A few final notes on the Senate version of FISA

by: Tim Tagaris

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 16:55


Just want to get this out into the ether before Bowers holds court on returns tonight.

1.) One final time, for the record: Our best chance to stop an extension with retroactive immunity died when Harry Reid decided to introduce the Intelligence Bill as the base bill.

2.) Four committees of jurisdiction reported a FISA bill out (2 house, 2 senate), and three of them didn't include RI.  The one that did, was reported as base in the Senate.  You figure it out ...

3.) Why didn't Dodd object to unanimous consent on the "compromise" that determined vote thresholds?  

Well, the answer is simple:  If he didn't Jello Jay would have bolted and brought Democratic Senators with him to vote in favor of a subsequent McConnell cloture motion.  The same kind we beat back before the extension.

Had Dodd objected, there would have been no amendments at all.  Not that the ones we got made a difference.

4.) It is on to the House now, where at least we have a shot of voting out a bill that does NOT include retroactive immunity.  Once that comes out of committee, Dodd has pledged to filibuster any bill that includes RI.

5.) Despite the fact we failed, this was a pretty rewarding experience.  Without "us" making our collective voices heard online (and offline), this thing would have sailed through the Senate with nary a peep.  I am sure Dodd would have fought, but this hard?  To this effect?  I am not sure.

If you count this as an accomplishment, I strain to recall another where we have played a similarly important and direct role.  We've made a difference in electoral campaigns, clearly.  To do so in the halls of Congress is something altogether different, and exciting for the future.

6.) At the risk of being called an Obama fanboy, he stepped up today.  When he could have been campaigning and attempting to secure more delegates in a close Presidential election, he was in the Senate ... voting.

For all the time we spent encouraging him and Hillary Clinton to do just that -- it is more than worth a mention.

Hillary Clinton, was not there to vote on these amendments -- despite all the grand press releases sent out over the course of the effort.

7.) Finally, more and better Democrats is what we need.  If there was one thing thing that can take the bitter taste out of my mouth this evening -- it's resting secure in the understanding that we have "one more vote," and are that much closer to a progressive majority in the legislative branch.  Go Donna Edwards!

Tim Tagaris :: A few final notes on the Senate version of FISA

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A few final notes on the Senate version of FISA | 18 comments
BETTER matters more than MORE (0.00 / 0)
If there is one thing Republicans have proven, it's that a determined minority can beat a weak or conflicted majority.

Go Donna!

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

Exactly ... (0.00 / 0)
if you go over to DailyKos ... they believe that Shaheen is just peachy ... but I have not seen much evidence that she's changed from the Bush tax cuts, Iraq War loving former Gov. ..  after the FISA fiasco .. I don't think we can be hard enough on these people .. they represent us after all .. they aren't there for the benefit of King George or the telcos .. besides .. who know it would be so easy for them to make themselves damn near irrelevant?
[ Parent ]
so should we withhold support for Shaheen (0.00 / 0)
And wait until next cycle to replace Sununu with a real democrat?  Or is the majority worth preserving, even if only nominally?

Because, remember, a Democratic president (hopefully) won't be asking for bullshit like this, and might even veto it, if we choose the right one.

[ Parent ]
I know ... (0.00 / 0)
a Dem(even nominally) is better than a Rethug ...  it just makes me ill that these asshats role over for the Boy King so easily .. it's like they don't even care to preserve their own power .. if Bush wanted declare martial law  ... and wanted to seize the press .. would the Senate grant him that too?
[ Parent ]
So let me get this straight (0.00 / 0)
It is OUTRAGEOUS that Bush broke the FISA law, and threatened the telecom companies into cooperating with him!  It shows just how LAWLESS the republicans are!

So, as good democrats, let's cancel out the lawlessness, and give retroactive immunity.

It is OUTRAGEOUS that Bush led us into Iraq, based on false spectures of weapons of mass destruction!

So, as good democrats, let's continue to fund the Iraq occupation, with little to no oversight.

It is OUTRAGEOUS that, at every turn, the Bush administration invokes 'executive privilege', scoffing at the democrats Congress, at the notion of checks and balances - as symbolized by the open chair where Harriet Miers should have sat.

So, as good democrats, let's whine, but do nothing.

It is OUTRAGEOUS that the Republicans have instituted a give to the rich/steal from the working man mode of government.  

So, as good Democrats, since we have power over pursestrings, let's fund the government using the same set of rules.

Sorry - but WHY are the Democrats so much better than the Republicans, when they seem to have pretty much the same results?

50% of DC dems are worthwhile (0.00 / 0)
While 100% of DC republicans are worthless.
[ Parent ]
Thems pretty poor statistics (0.00 / 0)
'Specially for a non-aligned citizen that don't give a rats ass about the MSPs.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
don't quite understand (0.00 / 0)
Are you the non-aligned citizen or am I?  And what's an MSP?

My point is, that's why we needs more and better Democrats, not more and better Republicans.  And let's face it, improving the democratic party is more realistic than running a 3rd party.

[ Parent ]
I'm "non-aligned" (0.00 / 0)
because I not a member of either Main Stream Party (MSP)

Rather than spending time "fixing" the Democratic Party - I prefer to try and open up the current system to make alternative parties more viable.

Do you think that the leaders of a putative Progressive party would sell-out the left-wing as easily as Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi?  I don't.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I have come to the conclusion (0.00 / 0)
That our constitutional system makes 3rd parties un-viable.  Clearly, you have concluded differently, but that's where I'm at.
[ Parent ]
I have come to the conclusion (0.00 / 0)
that we need a new Constitution.
[ Parent ]
You're not going to get it (0.00 / 0)
You're just not.

You can daydream about a new constitution all you want, but you're not going to get it.  If you want change, you have to play the hand you're dealt.

[ Parent ]
If the democratic party (0.00 / 0)
could somehow become more disciplined, in the sense of having their positions on issues well articulated and thought out say, five or six moves ahead (as in a chess game) instead of being so short sighted and reactive, they would have a lot more power and it would be easier to maintain. I remember in college seeing a couple of democratic fanatics (this is a compliment) just going over and over and grill grill grilling one another in preparation for a debate. These guys were honed, they had their act so righteously together.
It is a paradox, in a sense, that freedom requires a discipline and vigilance, a sort of un-freedom, in order to be preserved. Even more so to be re-won.
[ Parent ]
Constitution? Why not the electoral system? (0.00 / 0)
Opening up the electoral system to allow more viable alternative parties can get the ball rolling.

For example, take the current "primary/caucus" cycle.  Looking beyond all the debates and discussions on the Dem. side - it strikes me that the general populace has a mixed notion of precisely what these primaries are all about.

Are these internal party functions - or a poll of the general public?  The "open" primaries and caususes have truly muddied the waters on this point.  Prior to "fixing" the system, I think we need to determine precisely what we (as a nation - not as political parties) want from the primaries.  Are they supposed to be a kind of "pre-election", or are they intended to help the MSPs pick their nominees?  If its the latter - then drop the "open" events and make it clear that these are of concern to party members - NOT the general public.  If the former - then let's drop the party aspects.

I'd prefer to see a national pre-election.  You can cut it up into regions, or whatever - but I'd like to see the ballot and the mechanisms standardized (at least to the same extent as for the GE). The Presidential Pre-Election would list ALL candidates on a single ballot without regard to party affiliation (or non-affiliation, as the case may be).  Voters would choose 3, 4, or 5 (determined in negotiation for the system) IN ORDER of preference.  Vote counts and reporting would be of the raw totals - and the "winner" determined by an instant run-off mechanism. At what level (CD, County, State, Region) the IRV is implemented is an issue - I'd go for the Congressional District, but with all the data publically available - pundits, bloggers, and candidates could rearrange and parse in any way they wanted.

The results would not necessarily be binding on the parties - they could hold caucuses, or whatever, to make their nominations for the GE.  Or, they could take the results of the pre-election, break them down by party and see which of their candidates "won".  

Benefits: the system makes clear that this is an election - not a nomination process, i.e. it concerns ALL citizens, not just the partisans.  It breaks (to a minor extent) the two party tyranny.  It would demonstrate the viability of the instant run-off method of voting at the state/national level, which is a small, but important, step if we are to open up our political system to multiple parties.

Change the system - not the Constitution.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I hear you, but those 50% has led to what % improvement in legislation? (0.00 / 0)
THIS YEAR, when ostensibly, there DOES exist both a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House?
[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
What I'm saying is, let's replace the other 50%.
[ Parent ]
Roll Call (0.00 / 0)
Roll Call Votes: To provide for the review of certifications by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Roll Call Votes: On Cloture

If not NOW, when?

The other crazy thing is (0.00 / 0)
Bush only has 8 months before the election of a new President!!  His approval rating is in the toilet!  He has NO credibility, and the Republicans in Congress have even LESS credibility!! (Not that the Democrats in Congress are much better.)

Given all that, there simply is no excuse.  Clearly, the people voting for this legislation believe in it.

A few final notes on the Senate version of FISA | 18 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox