Hillary And Obama To Vote Against Cloture On FISA

Comments (36)

seanh wrote on January 28, 2008 10:59 AM:

The main problem with our Democrat majority, it seems to me, is their persistent willingness to decide on votes based on how the decision will look in an election versus a Republican challenger.

These Republican smear tactics work precisely because the democrats consistently capitulate. There is a perfectly reasonable justification for opposing telecomm immunity, and any effective progressive politician should have no trouble justifying the vote to their constituents.

I'm confident all three of our leading candidates are persuasive enough to effectively communicate the progressive perspective on this legislation.

Shii wrote on January 28, 2008 11:00 AM:

expect this vote to be used as more political ammunition by the Republicans against either Hillary or Obama in the general election.

Au contraire, they will be attacked for weakness whether they vote no or not. Irrelevant. What is relevant is actually doing something about this bill.

Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 28, 2008 11:04 AM:

from article, "... expect this vote to be used as more political ammunition by the Republicans against either Hillary or Obama in the general election."

Well since they are going to vote today and hopefully be asked such questions in the coming weeks, then surely they will be fully prepared. Personally I would just love for this topic to be brought up in a 'gotcha-patriotic type fashion' by the Republican nominee, while the Dem listens dutifully then replies by explaining why this is such a bad provision because once it again it places special interest(telecoms) in front of the American people. Then the Dem candidate can finish and ask the Repub what he was doing for the american citizen?

FlyOnTheWall wrote on January 28, 2008 11:12 AM:

And why will it be political ammunition? Eavesdropping on Americans is not a winning issue for Republicans. It gives a lot of voters the willies. This isn't, at the end of the day, a national security issue. It's an executive power issue. All they've got to say is: "I think we should have the power to listen in on terrorists - but I think that, after law enforcement does that, they should have to tell the courts what they've done." It's really that simple. And telecom immunity plays the same way. "I don't think big business should be able to hand over your private information in secret, unless the courts say they should." Voters are actually surprisingly receptive to the Democratic perspective on these issues - particularly because it pits consumer privacy and disdain for large and impersonal corporations against rampant executive power.

Joe Clay wrote on January 28, 2008 11:12 AM:

There are FAR more important things than whether or not a candidate will get elected or re-elected, etc. Its the principles on which this nation was founded....the checks and balances so that one main body can not override the other. In this case the legislative MUST check the executive. If not we are on the road to tyranny.

Block the bill Dems, block it and we will thank you and thats for sure.

MNpundit wrote on January 28, 2008 11:17 AM:

expect this vote to be used as more political ammunition by the Democrats against McCain in the general election--as being soft on crime.

All fixed!

WWNPHD wrote on January 28, 2008 11:19 AM:

Standing up against legislation, a move widely supported by Democrats - and lovers of the constituion everywhere - does not present a "danger" simply because Republicans will use it against them. Considering that a "danger" is exactly the problem the Democrats have had for the last 7 years.

jack wrote on January 28, 2008 11:22 AM:

But how will the DINO and Obama supporter Claire McCaskill vote?

and other DINOs like her.

theyare the ones that count.

For HRC and Obama this is just window dressing.

Jack

example wrote on January 28, 2008 11:22 AM:

expect this vote to be used as more political ammunition by the Republicans against either Hillary or Obama in the general election.

WTF? When did this site become MSM central? The average voter doesn't give a damn about retroactive immunity, and if they do they're against it.

Even the lowest information voter understands that you can't just have the government break the law, and then go back later and immunize themselves.

Angry_American wrote on January 28, 2008 11:22 AM:

Not immunity for those who broke the law.

Now there is a phrase bantered about by the Repugs and Bush Adminstration, but ever so hypocritical they do the bait and switch. Large telecoms aided and abetted in a crime their corporate counsels knew was illegal. So, who is at fault?

Well, the Bush Adminstration for starters since they directed the illegal activity and the telecommuncation companies because they exectued the orders to allow illegal wiretapping and snooping.

It's about time that Harry Reid finally found the testicles and spine to stand up to the egregious abuses and assualts upon our Constitution. It's also equally important that Sen. Clinton and Obama DO THE RIGHT THING. Frankly, if I were them, I wouldn't worry too much about the negative fallout from the Repugs on this matter. That cast of criminals has been conducting themselves as though they were above the law and unaccountable for the past eight years.

Katherine wrote on January 28, 2008 11:25 AM:

Actually, the potential political danger is what MAKES it courageous. But I don't think the danger will amount to much; this is clearly the smart move.

jim wrote on January 28, 2008 11:28 AM:

Au contraire, they will be attacked for weakness whether they vote no or not.

Yes, exactly. Half of the Democratic party can't get this through their heads. Democrats will be attacked by the all-powerful Rush Limbaugh no matter what they do. When they cave to Bush's demands, it only makes those attacks more effective because it demonstrates just how spineless so many Democrats in Congress are.

Ron Cantrell wrote on January 28, 2008 11:32 AM:

No matter which one gets the nomination, remember this and vote for the nominee. Either one will be a thousand times better than a republican. Forget all the petty BS, this is vital.

concern trolls wrote on January 28, 2008 11:35 AM:

Eric Kleefeld is a centrist that revels in this type of concern trolling. Why he still is allowed to write here is beyond me. He aspires to Broderism.

bubba wrote on January 28, 2008 11:36 AM:

Stop worrying about criticism, Dems. Do what is right and what you believe to be right for this country and its citizens.

And I sure hope that Obama and Clinton do much more than just vote against cloture--like spend a significant amount of time, publicly and privately, speaking with the Senators who have backed them in the presidential race and who have been on the wrong side of this issue to get them to change their votes.

Billy Glad wrote on January 28, 2008 11:44 AM:

That's a wonderful picture, Eric.

Jay Andrew Allen wrote on January 28, 2008 11:45 AM:

Amen to the rest of the commenters here. I don't expect to read MSM/Republican talking points on TPM.

Good for Senators Obama and Clinton. I'm sure both will be eloquent in explaining that a vote for this bill would mean a vote against the Constitution and our inalienable rights.

Anonymous wrote on January 28, 2008 11:45 AM:

It will be used as a weapon by whom? The Republicans who voted no on last week's FISA bill? This assumes voters are morons. They're not.

Trips wrote on January 28, 2008 11:57 AM:

You know, I can imagine a good line out of this for the general election campaign... for whoever gets the nomination. The Democrat who's getting hammered on the no vote on cloture could say something like:

"Now there are commercials on the tv saying I voted to give every terrorist free cell phones with unlimited minutes, and all the Republicans who attack me using falsehoods like these need to really ask yourselves how comfortable you would be with a President Hillary Clinton (or 'me', if the nom is her) given complete and unfettered access to your phone records and online transactions, without any warrant, and with no oversight or recourse."

Of course this is not an original formulation, just one way, politically, that the situation could be turned on it's head in an election where such a thought ought to occur to the blockheads who beat that drum. Then again, it might be nice just to argue it more plainly on the merits, the 4th Amendment among them...

anglechar wrote on January 28, 2008 12:04 PM:

How can McCain use this as ammo, if he himself skips the vote?

Jinchi wrote on January 28, 2008 12:11 PM:

If the Democrats haven't figured out how to fight for rule-of-law against the least popular president in history, then they're hopeless.

It isn't just the Democratic base that believe Bush has gone too far in attacking civil liberties.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 12:21 PM:

Good job, I say, to both Sen Clinton and Sen Obama. Do what is right and Republican scare-tactics be hanged. I already thought reasonably highly of both of them, but each has moved a slight notch higher in my estimation as a result.

But how will the DINO and Obama supporter Claire McCaskill vote?

and other DINOs like her.

they are the ones that count.

I never like Sen McCaskill (my own senator) much to begin with, but if she votes for cloture she is as good as dead to me. That said, I will see your "Obama supporter Claire McCaskill... and other DINOs like her" and raise you Clinton supporters Evan Bayh and Daniel Inouye. That is dirty pool trying to associate the DINOs with the Obama camp. There is a regrettably large supply of them to go around and they are just as likely to support Sen Clinton's candidacy as to support Sen Obama's.

hope4usa wrote on January 28, 2008 12:24 PM:

Question: I contacted Senator McCaskill's office. There seems to be some confusion. She's against telecom immunity but wants the Specter/Whitehouse amendment. Am I wrong, wasn't that prevented from coming up for a vote. If she votes for cloture on the Intel bill today, can it be amended later. That doesn't make sense to me. Am I confused or is she?

hope4usa wrote on January 28, 2008 12:27 PM:

Greg,

Did you call McCaskill's office? If you're a constituent they'll at least listen to you.

bubba wrote on January 28, 2008 12:34 PM:

"That said, I will see your "Obama supporter Claire McCaskill... and other DINOs like her" and raise you Clinton supporters Evan Bayh and Daniel Inouye."

I guess that will depend on whether or not Clinton or Obama, or both, actually take the next step and try to convince folks like McCaskill and Bayh to change their minds.

justin wrote on January 28, 2008 12:42 PM:

Words of leadership that the majority of Americans can embrace, from Chris Dodd:

Yes, secrecy is necessary, at times, in the life of every nation. But it’s a bedrock principle that democracies should always err on the side of less secrecy. For that reason, I believe that cases against the telecoms are best handled in our standard federal courts-which, by the way, have shown time and time again that they know how to protect state secrets...

It took three decades, three branches of government, four presidents, and 12 Congresses to patiently, painstakingly build up (the FISA) machinery. It only took one president to tear it down. Generations of leaders handed over to President Bush a system that brought security under the law, a system primed to bless nearly any eavesdropping he could conceive.

And he responded: “No thank you. I’d rather break the law.”

He ignored not just a federal court, but a secret federal court; not just a secret federal court, but a secret federal court prepared to sign off on his actions ninety nine point nine percent of the time. And he still hasn’t given us a good reason why. He still hasn’t shown how his lawbreaking makes us safer.

So I am left to conclude that, to the president, this isn’t about security. It’s about power: power in itself, power for itself.

I make that point not to change the subject, but because I believe it solves a mystery. That is: Why is retroactive immunity so vital to this president? The answer, I believe, is that immunity means secrecy; and secrecy, to this administration, means power...

And we find proof in their original version of retroactive immunity: a proposal to protect not just the telecoms, but everyone involved in the wiretapping program.

In their original proposal, that is, they wanted to immunize themselves.

Think about that. It speaks to their fear and, perhaps, their guilt: their guilt that they had broken the law, and their fear that in the years to come, they would be found liable or convicted. They knew better than anyone else what they had done—they must have had good reason to be afraid! ...

The only thing that stands to be exposed if these cases go to trial is the extent of President Bush’s lawbreaking. That, he will keep from the light of a courtroom at all costs.

This is a self-preservation bill. And given the lack of compelling alternatives, I can only conclude that self-preservation—secrecy for secrecy’s sake—explains the president’s vehemence.

Well, you might say, he’ll be gone in a year—why not let the secrets die with this presidency and start afresh?

Because those secrets never rightfully belonged to him. They belong to history, to our successors in this chamber, to every one of us. Thirty years after the Church Committee, history repeated itself. If those who come after us are to prevent it from repeating again, they need the full truth.

And we need to set an unmistakable precedent: that determining guilt or innocence belongs to the courts, not to Congress or the president; that lawless spying will no longer be tolerated; and that, most of all, the truth is no one’s private property.

The truth is public property. That's another principle worth fighting for, not least because it's a principle rarely spoken of in a Senate grown accustomed to swallowing the administration's lies.

But almost every time telecom immunity comes up, there’s an inevitable question:

What’s the big deal? Why are so many people spending so much energy all to keep a few lawsuits going forward?

Because this is about far more than the telecoms. This is about the choice that will define America: the rule of law, or the rule of men...

It’s about the Military Commissions Act, a bill that gave President Bush the power to designate any individual he wants an “unlawful enemy combatant,” hold him indefinitely, and take away his right to habeas corpus—the 900-year-old right to challenge your detention.

It’s about the CIA destroying evidence of harsh interrogation—or, as some would call it, torture.

It’s about Dick Cheney raising secrecy to an art form...

It’s about the Justice Department turning our nation’s highest law enforcement offices into patronage plums, and turning the impartial work of indictments and trials into the machinations of politics...

It’s about extraordinary renditions and secret prisons...

It is about all of that, Mr. President. All of that. We are deceiving ourselves when we talk about the torture issue, or the habeas issue, or the U.S. attorneys issue, or the extraordinary rendition issue, or the secrecy issue.

As if each one were an isolated case! As if each one were an accident! We’ve let outrage upon outrage upon outrage slide with nothing more than a promise to stop the next one.

There is only one issue here. Only one. The law issue. Attack the president’s contempt for the law at any point, and it will be wounded at all points.

That’s why I’m here today. I am speaking for the American people’s right to know what the president and the telecoms did to them. But more than that, I am speaking against the president’s conviction that he is the law. Strike it at any point, with courage, and it will wither.

That’s the big deal. That is why immunity matters—dangerous in itself, but even worse in all it represents. No more. No more. This far, Mr. President—but no further.

More and more, Americans are rejecting the false choice that has come to define this administration: security or liberty, but never, ever both.

It speaks volumes about the president’s estimation of the American people that he expects them to accept that choice.

Michael Valentine wrote on January 28, 2008 12:53 PM:

Only in a fascist nation would a candidate be afraid of voting for liberty.

Have we gotten to that point?

Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic wrote on January 28, 2008 12:54 PM:

These Republican smear tactics work precisely because the democrats consistently capitulate.

Exxxxxxxx-actly! Democrats make decisions as though they're competing in the Republican beauty contest, as though they just need to be centrist enough and they'll capture all the Republican vote and win their way to a permanent office.

First off that's futile -- obviously Republicans are always going to find some club to try to beat the Republican over the head. Secondly, it's ridiculous to pander to a party that's liked by 30% and basically despised by the other 70%. We non-R non-Ds don't think more highly of Democrats when they act like Republicans-lite. It actually confirms to us that even the vile Karl Rove got one thing right, that Democrats are fundamentally wimps.

I'd rather have wimps than highly principled kleptocrats and lunatics, but it's a closer call than it needs to be. If Democrats will stop trying to be quasi-Republicans, 2008 will be the landslide we all expect.

DrBB wrote on January 28, 2008 1:09 PM:

Dodd nails it. To the wall. Dear god I wish he'd done better in the primaries. He was the only one of the whole crew who placed the Constitutional and abuse-of-power issues raised by the Bush administration at the center of his campaign. Thanks for posting that, Justin.

Brutus wrote on January 28, 2008 1:10 PM:

There is no doubt that Republicans will see this is grounds for criticism. There is also no doubt that this crticism can be met.

A few things can be addressed now: First, that the President is threatening a veto, i.e., he is willing (based on his own argument) to risk the lives of Americans to prevent.... a 30 day delay. Democrats should asking, now, and publicly, whether the President is, in fact, threatening to shut off all FISA collection to preserve the immunity issue?

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 28, 2008 1:22 PM:

Did you call McCaskill's office? If you're a constituent they'll at least listen to you.

Indeed I did. The staffer at her office who took my call did not sound notably entheused that I was asking her to vote against cloture, but he did take down my contact info and my request for her to vote against cloture. I will be watching for the results this afternoon.

Paul Dirks wrote on January 28, 2008 1:22 PM:

expect this vote to be used as more political ammunition by the Republicans against either Hillary or Obama in the general election.

Shorter Eric:

Expect a huge pack of lies from the Republicans followed by half-hearted to non-existent effort to refute them by the few members of the media who aren't directly feeding from the same trough...

onceler wrote on January 28, 2008 2:14 PM:

oh it's totally silly to suggest that this 'no' vote would hurt anybody, whether Republicans get mad about it or not. there is NO public support for warrantless wiretapping against American, and there is NO public support for giving blanket immunity to corporations which colluded with the government to violate our civil rights. this will be no problem for the nominee to explain, indeed it will help overall.

the vast majority of people reject Bush's methods, and deplore the loss of their rights and privacy.

phil james wrote on January 28, 2008 2:42 PM:

First, I agree it is absurd to suggest that Democrats should be concerned or have second thoughts about voting against cloture on the FISA bill because it will provide Thug Party ammunition in the general election. Of course the thugs will use it against them. Of course the thugs will use everything they did or didn't vote for or against against them regardless of the merits of any vote or non-vote because the thug machine can spin anything and everything to be either A) not supporting the troops or B) supporting terrorists or C) creating a new welfare state on the backs of the supremely wealthy who already pay way too many tax dollars for the meager protection they get from terrorists from the volunteer military dying in Iraq, and all this notwithstanding the fact that this very absurdity has indeed been the basis of all the decisionmaking of the majority party in Congress (it is still the Democratic Party is it not) since January of last year.

correctnotright wrote on January 28, 2008 3:02 PM:

I think politically this is a plus - there are lot's of independents and even right wingers who don't like the executive branch spying on americans - this will play well in the Midwest and everywhere else.

Add in the special interests - this is a losing issue for republicans in supporting the illegal activities of our president.

Ask the questions:
why was our government asking telecoms to spy illegallly?

why is bush supporting amnesty for corporations for illegal spying?

If it was legal - why do they need amnesty?

These are the debate questions that would help destroy the republican, bush supporting, candidate.

this makes them run from Bush as we run against them.

Duckman GR wrote on January 28, 2008 3:57 PM:

"expect this vote to be used as more political ammunition by the Republicans against either Hillary or Obama in the general election."

I cannot imagine a stupider comment than that. We WANT those gop losers to bring up this subject, ammunition to do what, point out how Bush and company (literally) want to spy on Americans for no good reason except to terrorize us and blackmail their opposition?

And then to let the g-d PHONE COMPANY screw you over somemore?

You've confused ammunition with self-immolation. Bring it on, I say.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)