The People Have Spoken. And Their Message Is – Squirrel!

So. What the heck happened last night?
The GOP picked up 60 seats in the House, effectively reversing their losses there from 2006 and 2008, and returning control of that body to them.
The GOP picked up some 6 seats in the Senate, but the Democratic Party retains control there.
The GOP picked up several governor seats as well.
And it was a very good night for the GOP in local races around the country.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate

I should be suicidally depressed, right?

Meh.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m disappointed as the next progressive. Disappointed in the party, in the party leadership (Doctor-Governor-Chairman Dean, we miss you and your 50 state strategy!), in knowing I’ll have to hear the phrase “Speaker Boehner” for the next 2 years, in every failed vote and compromise and missed opportunity of the last 2 years.

But.

I’m far more confused, or bemused, than angry or sad.
What I don't get is how non-sensical the results are, when taken as a whole.
Despite what the pollsters, the pundits, the media, the GOP leadership, and the defeated TEA-baggers who seemed unclear on what the words “concession speech” mean, all tried to tell us today, there is no single clear “message” to take away from this election.
The People Have Spoken, but they all spoke at once, and not many of them agreed with each other.

It's not that GOP victories don't make sense: I expected them. Incumbents always lose in the midterms; the economy still pretty much sucks; the major reforms and achievements of the past 20 months have been distorted or ignored; and the GOP has both a major “news” network, and a multi-national secret fundraising machine.
It’s the inconsistency behind those victories (and losses!) that don’t make sense.

Sarah Palin's candidates won some races, but lost spectacularly in other races. Including, it is widely assumed, in her home state of Alaska.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/sarah-palin-endorsements_n_778556.html

So, is Palin a king-maker, an idiot, or a stopped clock? (Or all 3?) But more importantly, when will her 15 minutes finally be over?! No one in the GOP wants her to run in 2012. She’s started to lash out at her party and supporters, just like she has for her entire political career. And OMG, when will her daughter stop dancing?

For all the “Throw the bums out!” anti-incumbent mentality of this season, several incumbents did quite well. Harry Reid is probably the most surprising incumbent victory, but he’s not the only successful “old guard” campaign. Barney Frank of MA held on to his seat (like anyone was surprised), after fending off a primary challenge from a dining room table, and a general election from a TEA Bagger. Here in CT, incmubent Chris Murphy beat challenger Sam Caligiuri by a very comfortable margin, even in Caligiuri’s own town.

True to form, the electorate was largely unimpressed by self-funders (buh-bye Linda McMahon and her WWE game-face, Meg Whitman and her maid, Carly Fiorina and her “So yesterday” campaign, Iott and his spectacular Nazi uniform, and almost everyone who ran using their own fortunes), even though the best way to beat a self-funded "outsider" is to be an "establishment Washington insider:” Welcome back, Senator McCain!
Speaking of Palin and McCain, they don’t seem likely to get the band back together for a reunion tour in 2012.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-mccain-demurs-over-future-support-of-a-2012-sarah-palin-presidential-bid/

But, if I were the kind of person to spread ugly rumors (and you may want to skip the rest of this sentence), I’d wager that they must have the best hate sex since Mary Matalin and James Carville.

Of course, Marco Rubio was a self-funded candidate, backed by Mama Grizzly, and a likely criminal to boot, and he, sigh, managed to win.

(I can’t even begin to explain Rand Paul. But then, I can’t explain much about Kentucky. Enjoy him. What other choice do you have?)

Several key races were nail-biting heart-breakers (Sestak-Toomey in PA, Giannoulais-Kirk in IL), that “shouldn’t” have been so close. Toomey would have beaten Specter in the primaries, if Specter hadn’t switched parties. And given the Blagojevich/Burris debacle in IL, and Giannoulais’ banking ties, it was time for Illinois residents to be disgusted by Democrats, instead of Republicans (who here remembers George Ryan?).

Other races were mind-numbing landslides: Ayotte over Shea-Porter in NH; Rubio-over Christ (and, I guess, Meek) in FL; Feingold-Johnson in WI.

