Hopey, Changey

A couple of days ago, I wrote a post expressing disillusionment at the actions taken by the Obama Administration -- and, more specifically, not taken -- that seem to indicate that we may have been fooled again. That "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" gut-feeling, for which I have been criticized in the past, has been gnawing at the edges of my rational mind ever since our guy took the election and started to make personnel selections that were praised by self-interested Villagers as grown-up and statesmen-like, but which seemed to this bitter partisan to be more of the same, maybe not Chimpy McMean-Drunk level of sameness, but at least Clinton-esque, Third Way-ish, accomodationist same.

In the comments for my Disillusionment post, Matt asks me to give Obama more of a chance before condemning him as another LBJ. Um, sure. OK, I am going to give him a chance -- unless I act to overthrow his administration, what choice do I have? -- but just because I voted for him, I'm not going to be automatically pleased with every step he takes. Frankly, he has done very little to justify my previous faith in him and a great deal to make worry, from the Rick Warren slap-in-the-face to the bailout mess to state secrets.

So, really, what we're talking about here is misgivings. I have them. A lot of them.

Chris Bowers at OpenLeft outlines many of the same reasons and I find it heartening that someone who isn't a reflexive Reich-wing tea-bagger also feels the same way, though recent political history frames his reasons, which seem otherwise principally focused on the economic crisis and how it relates to assorted political dispositions. My fear for this administration and the man who leads it is that the economic crisis is but one facet of myriad other issues relating to empire, wealth, power, hegemony and class struggle.

Yet, because Chris Bowers is so much smarter than me, he is also able to articulate the reasons for those misgivings far better than this author. His take on the situation also gives more specific historical context with regards to Mr. Obama himself, his actions and the choices he's made that make a pretty solid case for progressive mistrust of the president.

His list breaks down into six keys reasons for his Case for Distrust (mostly with regards to the banking crisis):

1. Because it isn't just the Obama administration we are dealing with
2. Because there are too many dirty hands
3. Because they keep telling us to tone down the pressure on CEO's and Blue Dogs
4. Because I don't trust anti-partisan and anti-ideological rhetoric
5. Because I don't trust the Obama administration more than I trust other Democrats
6. Because President Obama flip-flopped on FISA

Of course, under each heading he presents a detailed account, though they should all be pretty clear just from their titles. However, I do have some choice quotes. The best one (and I had forgotten about this until reading Chris' post) was Obama's FISA vote. I was very upset and angry with him at the time. Here's Chris take on it -- quoted in full:

I don't trust President Obama himself because he flip-flopped on FISA due to right-wing pressure in the campaign. During the primaries, he vowed to fight telecom immunity tooth and nail, but once the primaries were over, he just flat-out flipped his position. This was a straightforward case where President Obama changed a position as a result of shifting political pressure. The conclusion I drew from that event is that it is possible to change Obama's public positions if there was enough political pressure for him to change, and that such pressure was necessary because he was willing to cave into right-wing demands if they applied enough pressure.

In short, FISA was the "distrust and pressure" object lesson for me. From that point on, there could be no benefit of the doubt. If you wanted Obama to side with you, simply trusting him and supporting him would not suffice. Distrust and pressure became requirements.

But the better section comes when he discusses the post-partisan language the Obama campaign and now administration uses in all its public presentations. Like me, Chris Bowers is wary of anyone from the left end of the spectrum who speaks of all of us just getting along. Like me, he cannot but think of such a person as either a dupe or a con-man. Decades of being repeatedly kicked to the curb whenever no longer needed to advance some upstart's career will do that to we trusting souls here in DFH-land.

When I hear "let's get beyond ideology and partisanship," it doesn't mean "reach out, sit down, and have a good faith discussion." Instead, it means "let's cave to Republicans on economic issues, foreign policy issues, and gay rights." I just don't trust Democrats who use language like that. Twenty times burned, thirty times shy, I suppose.

Again, I will say that apart from reigning in the most violent, high-profile and egregious authoritarian excesses of the Bush years, what has anyone in the Obama Administration done to justify the faith we seem to be putting in them (and please note the plural, that I haven't singled out Mr. Obama this time around, but refer to collectively to the administration that bears his name)? The misgivings, again, derive from the way the Obama Administration is expending energy. It isn't even what they are failing to do, the problems they haven't tackled, but the engagements they are actively seeking that are the cause of my disheartenment.

What engagements are those? Well, this one flew in on Friday afternoon under the radar amid all the "state's secrets" brouhaha this past week (h/t Glenn Greenwald):

The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight. . .

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

Pre-emptive responses: I don't think any defense of this behavior is possible. I don't want to hear about statecraft or Realpolitik or sausage-making or Obama Kung-Fu. Barack Obama became the Democratic candidate by creating an aura that he represented something different, that he was a Constitutional scholar who understood the stakes, that we could hope he would and could change things for the better.

