home

FISA Passes Senate, Vote 69 to 28

Update: Hillary voted against the motion to invoke cloture and the bill, Obama voted for both. It passed 72 to 26. The cloture roll call vote is here. The votes on the final bill will be available here shortly. All votes this session are here.

Via the ACLU (no link yet but check here soon):

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69-28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.

On the bill:

[T]he Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance.

“Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

More...

The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.

The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications.


“With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill – soon to be law – is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed.”

p. The ACLU will challenge the bill in court.

< Watch Your Butt in Flint, MI | Hillary's Statement on FISA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How did Hillary vote? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:17:14 PM EST
    I hear she voted NO on cloture and NO on the bill.

    Correct. (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    Yup, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    Obama even split with Durbin on this. Perhaps BTD is right that Obama is lying now.

    Parent
    Obama even split (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    with Kerry on this.

    Parent
    Not surprising. (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    Since losing in '04, Kerry has generally taken the correct (which is to say, the progressive) side of most major issues, especially those to do with Iraq and the abuses of the Bush admin. I hope he's happy that he has now played a major role in saddling his party with a nominee who shows signs of being more accomaodationist than he ever was, even before '04. CDS, anyone?

    Parent
    So Kerry was for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:21 PM EST
    before Kerry was against him.  At least today.

    Parent
    LOL (and hoping my stomach (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Rhouse on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    wound doesn't re-open).

    Parent
    What's funny is (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    I'm sure the usual suspects will excoriate Hillary for "showing Obama up," when in reality, if his purpose was to move to the center then she actually did him a favor.

    Parent
    I don't care why she did it. (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by Faust on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    I'm glad she did.

    Parent
    Crying wolf issue (5.00 / 12) (#25)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    Yes, I'm sure she will be blamed for something, sounds like FDL was already blaming her for whatever before the final vote was finished.

    But, if they're going to criticize no matter what you do, you might as well do what you believe in and to h*ll with them.

    Isn't there some other wolf-y saying, something about might as well be hung for a wolf than a lamb?

    Parent

    I have been very, very disappointed in.... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    ...FDL lately.

    Parent
    If this is based on my comment (none / 0) (#54)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    in the last thread, that was taken from one FDL comment on the cloture vote and not representative of what FDL itself - or other commenters - were saying.  FDL has Clinton's votes right.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:47:11 PM EST
    I misunderstood (although there were other comments about FDL besides yours).  I should have checked FDL myself.

    Parent
    Good, I'm glad of that. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:11:24 PM EST
    ...though I have been been disappointed in them lately, but at least they didn't do that.

    Parent
    Valhalla....Hillary's detractors may try to (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    paint her as evil again, but I DO NOT think it is going to stick.  obama is going to take a hit this time around....no free passes.

    Parent
    I sure hope so... (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    Because that'd be one the most ridiculous stances. Supporting the Constitution to "show up" the presumptive nominee.

    I emailed her urging her to vote against this legislation.

    Parent

    Not sure who "the usual suspects" are, (4.71 / 14) (#9)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    but speaking as a longtime Obama supporter and sometime Obama apologist, I'm pleased with the way she, and everybody else who voted against this atrocity, voted.  I only wish the candidate would have gone with them.

    She didn't "show him up" today.  He showed himself up.

    Parent

    Steve is (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    You Gotta Love (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:29 PM EST
    how even when she votes the way she said she would in January, she's just doing it to show Obama up.  She keeps her position, he changes his and it's still her fault.

    Not for all Obama supporters, of course, and that's appreciated.

    Parent

    Although actually... (3.66 / 3) (#34)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    reading the comment you linked, isn't that person (inarticulately) praising Clinton for rubbing it in Obama's face?

    No matter, though -- I'm sure many will indeed find an excuse to blame her for a good vote.

    Parent

    I pay no more mind (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    to the CDS-afflicted yahoos over there than I do to the ODS-afflicted yahoos elsewhere.  

    There sure are a lot of them over there, though, and they get away with a lot of BS.

    Parent

    as a long time Obama supporter (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
    Hillary voted for my principles today and Obama failed miserably.  I was hoping Hillary would vote this way and am sad for our country and proud of every democrat that stood up and voted for the preservation of our consitution.  As for Obama, he lost me to Nader weeks ago.

    Parent
    I was not suggesting (4.90 / 10) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    that all of the Obama supporters would find an excuse for anger at Clinton, by any means.  But the true haters are always able to identify her sinister motive.

    Parent
    and even more besides (3.66 / 3) (#189)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:41:46 PM EST
    but it's not hate: it's a tell.

    They have a nagging feeling that Obama will lose this one.

    Parent

    Pegasus...it is good to be in agreement (none / 0) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:14:46 PM EST
    with you today...

    Parent
    Not sure I share the sentiment... (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
    ...since us agreeing means the party's nominee did something so bad that we're both critical of it.  :/

    But point taken.

    Parent

    But the debate would still remain (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    Then?

    Or now?

    Parent

    From IL (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    Durbin answered my letter and stated that he would vote no. Obama didn't respond at all. But I knew when all the Chicago area Dem's in the House voted yes that Obama would too.

    Parent
    he split with durbin (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    on kyl Lieberman too.