Ayotte I understand. NH really is “ruggedly independent” state: I think they enjoy bucking trends, when they’re not setting them. They’ve flipped from GOP to Dem in 3 times in the last 20 years (Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Kerry by a nose), and chose Hillary over Obama in the democratic primary. Ayotte, despite Palin’s “Mamma Grizzly” merit badge, really isn’t a hardcore conservative.

http://www.270towin.com/states/New_Hampshire

Rubio was able to take advantage of the 3-way race in Florida. (The final tally was 50-29-20. So, if Meek had bowed to the pressure applied by Bill Clinton and dropped out, FL might have flipped to Christ, who would likely have caucused with the Democrats. Not that I blame Meek for running.)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44337.html

Feingold I just don’t understand. WTF, Wisconsin? That was the electoral equivilent of pawning your grandmother’s heirloom jewelry for a few bucks at a Cash 4 Gold store, so you can go out on Friday night.

I especially don’t get this one from the TEA-bagger perspective. Feingold was anti-war and pro-campaign finance reform, things TEA-baggers are supposed to appreciate. It only makes sense if the TEA Party is really the GOP in a tea bag. (Oooooohhhhhhhhhh.)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Progressive-Pillar-Russ-Feingold-Crumbles-in-Wisconsin-5632


We lost too many progressives last night, but the Progressive Caucus is still in tact. But, voters kicked out half of our "Blue-Dog Democrats."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/blue-dog-coalition-gop-wave-elections_n_778087.html

I actually think this is a good thing.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Are-Democrats-Better-Off-Without-the-Blue-Dogs-5536

It hurts to lose the seats, and the committee chairs in the House. But. The Blue Dogs are not exactly helpful to getting progressive legislation passed. The GOP has been purging its ranks of moderates (and non-crazies). Blue-dogs sold out the progressive base of their own party to appease the more conservative voters in their own districts. This is poetic justice. And, it leaves room for more progressive candidates to emerge in those districts.

Because I think, the take-away message from this election is this: the American voter is impatient, underinformed, and impulsive. The entire electorate just said, “Squirrel!”

I say this because, although the Democrats took a “Shellacking” last night, it’s not because the electorate loves the GOP. They don’t.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/house-gop-disappoint-2012_n_778281.html

Seriously. The electorate just broke up with Barack Obama to go back out with the guy they know is going to cheat on them, and possibly beat them up.

Why?!


A few thoughts:

1. No one realized that Change doesn’t come by overnight FedEx. And so, like Americans in crisis (like, when the computer freezes) do, they started pounding all the buttons on the keyboard at once, hoping to make something work. The Obama administration, the Congress, the press, and the public, share responsibility for this communication fail.

2. They forgot the things the Obama administration, with the Democrats in congress (and really, not 1 GOPer), actually accomplished.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Or, if you can’t sit through the whole thing:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

There. FTFY, America.

3. Also, the country seems to have forgotten what the GOP did to us.
So, here:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/01/15/where-did-bush-go-wrong

4. The Citizens United Ruling from the Supreme Court really did unleash a vast Right-wing conspiracy. Really.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/2462/

This has to be the worst ruling since Plessy v Ferguson. But, even that bone-headed ruling was eventually overturned. This too shall pass.

5. The media really, really, REALLY wanted to tell the “Democrats are in trouble” story, and so they did. (See my earlier post, http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2010/10/rope-what.html
about how off-the-mark the coverage of the Blumenthal-McMahon was. BTW, Blumenthal won by 10.5 points. It wasn’t even close.)


Here’s one thing that it wasn’t: a repudiation of “liberalism”

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/03/pundit

But. We’re back together with the cheating, punching, ex-boyfriend. What’s life going to be like now?

Interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04elect.html?_r=1&ref=politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/john-boehner-election-obama_n_778407.html

See? Obama’s aprty lost because they refused to compromise (which apparently means, “capitulated to all the opposition’s demands”). Now that the the tables have turned (sort of), we can expect …. NO Compromise from the GOP!