Why in the world would we gullible, lefty moon-bat DFH dreamers have come to think such things about Obama? I dunno, maybe it was this speech on the Senate floor in September of 2006, when he said this (again, h/t Greenwald):

...restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

[...]

We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair.

How are we Dirty Fucking Hippies supposed to reconcile that man, and the administration working in his name?

The Leon Panetta Thing (The post where I tell Diane Feinstein and Harry Reid to shut the fuck up.) - UPDATED

It seems that Senator Diane Feinstein (D[INO]-CA) must have been travelling to a different country to get some kind of stem cell procedure done in order to grow the spine she was missing these last few years. Why else would she say something like this about Obama's choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA?

"My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

Really, Senator Feinstein? Then why say this back in 2004 after George W. Bush nominated Porter Goss for the same position?

"I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI..."

Oh, right. It's because the President was a Republican, wasn't it? And we all know that Democrats in Congress are so used to bending over and taking it in the ass that it was only natural that you say something like that.

And you dared let your ego get the better of you and have a hissy fit. When Bush nominated Porter Goss for the same position you thought Goss' credentials were fine. Then Goss himself said he wasn't qualified for the position. (Why he accepted is another story.) So why should you really be kept in the loop as to who is nominated? You've proven that sometimes credentials don't make someone good at their job.

Jay McDonough: Both Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller had ranking positions on the Senate Intelligence Committee and were completely ineffectual at stemming the abuses of the Bush Administration and, in fact, in most cases sided with the Administration on key policy issues. It was just a week ago that Vice President Cheney confided they had shared information about the Administration's illegal surveillance programs with key Democrats (this, most certainly, included Sen. Rockefeller) and those Democrats advised Mr. Cheney the programs should continue and the Congress needn't be involved.

Well, I'm weally sorry you got your wittle feewings hurt by not being informed initially, but get the fuck over it. Take your hurt feelings, and your Donna Reed motherfuckin' hairdo and your fucking FISA vote and get the fuck outta here. You too Jay Rockefeller, you fat fuck.

We've all been worried about obstructionist Republicans, but it looks like the real problem might actually be Democrats who feel they can't be pushed around anymore... by a new Democratic president who has vowed for more transparency than ever before. Does this make any fucking sense?!

Now Majority Capitulater Harry Reid is all of a sudden become Captain Opposite Man, insisting that there was no way in hell he was going to seat Roland Burris to Obama's vacant Senate seat... unless of course Reid copped out and would seat him if he had the proper credentials; and he didn't bother trying to seat Al Franken for fear of a Republican block. And yet, he says this about his relationship with the President-elect:

Reid stated, "I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government."
"If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. ... I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him," he said.

'Atta boy, Harry. Good thing you followed you own rules for the last two years when you blocked every move Bush made and called him out when overstepping his bounds; stopped him in his tracks when he thought he was above the law with all those signing statements and.... oh, wait. Nevermind. You didn't do any of that did you? You caved, didn't you? And now we can expect six more years of caving to the Republican minority... well, a minority at least until the Democrats blow it again and Republicans regain control of Congress.

Fuck cloture votes. Until Reid makes the Republicans actually filibuster something they're opposed to and not pee in his pants with just the threat of a filibuster, I'll apologize and take it all back. Until then, Harry Reid can shut the fuck up too, that worthless shit.


UPDATE (1/8/09 10:25am):

Politico: The Majority Leader thinks former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens shouldn't face jail time for his seven-count federal conviction last year, telling our Manu Raju, who was also in the room, "My personal feeling, you guys, I don't know what good that [would do]... He was a real war hero too, you know. He's been punished enough."

Punished enough? Please explain the punishment, Senator Reid. Please explain how Stevens didn't understand the procedure when he was recorded saying that the worst that can happen to him is a fine and a little jail time. Please explain how he didn't understand the rules changes. He's a goddamn Senator, for fuck's sake! If he doesn't know the rules, then he shouldn't fucking be there. I was always taught that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I guess that is unless you're a member of the US Congress, of course.

And by the way, I think that it's a pretty big fuck up to get your home renovated for free. He didn't know there was something wrong with that? And what a fucking disgrace that the US Senate thought it appropriate to give a convicted felon a standing ovation on his last day there. That was a goddamn embarrassment.

Yeah, like I said, Reid needs to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Another Sad Day In The Life of a Capitulating Democratic Party

FISA capitulation passed. And you can hear the evil bastards in the White House laughing their asses off through the walls of the Oval Office.

From Glenn Greenwald:

UPDATE VI: Cloture on the bill just passed 72-26. Obama voted in favor of cloture along with all Republicans. Hillary Clinton voted against cloture.

