home

Steny Surrender Live Blog

The FISA debate (better known as Steny's Surrender) begins now. The rule is for a 1 hour debate and one motion to recommit. This is an outrageous rule.

The debate begins now on C-Span. Mike Arcuri (D-NY) will manage the surrender. I will live blog it below.

Arcuri praises Steny for his surrender. He says the bill is not "perfect." He dishonestly says that this bill permits "plaintiffs and parties" will have a chance to have their day in court. the Steny Surrender strips people of these rights. The dishonesty is breathtaking.

Doc Hastings (R-WA) is happy to support the bill. Bush loves it. Republicans love it. Steny Hoyer loves it. Nancy Pelosi loves it. What is wrong with this picture?

Here is the bottom line - Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of a the Republican controlled House of Representatives. A humiliating defeat.

Arcuri BRAGS that Fred Hiatt of the WaPo loves this bill. More evidence that this is a humiliating defeat for Democrats.

the Republicans have nothing left to say. Arcuri rereads his opening statement. This is a disgrace.

No one even spoke against the bill. No one. Disgraceful.

Meanwhile, while the Democratic Party does the bidding of President Bush and the Republican Party, they also decide to help Scott McClellan sell books by having a show hearing where McClellan repeats what we already know - the Bush Administration lied about the Plame leak. A disgrace.

Conyers arguing against telecom immunity. It appears that he is introducing a motion to recommit.

Republican Lamar Smith loves the bill. so far, no Republican is in opposition to this bill. I repeat, Speaker Pelosi oversees a Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Smith declaring victory and rightfully so. Love how he keeps calling it "compromise legislation."

Democrat Intelligence Committee chairman Reyes, who has been an embarrassment throughout his tenure as Chairman, holds true to form. Now brags that the capitulation is one supported by the Dem leadership. A special word of thanks for Surrender Steny.

GOP Whip Blunt rightly has a victory parade.

Dem Bobby Scott rips the bill.

Ike Skelton - the Unity Pony rides again. I remind what Barack Obama said:

The stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same old Washington games with the same old Washington players.

-Barack Obama

Republican Thornberry gives high praise to Hoyer for "pushing the issue." Praise well earned by surrender Steny.

Dem Zoe Lofgren opposes. The bill makes "judiciary the Administration's rubber stamp."

Republican Pence supports it. "America is at war." This is a Republican victory. "The Republicans stood firm." True. the democrats did not. Surrender Steny!!

Dem Jane Harman acknowledges the opposition. Buuut says this replaces bad law with um . . . less bad law. Begging the question, why not wait for a new Congress and make a GOOD law?

GOP Leader Boehner rightfully compliments his issue leaders. Invokes "pre-9/10 mentality." Declares this a GOP victory and it is. Surrender Steny is the new GOP hero.

Nadler opposes in "order to uphold the rule of law."

Heather Wilson (R-NM) - ugh. Thank you Surrender Steny.

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) "enormous opposition." This is "lipstick on a pig."

The funny thing is the Democrats get nothing out of this surrender. They are still calling Democrats terrorist lovers. Surrender Steny, great job.

Republican Mike rogers congratulates Steny Hoyer for capitulating to Bush and the Republicans.

Rush Holt rips Hoyer for buying into bush scare tactics and for running roughshod over the 4th Amendment. Takes Hoyer on directly. Well done Holt. Calls out Hoyer as the surrender monkey.

Barbara Lee strongly opposes this "terrible bill."

Nancy Pelosi blah blah blah. Special tribute to Hoyer for surrendering today. What a disgrace.

< Hillary To Speak Out On Media Sexism And Misogyny | License Plates for Jesus >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Doc Hastings supports the rule (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:58:12 AM EST
    You know what this means? Hoyer couldn't find enough Democrats to vote for it.  

    Doc Hastings should have resigned (none / 0) (#72)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    from Congress when it was discovered last year that he was at the center of U.S. Atty John McKay's firing.

    Parent
    RIP Democrat Party ... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:59:07 AM EST
    we hardly knew ye.

    this is not (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:13:20 AM EST
    the democratic party I knew.


    Parent
    Sure it is (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:14:27 AM EST
    This is exactly the Democratic Party we know.

    Parent
    Please allow me to say (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM EST
    this is not the Democratic party I will vote for.

