Whoo Hoo! Even REID is going to fight the FISA bill!

[gateley]

"Unfortunately, the FISA compromise bill establishes a process where the likely outcome is immunity to the telecommunications carriers who participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program. Sen. Reid remains opposed to retroactive immunity, which undermines efforts to hold the Bush Administration accountable for violating the law. Thus, he will cosponsor the amendment offered by Senators Dodd and Feingold to strip out the immunity provision, and support their efforts to strip immunity on the floor."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/24/143245/164/812/541267

Gotta admit, I'm pleasantly surprised.

[hlthe2b]

1. Well, I'll believe it when I see it.... He's been less than committed

saying things like he'll "try" to stop the immunity. Hell, he can stop the vote, if he wants!

[Mojorabbit]

2. I am really cynical

these days. I think they knew there would be another outcry when they tried to push this thru again. The house takes the heat and the senate dems get to pontificate on how horrible it is knowing they do not have to votes to defeat it. That is just how I see it. Pure theater.

[gateley]

8. You know something, you're probably right.

And that infuriates me even MORE -- Boxer, Dodd, Feinstein, et al, are fighting SINCERELY.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Me too, the statement from Reid only mentions the immunity

provision, as if he did not know this was included in the bill being brought to the House floor.

:shrug:

Also it keeps the focus on immunity, not the balance of the bill. And where was the focus from MoveOn...on the immunity provision as well.

:(


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

What gives? Why did Obama stay silent for so long, and why did he finally offer such a muted response to the bill?

The answer is simple:

Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office.

Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway.

So, in short, from Obama's perspective, what's not to like?

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..."

[Amerigo Vespucci]

3. Talk Radio host Guy James tore Reid an new asshole on his show today...

...and it was well deserved. Basically called him a "leader."

I will salute majority "leader" Reid when he puts his money where his mouth is. He's just as guilty of the "no blank checks for Bush" rhetoric as Speaker Pelosi.

Meanwhile, Bush gets EVERYTHING he wants. EVERYTHING.

:patriot:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Show a mock interest in fighting it

with a later vote in favor when the amendment fails...

Let's say I am a wee bit cynical.

[OwnedByFerrets]

5. Great, if true....but that is a

HUGE if.


www.wearableartnow.com

[ORDagnabbit]

6. Reid fight? you're kidding right? I'll believe it when I see it. n/t

[wryter2000]

11. Oh, he won't fight

However, if he allows other people to do the right thing, that's progress.

[wryter2000]

7. Cautiously optimistic

The bill may be all right without the immunity part. I have to reserve judgement, though. He's certainly caved in the past.

I think our Senators are hearing us.

[jillan]

9. I AM SHOCKED!!

Pleasantly shocked.

[gateley]

10. Okay - all of your responses slapped me back into real life.

You guys are probably right. Sigh.

[wryter2000]

12. Don't give up yet

I think their ears are burning from all our messages.

As Jonathan Turley said on Randi today, he thinks the Dems were waiting until the public forgot about this so they could sneak this through. They're hearing we haven't forgotten.

For pity's sake...how many times have we had to kill this zombie?

[bullimiami]

14. yeah (cynically) he probably wont do shit. the old give em (everything) harry.

stripping the immunity will probably fail by a vote or 2 then the 45+ wont have the balls to fillibuster it.

[slipslidingaway]

28. See this post from another DU'er - A party at risk - A country at risk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6406062

A few snips from this post of last year by DU'er welshTerrier2 that are relevant to the current FISA legislation and what our party should have done.

The particular issue does not matter, how you go about gaining support for an issue matters greatly.


"A party at risk - A country at risk

Posted by welshTerrier2 in General Discussion: Presidential

Tue Jun 19th 2007, 12:48 PM


Here's the major point: You need to separate the legislative process from the "platform" process....

Passing legislation doesn't start in the Congress; it starts with the American people. If the Party really wanted to make this critically needed reform, they would be raising the issue every chance they got. They aren't...

The problem with the party is NOT about which bill they pass; it's about the party's message to the American people. You don't need a veto proof majority to put out a message..."

[cal04]

13. off to the greatest I'm so glad

I'm pleasantly surprised too

[Super Soaker Sniper]

15. And I'll bet that after

he made his statement he ran off to puke! He feels the heat and is now going with this line. Of course all that has to happen is Bush wagging his finger at him and after pissing his pants he will let it pass anyway.

We have a worse than useless bunch in Congress. It is sad to know that at times, Bush faced more resistance from Republicans when they were in the Majority than he has from Democrats in the last year and a half. The Democratic Majority is the best thing that ever happened to Bush and his agenda.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. Where's Obama on this?

On CNN, Wolf Shitzler just said that Obama would vote in favor of the bill. But elsewhere, I've read that he will oppose it. Will he oppose it from his lands in the north, but support it from his lands in the south (I guess I've watched Braveheart too many times)? I'm looking for some real leadership from Obama. I didn't contribute money to him only to see him play the usual beltway political games. I think Obama could put some real pressure on the other Democrats by taking a strong stand here.

[jgraz]

34. Good. Fucking. Question.

[L. Coyote]

17. Why doesn't he just keep the bill off the floor! Dog and pony show??

[blues90]

25. that's right. that's all he and pelosi had to do

[slipslidingaway]

29. Yes why not. n/t

[pleah]

32. That is what I think, too.

[jgraz]

35. Because he thinks you and I and everyone else are fucking idiots.

After 18 months of Reid and Pelosi's Stockholm Syndrome, they still think we don't understand how things work.

[wiggs]

41. This is a choreographed show. They already know where the votes are for cloture

and for the bill itself. To think otherwise is naive.

If you believe that the last 7 years are prologue, then they have assigned certain dem senators to carry the outrage torch. There will be shallow discussion and much bluster. Some senators will be truly expressing honest concerns in their roles as defenders of the base. Most other senators will be silent. The vote for cloture will be close...and will barely pass. Vote for Bill will barely pass. People will be surprised that Reid voted against cloture but voted for the bill. Dems will say they tried but are happy that the country can move forward. Because I've learned the hard lessons and have become cynical, this is what I believe will happen...seen it a dozen times.

If you believe that things are a little different now, then you might think that the bill will be tweaked to eliminate or modify immunity clauses due to dems' filibuster strength and "belief in the constitution." A whole bunch of other bad FISA stuff gets passed. This could happen.

If you believe that dem leaders are truly the opposition party and are operating in good faith to protect 99% of the public and to protect the constitution not that they are in power then you're thinking Reid has already armbent all dem senators, using carrots and sticks, and they will line up behind him to defeat a bill that our rogue and criminal administration desperately wants. They will explain EXACTLY what is in the bill that is objectionable and use history and the constitution to frame the issue in correct, honest light so that americans know what has happened. This is what SHOULD happen. This should be an easy, no brainer issue.

In any case, they've already decided how this will play out and who votes which way. If any senators say they are undecided, it is only because their negotiations with leadership aren't complete.

[cornermouse]

18. Question.

Why do we have to call, email, write letters, sign petitions, etc. our senators and representatives to try to push them into supporting what are clearly and obviously democratic positions on issues? I'm thinking they should already be pushing back against this stuff on their own.

[Psyop Samurai]

26. Post of the year, right here folks...

It is a mockery...,

and someone finally called it.


:applause: to you, cornermouse.

[DailyGrind51]

19. When did that invertebrate acquire a spine?

[tkmorris]

20. He didn't

[rucky]

21. Fool me six times...

shame on-

we do- we wont get fooled again!

[Donnachaidh]

22. I'll wait to see -- too much showboating by Dems to make me believe it

I'm sick to death of reading these press releases of how they are going to fight it, and then OOPS! The votes are cast and somehow it got away from the *fighters* :sarcasm:

Reid has made too many of these *announcements* with one hand behind his back and fingers crossed on that hand.

[Jakes Progress]

23. We need an amendment that does more

than strip immunity. We need an amendment to reinstate the oversight that this bill omits. My proposal is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3510558&mesg_id=3510558

I think it solves both problems.

[wiggs]

38. Exactly right. Immunity is not the only objectionable item. This is a common

tactic...make a big deal about one aspect being the sticking point then compromise on that and pretend that everyone wins. It's not exactly a strawman...more like a sacrificial lamb. Complex, important issues should not be reduced down to a single soundbite topic that everyone makes a show of discussing.

They did this with waterboarding....where people stopped talking about the bigger torture issue and just focused on waterboarding, waterboarding, waterboarding.

Dems do it too.

[librechik]

24. (thought bubble)

Reid :( "now what can I put in that amendment to make it a poison pill? hmmm")

No, I'm not cynical at all. I will just take the hedge bet on whether the Senate will stand up to Bush.
I don't think it's going to happen.

[Individualist]

30. A DLC member vote against FISA?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: etc.

[warren pease]

31. The advance notice of another strongly worded letter...

..."deploring" this executive power grab and noting his "disappointment" that the little neurotransmitter implanted in his former brain won't let him just pull the bill from the floor and bury it for good. I understand Conyers has a little room in the bottom drawer of his File Cabinet of no Return.

There's a little empty space right next to Kucinich's three (count 'em, three) house resolutions calling for impeachment: two for Cheney and one for The Commander Guy.

Just to the left of Conyers' own HR 676, the universal-access, single-payer health care bill that's starting to turn to dust after four years or so of neglect.

Yup, plenty of company for bills the "leadership" never wants to see again. Apparently, a bill that used the phony threat of "terra-ism" to justify subjecting American citizens to indiscriminate snooping and wire tapping and email scrounging.

And the real terrorists, the ones who live at 1600 Pennsylvania and are the source of all things shitty that have occurred since the right wing coup of December 12, 2000, manage to con these suckers and simpletons and gullible idiots and weaseling collaborators into granting them immunity from yet another treasonous breach of the Constitution.

And all their pals and co-conspirators in the telecom biz -- who've been richly rewarded over the past seven years with favorable FCC rulings and wink-and-nod regulation and de facto monopoly status -- they'll all get a get out of jail free card too.

Yeah, Harry, my trust and admiration for your management style grows by the hour -- in direct proportion to my intake of psychotropic drugs.

As somebody up above asked so perfectly, why is it on us to do all the petitioning and emailing and calling and demanding and all that pain in the ass stuff? As people who call themselves democrats, they should be automatically advocating for those positions. They shouldn't be running the other direction, then trying to escape blame for caving every single time anything more important than whose name to stick on a post office branch comes up.

Maybe slurping out of the same corporate trough has something to do with it? Maybe being members of the same elite club as their GOPiggie virtual adversaries has a bit more to do with it? Maybe they're spineless sellouts lacking the courage of a common hamster?


wp

[jgraz]

33. Wow... a late co-sponsor of a half-measure for a bill he already caved on

Be still my heart. :eyes:

[Riddler]

36. Reid fight? Right, just as soon as I can hammer a nail into a 2 x 4 with a cube of grape jello.

[jazzjunkysue]

37. Is that Darth Cheney sitting there at his perch? That scowl looks familiar.

[lonestarnot]

39. hmmmmf.

[Efilroft Sul]

40. If, by "fight," Reid means "capitulate when Bush says 'boo,'" then he will. n/t