    Parent
    Way to go, Hillary. (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    How they voted (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:27:24 PM EST
    Democrats voting in favor of final passage of the FISA bill: Bayh - Carper - Casey - Conrad - Dorgan - Feinstein - Innuoye - Kohl - Landrieu - Lincoln - McCaskill - Mukulski - Nelson (Neb.) - Nelson (Fla.) - Obama - Pryor - Rockefeller - Salazar - Webb - Whitehouse.

    Democrats voting against final passage of the FISA bill: Akaka - Biden - Bingaman - Boxer - Brown - Cantwell - Cardin - Clinton - Dodd - Dorgan - Durbin - Feingold - Harkin - Kerry - Leahy - Levin - Lautenberg - Murray - Reed - Reid - Sanders - Schumer - Stabenow - Tester - Wyden.

    Parent

    Whitehouse voted aye? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:37 PM EST
    Boy oh boy. You can't trust anyone these days. He's been pretty liberal on ther issues IIRC.

    Parent
    Whitehouse. Who'd have guessed? Lately, (none / 0) (#212)
    by DeborahNC on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    our legislators have been really disappointing.

    Parent
    That is an interesting list (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:31:10 PM EST
    Very happy with Hillary today, as well as the rest of the white hats. I might even say something nice about Kerry if I was asked to.

    Parent
    I take it the republicants (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:37:48 PM EST
    were marching in lockstep again?

    Parent
    But, Of Course (5.00 / 12) (#57)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    Bipartisanship = Democrats Caving.  Republicans never have to cross the aisle (and never do).

    Parent
    So if that is bipartisanship (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Fabian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    then what is leadership?

    :(

    Parent

    I'll let you know when I see some! (4.50 / 2) (#192)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:43:58 PM EST
    Just like lemmings (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    that's not a very big tent (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    if you ask me.

    Parent
    good job to all who voted against (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    Cantwell/Murray (and Clinton)  make me proud. shakes fist at Adam Smith
     

    Parent
    You took the words (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    right out of my mouth.

    Kudos to Patty, Maria and Hillary...no on cloture, no on the bill.

    Time to send thank yous!

    And DOLLARS to Hillary to pay off the remaining half of her primary debt.  Can't think of a better way to say thank you.

    Parent

    Adam Smith? (none / 0) (#144)
    by wmr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:13:29 PM EST
    Could you expand on that?

    Parent
    Rep. Adam Smith, D-WA (none / 0) (#157)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    Ah! (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    I thought we had a pro-mercantilist, for a second! ;)

    Parent
    Thanks. I needed a laff today.:-) (none / 0) (#169)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    he's my congressman (none / 0) (#164)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    And he voted for the bill when it was in the house. I'm bitter about it.

    Parent
    Thanks for clarification and respectfully suggest (none / 0) (#196)
    by wmr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    that in the future you refer to him as Rep. Adam Smith.

    Parent
    Whitehouse voted for this atrocity (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    I'm surprised. Well, there goes my admiration for him.

    So glad that Clinton voted no. Makes me glad that I cast my vote for her. Hope this makes the OFB head spin.

    Also, glad to see Tester voted against. Contributed money to him in 06 based on his statement that he didn't want to modify the Patriot Act, he wanted to appeal it. While his record on Iraq is not good, I'm pleased that he has keep his word on issues relating to restoring Constitutional rights.

    Memo to McCaskill: I'm ashamed that you are my Senator and that I helped get you that seat.

    Parent

    I'm SO surprised (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    at Whitehouse.  He's one of the last people I would have expected to vote for it.

    Parent
    I know. (none / 0) (#202)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    That is a huge surprise.

    Parent
    Hilary and Chuck (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by daring grace on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    Happy with both my senators today.

    This goes a long way to ensuring my votes for them in the future (like either one really needs it in this state) when I get unhappy with other votes of theirs.

    Parent

    How did Dorgan vote? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Pol C on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:43 PM EST
    His name is on both lists.


    Parent
    I noticed that after I (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    posted it.  I don't remember and it's too depressing to look it up again.  Sorry  :-)

    Parent
    FDL lists him as voting AYE n/t (none / 0) (#50)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    Also, your list missed (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    Byrd, Klobuchar and Menendez who also voted NO.

    Parent
    Mty bad. Dorgan voted No on bill. (none / 0) (#79)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    Yes on cloture.

    Parent
    Preview is your friend. (none / 0) (#100)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    I wish I would remember that. That was "My bad." My apologies for getting Dorgan's votes wrong.

    Parent
    Too bad I didn't do preview (none / 0) (#119)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    I might have noticed the missing and the duplicate Dorgan.  Oh well, maybe next time  :-)


    Parent
    Dorgan voted Aye on cloture (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    and Nay on final passage.  Duh...

    Parent
    Oh, that's better. (none / 0) (#191)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    incomplete list (none / 0) (#73)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:47:53 PM EST
    I haven't seen final posted yet. Anyone?

    Parent
    Here (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    a link to both cloture and passage.

    LINK

    Parent

    thanks (none / 0) (#108)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    I was going there, but had failed to click a second time on the bill.

    MN Klobachar....no on cloture and on the bill. Yes on the F/D amendment. She's an earlier Sen. Obama endoser. I'm happy with this vote. Maybe it's because I called her office this morning!

    Parent

    Not An Early Endorser (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:49 PM EST
    She held off her endorsement at the request of Emily's List and the Clinton campaign.  