After the cloture vote, the Senate just approved final passage of the FISA bill, by a vote of 69-28. Obama voted with all Republicans for the bill. Hillary Clinton voted against it.

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.

Once again, in an effort not to appear weak on national defense, the Democrats capitulate and look weak, period.

And even though Senator Obama understandably (and hopefully begrudgingly) voted in favor of the bill for political reasons, as he said he would, it's disappointing nonetheless. There isn't one Democrat with the "fuck you" attitude (that liberals and progressives yearn for) in a position to make a statement on a vote like this. Sure, Hillary Clinton voted for it, but what does she have to lose? Her statement by voting against the bill now is basically, "Fuck you, Barack." Call me cynical, but I'd venture to guess that if Hillary had won the nomination, she would have voted in favor of the bill as well.

Yes, it's a very sad day indeed to be a Democrat. And we should have nothing to say when the right wing nutbags pile on in the "kick 'em while they're down" stompfest. Let them have their giddy few days. Just take it and remember it. Don't forget it... and think about November.

Feingold On SCOTUS 2nd Amendment Ruling

Senator Russ Feingold: I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights."

This is the perfect quote, especially in light of the FISA "compromise" bill currently in the Senate.

Do I believe in an individual's right to own a gun? Absolutely, but I also believe that government has a role to regulate who has that right. Anyone convicted of a crime should have their right forfeited and a mandatory five day waiting period for background checks is a must for everyone. Sometimes people wait longer when they buy a new car than when they purchase a firearm.

This ruling also takes the NRA's "they wanna take yer guns" argument off the table when critizing pro-gun control politicians. There is no excuse any reasonable person would give to oppose a short mandatory waiting period.

Dodd and Feingold To The Rescue?

Shhh... don't tell anyone, but it looks like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold are going to filibuster the FISA compromise bill. But they're not using that word. Must be bad juju.

Initially there were reports that Feingold would not filibuster the bill. But in an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Feingold explained procedure:

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Feingold, will you filibuster this bill?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: We are going to resist this bill. We are going to make sure that the procedural votes are gone through. In other words, a filibuster is requiring sixty votes to proceed to the bill, sixty votes to get cloture on the legislation. We will also—Senator Dodd and I and others will be taking some time to talk about this on the floor. We’re not just going to let it be rubberstamped.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you filibuster, though?

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD: That’s what I just described.

A joint statement released by Dodd and Feingold explains that "they will oppose efforts to end debate on this bill as long as it provides retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that may have participated in the President's warrantless wiretapping program, and as long as it fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans."

Hmmm... so basically, they're going to filibuster without using the word "filibuster"... maybe it's bad luck to use the word "filibuster" on the Senate floor. Sort of like using the word "Macbeth" in a theatre.

Shhh... don't tell anyone, but it looks like Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold are going to "Scottish play" the FISA compromise bill!

Defending Obama On FISA

I woke up Friday morning to an e-mail in my box from the Obama campaign. It was a two and a half minute video of Barack Obama and his announcement that he was foregoing public funding for the campaign.

"Join me and declare your independence from this broken system, and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people."

So I gladly donated for a second time to Senator Obama's campaign. I spent the rest of the morning writing a rebuttal to an Obama smear e-mail and taking great joy in sending it to every schmoe that ever e-mailed me crap like that and giggled as I imagined their faces as they read. On my way to work, I felt good for the first time in a while, sending some cash to Obama and fighting the lies. I actually felt a spring in my step.

Then I got to work and read this: House Passes New Steny Hoyer/FISA Bill. KAPOW!

It took me a couple of minutes to regain my breath, and just as I was starting to feel better, I read this: Obama on FISA - "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

KABOOOOOM!!!! Kicked in the balls!

Still seeing stars, I decided to take a deep breath, count to ten, and try to sort this all out. Steny Fuckin' Hoyer... that's where the anger needs to be directed. Hoyer and Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.

Think about it. It's been barely two weeks since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign and endorsed Barack Obama. The most recent polls show Obama leading McCain in swing states, rewriting the fucking electoral map by the minute. No scandal du jour to speak of - Rev. Wright is forgotten, and guest preacher Father Michael Pfleger's Hillary rant was the last straw that caused Obama to actually sever ties with Trinity United Church of Christ. Even Michelle Obama co-hosted The View to improve her image and show the world that she's always been proud of her country. A hard stance on the "compromised" FISA bill voted in the House would fan the flames of dying embers.

He's stuck between a rock and a hard place and it's the House Democrats who put him there. The worst part of the whole thing is that it always seems like the Democrats in Congress don't know what the fuck they are doing. Maybe because they really don't. They are so petrified of being perceived as soft on national security that they capitulate to the whims of a lame duck president who made us less safe in the first place; and they don't realize that the capitulation itself is what truly makes them look weak. It makes the Republicans look like they were right all along.