And they’re going to roll back Health Care Reform (here’s where I think Christine O’Donnell is speaking through them). Good luck getting past the Democratic-held Senate and the Presidential veto …. And the percentage of your constituents who actually would rather not go back to being without reform!

And they’re going to cut the budget: everything is on the table, except the stuff that’s not.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/eric-cantor-cant-explain-how-republicans-w

Good luck with that too.
Oh, and they're going to impeach Obama. Because he must have done something to deserve it. Even if they can't figure out what it is.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/darrell-issa-obama-must-answer-several-hundr

That'll get people back to work.

So basically, we’re looking at More. Of. The. Same. For another 2 years. From the GOP. And the TEA Party.

But. The Democrats may have learned something from this season.

For one, DADT is going to come before the legislature in the lame-duck session.

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/11/after-midterms-obama-still-pus.html

And so are the Bush-era tax cuts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/11/03/extending-bush-tax-cuts-not-a-slam-dunk/

At this point, Dems have nothing to lose, and much face to gain, by going to the left on both of these issues. Even the outgoing Blue Dogs.

The Senate now has the opportunity to reform the rules for the filibuster. They should.
And congress, either in the lame-duck session, or in the new session, needs to address the debacle of Citizens United. Because whether they wear a powdered wig or an “I’m With Reasonable” t-shirt, the voters are pissed as all hell at the way campaigns are financed.

But whatever happens, I’m pretty sure by 2012, most voting Americans won’t remember who did what when. What they will care about is, whether or not they have a decently-paying job, and whether or not they have a home not in foreclosure. And I remain confident that the Obama administration, with or without a majority in congress, can make that happen.

As maddening as the electroate’s ADD is to endure, I take comfort in knowing that today’s Wunderkinds will be tomorrow’s bums. And today’s wave will collapse tomorrow. But, even though we swing back and forth and back and forth like a carnival ride, we still move foreward in the long term.

So I remain optimistic.

I turn to National Treasure, Jon Stewart, to put it all in perspective.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/the-sanity-song-auto-tune_n_777050.html?ref=fb&src=sp

Not Just Yeah...

But Hell Yeah!

You go on this one, Senator Feingold... Couldn't agree more.

In Iraq: Is US Diplomacy Being Shortchanged?

Some people might think so... Some might even think others are "willfully negligent or criminal" in their mismanagement of the job in Iraq:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat before senators on Capitol Hill Wednesday to urge a State Department budget increase of 8.5% and the hiring of 1,100 new staff. Unusually, some lawmakers wished she'd have asked for even more. Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat, told Rice that her request was "small compared to the overall needs." and that U.S. diplomacy was still getting "shortchanged."

snip

A former top Republican congressional aide who this month completed an assignment as an adviser to Ambassador Ryan Crocker in Iraq blasted the State Department's performance there in a valedictory memo. "The foreign service is not competent to do the job that they have undertaken in Iraq," wrote Manuel Miranda, citing "an excuse-making culture," "willfully negligent if not criminal" management, a "built-in attention deficit disorder," and "information hoarding."

Even more might think so after reading that article from Time Magazine. (h/t buzzflash)

Meanwhile, in other Iraq news:

Anger grew on Sunday at an overnight air raid by US forces on a village in central Iraq that a tribal leader said killed three members of an American-backed anti-Qaeda "Awakening" front.

The helicopter attack on the village of Jurf al-Sakher, about 120 kilometres (75 miles) south of Baghdad, on Saturday provoked furious members of the group to quit en masse, according to their tribal leader Sabah al-Janabi.

"It was the third incident in a month. We have lost 19 men while 12 have been injured because of coalition attacks," Janabi said.

"The group, which comprises 110 members, resigned in protest at organised assassinations by the coalition forces," Janabi added.

"We have been badly affected and are very angry at this aggression," said Rariri. "Whether it was an error or intentional, it proves that the coalition is not worried about the stability of our area."

Another member, Abdallah al-Janabi, 29, accused the US military of deliberately sowing disorder so that they can stay in Iraq "for as long as possible."

"They ensure that chaos and terrorism continues by all possible means," he charged. "But we remain vigilant against those who want to kill our children and our families."

And St. McCain says he wants another 100 years of this... Think about that.

100 years more of Republican terrorism. Heck! Maybe even ten thousand years...

John McCain in 2008!
The best of the worst the GOP has to offer!

"The jobs are never coming back,
the illegals are never going home,
but we’re gonna have a lot more wars."

The Republican party is insane enough to ALMOST make me want to join the Democratic party.

[update] ThePoliticalCat has some thoughts on this and other things:

Damn, all this successful successin' is just too fucking confusing for us. There must be somebody out there who can figure out just who the fuck our friends are and who our enemies are in this unholy mess.

Meanwhile, in other late-breaking news, a woman suicide bomber has blown herself up in a Baghdad shopping mall; a suicide bomber killed 80 people in the southern Afghani town of Kandahar; and the Pentagon states that there will be more U.S. troops in Iraq after the "drawdown" (huh?).

And Bush's friend, Prince Bandar of the House of Saud (whose country generously supplied 15 of the 19 terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks on the U.S.), has been doing some stenchful deals for military might with U.K. companies, and threatening the UK with terrorist attacks if they investigate bribes that were paid to him.

The Boston Globe tells us that the Saudi government provided the September 11th terrorists with financial and logistics support in their quest to destroy the Twin Towers. While the New Yorker (Seymour Hersh, the most trusted name in news) tells us that the Saudi government has given a great deal of financial support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Why is the Bush family personal friends with these people?

Bush friends with the terrorist financier Bandar who?

President George W. Bush meets with Saudi Arabian

Ambassador and terrorist Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the Bush
Ranch in Crawford, Texas, Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2002

Thank you Senator Dodd!

Via Missy's Brother at My Left Nutmeg, Americans thank Senator Chris Dodd for working to protect The Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the FISA battle:



The rest of Congress could learn a thing or two about leadership from Senator Dodd, and we thank him for his efforts in protecting our freedoms. Keep up the good work!

Previously brewed in New Milford:

Illegal Surveillance and the Telecoms - Just the Facts

Via PFAW:

• In December 2005, the New York Times reported that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans have had their phones wiretapped by the National Security Agency (NSA) without any judicial review. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, prohibits domestic spying unless a warrant is first issued by the FISA Court. By authorizing government spies to bypass the process mandated by FISA, President Bush authorized them to break the law.
  
  
• The so-called “Protect America Act,” which passed in August, made the situation worse by sanctioning a legal infrastructure under which American citizens might unwittingly be subject to daily, repeated invasions of privacy or violations of other constitutional rights. These liberties are not abstract or optional. Freedom from government spying on our private lives is at the core of what it means to be an American – the kind of personal liberty that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect.
  
  
• All parties involved must be held accountable for any illegal activity, including telecommunications companies (telecoms) that satisfied government requests for information about private communications. FISA currently provides sufficient mechanisms to allow telecoms to proceed lawfully with such requests. Every American should have the confidence that our judicial system will ensure that telecoms will not be permitted to circumvent this established process and undermine our fundamental right to privacy.
  
  
• It is unacceptable that the FISA reform being debated now seeks blanket immunity for the telecoms’ alleged complicity in the Administration’s actions. If the telecoms never have to testify, Americans may never know the true extent to which they have been targeted for surveillance. We have a right to know what’s been done and how far the overreaching went.
  
  
• In protecting the telecoms, the Administration is protecting itself. At a minimum, the Administration should not be given the power to bury the secrets of its domestic spying program by keeping the telecoms out of court. Telecom immunity not only has the potential to excuse illegal activity, it also precludes the public from getting access to information and prevents Congress from conducting effective oversight.
  