    From my understanding, she was under enormous pressure to endorse Obama.  In part, this is because Minnesota has a caucus system which is dominated by Obama activists.  It's not enough to be popular in the state, you have to be popular in the caucuses since there can always be challengers and you won't get a primary vote with broad participation.

    Another reason to hate the anti-democratic institution of the caucus.  It locks people out because it's designed to.  The elite always want the power for themselves.

    Parent

    As a fellow Minnesotan (none / 0) (#132)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    and Klobuchar doubter, I am shocked she did the right thing here.

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#147)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:15:17 PM EST
    I stand corrected re the K-timeline on endorsement....not "early" but nonetheless, some time before Hillary ended her campaign. She also made many MSM appearances in support...ya know, as a female senator in support of Sen. Obama instead of Sen. Clinton.

    MN - a caucus system fer shure, but this year with a binding (previously straw vote) written secret ballot.

    Parent

    Whitehouse (none / 0) (#188)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    voted yes  :-(  

    Reed voted no.  Interesting.

    Both MI senators voted no, so that's something.

    Both NY senators voted no.

    I assume Kennedy would have voted no along with Kerry.

    Dorgan is on both lists.  Neat trick.

    Parent

    Woo hoo!!! (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    I'm singing and dancing around the room.

    This has me bummed and very angry though:

    69-28

    And this:

    "With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "This bill - soon to be law - is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed."

    What are those 69 morons thinking?  Good grief.


    Parent

    Yes she did (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    Thus opening the 2012 primary season :-)

    You heard it here first.

    Parent

    Kos gets owned (1.66 / 6) (#102)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    While I have no doubt that Hillary would have voted for the bill if she'd been the nominee, this was a good move to embarrass the Kossacks. I can't say they don't deserve it.

    Parent
    If "ifs and buts were candy and nuts" (5.00 / 14) (#118)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    During the primary Hillary said she would vote against it, and she did. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that she would have flipped on this issue as Obama did. Your premise that you are "sure she would have voted yes if she was the nominee" is based on nothing more than your wishful thinking in an attempt to make Obama's vote not look like the travesty that it is.

    Parent
    When It Comes to the Clintons (5.00 / 15) (#129)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    Everyone's a mind reader.  So much easier to impart nefarious motives that way than, say, by actually listening to what they say and watching what they do.

    BTW, I'm sure Clinton was under some pressure to vote with Obama because of the potential for her "no" vote to make him look bad.  That's why BTD predicted she'd vote with him.  So it's not like she had no pressure to change her mind.  She most likely did and she resisted it.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#180)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:38:10 PM EST
    In your second paragraph, you did exactly the same thing you were complaining about in your first paragraph - mind reading and imparting nefarious motives.

    I guess it's "Do as I say, not as I do" for you, eh?

    Parent

    No he didn't. (5.00 / 5) (#213)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:42 PM EST
    There is nothing in the second paragraph about her motives or her mental processes - only about the pressure she may have been under. Which is kind if obvious, since it's been discussed at this blog for the past, oh, seven days or so.

    Parent
    That's just tacky (5.00 / 10) (#124)
    by Pol C on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has better things to do than concern herself about Cheeto Nation looking or feeling bad. I doubt she cares whether they feel embarrassed or not. Don't project that kind of pettiness onto her.


    Parent
    Gee, where'd you copy and paste this (5.00 / 6) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    from?  Is this the newest CDS talking point?  Excuse Obama and excoriate Clinton because of exactly the opposite of what each of them did?

    I'm not surprised.  It's absolutely in line with believing Obama has a secret plan to become SuperProgressiveMan once in office.

    Parent

    WTF? (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    I'm not excoriating Hillary. She voted the right way on this. Good for her.

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:45:09 PM EST
    I have no doubt that Hillary would have voted for the bill if she'd been the nominee

    IS excoriating her - saying she'd be as two-faced as Obama on this issue if she were the nominee.

    That is a serious insult.

    Parent

    You are way too sensitive (none / 0) (#201)
    by nr22 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    There was no insult there except the one you imagined.

    Parent
    You stated (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    that you had no doubt she would have voted differently had she been the nominee. There is not a shread of evidence to support that. In fact, most signs point to the exact opposite.

    Parent
    I have no doubt (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:29:28 PM EST
    Hillary would have voted the same way on this bill if she was the nominee or not. She did not need to tack right to prove her national security creds or to prove she was strong.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    we'll never know.

    She sure did the right thing today.

    Too bad for him.

    Parent

    Oh well (5.00 / 16) (#5)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    I've seen this movie before.  On to the next sellout.

    I hope they at least let us keep the Third Amendment, because we don't have a spare bedroom.

    But think of all the new people (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    you can meet. Those brave soldiers from the heartland have to stay somewhere to protect your heathen city!

    Parent
    The only amendment that matters (none / 0) (#95)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:57:00 PM EST
    Is the second! The rest are part of a quaint bit of our history.

    Parent
    Recourse to SCOTUS? Is it Constitutional? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:27:19 PM EST
    What can we do?????

    Resign en masse from the Democratic Party, demand that they support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

    They'll get their big telecommm contributions and no care about us little lib/prog/leftish gnats.

    I am depressed. I have no idea where we can turn.