Let's take a step back and realize that through it all, Barack Obama is a politician. And at this point in time, it's not wise to come out in harsher tones than is necessary regarding a crap FISA bill that still has to pass through the Senate.

Unfortunately, before you can say "telecom immunity", the liberal blogosphere goes apeshit and acts as if Barack Obama just ran over their dog. Twice. Atrios calls Obama "Wanker of the Day." Digby is "tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment." It's understandable to a point. But why trash our own Democratic nominee and likely next President of the United States before we've gotten him out of the wrapper?

Here's John Cole's reaction to the liberal freakout entitled "Things I Learned Today":

Obama can not snap his fingers and magically change the minds of hundreds of Democrats elected by people other than Barack Obama, and because of it, he does not deserve the votes of the netroots.

Also, compromise means getting everything you want, not just shifting the debate and working to remove portions of a bill that you find objectionable. Compromise to the netroots is much like George Bush’s definition of compromise. Who would have thunk it.

Additionally, Obama apparently hates the Constitution.

The last thing I learned today is that the ideal candidate goes down with the ship. It does not matter if that candidate was right on the issue all along, did everything he could to win the fight, but that he must go down with the ship. It does not matter if the fight is already over and the battle lost, real candidates try to maximize the loss by inflicting political pain on themselves.

You all make me cranky. Enjoy President McCain, whiners.

And he makes a good point. Is Senator Obama supposed to slit his own throat with a FISA tantrum to satisfy his loyal base, damn the consequences? Don't forget that he also said this in his statement: "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

And is he the only Senator opposed to this bill? Did everyone forget the existence of Russ Feingold? Or Chris Dodd? Filibuster away. My hope is that Harry "Poopy Pants" Reid will get all flustered because nothing else is getting done in the meantime and table the bill. And if they are able to strip the retroactive immunity from the bill, then Mensa Man will veto it anyway and at least the Dems can say they tried, but Georgie doesn't care enough about national security and too much about the corporations that did his evil bidding in the first place.

So chill, people, or I will hide your Firebird keys. Direct your anger at the cowards who voted for the bill.

My other thought (initially, while I was still angry) was that both sides are knee deep in shit (would that be so surprising?) and this is a way for the whole thing to go away. Immunity equals the end of getting the bottom of things and finding out the truth. If there are Democratic hands that are as dirty as Republican ones, then the bill will pass. And that would make me very sad indeed.

And I started the day with a spring in my step.

Democratic Backbone? Not In This Congress

This is depressing. House leaders stalled the FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to telecoms passed by the Senate under the guise of civil liberties and the rule of law, giving a glimpse of hope for the few remaining Democratic eternal optimists that finally the party would make good on promises made after the 2006 election.

But like a sadistic master dangling a treat in front a his loyal but stupid dog, it looks like they'll pull the treat of the defense of the Constitution once again, giving the White House everything they wanted in the first place, and as Glenn Greenwald notes, putting themselves in the worst possible position by picking a fight on a highly volitile issue that has gotten a lot of media attention, only to capitulate and give the Republicans more fodder.

...No rational person who has watched Congressional Democrats since they took over Congress could possibly have expected them to do anything but what they always do: namely, whatever they're told to do by the White House.

...what is somewhat baffling in all of this is just how politically stupid and self-destructive their behavior is. If the plan all along was to give Bush everything he wanted, as it obviously was, why not just do it at the beginning? Instead, they picked a very dramatic fight that received substantial media attention. They exposed their freshmen and other swing-district members to attack ads. They caused their base and their allies to spend substantial energy and resources defending them from these attacks.

And now, after picking this fight and letting it rage for weeks, they are going to do what they always do -- just meekly give in to the President, yet again generating a tidal wave of headlines trumpeting how they bowed, surrendered, caved in, and lost to the President. They're going to cast the appearance that they engaged this battle and once again got crushed, that they ran away in fear because of the fear-mongering ads that were run and the attacks from the President. They further demoralize their own base and increase the contempt in which their base justifiably holds them (if that's possible). It's almost as though they purposely picked the path that imposed on themselves all of the political costs with no benefits.

...Even with their ultimate, total compliance with the President's orders, they're still going to be attacked as having Made Us Less Safe -- by waiting weeks to capitulate, rather than doing so immediately ...It was a loss for them on every level.

And so here we find the American people (at least the Democratic ones) laying on the ground, dejected, demoralized and feeling like fools for allowing Lucy to pull the football away as we tried to kick it yet again.

What do we do now? Better Democrats. The gang of losers in the Congress are so used to giving in time and time again that they don't know how to win. How many times does the GOP minority leadership have to fuck them in the ass until they get the picture that the have to fight fire with fire? There is no negotiating with these cretinous bastards. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. What was that line that Malone (Sean Connery) says in The Untouchables? "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."

