First of all, thanks to Matt, Mike and Chris for tolerating my bigfooting of their blog today, and in advance for tomorrow.
That said, I've been going back and forth about whether to post candidate statements on FISA. Honestly, absent some sort of action, they mean quite little to nothing.
Are their press people trying to push the issue into the traditional media? Are they using their positions of influence to secure the votes of their endorsers in the Senate?
Most importantly, will they take the 1 hour and 26 minute flight tomorrow night from South Carolina into DCA? I mean, there is a good chance a filibuster goes late into the evening, well after campaign events. Dodd cannot speak forever, he is going to need Senators to relieve him for twenty minutes at a time by asking questions that allow him to take a break.
In my mind, that is *supporting a filibuster*.
Anyway, here are the candidates latest statements on the FISA and the filibuster.
In Washington today, telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press to win retroactive immunity for their illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.
"It's time for Senate Democrats to show a little backbone and stand up to George W. Bush and the corporate lobbyists. They should do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price."
"I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people - not the president of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program [… T]hat is why I am proud to stand with Sen. Dodd and a grassroots movement of Americans who are standing up for our civil liberties and the rule of law."
I haven't seen a statement for Clinton, but she "reaffirmed to [Markos] the senator's opposition to telco amnesty, and her support for a filibuster, if necessary."
So, there it is. Thoughts? What does "support a filibuster" mean to you?