    For some reason, thought of Mrs. Robinson... (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:10 PM EST

    And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson,
    Jesus loves you more than you will know.
    God bless you, please Mrs. Robinson.
    Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
    Hey, hey, hey

    We'd like to know a little bit about your for our files
    We'd like to help you learn to help yourself.
    Look around you all you see are sympathetic eyes,
    Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home.

    Hide in the hiding place where no one ever goes.
    Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes.
    It's a little secret just the Robinsons' affair.
    Most of all you've got to hide it from the kids.

    Koo-koo-ka-choo, Mrs. Robinson,
    Jesus loves you more than you will know.
    God bless you, please, Mrs. Robinson.
    Heaven holds a place for those who pray,
    Hey, hey, hey

    Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon.
    Going to the candidate's debate.
    Laugh about it, shout about it
    When you've got to choose
    Every way you look at this you lose.

    Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio,
    Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.
    What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson.
    Jotting Joe has left and gone away,
    Hey hey hey.

    Parent

    Constitutionality (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    The ACLU says it is unconstitutional.  The strange thing is that everyone seems to just accept that this bill will somehow change rights we have under the Fourth Amendment.  It can't.  No law can ever change the Constitution.  But, it seems as though everyone is just sort of conceding the point.

    Parent
    Yes, always look on the bright side... (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    We still have the option of 5-10 years of court cases and appeals, hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees, to get a Supreme Court decision that may overturn this. All the while the spying gets ramped up even further. These guys never stand in one place, you know.

    Yup, it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood!

    Parent

    Hey, time for a song! (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    YAY, love that song. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:08:12 PM EST
    Getcher coat (none / 0) (#203)
    by oldpro on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:47:16 PM EST
    and getcher hat...

    leave your worries on the doorstep...

    Parent

    When signed into law, it can be used against the (4.66 / 3) (#67)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:45:17 PM EST
    citizens until it is declared unconstitutional or until some judge issues an order stating it cannot go into effect.

    This is not a good situation.

    And, of course, looking at formerly strong libs and supporters of civil liberties voting for this thing, have the actions it permits been used already to blackmail sitting members of Congress??

    Parent

    Well, it depends (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    The ACLU could always ask for an injunction preventing enactment.

    I don't have high hopes it would be granted, though.

    Parent

    You are naive (none / 0) (#145)
    by PamFl on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    It is better to delay or prevent bad legislation that hope the SC will overturn it. It will take years of legal wrangling and millions of dollars to fight this-that is, IF the SC will even hear it.
    The Judiciary Committees in the House & Senate, plus the US Attny General let it go to Congress for a vote. These are the very people who are supposed to vet legislation as to it's Constitutionality. They got exactly what they wanted.
    There is an old saying-It's easier to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.
     

    Parent
    Some of us have already en masse'd (5.00 / 5) (#195)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    out of the Democratic Party.

    I'm tempted to rejoin so I can quit again, but that would just make work for my town's voter registration staff.  And they've always been polite and lovely, so I don't want to do that.

    Parent

    Any buyer's remorse today (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    out there in Obamaland?

    Some (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:43:24 PM EST
    in the FDL comments there definitely was some.  There was also some CDS, but most of the people kept the focus on the folks who voted for this abomination instead of trying to wank a way to blame those who didn't.

    Parent
    sigh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by mwb on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    Not surprised by the vote or even Senator Obama's vote - but I am disappointed.  

    I made a donation to the ACLU today in anticipation of this travesty by our elected officials and in particular Democrats who claim to be so much "better" than their Republican peers on such things.

    At least they work to protect our Rights while too many of our elected officials disgustingly forget their oaths of office for transient political gain.


    They'll still get re-elected (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by This from a broad on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    We the voters will still re-elect these idiots to their phony-balony jobs.  They have nothing to worry about.  We all worship at the alter of "experience" and "ranking".  We are the ones to blame.  THROW THE BUMS OUT, I TELL YOU!

    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#165)
    by wmr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    the best we can do is find and support primary challengers.  For better or worse, that's our system.

    But look at what happened to Ned Lamont.  The greatest number of people will say either "No unknown will beat the Republican" or "Look at all the seniority OurGuy has; you want to give that up?"

    And don't give me any 'come the revolution' crap.  Any revolution in this country will go against us, because the corporate media will make sure that the revolution will be televised.

    Parent

    TPM is saying she voted (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    against the filibuster and aye n cloture. they need to get their information straight. she changed that vote.

    look... they are liars (5.00 / 12) (#71)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    go to a netroots blog two years from now and you'll see half of those idiots claiming Clinton voted YES on FISA.  Mark my words and give it a try.

    I'm serious.  Half of them think she voted yes on the 2005 bankruptcy bill.   So it's a pattern.  Its substantiated.

    Because I know some people know better and either remain or remained silent or even encouraged it, that is why I level that charge on the netroots.

    Parent

    Right on Edgar (5.00 / 7) (#134)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM EST
    and no matter how many times the lie gets corrected, it comes right back.  That's not a mistake, that's a strategy.

    Parent
    Please will someone go to TPM (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by DFLer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    and post the correction to Sen. Clinton's vote on cloture? I would but don't have a log-in there.

    There are several comments calling her a coward for voting "against the filibuster" and then conveniently against the bill.

    Parent

    OK...(braces herself) (5.00 / 5) (#208)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    I'm goin' in!