    Parent
    I can't blame you (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    And it will get worse (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by talex on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:04:52 AM EST
    with Obama as President. Much worse. He already is supporting Blue Dogs for reelection. And more are sure to come. That is why I can't vote for him.

    One has to ask which is worse - a President McCain for four years or a guy who is already showing he will take the party in a more rightward shift with no direction home in the future. Short term or long term considerations are the question.

    Parent

    It's not the Democratic Party ... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:45:42 AM EST
    that created Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the voting rights act, the civil rights act, and won a couple of wars.

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    This is the true face of the current Democratic Party. We have two parties that are willing to dismantle Constitutional protections and stay in Iraq  indefinitely wasting lives and running up debt as far as the eye can see to protect our national interests (i.e. Oil companies).

    This is not something the party is forced to do. It is what they want to do or they wouldn't be doing it. This bill never had to reach the floor for a vote unless the Dems wanted it to happen. No longer believe it is capitulation. I now believe it is agreement.

    Parent

    Not a surrender, but a sale. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:02:41 AM EST
    Jesselyn Radack nailed it. the backroom negotiation linked the trillion dollar bailout to Bush agreeing to sign the war appropriation with attached domesti spending to the Congressional Dems agreeing to bail the telcos out from their trillion dollar wiretap liability.

    Enjoy your mess of pottage. You won't have to pay for it until thre bonds come due.

    I buy that (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    It sounds just like Hoyer's kind of deal. But they're all on board. . .

    Parent
    The Obama/ (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:07:26 AM EST
    Daschle/Sam Nunn era of post-partisanship is now officially beginning (yes, I know the latter two aren't in the Senate anymore, but you get what I mean.

    Enjoy, everyone.

    Parent

    Obama , Daschle, and Nunn (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:12:06 AM EST
    were not even necessary for this to happen.

    Parent
    Obama could (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:15:32 AM EST
    have stopped it. Or at least spoken out strongly against it as 'The One.'

    Parent
    No, but the victory (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST
    of the Broderist wing of the party, symbolized by those three, is apparent, and certainly makes this kind of policy more likely, not only under Bush but under a potential Obama presidency as well.

    Parent
    Nah, (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:19:22 AM EST
    There's no indication that Democrats actually like this policy. They just don't have any inclination to try and stop it. And anyway they have other priorities.

    Parent
    What priorities are those? (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    ending the war? Nope.

    What priorities?

    Parent

    Masel has it right: (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    Domestic spending to make themselves look good. The blue dogs apparently aren't even going to raise a fuss about violating pay-go.

    Parent
    To be the guys in charge (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM EST
    and all the power that that entails.

    Parent
    What power? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    Okay, the money (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:27:59 AM EST
    the power always seems to lead to weilding the money and benefitting from that.

    Parent
    They need to all be so ashamed of themselves! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    This is despicable!

    Parent
    I think shame is not something (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    you can expect from politicians.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:26:40 AM EST
    They must spend a great deal of their time negotiating so yes, that makes them some of the most shameless people in our society.  When someone evolves to the point though that they possess no natural shame at all when they are violating other human beings.......that is called sociopath, not politician.

    Parent
    So if "pols are pols" and (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    and we cannot expect politicians to have "shame" or
    at least some integrity, where does change come in....seriously.

    I never thought this had a chance anyway.  Expectations that ATT@T and etc would be punished is and was unrealistic.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:27:04 AM EST
    The shameless cannot be shamed.

    Parent
    Yes, sociopaths will never feel (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    empathy for others.  They can only feel their own pain and they feel it thrice what the rest of us register our own pain as.  There is no known treatment for sociopaths and no cure.  These are not politicians though, these are sociopaths.

    Parent
    Um, yah. (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:25:06 AM EST
    There is plenty of indication that the democratic leadership (the wing I am referring to) see this as a perfectly acceptable post-partisan compromise.  

    This is a post-partisan trend.  I don't agree with you that they are "only" compromising on this one issue, but that they will dig their heels in on some mythical "important" issue.  It is a style of governing that these people advocate, and it won't stop at this.  

    If you don't care enough about this issue to critize them for it, it may say more about your priorities than theirs.  But wait until an issue that you care about more is thrown under the bus by this kind of post-partisan politics.

    Parent

    Don't conflate my opinion (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    that this is not a "post partisan compromise" with the notion that I don't think that the Democrats deserve criticism. They do, blistering criticism. But what we say isn't important. It has to come from people who actually have leverage over them.

    Redstate was gloating yesterday over the fact that us internet liberals have absolutely no alternatives now, and that the elected dems can compromise against us with impunity. I don't think it's fun, but it's true.

    Parent

    Well, I just don't agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:32:07 AM EST
    You seem to be saying the Obama/Daschle/Nunn wing are only capitulating becauase they have to, or that they don't care.  I say they are capitulating because they want to, and because they think it is the right thing to do.  I guess we'll have to disagree to disagree on this one.

    Parent
    Please don't put words in my (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    Some of the people you name surely DO want to capitulate. Others are indifferent. That's enough to let bad things happen.

    Parent
    You're the one who (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:40:14 AM EST
    said above that there is no indication that Democrats like this policy.  Now you seem to be agreeing with me.  If that's so, I have no problem.

    But if you are insinuating that Obama is only indifferent to this, I am back to disagreeing.  The man, as he often reminds us, was a constitutional law professor.  As such, he would not be indifferent to this particular issue.  Health care, for example, I see him as being indifferent to, but this?  No.  So where is he?

    Parent

    We have no evidence either way (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    as to what he really feels about this. What we do know is that, thus far, has has not found it convenient to speak out.

    Parent
    Well, I think that (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    is evidence enough.

    Parent
    Convenient to speak out? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:45:50 AM EST
    I know you speak the truth.  I need my politicians though to be good at being politicians in instances like this. And know how to take a situation like this and make it convenient as well as enriching to their base and enable themselves.  I need Bill Clinton, maybe Hillary could have pulled this off.  Obama is not though.

    Parent
    Well, they haven't said (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:47:34 AM EST
    anything about this either.

    Parent
    Hillary's hands are tied (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    If she speaks out on this and gets ahead of Obama the party leaders and pundits will just accuse her, as they already are abotu sexism, of trying to upstage him or worse, trying to make him lose so she can step in for 2012.

    Parent
    she did, she's against immunity n/t (none / 0) (#75)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    Which is no different (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    than what we have out of Obama. Anything this week? I don't think so.

    Parent
    This is true ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    but she should still say something.

    Parent
    What a reality shock (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:49:37 AM EST
    NO, they haven't.......losers all the way around!  This is sick!

    Parent
    Bill Clinton built the surveillance architecture (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    and tried to force all encryption to include a backdoor key for the Govt (Clipper Chip0. No friend of Rrivacy Rights.

    Parent
    Reviewing (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by gaf on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:49:22 AM EST
    His people are reviewing the bill as we speak.
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/19/172928/234

    Sorry, that was yesterday. Maybe they are slow readers & haven't finished the review yet.

    Parent

    OOOH, super important TINS!!! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:50:55 AM EST
    He's the biggest phony of them all.

    Parent
    Relinking (none / 0) (#84)
    by gaf on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    Click here.

    Parent
    Tried to get through to Obama's Campaign (none / 0) (#85)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:10:47 AM EST
    headquarters; after holding 30 seconds, got a message saying "goodbye" or something like it!
    Do we think the phone lines are jammed?  I will try to e-mail from website.

    Tact I am trying -- if he takes a strong stand against telecom immunity before vote by House, he will succeed, IMO, in winning over lots of Hillary supporters who are on the fence.

    Parent

    Try his Illinois Sen ate offices (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    District Senate offices District Office- Moline:
    1911 52nd Avenue
    Moline, IL 61265
    Phone: 309-736-1217
    Fax: 309-736-1233

    District Office- Springfield:
    607 East Adams Street
    Springfield, IL 62701
    Phone: 217-492-5089
    Fax: 217-492-5099

    District Office- Chicago:
    John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building, Suite 3900
    230 South Dearborn
    Chicago, IL 60604
    Phone: 312-886-3506
    Fax: 312-886-3514

    District Office- Marion:
    701 North Court Street
    Marion, IL 62959
    Phone: 618-997-2402
    Fax: 618-997-2850


    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#123)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:02:23 AM EST
    for the numbers!

    Parent
    Illinois Senate Office (none / 0) (#128)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    will not take messages from anyone who is not a constituent.  Spoke to them.

    Parent
    Whether they "take' the message or not (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:38:13 AM EST
    he'll hear about how many messages were not "taken.'

    Parent
    Internet Liberals sold out long ago (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:36:56 AM EST
    That was why I blogged here, because selling out wasn't a requirement.  How many pieces did BTD write about what crosssing those ethics lines were going to buy?  I can't even count, there were too many!  Most liberals on the net became the stupidest people I've ever known though these past six months.  This is pathetic!  How can Kos write about the betrayal of "The One" on this?  It is all just pathetic!

    Parent
    The ever-impending prospect (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    of the next election is enough to make many people shut up.

    Parent
    How cowardly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    and pathetic is that?

    I Obama, or any of the rest, were true leaders they would speak out no matter what the political cost. election be d*mned.

    Parent

    That isn't living in the current moment though (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    that doesn't even put a foot in the current moment and that is all any of us have and what we all must live in.

    Parent
    Sure, This Was Steny's Negotiation (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by The Maven on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:28:00 AM EST
    but it was entirely on Pelosi that this monstrosity is on the House floor and coming up for a vote.  The surrender is hers, since Hoyer was already a lost cause.

    Welcome to the brave new world of post-partisanship.

    Representatives still must vote (none / 0) (#50)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    Please call your representative.  I just called and left a message that I opposed any bill including telecom immunity and if my rep votes for the bill, he will never again get my vote.  I am sending same message to my 2 Senators.

    THanks BTD for live-blogging.

    Parent

    I have called my reps so much (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:47:50 AM EST
    I'm sick to death of it and I have so few times when calling and calling and calling seemed to add up to anything.

    Parent
    No response as yet to my email (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    yesterday to Republican Rep. Bilbray.  Not surprising though.

    Parent
    I hear you but (none / 0) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:53:34 AM EST
    the only clout we have is the power of our votes; we need to let our representatives know that we are alert and watching.  They've tried to slip this by us. Bush gave a brief but totally misleading statement this a.m. News media are not covering.  

    Parent
    Just read Jonathan Turley (none / 0) (#130)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    He has 2 pieces on his webiste
    One from Jan 2008 and one from yesterday, June 19, where he says reason bill under consideration now is that sponsors had been waiting for public interest to die down.  So my take is -- and perhaps I'm hoping beyond hope -- but my take is that if we bombard our reps with phone calls we may have a chance to defeat....

    Parent
    Gosh (5.00 / 11) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    If we pretend like it's a win, maybe everyone will think so!  I love how they try to sell totally meaningless provisions of the bill as some sort of hard-won concession.

    It's their MO (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    Steny's the fall guy. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    I think the Dem's wanted immunity for the telcom's, they just don't want anyone to know it.

    It's funner to accuse people (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    Of capitulation than it is to face disagreement.


    Parent
    You support Steny's Surrender (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:35:34 AM EST
    So argue for it. do not get nasty with those of us who do not.

    Parent
    There would be no point (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:41:27 AM EST
    In arguing for it here on this blog, the possibility that Steny agrees with the bill simply negates surrender status.

    And of course in a representational lawmaking body one never gets a chance to vote on their perfect bill either.

    Parent

    Hoyer stated he did NOT agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    last April.

    Are you calling him a liar?

    Parent

    aren't they all? (none / 0) (#64)
    by DJ on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:55:15 AM EST
    I don't think he considers himself (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:03:10 AM EST
    either a liar or a capitulator, merely a lawmaker ....

    let me in this case apologize.  Although for what might seem trite, it was merely a glib reply to the first comment, but I would risk giving people the impression that I actually care about the dem party if I persisted.

    Parent

    I am not asking what he considers himself (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:38:11 AM EST
    I am asking you why you are calling Hoyer a liar.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:55:15 AM EST

    Anything short of "hi. I'm steny hoyer and I'm a disgraceful capitulator," proves to me he's lying.  

    Parent

    Hypocrite, please. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    More fun. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:53:22 AM EST
    Bah... (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by desertswine on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    at least the Republicans stab you in the front.

    Hah! (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:38:41 AM EST
    I love you!  At least they bring a knife to a knife fight too :)

    Parent
    I feel like such a sucker (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    for being happy in 06 that dems too charge of the house and senate. What was I thinking.

    Sure, then didn't get filibuster/veto proof numbers, but being in the majority meant they could control what bills got out there among other things. And they could take control of getting us out of Iraq.

    But what has happened since then. Let's see, no impeachment, no stopping the war, no forcing a pull out even, no going after any of the illegal and unconstitutional aspects of the Bush administration. Worse, they're actually proposing bills that may just as well be coming out of a republican congress. So what's the difference.

    And what's worse, the only thing we've seen happen against the Bush administration comes from a conservative SCOTUS. How's that for irony.

    the people get a few crumbs, that Bush (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    was going to veto, but happily was overidden.

    Extension of unemployment benefits and more $ for vets education.

    See? they gave us SOMETHING,and  paying  double the price.

    I swear this is Pelosi's thinking. I am so unhappy with her.

    Cindy was at the North Beach Festival this weekend.Shes'beginning to look good to me.

    These lawmakers have past their times in government. I want term limits.

    Jesus, it took Steny all this time and never moved from square one. What a waste of time.

    Parent

    Not double, x 12 (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    if you count the trillion dollar bailout of the telcos plus the Iraq $.

    Parent
    Obama's lack of input on this is (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by independent voter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    maddening. Standing up against terrible policy is what I want when I say I want change! It is not enough for a different rear end to occupy the chair...we need that individual to stand up for what is right. Is it possible that this is not understood by Obama and his staff?
    There is no doubt in my mind that he is the best candidate for President, but I sure do hope he understands he will be getting pushed to live up to his word.

    He's taking a lot of heat (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:50:46 AM EST
    this a.m. -- even from Obama News Network -- for his change in positions on accepting public campaign financing.  Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan harshly criticized Obama, not for changing his mind which they think is what anyone in Obama's position would do, but for giving as his reasons (i) a victim statement that the 527s will be coming after him and (ii) not being honest about why he's doing it.  They indicated that they believe if he continues in this vein -- playing the victim every time he has to justify a statement, he will lose.
    But to get back to the point, Obama is so busy justifying yesterday's position that he probably is not inclined to stick his neck out on this bill today or tomorrow.  

    Parent
    This, IMO, is going to be (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:55:31 AM EST
    the real problem for Obama.  He has sailed through his political career without ever really having to make any real, important decisions.  Now, as he starts have to actually make choices, he will receive criticism (because inherent in a choice is that someone will not be happy about it), and he won't know how to deal with that kind of criticism.  

    It is clear that that kind of criticism will throw him off his game...the question is how much?

    Parent

    I have seen absolutely no evidence that (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    Obama is willing to stick his neck out for any issue or principle. Why would this be any different?

    Parent
    Because not really (none / 0) (#103)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    sticking his neck out, as I see it. The last poll I saw on the subject showed that majority of Americans oppose telecom immunity.

    Parent
    would like to remind everyone what we here (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    always said Obama was: a politician.

    He takes a wheather report before going on the record.

    and when he says something and backpeddles, he bold face tells you its politics.

    change you can believe in.....NOT!

    Parent

    here is what Obama will do (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:49:45 AM EST
    He's silent on it now because he's for it. And just when it's about to  pass, he'll vote against it for show. I hope I get a cookie when we find I'm right. :-)

    BINGO! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dk on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:51:54 AM EST
    You win the grand prize!

    Parent
    And then he'll defend ... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    people who voted for it.

    Parent
    A Lieberman Lie Triple Play (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by AlladinsLamp on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:20:12 AM EST
    Vote for cloture.

    Vote against the bill.

    Support those who voted for the bill after it passes.

    Parent

    there were ways to stop this, but like someone (none / 0) (#98)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:25:07 AM EST
    said above, it was OK'd by the leadership.

    Screwed, blued, tatooed - firedoglake

    Parent

    The Constitutional law "prof" (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    ought to have a few just words to say about it.  But . . . nope, nada, no leadership.

    Parent
    And he'll be declared courageous.... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    ...by certain elements in the netroots. Not here, though.

    Parent
    He has already (none / 0) (#90)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    voted against telco immunity once.  He will vote against it again.  I'm not saying that's enough--I think he should be vocal about it.  I'm just saying that if he votes against it this time you shouldn't discount it as just being "for show."

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#95)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:24:12 AM EST
    Greed, cronyism, and informant culture.... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    trump freedom and corporate responsibility.

    It's good to know where we stand at least...

    There's a blank in the World's bookshelves. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by wurman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    It would be very useful if a young member of the House of Representatives, out there somewhere, is busy writing a book:
         Profiles in Cowardice
    sub-titled:
         "7 Years of Nine-One-One Surrenders"

    Pfffft!

    Oh, and (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
    here's a diary from dkos on the topic. I agree with the substance of the diary entirely, but the comments section explains why I have no intention to return there.

    Andgarden - I just read post & (none / 0) (#100)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:26:55 AM EST
    about first 30 comments.  I think the comments calling for Obama to step up to the plate & lead far outweigh the few comments I found that support his not speaking out.

    Parent
    Read more closely (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    I don't know if you know the characters there, but look at who has no interest in holding Obama accountable.

    Parent
    But check the "rec" count. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:05:28 AM EST
    I don't know (none / 0) (#126)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    the players there.  Just read thru comments & was pleasantly surprised to see that most thought Obama should lead -- at least among 30 comments I read.  Yes, I saw there were some who said either Obama has to concentrate on getting elected & not deal with this issue now or others who claim Obama is not the leader whose opinion would matter.

    Parent
    Joe Scarborough (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:07:00 AM EST
    nailed Pelosi and Reid this morning for going back on their word and handing a political victory to Bush.  He hit on previous statements from both on the military funding and FISA where they stated they would not pass bills with immunity or without a time table to leave Iraq.  

    Pelosi and Reid cowered to an unpopular president, even going against the views of most people on FISA and the Iraq war.  They are pathetic and have no business in leadership positions.    

    term limits ! NOW! (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by thereyougo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    That Steny is the hero of the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    on this should tell people all they need to know.

    That Bush wants to sign it, ditto.

    What none of them is telling the American people is that immunizing the telecoms accomplishes two thing: keeps their own butts out of trouble and keeps the cash flowing.

    I mean, what's more important than that?

    The rain-makers get cash to reign. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by wurman on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:22:13 AM EST
    Some time ago I read a comment such as the following (my paraphrase):
    US corporations didn't buy the Republican Party because they agreed with the principles.  They bought the GOP because it was FOR SALE.

    Now, in the Year of the RAT, exactly & precisely & simultaneously as the Democratic Party's presumptious nominee announces a rejection of public campaign financing, we see Big Telco, Big Pharma, & Big Oil turned loose to pillage as they see fit (wanna' watch the free internet toobs go down the tube?) because Big Rodents capitulate to their paymasters.

    Following the stellar lead of the GOoPerz, the god-mothers & god-fathers of the Democratic Party make certain that the Obama Campaign will have an endless supply of corporate largesse.

    SOLD.  Ladies & gentlemen, the auction's over.

    Good night.  And good luck.

    The Irony! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    While reading this diary, I got the following email:

    I hope you had a chance to read the email that was sent from Senator Barack Obama. His message is critical for all of us who want to take our country in a New Direction. As Speaker, I can tell you that we need a Democrat in the White House and a strong Democratic majority in Congress to drive change forward. Our June 30th FEC deadline is vital to our success in November. All eyes will be on Democrats' fundraising totals as a measure of our party's unity and strength. I ask that you please help to show our commitment to across-the-board victories this November by making a contribution of $35, $50 or more at www.dccc.org/unitedforchange today.

    Thank you for your support.

    Nancy Pelosi
    Speaker of the House




    ugh (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    I will be urging NO donations to the DCCC (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:40:51 AM EST
    I'm with ya. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    Please do. I've already declined to give (none / 0) (#136)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    to the DNC, and the DCCC doesn't deserve our money, either.

    It's individual, Democratic, federal and local candidates all the way for me.

    Parent

    I'm not giving any more money (none / 0) (#141)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 03:30:52 AM EST
    I'm kinda tapped out anyway.  I donated the nearly the maximum to Hillary and I really don't have much more that I can donate.  

    Parent
    Welcome (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:54:33 AM EST
    to the 50 state strategy. If Obama is elected I expect to see a lot more of this. In order to "merge" the two parties, Democrat's will continue to sell out.

    (Excuse me  I meant to say compromise! Snarlk snark)

    Nancy Pelosi, profile in CYA (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    I prefer the other bill but this is all we weak-kneed dems can get passed.

    Wholly "disingenuous" (none / 0) (#132)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    as Turley says.

    Parent
    Pelosi Sh*t-eating grin (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    patronizing Conyers.

    Nail in the coffin.

    Her comments are all over the place. Really bad presentation.

    And Arcuri quotes Fred Hiatt. Lovely (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 08:58:43 AM EST


    No one asks for a recorded vote on Previous (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    question.

    good for Conyers, hope there are more like him n/t (none / 0) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST


    For the sake of argument only (none / 0) (#71)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    Let us say the immunity provision was deleted from this legislation.  Note, I have not followed this issue since its inception and would like clarification.  I understand that there are now 40 civil suits filed against various telecom entities and filed by individuals??

