Excellent. This should be required reading for the Democratic congressional delegations and thier staffs.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I know he probably doesn't play hockey but what is this thing you've got with IOZ, anyway?

Well, Dan, you're not going to hear me say that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the party four-fifths of whose members voted against the bill, and the party that supported the bill unanimously. But the whole point of Democratic control of Congress, it seems to me, is, uh, Democratic control of Congress. We know the Grand Old Wingnuts will continue to goosestep, so our side has to know the procedural ropes well enough to prevent bills this hideous from getting to the floor in the first place.

Too funny. But what's the rhetorical device you're employing, here, called?

...it is only fair to mention that a substantial majority of Democrats did just say no.

What I fear and probably believe that is because a substantial majority where saved from not saying no by those who acquiesced on the shredding of the Constitution and their markers were thus not call in by the money bags who pay for their campaigns and protect them in the media. I fear if Bush Inc. had need of a 100 more votes they would have gotten them.

I hold both parties responsible for this travesty the Republicans because that's who they are along with the fools they manage to delude and the Democrats for not enforcing party discipline on the Republican lights in their midst. I’ve no reason to vote for a single Republican and very little reason to vote for too damned many Democrats. I'd like the middle class working people’s party the Democratic Party once was back, or a new party who can fulfill that role. I'm sick of the Washington establishment who are in fact the enemy of most political principle and policies I hold dear and who are so corrupt I can smell them from eight hundred miles away against the wind.

Constituent to Senator Casey D-PA.

"Hello, Senator. I'd like you to get some control over the Bush gang, especially his disdain for the Constitution."

Senator Casey to Constituent (in a fit of uncontrollable honesty): "Are you kidding, if I vote against Bush friendly bills the Republicans will kill me in the next election by accusing me of being soft on terrorism. I'm not going to jeopordize my seat in the Senate just to protect the Constitutional rights of Americans. Suppose I just get you an earmark for your local volunteer fire department, maybe a new fire engine, will that do?"

Another Constituent to Senator Casey D-PA.

Don't be an idiot. You beat Rick Santorum because he was another one of Bush's poodles. Ask Tony Blair's ex-constituents how they feel about people who morph into poodles.

Tom

Oh, the name of the blog itself. Right. What were we talking about again?

Et mes accents! Merde! Ce café, il a perdu mes accents!

As Michael Berube said, it is the responsibility of the Democratic leadership in the House to prevent bills this disastrous from ever reaching the floor for a vote. That takes the decisions away from those who are too blind or ignorant to see Bush for what he is. I'm afraid Nancy Pelosi is still learning on the job, and possibly demonstrating a below average learning ability.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Let's also acknowledge that two Republicans in the House voted "Nay". One was NC's Walter Jones (of "Freedom Fries" fame), whose district includes the Marine base at Camp Lejeune and, hence, a lot of military families. Don't think for a moment his vote does not reflect some opposition to Bushco in the military. He has seen the light and deserves our thanks.

I Agree. I think this was a deal between Dem Congressional leaders and the Blue Dogs, to give Bush enough votes to pass the bill and allow most Dems, especially POTUS candidates to vote against. But I don't think there was any attempt to actually defeat the bill, in order to avoid the "soft on terror" charge. Of course, those who did vote against it will still get that from Repugs, and now they will claim it's the Repugs with their brave President who are saving us from the Dems.

This would have been a perfect opportunity to stand up to Bush by pointing out that AG, the AG, is the guy who decides who gets tapped. Most people would recoil from that idea if the Dems pushed it and pointed out how the FISA court could do the same job with some independance.

Thank God here in Pa, we elected Casey instead of Santorum, and Altmire instead of Hart, because otherwise the vote would have been exactly the same. Made my recent letters to them urging support for impeachment seem particularly quixotic. But at least with Arlen "Rule of Law" Specter we have one principled Pennsylvania Senator...

Feinstein's statement is on her web-site. Here is Webb:

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2007/08/webbs-fisa-vote-was-necessary-and.html

Read it. Essentially, they weren't ready to fix it, so they had to vote to temporarily extend it.

Also Amy Klobuchar who does not in any conceivable way represent Democratic opinion in Minnesota on this issue.

What's going on here? Is this one great big con game by our leadership? Are they letting the Presidential candidates con the base by voting against the Iraq funding and FISA bill, hosting a charade sham vote, and then letting the freshman Senators fall down and vote against these bills?

Are they deliberately trying to defeat their own legislation and are they so arrogant that they don't think we can tell?

I strongly disagree. I can accept Senator Coleman (R) voting with Bush. I would try to elect a Democrat to defeat him in the next election but I can understand him holding his nose and voting for a bill he probably doesn't agree with along party lines.

But I cannot accept Amy Klobuchar (D) who won't be up for election till 2012 voting for this bill. I am just livid, I'm so angry.

An opposition party has the high duty to guard the republic from the overreach of the party in power. That is one of the fundamental necessities for the preservation of democratic government.

This vote was a CLASSIC. This vote defines the cowardice and complicity of the Democratic Party with everything the Bush administration has done since the lies that lead up to Iraq, through Guantanomo, the prison scandals in Iraq, and the abuses of civil rights.

There is nothing standing in the way of the radical right and I do not believe the election of a Democratic President is going to change a thing. I think we have a party that has forgotten what it's all about. They've lost the plot.

You can't have been looking too hard for them, Swift2.

Webb's statement on his vote is here. It's not very convincing, but it was fairly prompt.

Part of his wholly inadequate defense is to use Feinstein and Mikulski for cover. No mention of why the four Intel Committee Dems who voted against the bill were less worthy of following (especially considering that one was the chair).

Feinstein's statement is here.

Mikulski's is here.

Well, I blame all 57 of our fellow so-called Democrats (aka Dinos)and the leadership. Obviously there's something more going on here than we're supposed to know, and I'm very suspicious about what it is. Why are so many of us crying out "NOOO..." because we sent representatives to Congress who are supposed to uphold our laws and our rights, and it appears none of them are faithfully executing the duties of their office. Instead, they say they are protecting us by suspending some of our laws that were put in place to give us our freedom from the oppression of the king. The Fourth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, and although what they say they need to do for our own good flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment, they don't go through the process to repeal the amendment, they just try to bully, strongarm and intimidate the Congress into writing new law in direct conflict with the old law. This new law keeps the oversight for a secret NSA program within the Executive Branch of Government exclusively and pretty much eliminates any intrusive behavior by the other two branches. If you let the Wolf watch over the herd, who watches over the wolf? Who provides oversight for the overseers of this or these programs, and why was it so important to remove oversight of it from the Judicial Branch? Something tells me this is an investigation we'll never see with answers we'll never get, at least, not straight.

I don't care if Pelosi is a woman or a green headed, one eyed alien, if she can't lead the Democrats in the House then she should get out of the kitchen.

He's been a fake ever since his coverup work on the asinine "single bullet theory" he did for the Warren Commission.

Tom

I agree. Frankly it's time to get Granny Pelosi out of the House and into a home.

"But I didn’t vote against the FISA bill only because I believe in Americans’ civil liberties. I also voted against it because I believe we have no reason to trust this President and his attorney general with any further expansion of executive powers. Their open contempt for Congressional oversight, for the American system of checks and balances, . ."

This is not a question of belief and trust, it is a constitutional question. This is a country of laws, not feelings. Nowhere in Berube's diary does he utter the word: UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

It's very simple. FISA is unconstitutional because it permits the interception of all communications between Americans and foreigners without a court warrant, which is in violation of Amendment IV to the US Constitution.

Amendment IV - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Repeat after me: FISA is unconstitutional.

I find myself uncertain that this particular Supreme Court will see the obvious.

"The amendment says 'unreasonable search and seizure.'"

---is now the FISA language---

"..surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

Did "all Democrats" support the decision to bring this bill to the floor for a vote?

It also says: "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'm no lawyer, but I do read English, and this seems to clearly require a reasonable amount of specificity, as well as probable cause. It does not permit fishing expeditions. That's the point.

I'm with you BlueBell. I was shocked at Klobuchar's vote. I called both her office's early Monday and asked for a comment. She had none. I called the following day and was given some bullshit about it will be revisited in 6 months. I asked if she supported Gonzales as Att. Gen. and the answer was no. Next was how can you not support him, but trust him with these new powers. Silence. I am really hoping Amy learns from this.

Also Tim Walz our great hope in the Southern part of the state voted for it as well.

I can accept some Democrats going against the party and voting with the Republicans now and then on any number of issues; taxes, guns, social programs, global warming issues, trade, oil exploration, abortion, etc. But when you get Democrats voting with Republicans on issues that attack the Constitutional rights of all Americans, that give Government more control over the citizenry, that allow ever more secrecy in Government, then its time to get new Democrats in those seats, or new leadership in the Democrat party.

She has heard plenty from me and so has my state party and my local representative.

Now, I must find out if Al Franken intends to vote like Amy or like Paul Wellstone......

Is this a sign that if the dems take the executive branch in '08 that things aren't going to change much when it comes to unconstitutional spying on the American people?  Will they willingly diminish the powers of the office they fought so hard to get? 

By the democratically controlled congress passing the FISA bill I think those are legitimate questions to ask.  I can't help but to question, at this moment, the Democratic Party's positions regarding unconstitutional infringements on our civil liberties and rights...

Their lack of appreciation for the Constitution and the rights it gives to the people is beyond disturbing...