This is the only way the Republicans know, and if you give an inch they'll take a mile. But the weak, flawed Democrats in Congress have just gotten so used to atomic wedgie after atomic wedgie, so used to being stuffed in a locker after having their milk money stolen time and again, that they know no other way to act even when they are in the majority.

The worst part is that if they really and truly cared about the rule of law, about defending the Constitution as they say they do, the separate votes they plan to cast on the FISA and immunity to cover their own asses would never take place. But please pay attention to those Democrats that will vote "yea" on immunity and put them on your sHit List of the Democrats we must replace in Congress. That list is getting longer and longer all the time.

Protect America Act Expired... And We're Not Dead Yet

The Protect America Act that made wiretapping and government spying into your home legal expired at midnight on Friday night/Saturday morning, and despite the heavy duty fear mongering by the President and his minions, we're still here.

Now I don't mean to sound glib about the whole thing, but it really pisses me off that the same people that fell asleep at the switch on 9/11 have been using the fear tactic for the last 6½ years whenever it was convenient to distract, deceive and draw the American people into a false sense of panic. Any time presidential approval ratings were down or any time another scandal surfaced, the threat of terrorism was used by the Bush administration as a form of smoke and mirrors. Pay no attention to the retarded man behind the curtain.

And then came the end of last week with Bush insisting that the House pass the "good bill" that a weak-kneed Senate voted in favor of, that not only expanded the eavesdropping that has been going on for years, but that also granted retroactive immunity for telecom companies that aided and abetted the Bush administration of conducting illegal wiretapping, and that failure to do so would allow the terrorists "to bring destruction to our shores that would make September the 11th pale by comparison."

That dirty motherfucker... he dares to scare ignorant Americans and blame Congress after he said he would veto any bill that didn't grant retroactive immunity to the telecom companies and refused to grant any temporary extension to allow further debate. Watch the video (link above). Even national intelligence director Mike McConnell's jaw hit the floor when Bush spewed out the 9/11 "pale by comparison" line.

What does immunity have to do with anything? Everyone knows that normal FISA procedures would continue after the sunset of the PAA. The FISA court still exisits. All you need to do is actually follow the law and obtain a warrant, which by the way, can also be gotten retroactively.
And how ridiculous is it that the Heritage Foundation has actually put a "FISA Overtime Clock" on their website. Are they hoping for an attack so they can play the "I told you so" game? For fuck's sake! And to top it off, the time clock isn't even correct!

Sorry George, we're not dead yet.

Chicken George the Fearmonger

Aren't we all just incredibly tired of the bullshit that comes out of the mouth of George W. Bush? Seriously, every time this guy opens his mouth, my spine curves, my ears bleed and my brain aches.

Once again, Chimpy has stated that "our country is in more danger of an attack" because of Congress' failure to adopt a Senate bill that includes telecom immunity protecting them from liability in possible lawsuits for violating Fourth Amendment rights.

"American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."

At yet at the same time, the national director of intelligence Mike McConnell, told Renee Montagne the main issue is liability protection for the private sector on NPR radio this morning, also stating that surveillence already underway will not expire for one year. Of course his excuse is that the telecom companies are more and more reticent to continue the program as time goes on for fear of lawsuits. But again, all that's needed is a warrant and poof!, liability is not an issue.

As usual, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow explain it so simply, even a moron can understand it... uh, that is, almost any moron.

Andrew McCarthy on FISA Bill

This is just a laugh.

Steve Benen at C & L notes National Review's Andrew McCarthy and his latest editorial calling House Democrats out for playing partisan politics by not passing the horrible FISA bill with retroactive telecom immunity, which he admits is a bad bill, but what other choice do we have?

Here's another choice. No immunity. As Kevin Drum points out: , "...if it’s that important, there’s a simple answer: pass the bill without telecom immunity. Then come back and introduce immunity in a separate bill. If you’ve got the votes for it, fine. If not, too bad. I’m against immunity myself — though hardly hellbent on the subject — but whichever way the vote went, in the meantime we’d have the FISA extension and surveillance could continue normally."

Drum also notes that the "FISA extension" is shorthand for the Protect America Act, which passed last November and extended (i.e., changed) the then-current FISA legislation in various ways. PAA sunsets on Saturday if a new bill isn't passed, but the original FISA legislation will stay in place. It just doesn't magically disappear thereby materializing nasty Muslims on the streets who want to kill us for our freedoms.

As I said before, if it were truly a matter of life and death, why would the president effectively veto the bill by threatening to do as much without the immunity provision? Answer: Because there's no "there" there. The only reasons the administration wants immunity passed is so they can get away with the further erosion of the Constitution, protect corporations yet again while screwing its citizens and hide the crimes they have committed. Immunity equals no investigation.

So who's playing political football with national security? The Democrats who are trying to preserve Fourth Amendment rights for US citizens, or the Republicans who walk out of Congress, holding their breath til they get their way, crying "it's my ball and I'm going home"?

