Behind the Compromise on Spying -- Time Magazine

[EV_Ares]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California speaks at her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.

A compromise deal to extend the federal government's domestic spying powers, passed by the House on Friday and expected to sail through the Senate next week, has drawn attacks from both sides of the political spectrum. The right is unhappy at concessions made to protect civil liberties; the left is furious that the Democrats allowed the domestic spying powers to be extended in any form. Much of the latter's rage has been directed against Nancy Pelosi, the liberal House Speaker who was instrumental in negotiating the deal — attacking her on the internet and virtually shutting down her switchboard with complaints. One blogger called Pelosi "disturbingly disoriented" and said the deal she and her allies have cut will "eviscerate the Fourth Amendment, exempt their largest corporate contributors from the rule of law, and endorse the most radical aspects of the Bush lawbreaking regime."

What motivated Pelosi and the Democrats to incur the wrath of their liberal base and allow one of the Administration's most controversial anti-terror policies to be extended? A mix of politics, pragmatism and some significant concessions.

Link to entire Time Article: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1816911,00.html

[skooooo]

1. ..

"Despite anti-GOP sentiment in the country and record low popularity for President George W. Bush, Democrats still trail on national security and that could hurt them in Congress. Stonewalling the Administration and letting the surveillance powers expire could have cost the Democrats swing seats they won in 2006 as well as new ones they have a chance to steal from Republicans this November. "For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue," says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it."


========

Hope they know what they are doing...

[VP505]

4. Ya Nancy & top aide, if my Aunt

could have had balls she could have been my Uncle. Why bother to win a seat if the person sitting in it is going to vote like a Republican we have way too many of those already. We need BETTER DEMOCRATS elected, if the district is so red that they can't always vote blue why allow that Rep to stab the rest of the Democratic members in the back with their votes, we don't need anymore of that. Its called UNITY if we had it we wouldn't have to be as Pelosi calls it compromising, or as I see it capitulating.

[skooooo]

6. Would you like more or fewer Dems.

in Congress in the Fall? That's what seems to be the crux of the matter as Pelosi sees it.

[VP505]

8. Pelosi and her top aide are full of crap,

that's just a weak excuse for her capitulating. With everything I have seen in the way of polls we are NOT going to loose any seats in November.

[nosmokes]

11. What is the point of more Dems if they vote for more war and less rights?

Sure the GOPosse would be worse, but the Democratic Party is *Broken* and in dire need of reform. Or at least a strong enough sense of what's right to stand up and do it once in a while. And lose the corporate noose, er, leash.

[dorkulon]

19. Hey, maybe we could get even MORE votes if we voted to bomb Iran!

[AddisonMiles]

9. Amazing that we're still hearing this in 2008

[ananda]

2. False meme "compromise'

It's NOT a compromise on the part of the Dems;
it's a complete cavein.

Not only are telecoms and Bush let off the hook
for warrantless spying, but the powers of the
executive to spy and wiretap are actually
extended beyond FISA... and FISA was bad enough.

The loss of rights and liberties on the part of
Americans is tremendous.

Glenn Greenwald at salon.com says it all here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/

Obama.. what voice for change? Sigh.

[gateley]

3. ..."virtually shutting down her switchboard with complaints."

Good for us!

[skooooo]

5. Did you read the article tho?

If it means losing Congressional seats in the Fall, would it be worth it to fight the bill?

Maybe she thinks its better to lose this battle now so we can win bigger in the Fall.

[tabatha]

7. The political climate in the country is to tear down before understanding.

[ForrestGump]

12. I suspect that a fair number of us are merely

getting tired of waiting for the Democrats voted in during 2006 -- if you recall, there was some jubilation here because now we were able to really get things running -- to actually do something.

It seems like Democrats in DC have been "saving their strength" ever since. What for, exactly, remains unclear to me.

[tabatha]

17. Possib.ly because there is a nut case in the WH.

[Uncle Joe]

13. First off this is a Time Magazine opinion piece and is suspect for it's accuracy and motivation.

Regarding national security, the Republicans are on the defensive, that's a large part of the reason as to why their brand sucks. The people are also waking up to the fact, the Republicans are for Big Brother government, that's why they're splintering off to the Libertarian Party and here the Democrats throw them a bone.

I also don't believe losing this battle means giving the Democratic Party a better chance at winning anything in the fall. To the contrary this sets precedent for any future administration to break the law and commit even worse abuses. Losing this battle only sets the stage for the American People to lose the war against corporate domination. Just another step down the slippery slope.

[rurallib]

14. Back in the '60s I think we called that selling out.

[gateley]

16. Yeah -- I read the article.

I was just proud that so many people actually contacted her (and their representatives) and spoke out. It shows we're involved. That's all. :)

I understand the point she's making. If it meant losing Congressional seats in the Fall, I'd say don't fight the bill. We need as many people in Congress and the Senate to get what we want passed when Obama takes office. Although this is a PAINFUL and important battle, I'd surrender this (temporarily) to win the war.

[EV_Ares]

18. You know Gateley, I agree with what you wrote a 100%. I have been so pissed off about this and I

called her office to register my displeasure at what she was doing, for all that was worth, because I really don't think she pays attention to us. However, as you say, if this is the case, if this is what was needed for us to make more gains in the house and the senate and to help Barack by not putting him on the spot. I am OK with that and would call it smart politics.

However, I don't see how the courts can do anything but go along with the telecom companies the way it reads:

"The compromise says telecommunications companies allegedly involved in the warrantless-surveillance program can have suits against them dismissed if they show a federal court "substantial evidence" that they received a written request from the attorney general or head of an intelligence agency stating that the president had authorized the surveillance and determined it to be lawful."

That arrangement would "turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp," said Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, whose district includes Silicon Valley. "There will be no accountability."

I just don't know and I have a hard time with it because when you read through the whole thing & her history, it is like she is trying to make a justification to save her ass and she takes us for a bunch of dummies that will buy into it. I haven't trusted her for some time with all the stuff that has come out about her.

Guess we will have to wait and see. You have to admit with her being so high on what she has done and Senator Bond and the rest of the republicans totally gleeful bout it and the Telecom companies being happy, guess something was right about it.

[tsuki]

20. If ripping up the Constitution will win us more seats, let's do it. nt

[gateley]

22. You know it's not that simple.

The Constitution has been ripped up. The telecoms already cooperated. If this keeps them from cooperating in the future without proper authority, then I'm willing to compromise on that. And if this is political and WILL help us win more seats, then I think it's an okay compromise (although, to be honest, I don't see what the Reps have given us in this compromise at all).

As distasteful as this is to me, I have faith that when we get a Dem in the WH, and Please God, more Dems in Congress and the Senate, we won't be engaging in this kind of despicable crap anymore.

If it's political and we WOULD lose seats, then there's not even a chance of things getting better when the next President takes office.

[ForrestGump]

10. She's doing it wrong

The Nazi salute, I mean.

[Trillo]

15. From article: "...and they will hardly have a free ride ...

"...once litigation and lobbying fees have been added up."

Oh yeah. Best legislation money can buy. I don't know if I can keep reading the article past that line. Makes me too mad.

What good is money if it can't be spent to make more money? When is enough enough? When will the U.S. Constitution be respected by our leaders? (not if there's a buck to be made selling it?)

[kentuck]

21. I think this article may help to understand the strategy behind the vote?

Right or wrong, it is a political strategy. And I would bet that Obama has been consulted on the strategy?