    Parent
    This really just makes me want to cry. (5.00 / 14) (#30)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:30:46 PM EST
    And what makes it worse is that the man who aspires to be the chief defender of the Constitution voted for it.  Voted FOR it.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around how I am supposed to reconcile that.

    We already have someone in the Oval Office who has no regard for the Constitution - do we really need another?  I don't care how many times he "explains" that his monitoring and review will be any better than Bush's - at this stage, it's already nearly impossible to believe anything he says, so how I can trust him to protect my rights and privileges any better than Bush has?

    He just doesn't get it.  And I can't entrust my vote to someone who has no idea what that vote means.


    no regard for the Constitution (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by noholib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:05:28 PM EST
    RE: Anne: "We already have someone in the Oval Office who has no regard for the Constitution - do we really need another?"

    I also want to cry.  So, this is the choice now: between two candidates who have no regard for the Constitution. And I think it's even more egregious from someone who studied and taught constitutional law! I do not want to vote for such a candidate.  

    However, I cannot in any way vote for continued Republican economic policies and so much else.  Senator McCain doesn't have a clue what to do about economics and much of what he says about foreign policy is downright scary.

    So ... take a deep breath ...
    I have always believed firmly that in a two-party system, it is a zero-sum gain.  If you vote for one, you deny the other a vote.  I believe that if I don't vote for the Democrat, then I am de facto handing a vote to the Republican.

    I am truly worried by where we are right now with the so-called Democratic nominee for the Democratic Party.

    Parent

    Well, look at it this way. (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:11:56 PM EST
    I believe that if I don't vote for the Democrat, then I am de facto handing a vote to the Republican.

    If that's true, then by not voting for a Republican, then you are de facto handing a vote to the Democrat. Two votes for the price of none, and its still a zero-sum game.

    Parent

    I LOVE this! (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    by not voting for a Republican, then you are de facto handing a vote to the Democrat
    .

    Now I have an answer to all the morons who tell me not voting = voting for McCain!

    Parent

    I believe a "Present" (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    vote is the way to go this year. I have it on authority that a "Present" vote is equivalent to a NO vote. "No" to both. When people ask you who you are voting for, you can correct them and tell them who you are voting against.

    Parent
    Presents? I love Presents! Lots of (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    Presents, peeps.  Gimme Presents in November. :-)

    Parent
    You know, (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by pie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:35:55 PM EST
    I didn't even hold out the tiniest bit of hope that they'd reconsider, surprise us, and vote no.

    What a freaking disappointment these people are.

    I want my country back.  

    Parent

    There is still the convention court of last resort (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST


    Anyone else find it (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:37:03 PM EST
    interesting that MCain wasn't there for the vote. I know he's been in favor of telcom immunity and I'm 100% sure he would have voted for the bill if he was there, but he wasn't. Politically, what does that say? Did Obama just p*ss away the Constitution and get skunked at the same time?

    Could it be . . . (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    that Ol' Man Strangelove isn't as stupid or crazy as many of us thought?

    Parent
    McCain has not cast a vote (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    since April 8, 2008.

    He just doesn't vote.

    Parent

    He's the Lily Von Schtupp (5.00 / 7) (#96)
    by madamab on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    of politics.

    He's...tired.

    Tired of playing ze game...

    [h/t Blazing Saddles]

    Parent

    He doesn't need to vote! (5.00 / 9) (#121)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    With the Dems so willing to vote an all-Republican agenda.

    Parent
    i plan (5.00 / 20) (#52)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    on thanking hillary for standing up for the consitution with a contribution to help her retire her debt; encourage y'all to do the same.  and then i really have to think about changing my user name, not so proud to be a dem these days. . .sigh.

    GREAT idea! (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM EST
    Here's the link

    We really need to reward them when they do the right thing.

    Parent

    thanks for putting the link up! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by proudliberaldem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:53:43 PM EST
    thanks! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Little Fish on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:56:55 PM EST
    I donated earlier. Hopefully more will too :). I'm going to call my senators and thank them as well.  

    Parent
    I Did Too (5.00 / 10) (#101)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:59:53 PM EST
    I've recently decided to direct my contributions to parts of the Democratic Party that have their own power base and will not be assimilated into the Obamanation like the DNC appears to have been.  With her vote today, Clinton remains one of those independent bases.  

    Parent
    I'm pretty broke right now... (5.00 / 12) (#109)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    but I sent her a thank you note.

    ::shakes head::

    Imagine thanking someone for standing up for the Bill of Rights.

    Parent

    I Know! /Monica Geller (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:52 PM EST
    But that's where we are and I think positive reinforcement for those voting the right way and negative reinforcement for those voting the wrong way is a good thing.  I'm sure your thank you note will be appreciated.  Clinton is reportedly a note writer herself.

    Parent
    Good idea! (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:08:14 PM EST
    I donated -- (I also donated on the 4th as part of the drive on the confluence).

    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:32:27 PM EST
    to both.  And I suppose I will have to give a few small iotas of thanks to Kerry for voting No.  Reluctantly.

    Parent
    Please don't go overboard. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:37:48 PM EST
    I want his primary challenger to win.

    Parent
    No overboard here (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:48:04 PM EST
    It's just a few iotas.  I'm still voting for Ed.

    Parent
    What's an iota going for these days (none / 0) (#216)
    by tree on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    ..what with the dollar being down and all?