This false argument that we need to protect the telecoms from lawsuits or else they won't help us is complete bullshit. Case in point were the telecoms who stopped providing the information because the FBI failed to pay their phone bills! If they were really doing it "in good faith", then the information would have kept on flowing. So there goes that argument.

If the US government has a warrant, then the telecoms HAVE TO comply and no lawsuit would stand up in court. But the fact of the matter is that the US government doesn't want to pick and choose who they need to surveil on real facts and real leads. They just want to look like they're doing something so they record and read EVERYTHING from EVERYONE... how in hell can they effectively sort through all that data? It's the equivalent of the "no-fly"watch list being 800,000 people long (and including Senator Ted Kennedy). If everyone's on it, then it's absolutely useless.

I'll have more on this later because in skimming through McCarthy's editorial, it reads like your basic GOP talking points memo through and through, so I feel the need to stab a few holes in it when I have more time... much more time.

GOP Walks Out Of House - Dems Say Keep Walking

Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner accused the Democrats in the House of Representatives of "political stunts" in bringing to the floor a vote on a resolution to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas isued by the Judiciary Committee. Then he and his rat bastards colleagues pulled their political stunt and walked out of the chamber in a seemingly "impromptu" moment... to a waiting podium and microphones on the Senate steps.

All this under the guise of accusing the Dems of wasting valuable time instead of bending over and letting the Bush Crime Family fuck them again, and by using the fear card (the only card in their deck) to attempt to scare the American people yet again, with threats of terrorism and imminent attacks if the House didn't acquiesce and give telecom companies immunity in the latest FISA bill.

But who knew that finally, Nancy "Impeachment Is Off The Table" Pelosi would show more balls than Harry Reid and continue with the vote while the Rethuglicans froze their asses out on the Senate steps?

It's about fucking time you started showing you're in the majority, Nancy. Thank you!

And yet we have Chimpy saying he'd delay his trip to Africa so he can sign the legislation that the House must pass, then only to find out that the whole "walk out" backfired... so he decided to leave anyway.

To Mr. Bush I say this: Get a warrant, you fucking criminal. It's worked for 200 years.

And I say this to Boehner and the rest of the filthy pigs who walked out on their oath to defend the Constitution agaist ALL enemies, foreign and domestic: Keep walking you miserable motherfuckers. You are useless, obstructionist, do-nothing assholes with absolutely no regard for the rule of law, complete neglect for the system of checks and balances and you have spit in the face of Congressional oversight.

If we truly were in imminent danger as these Chicken Littles suggest, they why in the hell would Bush threaten to veto any legislation without telecom immunity attached and also deny an extension of the current law? The answer is because there is no imminent danger.

Here's Keith Olbermann with another amazing Special Comment, in which he calls Bush a liar and a facist! Incredible!

So, fuck off George. Fuck off, John "Boner". And fuck off, all you Republicans who walked out of the House of Representatives today.

Here's the "did not vote because God forbid we expose the administration for what it truly is and we can't do that because we are cowardly bastards, so we'd rather walk out and make believe we're doing it to protect the people" list. File it. Keep it. Highlight it. Do whatever you need to do to remember these names and do everything you can to vote them out of office when the time comes.

Bush to House: Approve Immunity Or We All Die

More fearmongering from our intrepid leader. What a pig.

NY Times: President Bush strongly urged the House of Representatives on Wednesday to quickly approve a surveillance bill passed by the Senate Tuesday evening, saying he would not agree to a further extension of the current eavesdropping law.
The president effectively gave the House a deadline to act, since the current authority to intercept telephone conversations or electronic communications expires at midnight on Saturday.
“There is no reason why Republicans and Democrats in the House cannot pass the bill immediately,” he said in comments made at the White House, adding that the failure to do so “will jeopardize the security of our citizens.”

Keith Olbermann and Jonathan Turley have more:

Democratic Senate Caves Again!

MOTHERFUCKER!

The Senate rejected a series of amendments that would have restricted the government’s surveillance powers and eliminated immunity for the phone carriers, and it voted in convincing fashion — 69 to 29 — to end debate and bring the issue to a final vote. That vote is expected later this afternoon, with the result all but assured. On the vote to end debate, 28 Democrats and Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, opposed the measure. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Lindsey Graham did not vote.

...Beyond the immunity provision, the Senate measure would also widen the executive branch’s surveillance powers by allowing the National Security Agency and intelligence agencies to use broad orders — without getting court orders in advance — to eavesdrop on groups of overseas targets, rather than using individualized warrants.

Here are the 20, TWENTY! Democrats that voted for ending debate. I suggest you right this list down for future reference because these are the scumbags we don't want representing the Democratic party.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA),Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Johnson (D-SD),
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea - They still list this motherfucker as an Independent Democrat.
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea - Jim, what the fuck?!
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

And our presidential candidates, how did they vote?

McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), DID NOT VOTE.

FISA Vote Today

Olbermann's Special Comment: Of FISA and the Telecoms

Our stalwart Commander in Chief wants the FISA bill as soon as possible to protect us from the evildoers. That is of course only if it includes retroactive immunity for the telecom companies. Otherwise, he'll veto it. Boy, I'm sure glad he's watching over us, aren't you?

This is probably the best Special Comment I've seen from Keith Olbermann.

The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call going through room 641-A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month.

Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping, and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason… but you would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible.

Senate Rejects Judiciary Version of FISA Law

(Updated below.)

The Senate has just voted to kill the Judiciary Committee's version of the FISA reauthoization law that excludes retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that illegally wiretapped citizens at the request of the Bush administration. The vote was 60-34.

There were immediate requests for amendments to be attached to the Intelligence Committee version by Senators Feingold and Rockefeller. Senator Dodd wanted to weigh in as well and there was an obection by Mitch McConnell.

I guess it's time for Chris Dodd to do some filibustering.

UPDATE: Feingold was interviewed by Huffington Post and disagreed with Reid on his initial procedure. But Reid says, "Senators Dodd and Feingold will seek to strike the immunity title entirely. I oppose immunity, and will support their amendment," said Reid. "If this amendment is not adopted, there will be other amendments to limit the immunity provisions in the Intelligence bill... As I have said before, if there are senators who don't like these amendments and think they should be subjected to 60-vote thresholds, these senators are going to have to engage in an old-fashioned filibuster."

By the end of Thursday debate had been postponed to Monday, after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell moved for a vote on cloture on the Intelligence committee version and Reid objected.

WTF, Harry Reid?!

(Updated below)

Listed among Senator Harry Reid's accomplishments is his boxing past when he was a young man. Well, it looks like any fight Reid had left in him remained in the boxing ring all those years ago because he has done nothing but capitulate and kowtow to the Republican minority since becoming Senate Majority "Leader."

The latest insult comes in the form of Reid's insistance that the current FISA bill up for consideration including telecom immunity of the illegal wiretapping that was done on the behalf of the Bush administration, be finished this week, and threatening that filibustering the bill would be a true filibuster. Not like when he licks the boots of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell whenever he threatens a 60 vote majority or filibuster to almost every single bill to which the Republicans are opposed. If that's the case, then Reid just whines and moans and gives in anyway.

Glenn Greenwald: That is what Democrats have been urging Reid to do to the filibustering Republicans all year -- in order to dramatize their obstructionism -- but he has refused to make them actually filibuster anything, generously agreeing instead that every bill requires 60 votes. Instead, he reserves such punishment only for the members of his own caucus trying to take a stand for the rule of law and the Constitution, those who are trying finally to bring some accountability to this administration.

This bill more than any other in recent history puts the country at a Constitutional crossroads. If the telecom industries receive retroactive immunity for illegal eavesdropping at the behest of George W. Bush, it will destroy any chance of investigation and accountability of this corrupt White House and deny any US citizen their fourth amendment rights.

While on the Senate floor, Reid warned against filibustering the bill on the false argument that the current bill will expire on February 1st (there's no chance of the new bill passing so quickly) and due to scheduling, Congress is going to recess again and no one wants to miss their retreats.

Aww, poor Congressional leaders...

Hopefully Chris Dodd will ignore the warnings and come to the rescue again. We'll soon find out.

UPDATE (1/23): C&L - Sen. Chris Dodd is coming out to demand that the retroactive immunity be stripped from the FISA bill, no thanks to Harry Reid. It’s a little confusing, but from what I gather this is NOT the filibuster but will lead up to the filibuster tomorrow.

Meanwhile Reid stated that the true filibuster threat he made was directed at Republicans over a 60 vote majority, not to his Democratic allies, which seems unlikely. He probably received tons of emails and calls saying, "Senator Reid, with all dur respect, What The Fuck?!

UPDATE III (1/24): Kos - Dodd will filibuster if necessary - " If after debate, the Senate appears ready to pass legislation granting telecom providers retroactive immunity I will use any and all legislative tools at my disposal, including a filibuster, to prevent this deeply flawed bill from becoming law. More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both. For all those who have stood with me throughout this fight, I pledge, once more, to stand up for you."

Dodd Delays Telcom Amnesty FISA Bill

Finally, a politician with the balls to do what's right and follow through on what he promised.

