Can someone explain to me (4.00 / 1)

what happens if this FISA 'compromise' doesn't get passed, or if the new FISA bill is vetoed? Doesn't that just mean that the _previous_ FISA law is still in force?

Isn't that our second-best option, after our perfect FISA bill? Why is that not considered a totally happy outcome for Dems? "You want to veto? Great! We'll get back to this in 2009."

---

by: Joel @ Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 23:58:03 PM UTC

Sunsets in about 4 months (0.00 / 0)

Joel, I agree that the Dems should refuse to pass a bill just to pass a bill.  The current extension of FISA sunsets 6 months after passage; I think there are about 4 months left on that period.

But the Dems need to continue an education offensive to educate the MSM as to why the current version of FISA is an abomination and cannot be enacted again by a responsible Congress.  Along the lines of "Mr. President, OK, you can veto this, but it is on YOUR head if you have to stop all national security wiretaps in the U.S. except those where there is probable cause sufficient to justify a warrant to eavesdrop as part of a criminal investigation."

A comment over at Think Progress on the White House's stonewalling of a request for Abramoff documents suggested a good line of argument:

1)  If Dubya were right that only people who are guilty of some wrongdoing want to keep the government from poking around in their business; and
2)  Dubya wants to keep the government (Congress) from poking around in the White House's business done with Abramoff; THEN
3)  Dubya is guilty of wrongdoing with respect to Abramoff.

Q.E.D., as we were taught in Euclidean geometry in high school.

Of course the initial premise (1) is faulty.  But rhetorically it makes sense to make a comparison between (a) the informed public's desire to have a judge determine whether the government has a legal basis to intercept their phone calls and (b) Dubya's desire to have a neutral party determine whether he has to let Congress look at his documents.

---

by: hardheaded liberal @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:13:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

-I- find that a strong (0.00 / 0)

rhetorical argument, but I'm not sure it's a political winner. I'd prefer something like: "This administration already undermined the legal cases against terrorists a dozen times by meddling with the constitution! We won't let them do it again."

Of course, I'd prefer all sorts of things ...

---

by: Joel @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 14:01:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If I were you Matt (0.00 / 0)

I'd get on the phone to Harman's office and see if she agrees with what is being posted. The reason I say that is that if you look at her other posts a dkos two things don't make sense. First of all it is obvious that she is not 'personally'  writing these posts - or at least not typing them. Several say 'more on the flip' and it is highly unlikely that she is typing that phrase but rather a staffer at best. The other abnormality is that there are a number of posts missing from here diary history. I know this because I remember them. I participated in several of them and they no longer exist. Several of them were very heated, she was called a bunch of names and after that one she didn't return for a long time. I really doubt the Markos deleted the diaries and even wonder if she requested that her account be deleted entirely . If she did then it's possible that her name has been hijacked by someone. Of course I don't know that but a phone call would confirm whether it has or at the very least confirm if a staffer is posting for her and that the diary reflects her views.

I really doubt the she dictated "This is rubbish" as the post at dkos says and "Got a better idea?". Those two phrases really cast some doubt on this last diary of hers.

BTW - I'm not a fan of Harman but I'm not a reactionary either especially when there are questions that should be asked about that last diaries validity.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 00:18:18 AM UTC

Kagro X (0.00 / 0)

called her office to confirm authorship of the latest.

---

by: Joel @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:51:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dems have eyes on nothing but the prize (4.00 / 1)

I agree absolutely that the Dems stance on FISA makes no sense either from the point of a nonpartisan citizen concerned with upholding the Constitution, nor from that of a Dem eager to take the fight to the enemy.

It makes excellent sense, though, if you're a Dem MC whose priority is to do nothing that might affect your shoo-in status for next November.

The risks? Distraction from more politically promising issues; opening up a wider front to GOP weak on national security attacks; causing conlict with the presumptive prez candidate; exposure of complicity of certain Dems (eg Harman?) in turning a blind eye to illegal wiretapping.

If Dem MCs think they're going to win by doing nothing, that implies that they'll think that their percentage play is always going to be Do nothing!

---

by: skeptic06 @ Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 00:27:41 AM UTC