doesn’t apply domestically, but FISA does--it requires a court order.

MYTH: The president has authority as commander in chief of the military to spy on Americans without any court oversight.
REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration’s claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to “condense power into a single branch of government,” contrary to the Constitution’s checks and balances.

MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is.
REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.

MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you.
REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people’s everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies.

MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.

MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.
REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.

MYTH: FISA takes too long.
REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency, FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are available at all hours.

MYTH: Only liberals disagree with the president about the program.
REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president’s claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight

[Lifelong Protester]

27. So there is no conscience, just as I suspected

but I still am shocked at Klobuchar's vote, and hope she can explain it. She was elected by a pretty anti-Bush Minnesota base. I guess I am just too naive to get what the OP is saying about the vote-swap, doesn't anyone (besides Feingold, vis-a-vis the Patriot Act) stand up for what they REALLY believe in?
I am one of those dorks who also believes you get into Congress because you believe in something, but I guess that all changes once the leadership gets a hold of you.

[Bumblebee]

29. I still think most Dems have some conscience while most GOP don't

but it's not much consolation right now.

[Bumblebee]

30. Dodd seems to imply as much, less directly

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html

Greenwald: And that is what is so frustrating -- to see this same mindset over and over and over again -- where Democrats say they have to capitulate or else it will be used against them, and then it's used against them anyway, but it's even more effective because Democrats haven't fought or made the case for their position. Is this conventional wisdom among Democratic politicians that this is a smart way to proceed because that is what consultants are telling them -- why is this so embedded culturally? Look at what the Republicans are doing. They are filibustering everything, they are not afraid of being labelled "obstructionist." Why are they so much more aggressive in the tactics they are willing to use?

Dodd: A lot of questions. First of all, in fairness to Harry Reid, going in spontaneously and trying to confront him with this, I'm not a nose-counter, trying to organize and if you get only 10 votes, then that's all you're going to get. Although, 34 votes against it. I think we could have gotten the 6 votes.

[Neecy]

31. good catch

It also explains McCaskills' tortured defense of her vote - even she doesn't understand why she voted yes (unless it was a vote swap, in which case it makes perfect sense that a junior senator was told how to vote):

"I’m not thrilled," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "There are some changes we need to make to make sure that American citizens are protected. But it's a lot better than a lot of things that have been forced down this Congress' throat right before recesses that trampled on American's liberties."

[Bumblebee]

32. Feingold obviously knows exactly what went on and is disgusted by it

Hope he talks.

and this is even more revealing from Dodd (the same Salon site but from a late update yesterday):

GG: Can you describe what you think it is that motivated 16 of your colleagues in the Democratic caucus to vote in favor of this bill?

CD: No, I really can't . . . We had caucuses during the day, so everyone knew what was there. You had a vote at 10:00 at night, people say I didn't know what was there, then normally I can understand, but we had a caucus during the day. There was a lot of conversation about it.

GG: So this wasn't a Patriot Act case where people can claim ignorance because there was a rushed vote? There was a careful assessment of what the terms in this statute were?

CD: Absolutely. In fact, even during the vote, Carl Levin was sitting there, and Carl said: "look, I want everyone to read this" . . . . Most people know about the Gonzales references and the 180 days -- there is also a section, as Carl pointed out, that basically says that if they can prove reasonably that you're out of the country -- not that you're not a citizen, just out of the country . . . .

But I wish I had a better explanation. Normally after that, we would be in session Monday or Tuesday, around today, people would be talking about it. So I'm a little stunned, and grasping for some answer here. So I really don't know. . . .