From ChrisDodd.com: Majority Leader Harry Reid has just pulled the FISA bill from consideration in this session. It will be brought up at some point next month.
Without Senator Dodd's leadership today, it is safe to assume that retroactive immunity would have passed.
This is a great victory for the American people. His outspoken opposition to retroactive immunity and the Intelligence Committee's FISA bill made it impossible to move forward now. From a process standpoint, that took the persistent shadow of a Dodd filibuster on this legislative process, a "hold" against any legislation that included retroactive immunity, and today, a refusal to grant unanimous consent to rules of debate that would have made it harder to strip retroactive immunity from the Intel Committee's bill through the Dodd-Feingold Amendment. He brought along some of the Senate's most passionate voices -- Senator's Feingold, Kennedy, Boxer, Wyden, Brown and Bill Nelson joined him to stand up to the President today.

Clinton, Obama and Biden, all of whom said they supported Chris Dodd and his filibuster, did not take the time to return to DC from the campaign trail in Iowa to help Dodd in his fight against giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies that aided and abetted in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens by the Bush administration.

Here's Dodd's FISA speech on the Senate floor today.

Senator Kennedy: "Voting for amnesty would be a vote for silence, secrecy, and illegality... The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA, but he has also said that he will VETO any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity. No immunity? No FISA bill.

So if we take the President at his word he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies!"

Who's Got The Goods On Harry Reid?

Reid Blows It Again - Chris Dodd Tries To Save It

This is amazing. For all the hot air that Harry Reid has expelled in ensuring that amnesty to the telecom companies that helped the Dark Empire spy on us illegally will not be tolerated, he has chosen to bring to the floor, a version of the FISA bill that does just that.

Gleen Greenwald writes about it on his Salon.com blog:

The summarized version is that there were two competing bills which Reid could have brought to the floor -- the Senate Intelligence Committee version engineered by Jay Rockefeller and Dick Cheney which gives the administration most of what it wants, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does not contain telecom amnesty and contains far more extensive oversight protections. Reid could have brought the bill to the floor using whatever process he wanted, and he has decided -- contrary to weeks of assurances -- that the SIC bill will serve as the "base" bill, meaning that improving it (by removing amnesty and increasing oversight) will require 60 votes, rendering such efforts virtually impossible. In doing so, Reid is brazenly ignoring the demands of 14 Senators -- including all of the Democratic presidential candidates -- to have the Judiciary Committee bill be the base bill.

Worse still, Reid is completely disregarding the "hold" placed by Chris Dodd on any amnesty bill -- simply refusing to honor it, even as he respectfully honors literally scores of "holds" from GOP Senators such as Tom Coburn. And while Dodd is interrupting his campaigning to fly to Washington to lead the filibuster he vowed, Reid has ensured with scheduling manuevers that the filibuster will take place only over the weekend -- when all of the members are away raising money anyway and journalists aren't paying attention -- with the intent to try to force cloture once everyone returns on Monday.

...This isn't a case where they are trying to oppose Bush's demands on telecom amnesty and warrantless surveillance powers but are sadly thwarted by a lack of votes. Rather, Harry Reid is doing everything he can to thwart those who are attempting to impede Bush's demands and thus doing everything he can to ensure that the White House is liberated from the prospect of accountability for past lawbreaking and vested with vast, new eavesdropping powers with as little oversight as possible...

...even [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell might lack the audacity to simply run roughshod over Dodd's hold, as Reid is apparently doing -- while treating Tom Coburn's holds as sacred.

What the hell is going on? Why is Reid pulling out every trick in the book to try and prevent his own party member from filibustering what he considers a flawed bill and not honoring Dodd's hold?

Who's got the goods on Harry Reid?

Crooks & Liars reports that Senators Feingold and Kennedy will help Dodd filibuster by asking questions to let Dodd rest.

UPDATE (12/17):

Reid's office was reportedly inundated with phone calls and messages from citizens who did not want Congress to allow immunity to telecoms, before their actions have even been detailed in a court of law. The heat seemed to have stirred Reid, who later in the day indicated that he would actually bring both versions of the FISA bill up for a vote.

...But both bills coming up appears to presage a showdown: a promised Democratic filibuster to keep the telcom immunity provision out, versus an apparent Republican filibuster to keep it in.

Would a sixty-vote Senate be able to pass either bill?

House Passes Surveillance Bill Sans Telecom Immunity

...The Democratic bill, approved 227-189, was a rebuke to President Bush, who has promised to veto any legislation that does not shield telecom companies from civil lawsuits. About 40 civil suits have been filed alleging the companies broke wiretapping and privacy lawsuits for monitoring phone calls and e-mails without permission of a secret court created 30 years ago for that purpose.

....Bush argues that such lawsuits could bankrupt the telecoms, reveal classified information and discourage cooperation with legal surveillance requests.

..The House bill would allow unfettered telephone and e-mail surveillance of foreign intelligence targets but would require special authorization if the foreign targets are likely to be in contact with people inside the United States, a provision designed to safeguard Americans' privacy.

Just get a warrant, you moron.