    If no immunity, what are the ramifications?  The suits go forward; telecoms are found liable and then the damages.  Does anyone know the $$$$$ involved?  Would this have resulted in full scale bankruptcy?  Was this really about saving the telecom industry upon which we do depend?  

    Were there telecom entities who refused the Executive order to produce?  If so, what were the repercussions?  

    What kind of precedent does it set if the telecom entities actually refused an executive order, full well realizing that national security is at stake, but not privy to actual factual basis?

    Just questioning.

    Qwest refused to comply with the order (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    Its legal team told the WHite House "this is unconstitutional to do this without court warrants". The Qwest CEO, Joe Nacchio,  was then convicted on charges of insider trading.

    Parent
    Yikes, this is awful!!! (none / 0) (#89)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:17:50 AM EST
    It's hard to prove a direct connection (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    between the two events, but the one happening so close on the hells to the other remains extremely suspicious.

    Parent
    Woops, meant "heels" (none / 0) (#97)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EST
    Statutory Damages under Wiregtap Act (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:43:56 AM EST
    $10,000 per plaintiff.

    If it's just phones tapped in the conventional sense, likely only 5 figures, however....

    I suspect the certification Comey refused to sign in the Ashcroft hospital caper covered the datamining of all call records, so we might have in excess of 100,000,000 plaintiffs, and a trillion in liability. Compare to ATT's total market capitalization of $330 billion.

    Parent

    Several (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    lawyers commented yesterday that a cap could have been put on damages. I really don't believe this has anything to do with punative damages. It has everything to do with CYA. (Both D and R) I think the Bush admin will be burying as many skeletons as they can in their time left.

    Parent
    There is a cap on Damages (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ben Masel on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:30:42 AM EST
    $10,000 per plaintiff.

    Parent
    re qwest et all (none / 0) (#137)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    I canceled my AT&T account the day the spying was announced and switched to Qwest (luckily available to me) and told both companies why. Then I stopped paying any more dough on my AT&T bill.

    Still owe them $75.00. It's gone to a collection agency. I told all of them I would not pay it because of their illegal use of my info., etc. I figured I could at least sign-off on a threat of suing them if they forgave the bill.

    Now what? Do I send the bill to Pelosi?


    Parent

    Reyes is such a dismal failure (none / 0) (#73)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:00:12 AM EST
    At least he admitted the bill was mostly supported by the so-called "New Democrats" and the Blue Dogs.

    Shorter Reyes (none / 0) (#76)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:02:08 AM EST
    "If the president does it, it's legal".

    Nixon is alive and well, in the form of the dems (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    I guess it is the New Democratic Party, and I guess we do have change. And I guess we all have hope that we'll get some crumbs left after they are done feasting on what's left of this country.

    Parent
    Lots of GOP wet kisses for Hoyer (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:14:07 AM EST


    Boner's pink tie reminds me (none / 0) (#93)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    of the lipstick pink tie Dsachle wore when he defended the IWR on the floor of the Senate.

    Jes' sayin'.

    Sheila Jackson-Lee: (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    "You can't put lipstick on a pig."

    She rocks. (none / 0) (#105)
    by shoephone on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    Ah (none / 0) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    I love Kabuki theater ;-).  Loved it in the rules and bylaws committee, love it here.

    How many reps (none / 0) (#131)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    have removed their names as co-sponsors? I saw at least 2.

    Who? (none / 0) (#133)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:53:23 AM EST
    Do you know?

    Parent
    One rep (none / 0) (#134)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:58:00 AM EST
    from CA, female, blonde. And one from Texas, male.

    Parent
    Now Roy Bluntis praising (none / 0) (#135)
    by americanincanada on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    Steny.

    Parent
    I hate it when my husband's right (none / 0) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    But he is. He always told me not to bother voting for dems or expecting anything of them - that they're just like republicans but with faux-liberal packaging, both ultimately controlled by corporate greed and never willing to buck it. He laughed at me for sticking with the dems all this time, and he always fights for third parties.

    Well at least we are more in harmony now.

    Every single day (none / 0) (#140)
    by smott on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:42:23 PM EST
    I am happier and more content that I switched to Indy.