  
• Immunity compromises will not serve the interests of the American people. Substituting the government as the defendant in telecom lawsuits will only further rob Americans of their day in court by forcing them to sue a government that may use the power of the executive, state secrets, and other “privileges” to withhold information. Reimbursing the telecoms for their legal costs through indemnification rests financial burden on the taxpayers – essentially Americans paying for spying to which they object.
  
  
• Congress should err on the side of our Constitution and not bow to political pressure by signing off on telecom immunity. Americans deserve nothing less.

Now... There is one aspect of this that gets overlooked by many. BooMan makes a reasonable case that the entire lawsuit issue for telecoms is completely bogus:

There is no reason to immunize the telecom corporations because they are already immunized if they had a good faith reason to believe they were following the law. The only reason to immunize them is to prevent the truth about the extent of the lawbreaking from coming to light.

Even if this were not the case and they acted in bad faith the matter of lawsuits was already settled in the market place:

It has nothing to do with lawsuits and everything to do with covering the asses of the politicians that have acted criminally by illegally spying on Americans. Don't let them switch the topic to something as piddly as minor lawsuits that will cost telcoms a minuscule slice of their profits:

The Bush team argue impending financial doom for the telecom industry should lawsuits be permitted to continue. However, at this time, the financial impact is speculative (pdf file) with a market that “seems unconcerned” about the lawsuits filed against telecoms:

For example, when the complaint in Hepting v. AT&T Corp. was filed and when AT&T’s motion to dismiss the suit was denied, AT&T’s stock price remained essentially unaffected. The entirety of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory system requiring public filings and disclosures is premised on the idea that, when the relevant information is available publicly, the market is the most effective indicator of the value of a corporation. That the stock price of AT&T was unaffected by the suit indicates the market’s determination that the company’s financial footing remains sound, despite the potential liability.

Moreover, telecommunications carriers have survived enormous payouts in class action suits in the past. For example, in September of this year, Sprint received preliminary approval from the court for a $30 million class-action settlement. And in 1994, AT&T agreed to pay a $100 million settlement. Just as they have for the other risks incumbent in their business, telecommunications carriers have liability insurance to protect them in the event of an adverse civil judgment. And if, at some point in the future, a series of judgments comes to present a threat of widespread bankruptcy in the telecommunications industry, the government may take action at that time. But any preemptive liability shield is premature and unneeded.

Thus, should the telecom lawsuits proceed and if damages are awarded by the courts and if the damages are not covered by telecom liability insurance, and if Congress then determines that a bailout is needed for the industry, then Congress has the authority to legislate funding to the industry, thus preserving the plaintiffs’ right to a judicial remedy and the public’s right to a transparent government. As Sen. Feingold notes:

If the companies engaged in such widespread illegal conduct that the damages would be enormous, Congress can intervene to limit the damages. That’s a far more appropriate response than simply giving the companies a free pass for any illegal conduct.

Moreover, if the concern is financial liability, why is the immunity so broad that “cases will be dismissed even if they do not seek money damages but only declaratory and injunctive relief.”

The lawsuit distraction is just that... A distraction from the real issue of the bush illegally spying on Americans.

And even if the matter was not already settled in the market place... As Russ Feingold said, "Congress can intervene to limit the damages." Do not let them distract you from the fact that the bush administration was illegally spying on Americans, and not just after 911 but before that, according reports:

A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a "data-mining" operation, which might eventually cull "millions" of individual calls and e-mails.

Like the pressure applied to ITT a half-century ago, our source says the government was insistent, arguing that his competitors had already shown their patriotism by signing on. The NSA would not comment on the issue, saying that, "We do not discuss details of actual or alleged operational issues."

Any reasonable person would realize that invocation of 911 by anyone is completely bogus when the illegal spying was, in fact, started before that date. Equally important here is the fact that it was not just Foreign calls that were being monitored, BUT all of the traffic on their networks:

Although the president told the nation that his NSA eavesdropping program was limited to known Al Qaeda agents or supporters abroad making calls into the U.S., comments of other administration officials and intelligence veterans indicate that the NSA cast its net far more widely. AT&T technician Mark Klein inadvertently discovered that the whole flow of Internet traffic in several AT&T operations centers was being regularly diverted to the NSA, a charge indirectly substantiated by John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the official legal memos legitimizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Yoo told FRONTLINE: "The government needs to have access to international communications so that it can try to find communications that are coming into the country where Al Qaeda's trying to send messages to cell members in the country. In order to do that, it does have to have access to communication networks."

And when I say all of the traffic, I mean telephone calls, both local and foreign, as well as all internet and Email traffic:

Conventional wisdom has long been that the bulk of the surveillance operations -- groundbreaking because they lacked judicial oversight -- involved primarily telephone calls. However, officials say the Bush administration's program frequently went after e-mail and other Internet traffic.

These actions by the bush administration go far beyond being simply criminal. They are an attack on the The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What part of these oaths do the politicians that swear to them fail to understand here?

• Presidential Oath:
  
  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
  
  
• For Congress Members:
  
  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Many of these politicians' actions are not simply impeachable offenses for a failure to uphold their oaths of office, but exhibit a heretical acceptance of criminal actions and contempt for the founding documents that could only be described as treason.

Harry Reid Has Got To Go!

Josh Marshall on the upcoming FISA vote that Senator Chris Dodd plans to filibuster:

The handwriting has been on the wall for some time, but it now seems certain that Senate Democrats will pass a new FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for telecoms, shielding them from lawsuits over their cooperation with the Bush Administration in its far-reaching warrantless wiretapping program.

Via Glen Greenwald:

Harry Reid -- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster -- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.

To do so, Reid announced that, unlike for the multiple filibusters from Republican colleagues, he would actually force Dodd and company to engage in a real filibuster. This is what Reid said:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

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.

As I noted in my post yesterday, Reid had the audacity to send his spokesman, Jim Manley, to falsely claim to the New York Times that "Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill" -- even though the exact opposite is true. Reid is engaged in at least as much maneuvering to ensure that Bush and Cheney get what they want here as McConnell would be willing to do if he were the Majority Leader.

This is beyond ridiculous, and Harry Reid needs to give up the Senate gavel or be stripped of this position by the rest of the party. This is not simply about retroactive immunity for telcoms that acted illegally... This is about a criminal offense and treasonous act that bush confessed to in front of millions of television viewers.

This assault on The Constitution and the Bill of Rights by politicians across the political spectrum must be stopped if democracy and freedom are to survive in the USA.

Chris Dodd prepares for the inevitable showdown:

Speaking to reporters today, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said that he would again filibuster any bill that a provision in it granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms -- or as he put it, "use every tool at my disposal as a Senator" to stop it. So if you were wondering whether anything has changed since Dodd dropped out of the presidential race, nothing has.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sent a letter to President Bush today to ask that he support an extension to the existing surveillance bill -- which seems very unlikely to happen. That letter's below.

Go Dodd! Feingold too! And any of the other Senators that understand what this country is really about...

[update] From Nicole Bell at Crooks and Liars:

Unbelievable. So much for doing the people’s work. I’ll echo John last night and say this is an opportunity for the Democratic candidates to show some leadership, since Reid is obviously not going to. Clinton, Obama, Edwards? Where are you? This is a no-brainer to stand up for the American people.

As angry as I am at this news (and trust me, it’s a good thing John doesn’t like swearing in posts, because I’ve got some words for Harry that would make a sailor blush), and as much as I encourage you to contact Harry Reid, I would also ask that you take a deep breath before doing so

I have one word for Harry Reid:

PRIMARY

If the people don't chase you out of Washington, DC with pitchforks in hand before then?

Dodd on FISA Victory

We won this battle but the GOP war against The Constitution and The Bill of Rights is still on. Meanwhile, Dodd sends a message to the hundreds of thousands of people that supported his efforts:



There is only one other Presidential candidate that has taken these Constitutional battles as seriously as Dodd by actually walking the walk. That is Dennis Kucinich, with Kucinich leading the charge on the Impeachment front and a myriad of other liberal/progressive issues. Other candidates merely pay lip service to these issues, or fall in line after the real leaders break ground on these issues.

Matt over at Dodd's Blog points out the obvious:

One of my recently discovered favorite blogs is Lead or Get Out of the Way. It's authors write under pseudonyms pulled from Revolutionary era patriots - their goal is to help promote more and better Democrats. One of the coolest features of their site is that they use two tag clouds to sort out who is leading the most and who most needs to get out of the way.

Take one guess who they see as leading the most?

Chris Dodd.

Remember that we must step up the pressure on Congress critters if we are ever going to effect real change. Send a message of thanks to Dodd here and/or fiscally REWARD outstanding behavior here...

As a side note: Here is some coverage of the other liberal New England Senator, Ted Kennedy, that was caught doing something good on this issue as well. And here is another Senator's personal take on the battle, as Russ Feingold Blogs over at TPM Cafe.

Thank You Chris Dodd!

For what? For this news in my Email box:

Today is a great victory for all of us -- and another example of Chris
Dodd's leadership.

If it wasn't for our efforts, together, retroactive immunity would be well on its way to sailing through the Senate ... largely unnoticed.

The fight continues, for sure, but this was a big victory today.

Visit www.ChrisDodd.com for more updates as they happen.

We'll be in touch.

Tim Tagaris
Chris Dodd for President

More via Think Progress:

Greg Sargent reports that the “version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not — repeat, does not — contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) had threatened to place a hold on any FISA bill that contained immunity. The Judiciary Committee’s action today renders moot the need for such a hold.

UPDATE: Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) issued the following statement:

“The FISA legislation reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today is a distinct improvement over the legislation passed by the Intelligence Committee last month. Though it still falls short in many areas, the bill includes several significant provisions that will better protect the privacy of innocent Americans. I applaud Senator Leahy for the package of changes he put together, and I appreciate my colleagues’ support in passing two additional amendments that I offered to further enhance privacy protections. I hope that, when the full Senate considers this issue, the Majority Leader brings up the Senate Judiciary Committee bill instead of the badly flawed Intelligence Committee alternative.

“There is still much to be done to fix this bill. In addition, the issue of retroactive immunity for companies that allegedly participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program will be fought out on the floor. I will continue to strongly oppose retroactive immunity when the full Senate considers this legislation.

“As a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees I have been fighting for months to pass a strong FISA bill that adequately protects the privacy of Americans who are not suspected of having done anything wrong. I will oppose and filibuster any bill on the Senate floor that fails this test or contains retroactive immunity.”

Meanwhile back on the animal crackers ranch... Who are the fucking morons that let this travesty of justice continue?

“In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray,” telling Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) that he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.”

Heckuva job Brownie Feinstein and Brownie Schumer... Censure ain't enough for these two incompetent bush enabling Dems. No wonder so many ask about recalling them.

Too bad we don't have a mechanism to recall Joe neoCON Lieberman in Connecticut.

Again... Thanks Senator Dodd for doing something to stop the republican cycle of abuse.

Feingold Won't Back Down

Senator Russ Feingold, showing he has a spine, writes over at HuffPo:

After the Veto

The ink on the President's veto is barely dry, and already, a lot of Washington insiders - including some Democrats -- are saying Congress should just give in to the President. Never mind how hard people have pushed to bring Congress to this point, when we are finally standing up to the President's disastrous Iraq policy -- they want to give up on the binding language in the bill requiring the President to begin redeploying troops from Iraq.

But that's just letting the President have his way all over again. That's the kind of thinking that got us into this war in the first place, and it's not going to cut it anymore.

We can't keep giving in to this Administration on Iraq. Every time the Administration gets its way, it means that our troops will remain stuck in the middle of Iraq's civil war, and our national security will continue to be undermined. With so many Americans demanding that our involvement in this war come to an end, backing down is not the answer. No one else should die in Iraq to give political comfort to dealmakers in Washington.

Well I know whats right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin me around
But Ill stand my ground and I wont back down

Here's to you Senator Feingold: