Temporary Success in the Senate
As you all know by now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid decided last night to pull the deeply flawed Intelligence Committee FISA bill from the floor. He announced that we would return to the bill in January. Senator Chris Dodd did a great job controlling the floor for much of yesterday, insisting on full debate of the motion to proceed after cloture was invoked. We made it clear that we will do everything we can to stop this bad bill from being jammed through. Other Senators, including Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Sherrod Brown, and Ben Cardin, eloquently laid out many of the problems with this bill. And even Senators who supported the bill in the Intelligence Committee, such as Sheldon Whitehouse and Dianne Feinstein, made valuable contributions to the debate.
One issue that was given a good airing yesterday is that the Senate is being asked to legislate in the dark, particularly on the immunity issue.
Only members of the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees have been permitted to learn about the warrantless wiretapping program in enough detail to make an informed decision about whether retroactive immunity is warranted. To his credit, Senator Reid has now called on the White House to make information available to all Senators who are being asked to vote on this crucial question.
But it is important not to let the excitement of yesterday’s success obscure the really difficult challenge ahead. The Senate will once again take up FISA legislation in January. Our efforts need to be focused not only on stripping out the immunity provision, but also on incorporating greater protections for the privacy of innocent Americans. We now have more time to convince the Senate of several key points:
• Perfectly innocent international communications between Americans in the United States and foreigners overseas, whether by phone or email, are now commonplace. Business people talk with clients or colleagues overseas, students email friends they met while studying abroad, families communicate with loved ones living overseas. Under the broad surveillance authorized by the Intelligence Committee bill, their communications can be swept up. We need to do a better job of imposing limits, safeguards and oversight to protect the privacy of those Americans. The Senate Judiciary Committee bill was a good start, although more needs to be done.
• It’s completely unjustified to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that allegedly participated in the president’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. Companies already have immunity from civil liability when they cooperate with a government request for assistance – as long as they receive a court order, or the Attorney General certifies that a court order is not required and all statutory requirements have been met. This argument isn’t about whether companies acted in good faith, it’s about requiring that companies, and the government, follow a law that has been on the books for 30 years.
• If we grant retroactive immunity, the courts will likely be unable to rule on the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The administration would love that because it would effectively get them off the hook. For those of us who actually respect and believe in three co-equal branches of government as our founders did, immunity would be a disaster.
• The arguments offered by the administration in support of the flawed Intelligence Committee version of the bill are incredibly misleading. I told my colleagues that I’d be happy to talk with them in a classified setting to explain why I am so concerned about these broad new authorities and why some of the examples that have been given by the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence are simply wrong.
The grassroots involvement on this issue has been nothing short of amazing. I was pleased to be part of yesterday’s success, but we have earned only a temporary respite. We must not squander the extra time we’ve been given. We must keep the pressure on and fight back against the administration’s fear-mongering. The Senate made a mistake when it failed to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people in the Patriot Act in 2001 and again during the reauthorization of that law two years ago. It compounded those mistakes many times over in the so-called Protect America Act. It is time to stop giving in to an administration that does not respect the rule of law.
Kudos.
I hope that, since we know this issue is coming back in January, some of the folks running for President can pencil in a day or two to show up on the Senate floor, as this issue is pretty important.
Hopefully they can find the time.
December 18, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Russ.
As a constituent, I wonder what you mean by the grassroots being amazing. How is it you hear from us, what pressures are actually making it thru? Can you please expound on this....where are we getting our voices thru...what is most effective, how can we continue to push the right buttons?
December 18, 2007 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
...I wonder what you mean by the grassroots being amazing.
I wondered the very same thing and then remembered that Firedog Lake had been focused on the issue. They have teamed with Glenn Greenwald and others, and if you sign up, they will be sending out battle assignments action alerts in the war on telecom immunities very soon. Check it out.
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 18, 2007 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the grassroots are here. (and elsewhere on the net)
I think, and hope, that for the first time, by coordinating the passion so many of us have for adherence to the Constitution and restoration of the Rule of Law, that we bloggers (known and unknown, sung and unsung) can work with those of our elected representatives, such as yourself and Senator Dodd, who are ready and willing to step forward and give us all back a functioning government, which works for the good of We the People.
It is heartening to be working together on this. And now that we are establishing more effective ways of organizing and coordinating, I have more hope than I have had in a long time. I'm just a little cog but I feel part of the greater wheel and workings.
Thank you again, Senator, for your firm stand for the Constitution and our rights under it. Never back down!!!
December 18, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator, thank you for your consistent leadership toward protecting and restoring American freedom. You are making a truly pivotal difference.
I hope one day to understand why people like Harry Reid keep lining up with arguably the worst president America has ever had, despite utterly persuasive arguments like yours, Sen. Dodd's and others to the contrary. I don't believe these Democrats really think that what they're doing is in the nation's best interest, so we are left to speculate on the only remaining motives: blind ambition, fear, blackmail, bribery.
If they continue on this track, the day is not far off when they realize too late that they have ruined both their party and their country.
December 18, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for caring for doing such great work on this important issue.
I'm really afraid that we're debating the wrong issue entirely, though.
Shouldn't congress be trying to pass legislation ordering Bush to halt these activities? Then we can suss out what's legal or not, who should be sued or not and who should go to jail or not. We could also then decide, as a democracy in what ways the government can engage in electronic surveillance and in what ways it can't.
Everything's happening in the wrong order here. I'm glad Reid's FISA legislation was temporarily turned away but it's just so insane that the programs have been ongoing since they were revealed years ago. Fact finding is a good thing but Congress is so far behind at this point.
That the civil lawsuits should go forward is clear. But there should be criminal investigations. The program has to stop and everything needs thorough investigation before FISA can be updated or changed. In the meantime, strict adherence with the old law will have to suffice for our intelligence needs.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 18, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would be the point? Even if they managed to get it past a Senate filibuster (which in itself is pretty unlikely) and actually pass a meaningful bill, the president would just veto it. And then where are you? No way are you going to get enough Republicans to override Bush's veto to get to a 2/3 majority in each house. No, kozmik is absolutely right: removing the immunity provision from the telecom bill is the first order of business.
December 18, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for mentioning the actual legislative barriers on top of it all. Very important point.
December 18, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not really. First of all, it's already illegal. They've alerady passed legislation ot make it illegal. We're now to the point where we have to investigate and prove that the Bush
Admin has been breaking the law, to prevent it from continuing, and to hold people accountable. Which is a slow process. Congressional oversight requires political power from popular support, it takes an honest DoJ, and it takes time. Especially in our system, as opposed to a more Parliamentary system.
Bush and winger Republicans are attempting to short circuit that by rushing through amnesty now. Some of the dopier Democrats and all of the Republicans almost went for it. The present emergency and most important immediate task is to stop the amnesty.
As Feingold just said, if there is amnesty, there won't really even be a DoJ investigation, nobody will be held accountable, and there will be continued incentive for the Executive branch to put itself outside the Law and break the Law again and again, no matter what Congress legislates. The amnesty is really a Constitutional issue; of Rule of Law and Seperation of Powers. If amnesty passes, it's a further weakening of Congress, and further step towards an Executive outside the Law. It's also a step towards Plutocracy, as the bad actors in the private sector are certainly not just colluding, but actually driving many of the bad policies which the executive and private sector are jointly enacting.
Which btw, not to be alarmist, but that is the historical definition of emergent Fascism. The collusion between the private sector and strong men towards right wing policies and erosion of liberties, especially domestic surveillance, were the preconditions to the Fascist movements in Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan and others.
But anyways, the #1 thing is to stop this amnesty for Telecoms and other bad actors. Everything else follows from that.
December 18, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems a perfect use for Presidential pardon, to reassure the telecoms without institutionally rewarding the willingness to violate Constitutional protections. In fact, I am shocked that the executive-power crowd condones this usurpation of the unitary executive's prerogative for granting royal boons.
December 18, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush won't pardon AT&T unless they give him an iPhone and Jobs said no.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
December 18, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol. Exactly. Let them put their money, sorry, their "political capital" where their mouths are.
Good on Feingold for championing these issues.
Also thanks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. If it wasn't for the EFF, he'd have little public support or leverage t work with.
The EFF has spearheaded the NSA wiretapping story and broke whistle blower leaks from inside ATT, has ongoing prosecution against ATT, and has been the leader on other issues from Net Neutrality to DRM. The EFF put the word out and spurred a massive calling and letter writing campaign to Reid's office, which generated the political push back to allow Senators like Feingold to be successful. When popular sites like TPM, DKos, or even Boing Boing cover these issues, much of their information is coming directly or second hand from the EFF.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a legal foundation, a watchdog group, a public press with blogs in plain English explaining the issues and technology involved, and they've even been the source of whistle blower accounts from inside ATT + NSA classified rooms where the wire tapping is actually occurring. They're the ACLU of the digital age.
The EFF typically knows what's going on before the public, the MSM, or even Congress.
The EFF shouldn't be on everybody's reading list; only people who value civil liberties and think the Internet and electronic communications might effect their lives. I can't recommend them enough.
www.eff.org
December 18, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second the rec. And we should all throw them some money every once in a while, too.
December 18, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, though in this climate, cash donation might be preferable. ;^)
December 18, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, could the Senator please explain what it is about senate rules that prevents anti-immunity members from questioning Senators like Hatch and Sessions and Kyle when they stand up and offer red herring and staw man arguments?
It seems like Senators Feingold and Dodd are simply talking past these Republican senators rather than taking what appears to me to be really easy shots at the almost amateurish attempts to duck the central premises for denying retro-active immunity.
Is there some rule that prevents a senator from questioning, say Sessions, about how he feels about the ATT whistleblower testimony?
Similar questions can be easily derived from the points made by Senator Feingold above.
Is this a bad idea? Why?
December 18, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good questions, although I note there is an exaggerated protocol of deference in the Senate. I agree it should not prevent some stern questioning.
December 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the thing is it's not that easy. You called your Senators, great. But Feinstein is doing his job too, so don't blame him.
1) If someone breaks protocol too much, like if Feingold went Rambo on the issue and blasted a bunch of Republicans and Dems, they'd complain to leaders and threaten to take revenge on other issues that are also important, and so on. Which is what leaders like Reid are supposed to be strategzing. Whether they're right or not, they do control the boundaries of action to some degree. Feingold has personally experienced that when he blew his top a few times out of frustration.
2) If one is truly right, hopefully one can bring the public with them, and tip the scales towards the right action. Which is what Feingold is doing along with the help of groups like the EFF, who all deserve credit. But Feingold is saying it's an uphill battle, and he needs public support, becasue it's an uphill battle, and he needs public support.
3) It's not Feingold's job to fix everything nor can he. If you want Senator X to do better, great! Get on the phone, write a letter, make a contribution, something. But Feingold can't dictate to all the Senators what they should do, or fix everything himself. and he's really been great on this and has kept his cool to have tremendous effect.
The campaign to phone Reid worked. Feingold is saying keep it up and keep watching this issue so he can keep fighting for it. And it's not easy, but it's really that simple.
December 18, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If someone breaks protocol too much"
I'm curious to know if you find that a direct question, for example to Senator Kyle would break protocal too much?
"It's not Feingold's job to fix everything"
Well, I wasn't asking for everything to be fixed. I would repeat my question as to your view of the direct question in response to a Republican senator who has clearly attempted to obfuscate the issue under consideration through a rhetorical sleight of hand.
Does the direct question constitute blowing ones top, no matter how it is formed? Does it qualify as a breach of protocal under any circumstance?
Also, consider these question in light of the many other matters at issue in Congress, like torture. Republican speeches can only be described to my mind as purposely misleading if not mendacious. I find the direct question to be sorely missing from these exercises.
December 18, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
A message publius ignoramus sent me, which was unsolicited but I think is useful to the discussion:
I understand that POV and the frustration. I've been following Global Climate Change for many years, and if ever there has been an important issue which is frustrating due to lack of rational action, that's it. But there are still political realities, and change occurs by figuring out a better plan, not by getting angry. If we listed every issue that pols have been wrong on, and threw them all out, we'd have to throw out everybody several times over, and then probably keep at it for the next hundred years or so. Sorry, but we don't have time.
There's a delicate balance between who we can throw out and replace to improve government, and when we need to just work with what we've got. It can't be ideological, it has to be practical and opportunistic.
Personally I think Obama is a great opportunity becasue he's good and can pull it off. And while I've never liked Feinstein on a lot of issues, attempting to recall her would be a disaster and Republicans would be laughing themselves silly at our foolishness.
Contempt and criminal charges are hopefully coming, but first things first. First block amnesty, obviously. then we need to investigate which would ideally require a Dem appointed AG, but may be possible even under this admin if enough political pressure can be generated.
If the public gets informed about these issues and gets involved, then Feingold or whoever will be able to ask the tough questions, and Republicans will get out of the way and Feinstein and such will jump on the bandwagon. But hearings are really Kabuki drama to some extent. The political support has to be there first.
My response was:
December 18, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about the question about the propriety of the direct question by a Democratic member to a deliberate attempt by a Republican senator to deflect the matter under debate, such as we saw during the FISA debate?
Anyone?
December 18, 2007 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Publius may have a point. I realize that ratings issues are meta-issues to the root issue, but it appears enough attention is drawn to these discussions that these meta-concerns are valid postings.
I'm going to stick with rating what I believe to have been well thought out posts highly, whether I agree with them or not.
Kudos to kozmik and plubius.
December 19, 2007 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no justification for his down rating posts he basically agrees with but doesn't find worthy. It's just an ego trip and attempt to play moderator.
People aren't even going to understand what that means, becasue there is no "agree with but inane" rating.
And his desire to recall Feinstein is totally unrealistic and even delusional. Which makes me think he's an idealist with no grasp on reality, or a Republican attempting to provoke such people and get them to do something stupid, as they're known to frequently do.
December 20, 2007 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
btw, an interesting and relevant historical example of the Kabuki nature of hearings after the power structure has already shifted.
Many people have a perception that hearings were held on Watergate and that forced Nixon to impeach. The narrative is that it took courage to hold the hearings, and that courage wins the day. Kind of, but not really.
Actually there was a lot of maneuvering and political shifting behind the scenes, as investigations got the goods and smoking guns, and it became clear Nixon was going down. People started flipping to save themselves. By the time the hearings were called it was mostly a done deal.
Fred Thompson was a mole in the Church committee for the Nixon Administration. When they became aware of the tapes and what they contained, it became clear they totally had Nixon, and Fred Thompson actually tipped off Nixon so he could resign with relatively more damage control. And he arranged for his later pardon, and slipped the noose so to speak.
But the point is, it's not as though they just held hearings and asked tough questions and that determined events. Really they had the goods on Nixon due to a long investigation, and by the time of hearings they had a strong case to prosecute.
So, if you want to see this resolved, work on providing the political support to investigate, and then the hearings will come.
December 18, 2007 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:
"By the time the hearings were called it was mostly a done deal."
With all due respect, that's simply untrue. It was not at all clear when the Watergate hearings began that they had "the goods" on Nixon. The only reason anyone ever did get the goods was because of developments during the hearings. It was not at all clear that Nixon would be impeached even when the House Judiciary Committee hearings began. I remember all of that very clearly. I watched nearly every moment of both committee's hearings and consumed every bit of available news about it at the time.
It is not simply a "perception" that the hearings were crucial. I dont' know where you got that idea.
It was during the hearings and because of the hearings that the American people totally lost confidence in Nixon and it was the hearings that made it impossible for the Republicans to continue to cover for him. This is a major reason why it has been so disheartening to see the Democrats in today's Congress rollover so often and so easily without even holding hearings into some of the most egregious corruption and lawbreaking this nation has ever seen on the part of a President.
Also, it wasn't the Church Committee that Thompson served as Republican Counsel. It was the Ervin Committee.
December 19, 2007 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm aware they didn't have everything yet. That's not really my point though.
As I said:
i.e. At the start of TV Watergate hearings they did have a LOT of damning evidence. It wasn't just a fishing expedition, though it was that too of course. They had a strong case to prosecute, which required prior investigation and fairly damning evidence.
The Nixon admin had already been pounded by WaPo + Deep Throat, and others maneuvering behind the scenes. There had already been resignations months earlier and it was clear the Nixon Admin was red-handed guilty of something. They had the plumbers of course. They had people flipping.
By the time the first TV camera was turned on, it was a done deal Nixon was going to be ruined politically, at least. The chance learning of the tapes just escalated it from certain ruin to certain impeachment or resignation.
"Fred Thompson ... the Ervin Committee."
Yes, I mis-spoke. I'm also posting elsewhere on illegal NSA surveillance, FISA, and the Church Committee, so that's on my mind.
December 19, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I must point out that you simply are incorrect.
"They" did not have "the goods" on Nixon due to a long investigation prior to the hearings. It was by no means certain that the Judiciary Committee would vote for articles of impeachment until just before it actually occurred. Henry Hide and others on the Republican side did all they could to cover for, excuse, and otherwise defend all of Nixon's crimes. It was not until the very end of the whole affair that it became clear that what should happen to Nixon, would happen.
At the start of Sam Ervin's Watergate Committee's hearings they had some evidence, but by no means did they have the critical evidence about, for example, the tapes. Your general assertion is simply inaccurate I'm afraid.
While there was a great deal going on behind the scenes, as there always is, none of that was enough and there was no certainty at all about what the outcome would be until just near the end of the whole saga.
December 19, 2007 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, if you re-read kozmik's response to your initial comment, I think you'll see he's largely addressed all the points you make here. (And fyi, I remember those days pretty vividly myself; while the hearings certainly served to galvanize public opinion, it was clear from day one that the committees were prodigiously prepared, which supports kozmik's argument.)
As for your observation that "it has been so disheartening to see the Democrats in today's Congress rollover so often and so easily without even holding hearings...", I've been pretty disheartened by the rollover thing myself; but in fact there have been, and continue to be, lots of hearings, solid ones, on everything from the DoJ's politicization to war profiteering, and there are many (though not yet nearly enough) truly terrific Democrats fighting the good fight in those hearings. Unfortunately, the networks rarely see fit to cover anything about them, so they're not having the effect on public opinion necessary to convince the less terrific ones to do the right thing. Note that even the Senate showdown we in Blogistan been so focused on got no coverage on the nightly news -- literally none in most cases. So it really is up to us to keep pushing our representatives (as Feingold is urging), replacing them when necessary (strategically, as kozmik says), fostering a strength of purpose even the corporate media can't ignore. (Pushing the media itself can't hurt either; the right's decades-long success in that endeavor is probably as big a cause as any of where we are now.)
December 19, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
RJ, Thanks for chiming in.
(I hate getting sucked into discussing people's straw men when they're not reading what I'm actually writing.)
December 19, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
As RJ points out, you're missing the point. I can't argue your straw men with you when you're clearly not making an effort to understand what I've actually written.
And as a general rule, you should make an attempt to understand what someone has said before claiming they're all wrong. Otherwise you just sound like a troll.
December 19, 2007 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator,
this is another defining moment in our recent history, along with the Iraq war vote, the Kyle-Lieberman vote, the Patriot Act, etc.
Democrats have to start acting like the opposition or they won't hold that majority very long. The rumblings out here are real and a lot of Democrats and Independents may stay home in 08 out of frustration.
By the way, I called direct to my two Senators in DC, Casey and Spector, and told them I'd like to see them back Dodd's action.
December 18, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt that very much. Though some Dem candidates are certainly more inspirational than others, Dem turnout is going to be high. Republican turnout looks to be low, and possibly swing a lot of votes, which is why their strategists are looking (and praying) for something to incite reactionary fervor in the base.
I agree there should be pressure on pols already in office to do the right thing. Absolutely.
But, We the People also need to be more informed and work to elect politicians who are more independent minded, and don't require so much constant watch dogging so they won't fold and give various determined interest groups whatever they want behind closed doors. Like corporate lobbyists and such.
NAFTA comes to mind. Telecom and Airline deregulation comes to mind. The lack of adequate CAFE standards for decades comes to mind. Global Climate Change and oil dependence come to mind. A failure to collect corporate taxes, and failure to incentivize efficient investment in the USA, and the habit of rewarding short term profit taking and looting, really comes to mind. And again that reminds me of NAFTA. Etc.
I get a bit tired of the outrage against pols without responsibility for oneself and one's community electing them. And on the other hand I get tired of people going off the deep end and voting for Nader or such in frustration.
If we keep backing the same old power brokers, or flipping our tops in frustration rather than being reasonable and consistent, our government will never truly serve the public.
If we look for candidates who want to fix the system, have the ability and temperament to actually do so, we'll find them.
December 18, 2007 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik, the general tone of your message spurred me to think about a reply. And only then did I really notice that you were the author, with whom I've tussled before, and only when I read your comment again did I notice the gratuitous slap at Nader-voters, which I believe is exactly where we did tussle before.
So Merry Pagan Winter Holidays, your posts today on this thread are well within the bounds of what a reasonable man might think.
But the general thing about your reply that got me, before I knew it was you, was the gap between the part I absolutely agree with, how we need to stop electing people who go for NAFTA and telecom immunity and all this nonsense, and the part (that is more tone than specific) that makes me scream, where you just vaguely hope for people to think about things and "look for" better candidates who will actually have integrity.
While it's not the best-designed or "well-oiled" such machine, there is something that can be called "the Democratic machine" and unfortunately it is today in the hands of people who have proven over and over and over again that they will reward mediocre but loyal tools EVERY TIME over actual professional people with integrity who have good D. credentials yet who lack the precise machine stamp of approval.
Bob Shrum, Steny Hoyer and Rahn Emmanuel as just three of the names that most deserve infamy in the history of this machine that has cooperated fully in the stealing of America's liberty and prosperity for the benefit of Republican plutocrats. Bill and Hillary started out somewhat independent of this machine, but have fully incorporated all the machine's bad policies and bad personnel decisions.
So there is a real problem. We can't just wish and hope. Following the lead of people like Jane Hamsher at FDL, we the public need to organize now for '10 and '12, and we need to be prepared to, and follow through with, primary campaigns AGAINST lickspittle Dems, no matter how long their incumbency.
Clearly in California the people who opposed Feinstein in the primaries in her last election were exactly right, and those who supported that sellout closet Repub war profiteer were exactly wrong.
And if your party machine doesn't give people good candidates, they'll go find a Nader or a Ron Paul and you can't say that choice is beyond the bounds of reason, because the path of supporting the machine is clearly leading to the loss of our liberties and our prosperity.
December 18, 2007 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader was a great man. Unfortunately he was also sadly mistaken about what was him and what was the times. Nader rode a huge swing of the pendulum to the left. He used that momentum and focused it into so many important causes.
But, then the pendulum swung the other way, and Nader flipped his top in despair and frustration.
Now, I know there were actors who helped swing it both ways. Certainly Nader was one. Certainly there were contrary people on the right. But did Nader invent the mini skirt? Rock and Roll? LSD and pot? Middlebrow culture? Did he set the overall tone of the post WWII prosperity? the rebelliousness? The optimism? No, that occurred culturally on a far larger scale for much bigger reasons.
The Great Depression leading to the New Deal, the tremendous prosperity post WWII as America was the only industrial power left standing, the baby boom, young population, college enrollment, TV, consumer devices increasing leisure, travel, etc.
Similarly the swing back to the right in the 80s was much larger than any pols, activists, or power brokers. It was the lure of greed in a less optimistic era, excess, the crash of the radicals and counter culture, the fallout from wars waged due to the hubris of our prosperity and folly, the hubris of defeating the USSR, reactionary response to radical TV images and a changing society, the aging baby boomers, and so on.
***
Point being, you can as an individual talk about right and wrong, all day long. You may even be right, as Nader has been on technical issues for just about all his life.
But for 300 million people, what is judged to be politically right and wrong deals with much larger issues and shifts with the zeitgeist. One may be right, in entirely the wrong times.
Nader's problem, and that of so many of his supporters, is they never realized how much was them and how much was the times. They came up in an era that presumed optimism and their values were eternal. They never understood the side of human nature that is reactionary, greedy, risk adverse, anti-social, etc.
So when things don't go his way, he's furious. He's terrible at judging how much to hedge or risk. He never learned how becasue he was fortunate to be an idealist in an idealistic era, raised by idealists, and surrounded by idealists.
The great irony of course is that he very possibly could have been President in his era, but he probably got more done as a FT citizen. When he ran for president, he actually accomplished negatives to his own goals. Again, it's timing.
***
Anyways, Obama is the optimal candidate for this moment. He is optimally poised to do the most good and ride the pendulum shift bringing the country with him towards progressive values, which is just beginning.
Clinton was perhaps optimal for his era. As mediocre as he was, it was a mediocre era in terms of direction, conflicted between the tech boom and labor losses, grea computers and lousy cars, corporate profits up and the middle class down, coming off Reagonomics and just before fundies and fulfillment of the rightward swing and GWBush.
But now we've almost totally bottomed on rightward policies, from corruption and ENRON to the housing bubble and health care costs. The tech boom is gone, jobs are gone, and corporate influence has to be culled. The Clinton era has now passed as well.
Clinton politics are triangulation and corporate power brokering, fitting to that era. They're not the best to lead the swing towards progressive values like HC reform, climate change, redo trade deals like NAFTA, and so on.
Blog post on HC Reform here: http://tpmcafe.com/blog/kozmik
December 19, 2007 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was always a great fan of Nader, I'm still a paying member of Public Citizen, but I'll never forgive him for having the hand he did in Florida in giving us Bush.
Nader could have done much good if he ran for Congress, maybe the Senate; besides, it would have been much more attainable for him than winning the Presidency, which I believe he knew he couldn't do.
December 19, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
right. Why didn't Nader run for the Senate or House?
Because he can't work with others. He has to be right and the boss all the time. Which has unfortunately destroyed him, becasue he's no longer in an era when people will choose him to be the boss, and he can't accept it.
If Shakespeare was still around, he'd pen a tragic figure named Nader.
December 19, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a load of crap. I mean, really. Nader, who has accomplished more through massive group efforts than any individual in our lifetime, excepting MLK, can’t work with others? I’m not going to start another Nader-go-round but I imagine you all saw the Nader documentary on PBS last night, which was pretty damn good (Gitlin and Alterman looked a little rabid if you ask me).
Regardless, it illustrated quite clearly the lengths Nader went through to work within the system. When those efforts failed, after 20 plus years, he tried to promote a third party (how many in the general public had even heard of the Green Party before 1999?).
Anyway, does it irk you that Nader has been proven right about the corporate ownership and electoral lock of the two parties? We see it every day now. What better example of it than this fight by the Democratic leadership to grant the telecoms, and thus Bush, immunity. Not to mention that Nader was ostracized in 2004, anon-factor, and the plutocracy still prevailed.
We are given limited establishment choices by the media and the political establishment. This time around it’s Clinton and Obama (as default runner-up) and, on the other side, Giuliani and Romney (with Huckabee for color). For my money, there are few people who have impacted modern life for the better as much as Nader. That he at least tried to provide an alternative to the corporate two-party system is admirable.
Side note: Senator Feingold, there was a lot of talk about heroes after 9/11, but you, sir, are one.
December 19, 2007 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should think before spewing.
Yes, obviously. But he's used to being the boss of his own group, and working with like minded people towards a common ideology. He's never done anything like being a Senator. Which was the point.
December 20, 2007 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you said was that he can’t work with others and can’t accept not being boss (president) and this has destroyed him. This narrative provides the motivation behind the myth of Nader consciously spoiling 2000.
In fact, he has testified innumerable times before Congress and has worked closely with Congressmen (including opponents), cabinet and agency heads, and presidents. He may be demanding and egotistical but so are half of the politicians in Washington. His bullheadedness has helped millions of people and saved millions of lives.
I was not a big believer in Nader and the Green’s push, mainly because I couldn’t see it succeeding. And of course they were one factor in the election. So were 12 other alternative parties, but the 5 votes that gave it to Bush were the deciding factor. But it really is unseemly the way many on the left turned on and trashed a man who has done so much good in this country.
PS Yes, I was spewing above and apologize for that. But I have waded through too many threads devoted to this that Nader is responsible for all of the evil Bush has done. Nader is a scapegoat for people who can't seem to accept that the Dem party is part of the corrupt system.
December 20, 2007 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
feather,
excellent and accurate observation.
December 19, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
kozmik,
I wish I were as confident as you concerning this "high" turnout of Dems in 08.