    Parent
    Interesting Party Split on this vote (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by fctchekr on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:42:18 PM EST
    "Twenty Democrats, including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the party's presumptive presidential nominee, supported the measure despite continued resistance from Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Obama's former rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)."

    "The FISA courts are assured a major role, new protections are added for Americans overseas, and the surveillance authorization will sunset in December 2012, assuring the next president a chance to review the issue.

    Obama, who hopes to have that chance, grinned on the floor when this point was made in the course of debate by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.). But given the divisions among Democrats, the future nominee must navigate these waters carefully.

    Obama was careful first to support all three attempts to block or delay the immunity provisions, though none got more than 42 votes. And he has been helped by the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who brings with her strong ties to liberal Democrats, had backed the final bill in the House."

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11627.html

    Well good (5.00 / 15) (#66)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    We're going to let the Executive Branch look into whether the Executive Branch has been given too much power.  That sounds like just the way the Founders would have intended it.

    Parent
    I love that they mention (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    continued opposition from Reid and Clinton.

    I am seeing buyer's remorse on many sites.

    Parent

    Time for the Pepto... (5.00 / 11) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    anyone else want a swig?

    Somehow, the idea of Obama - or anyone - grinning at anything related to this vote just makes me want to vomit.  

    Parent

    Took the words out of my mouth (5.00 / 15) (#92)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    he "grinned" at the idea that he would be the one with this power as the next President. BLECH! That right there proves to me that he should not be President.  

    Parent
    skip pepto and going straight to jack (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by jjsmoof on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM EST
    Well, I wanted something to coat (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:58:31 PM EST
    my stomach with first...

    Parent
    Can Someone Explain To Me (5.00 / 9) (#106)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    why Nancy Pelosi would continue to have ties to liberals?  I know she's from Northern California, but what has she done in the last couple of years to deserve any credit with liberals?  Oh, wait, this is about defining "liberal" rightward again isn't it?

    Parent
    GRINNING??? Oh, drat-my stomach all upset again... (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    What kind of Dem is he? To grin at voting away our civil liberties? Our rights to privacy?

    And Whitehouse?? Has anyone here who is a constituent called his office to ask why he's gone off like this? Did someone slip him a mickey finn?

    A nation turns its lonely eyes to you,
    Boo hoo hoo....

    Parent

    Bush had his smirk (4.20 / 5) (#173)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    It's only fair that Obama should have his grin! Both reactions make my hair stand on end.

    Parent
    The Democratic party has till the end... (5.00 / 9) (#90)
    by AX10 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM EST
    of August to change their minds on this travesty of a candidate they have given us.  If the party wants my full support, they now know what they must do, they must nominate Hillary (the popular vote winner too) as the nominee.

    Daschle (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by angie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    That is who we will actually be getting by voting for Obama -- so why not put him on the ticket as VP to truly mirror his "Cheneyesque" role.

    MSNBC reported that both Hillary and O (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    did what the telecoms wanted . . .

    WTF?! Now Bush is speaking. {runs and hides}

    They Are Not a News Organization (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    True! Just threw me though (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    good thing I watched the vote  ;)

    Parent
    Understandable (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by BDB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    Hard to break old habits and we've grown up in a culture to think of news networks as, well, news networks.  But they aren't.  Propagandists lie.  And that's what MSNBC is.  

    Parent
    What?!?!? (5.00 / 10) (#141)
    by americanincanada on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:12:33 PM EST
    Hillary voted the right, progressive way at every turn today.

    WTF is MSNBC talking about?

    Parent

    What are they EVER talking about? (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:19:16 PM EST
    They are in their own world, a universe I cannot visit because I do not have cable or satellite...sometimes there is an advantage in not having that cr@p available.

    Parent
    We need more and better Dems, and much better (none / 0) (#112)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    MCMers.*

    *NMCMer--Member of the Mainstream Corporate Media

    Parent

    Wha??? (none / 0) (#123)
    by masslib on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:57 PM EST
    Please explain.  How does Hill fit in to this?

    Parent
    I have no clue (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    the guy was babbling about the bill, bush and the telecoms waiting for Bush to come out and comment.  Maybe it was the dude's wishful thinking slipping out?

    Parent
    Gloria Borger (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    on CNN says he moved to the center of the Democratic party with this vote as though that's representative of the country's views on this issue.  Then lists all the senators who ran against Obaman who voted against this bill as though they're all losers who are out of touch, no wonder they didn't get the nomination....what a load of crap.

    Well I guess (5.00 / 12) (#152)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:21:27 PM EST
    we should look at the bright side. At least now when we cuss about Obama over the phone, he will hear about it.

    LOL (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by echinopsia on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    Wish I could give you a 10.

    But let's hope he never gets near that kind of power.

    Parent

    We got the wrong person as our nominee. (5.00 / 10) (#154)
    by lentinel on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    "The issue put Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, in a particularly precarious spot. After long opposing the idea of immunity for the phone companies in the wiretapping operation, he voted for the plan on Wednesday. ..."

    "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who was Mr. Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, voted against the bill..

    "I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill," Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in closing arguments." (NYTimes today)

    No such luck, Russ. "Rule of law"? Please! So, so passé.

    We're gonna get Bush 3 whether it's via McCain or McObama.

    Seeing as you get what you (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Rhouse on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:31:51 PM EST
    pay for, being from PA we just had to get Rick Santorum (remember him and the Terri S. debacle) we just had to get him out and put in a Dem.  Well we did and gee I wonder how Bob Casey fells about the FISA bill or perhaps Choice?  Remember, just voting for a name with a D after it doesn't always mean that it's progressive.  And when you consider our other Sen. is Arlen Spector...

    Oh Well (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:39:40 PM EST
    I just sent a text email to a friend and it took noticeably longer than usual. The FISA court must have flicked the switch after the vote and now all emails are being detained in order to make us safer.

    Olbermann Special Comment ? (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by WakeLtd on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:42:21 PM EST
    "Today, Senator Obama valiantly voted for the FISA "compromise", in opposition to his previously stated principles, for the good of the nation. Everyone knows that a YES vote for FISA will ensure that "undecided" voters will reject the cynicism of John MCain, put a Democrat in the White House,  and once again, restore respect for civil liberties to the highest office in the land. How dare you,  Senator Clinton,  cast an opposing vote? How dare you act on the very principles you announced in January 2008 when discussing FISA? By putting principles and a blatant respect for the US Constitution ahead of your professed "support" for your party's presumptive nominee, once again, Senator Clinton, you have dragged us into the gutter of your ambitious agenda to restore a respect for law. Senator Clinton, once again, your craven adherence to principle has been exposed for what it truly is, a dirty, filthy, "old-politics" ploy to embarrass a great man, a wonderful man,  a transcendent man. At long last, Senator Clinton, have you no decency?"

    funny (4.85 / 7) (#133)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    cnn and foxnews dotcoms both have it as lead stories, no such mention on msnbc as of yet...KO, where are you noooowwww?

    You know what's funny? (5.00 / 7) (#172)
    by Steve M on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    All the apologists were like "look, no one cares about this bill, why hand the Republicans a free issue?"

    And then the moment the Democrats cave, wham, it becomes the lead story.  Political geniuses, these guys.

    Parent

    Nice work, Obama! (4.80 / 15) (#44)
    by lambert on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    And needless to say, his fan base!

    Obama fan base is shrinking (5.00 / 8) (#104)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:01:41 PM EST
    as fast as our civil liberties.

    Gallup tracking poll has him down to only a 2-point lead -- too close to call -- two days in a row now.

    And tossing out the two-week-old poll -- an outlier, anyway -- on realclearpolitics.com, the average of a handful of polls has it down to about 4 points.

    And Rasmussen has the solid votes in the electoral college at 200 for Obama, more than 70 away from what he will need.  And electoral college votes in very weak Dem states number almost 100 on electoral-vote.com.

    Somebody was saying this will be an easy year?  Somebody was saying to base support on electability?

    Parent

    I think (4.85 / 7) (#155)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:23:05 PM EST
    the netroots' dreams of an Obama-led 46-state landslide just went up in smoke. A 2-4 point lead is AWFUL at this stage, given the generally favorable environment for Dems and the fact McCain and the GOP have yet to unleash their sewage. Wasn't Kerry like 11 ahead at this point 4 years ago?

    Five months ago, we were told the only thing standing between us and a realignment-introdcing landslide was that divisive harridan Hillary Clinton as the nominee. Good call, dillweeds.

    Parent

    Kerry was never up more than 4 (none / 0) (#162)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    in any aggregation of polls, or daily tracking poll.

    Parent
    No, he went up to 6, maybe 7 (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:37:19 PM EST
    after the convention.  Nothing to brag about, certainly, but not just 4.

    Parent
    D'oh, right. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:39:25 PM EST
    Should have stuck to "at this point."

    Parent
    I think Landulph (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    may have been referring to Dukakis -- wasn't he up around 11 at this point?

    Parent
    yeah you hould have (none / 0) (#193)
    by Salo on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    Thank you for your valuable input. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    Have to hope the campaign (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    recognizes that for what it is  (lost support from the left outweighing the gains from the middle) and corrects course.  If they do, it'll still be an easy year.

    Parent
    It may be more complicated than that. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:38:41 PM EST
    It may be lost support from the MIDDLE as well, as voters from across the political spectrum question whether he has a backbone or principles, and whether his entire political persona is based on a fraud--whether he is, in short, simply another politician. For a guy who sold himself as uniquely representing "change," this could prove fatal. Previous Democratic nominees have been done in by less. The question is whether Obama's reversals of the past two weeks have undermined the entire rationale of his campaign. If so, it may not be possible to correct this with a simple move to the left.

    Parent
    Eh... maybe. (1.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:40:50 PM EST
    But Gallup has it as a +10 swing with indies in the last week -- maybe some noise in there, but that's a significant number.

    Parent
    Nah (4.50 / 8) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    When you talk to people close to the campaign about this, they say stuff like: "Come on, who really cares about that issue? Does anyone think the left is going to vote for McCain rather than Obama?

    That pretty much says it all about how much the left is valued by the Obama campaign. They are good little soldiers who will fall in line no matter what Obama does.

    need info (none / 0) (#19)
    by jjsmoof on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    per this comment "[T]he Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance."

    i though congress cannot pass a law that circumvents the constitution.  

    Only Supremes can declare it unconstitutional- (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    or parts of it. Will depend on Kennedy, as of current configuration, and he seems to defer to some imaginary power of the Unitary Executive.

    Obama wants that power, folks, or he would have gone against this bill and used his leadership position to try to persuade his supporters to vote against it.

    He wants the power.

    Parent

    Thank you for the clarification. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jjsmoof on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    They can pass it, the question is (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    whether it can survive challenge in federal court.  Congress could pass legislation that said 'there is no more constitution' if they wanted.  It's just that it can still be challenged.

    The ACLU will be bringing suit (or trying to) against this version of FISA.

    If it goes to federal court and is declared unconstitutional, it will probably ride all the way up to SCOTUS.  But that sort of litigation takes quite a while and really, with the balance of ideology in federal courts right now, a challenge isn't likely to be successful (imo).

    Parent

    It is up to the Supreme Court to determine (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    if it is in fact un-Constitutional. So there has to be a test case which goes to the Supreme Court before the law can be declared un-Constitutional.

    Parent
    Comments from Turley, quotes from Maddow (none / 0) (#60)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:42:44 PM EST
    Nobody. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by phat on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:46 PM EST
    Not one person on Countdown has any credibility at all and this point.

    Parent
    Yeesh. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Landulph on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    All four make me nauseous (Webb being the best of a bad lot). Can't we do better than this?

    This site has great breakdowns of votes by party, (none / 0) (#83)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:51:01 PM EST
    state, etc. GovTrack. Go to recent votes; final vote not up yet, but cloture is there.

    LINK

    NJ and NY senators united against cloture. (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    Yeah, Menendez and Lautenberg, Clinton and Schumer!!!

    And, Cream City, what is wrong with Kohl??

    Parent

    Richest man in Congress (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    -- both houses.  There is much wrong with Kohl -- and now I may have his nephew as my state legislator, too, with all that money behind him.

    (Thus my time and money go to my local races now.)

    Allow me to point out that Kohl got elected with no political experience whatsoever in a state that never had sent a woman to Congress then -- where women had been running for Congress since 1924 -- in part by a shamefully gendered campaign against a woman.  A Republican woman but a moderate and good on women's issues -- and the youngest woman ever elected to our state legislature.

    She left the state.  And we still have Kohl.

    Parent

    On stuff like this (none / 0) (#97)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    Kohl is bought and paid for.

    Parent
    Nobody can buy Kohl (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:06:07 PM EST
    as he's rich as Croesus.  As for how they could get to him, I can't say here.

    Parent
    He's rich in his own right--what's wrong with him? (none / 0) (#110)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    Yes, sometimes he votes the good votes, but, wow, on this?

    What is wrong with nearly half the Dems???

    Parent

    Repubs 100%, Dems 44% for BushCo! (5.00 / 7) (#105)
    by jawbone on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    What is wrong with 44% of the Democratic senators? Almost half of the Dems vote with the Unitary Execitive against the rights of the people and the Constitution.

    And this is hardly the first time that the Dems have joined with the R's to enable and protect BushBoy. They also decided to protect the Reagan-Bush I miscreants who attacked the Constitution and did very bad things.

    Then, those same miscreants came back into power under Bush II to do yet more bad, bad, bad things to our nation and the world.

    And nearly half the Senate Dems support this guy and Cheney?????

    Parent

    The Senate (none / 0) (#85)
    by eric on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:52:36 PM EST
    has both up:

    LINK

    Parent

    OT: Kennedy is back in the senate :) (none / 0) (#149)
    by nycstray on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:17:30 PM EST


    Wonder why he didn't vote (none / 0) (#211)
    by RalphB on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:51:11 PM EST
    if he's there?

    Parent
    I'ts like wathcing a beating but nothing is done (none / 0) (#217)
    by Saul on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    to stop it as Turley said last night on CD. Shame on those that voted yes.

    O judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,

    And men have lost their reason!



    We, the People Who Just Don't Matter (none / 0) (#221)
    by suzedeque on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:12:23 PM EST
    Have you signed petitions?  Made phone calls?  Written e-mails? Contacted your representatives?  Sent letters to the editor of your paper? Yeah...me, too.  Sure does an amazing amount of good, doesn't it?  

    Which representative in his/her wildest dreams actually thinks he/she is reflecting the People's will by voting Yes to this FISA bill?  How loud, how often, how increasingly menacingly do we have to tell them WE DON'T WANT TO BE SPIED ON EVER BY ANYONE, EVEN IN THE NAME OF SO-CALLED SAFETY??  

    Just how many representatives does it take to screw the American public?  I would imagine that just to be on the safe side almost the entire Congress and Senate would answer with one voice, "All of us, yahoooooo, and the HELL with the People while we're at it!"

    When's the revolution?  Sign me up!!

    Can we have a do-over on the primaries? (none / 0) (#222)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    "Hillary voted against the motion to invoke cloture and the bill, Obama voted for both."

    pretty pleaseeeeeeeeeee.

    What's wrong with Johnny & Janey? (none / 0) (#223)
    by pluege on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    I think a thorough examination of the public school system is needed to determine how the system could output ssssooooooo many Americans brain dead and complacent to when their rights are being stolen from them.


    Seriously though (none / 0) (#225)
    by weltec2 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:00:51 PM EST
    I wish I knew in precise numbers just how this is going to effect Obama's fan base, the college kid vote. He had them all hopped up on slogans. If they backed out, collapsing thunderously... would it be heard at the convention. One can hope...