Congress' poll numbers are as bad as Bush's
and the reason they're that low is because those that gave the Dems control of Congress, the base and Independents, are thoroughly disgusted with them, and the result is those low poll numbers. This is a recipe for voter apathy and low turnout.
I hope I'm wrong.
December 19, 2007 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congress poll numbers are always bad, by their very nature. Most people generally like their own Congress people, but hate Congress as a whole. Congress poll numbers only rise and fall with a general zeitgeist, like the economy and spiritual comforts. You have to remember than each Congress person only ever got a tiny, tiny fraction of the national vote.
By comparison the Presidential popularity is usually much higher, and it's directed specifically at Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzo, and flag bearers of the Republican party.
Turnout will be high on the left, and with moderates. No doubt about it. Polls show the electorate is PO'ed, leaning heavily Democratic, and not interested in 3rd place candidates.
Whether it will be high, or astronomical, depends on how much additional energy the candidates build.
Personally, I think Obama will turn out more on the left and moderates in a GE, and not turn out the right wing the way Hillary will.
December 19, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt the left will indeed vote in large numbers. The question is whether we will vote for Democrats. I know in my case, my vote will not go for my current Dem congressperson nor likely for the Dem presidential candidate.
I have been a Democrat for forty years. Now I find myself a DINO, the party having abandoned me, the middle class, and the pro-human, pro-labor principles upon which it once thrived.
December 19, 2007 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you aside, the polls show the population is overwhelmingly for electing a Democrat over a Republican, and post Nader spoilers are very unpopular in the General Election, especially on the Dem side. Which is just common sense really.
Though the Evangelicals or Libertarians may run spoilers.
December 19, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you Dems luck, kozmik. I really do. I think your Republican will probably be a much better president that the Republican's Republican.
But I promised myself a number of years ago never to vote for another Republican, regardless of his or her party.
December 19, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah yeah, blah blah, yada yada. You're real deep.
December 20, 2007 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stunned. I am stunned, I tell you, and perhaps shattered by the precision, the insight, and the penetrating analysis in this criticism of my work. The way you examined every detail and discredited it. The cleverness you displayed. What can I say, your intellectual honesty has turned me around!
I should have known better than to cross swords with you. This posts's excellence is on a par with all your offerings.
December 20, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear that some sectors want immunity not simply, or even mainly, because of what may have been done. It is more for what may be done in the future.
It must be resisted. It will become an Enabling Act.
December 18, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is more for what may be done in the future."
Well, yes, but of course with the caveat that we know a lot of bad has already been done, and they should be accountable for that first and foremost.
But yes, absolutely an amnesty would be the Enabling Act and open the door to anarchy.
***
btw: publius ignoramus,
What's with the ratings? Why are you handing out multiple low ratings to TW? He's making reasonable and informed posts that are basically saying the same thing as other posts you're uprating.
We generally avoid down rating people, especially not on subtle differences of opinion or tone on subjective matters. We value considered arguments more, up rating more those we appreciate, and value down ratings less.
TW certainly doesn't deserve those ratings. He AFAIK makes substantial and well informed comments, and doesn't troll, flame, or overreach his knowledge. You might want to re-read his posts.
December 18, 2007 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will become an Enabling Act.
More like an Embalming Act.
While over at Firedog Lake earlier checking out their latest activism, I saw this post on what Jane is calling Orrin Hatch's Scanners moment.
Come to think of it ... that part of the debate SHOULD be embalmed.
...the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. Bill Moyers
December 18, 2007 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Feingold, I appreciate your efforts to force the WH to provide a briefing for all the Senators as to what they are actually voting on in any bill -- particularly one that may impact the assumption of privacy in communications by any Citizen. Senators should simply refuse to vote blind, and it is high time demands for you to do this by the Bush WH or any other WH, simply stop. If they want to maintain some aspects of legislation as "classified" they can easily do this via the kinds of substitutions and summaries used when classified materials must be placed before a jury in a trial. Otherwise we have Government by "secret sources of Power" -- something never contemplated as part of the constitutional structure. It is just time to put an end to this.
December 18, 2007 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Senator Feingold, from MN-5. Please take Senator Klobuchar aside and remind her of the great liberals who have represented the upper Midwest in the US Senate. Thanks also to Senator Harkin. How can Minnesota be going so wrong with such great neighbors!
December 18, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Finegold
It was nice to see you come down here to Daytyona Beach a while back. You struck me as the genuine article. An up-front, no nonsense type of person.
I want to thank you for doing the people's business while others are doing anything but.
December 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Senator Feingold, for your consistent principled leadership in the Senate! I hope there will soon be more than just a handful of strong progressives in that body. We're going to need that kind of strength for the political battles that are looming over the 2008 horizon.
Gee, what a surprise. How can there be people in this country (let alone in the Congress) who are still willing to take this president at his word? Who would not automatically assume that the administration is trying to bamboozle them? Fool me once -- well, you know how that goes.
December 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator,
I can't tell you how glad I am that you serve in the US Senate. Thank you!
Can I make one point that I think needs to be made clear. I know you understand this, but getting into the minute detail of every criticism of the bill really dilutes the point and that is why I want to make it.
Senator, it is time that your colleagues understand very simply that retroactive immunity for the powerful is bad government, bad policy and an insult to everyone in this nation both past and present who ever believed our laws ought to mean something. The illegal spying that took place, that the Congress is now being asked to excuse retroactively was illegal. It was plainly against the law. Neither the criminals in the executive branch who initiated this illegal program nor the criminals in the telecommunications companies who went along with it have any right at all to expect that this CRIMINAL action should be excused regardless of any of the details or circumstances that they might now say were extenuating. There was no emergency. There was no threat to the nation that had not been known for a long, long time. And there was a legal process by which they could have sought permission to do what they did if it was approved by the FISA court, but they chose to ignore the court and the law. There are no sufficient circumstances for the well thought out, massive violation of the law that took place and which would have continued to take place illegally had the crime not been made public through the media.
The spying was illegal. Period. It should not be excused. It should not be excused particularly for the wealthy and powerful. No regular citizen gets this sort of consideration let alone the sort of deference that is being shown for those who broke the law knowingly and with the full knowledge of the consequences should they be discovered. That is why the law was passed for God's sake: so that domestic spying would not occur and if it did, it would be punished.
The very idea of retroactive immunity for criminal actions is offensive to the millions of citizens who obey the laws of the land throughout their lives without ever even thinking any illegal action they may commit might retroactively be excused by anyone, let alone the Congress and President whose jobs it is to uphold the laws of the land. The very idea is an insult to our form of government and our system of alleged equality before the law.
Is there no crime, no bad act that the wealthy and influential can commit where the law will actually be carried out and where those rich and powerful lawbreakers will have to pay the price any average citizen would pay for much lesser crimes?
Whatever the arguments or excuses for the illegal activity (which started prior to 9/11)the fact remains that the activities were illegal. No immunity should even be considered!
Let the powerful corporations who, in league with a lawless executive branch, chose to break the laws of our land--let them pay the price for their arrogance and presumption and their violation of our law. Let them go before the courts as any other citizens would have to and defend themselves and their actions. Why argue the details when the case on it's face is so very clear and simple? By getting into the details the opponents of immunity are condoning lawlessness by the Executive branch and by private interests. It is anathema to our democratic republic!
Tonight, this very night as I write this, the only privately held copy of the Magna Carta in the US is being auctioned in, I believe, New York City. In that storied document, for the first time, the principle of no one being above the law was first established. Upon that principle modern democracy had it's origins. We Americans have all, always understood this to be the bedrock of our system of government and we should not abandon it simply because some criminals in the executive branch and some rich corporations and their executives find the consequences of their crimes somewhat painful.
Please continue this fight with all your strength, but forget about arguing the nuances. This is a clear and simple question of right and wrong. But whatever you do, fight!
December 18, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This argument isn’t about whether companies acted in good faith, it’s about requiring that companies, and the government, follow a law that has been on the books for 30 years."
I beg to differ. The fourth amendment to the US Constitution passed in 1791--not 30 years ago.
Senators and FISA do not provide our protection against warrantless searches by the government, the fourth amendment of the US Constitution has already done that.
Members of Congress have sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The only Supreme Court exception to the warrant requirement for searches operates when there is probable cause to make that search.
Fourth Amendment:
"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."
You called the administration's warrantless wiretap program "illegal." If the executive refuses to uphold the law of the land...I'd rather see you act like an equal branch of government and exercise the miserable option of impeachment on any issue that suffices. That dismal option is preferable to watching Congress fail the country further by setting a precedent whereby another President who goes off the deep end will assume Congress will let him or her violate the Constitution, too.
December 18, 2007 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you get the memo? The 4th amendment is not a centrist amendment.
December 19, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the GOP seems to ROUTINELY be able to muster enough votes for a filibuster to block ANYTHING that huge numbers of them don't support, why can't the Democrats, even if they are all but completely unable to make headway against a solid wall of filibuster, at least muster a loose coalition of 41 Democratic senators willing to do the same?
It seems that an awful lot of Democrats just talk about populism and the Democratic platform, but their $ and their obedience points in directions other than to the public(s) that they supposedly serve.
December 18, 2007 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, well, well...
That there stem cell therapy must work. The Democrats were able to knit back together their collective spine.
Well, not all the vertebrae were cooperative, which made it a little more difficult.
But the ones that were there were magnificent.
I guess we can take a lesson from this that I taught my daughter in the third grade- the only way to deal with some bullies is to whack 'em in the nose. A little bit of sting and some teared up eyes and their game plans change pretty quick.
It wasn't so long ago that the Repugs were threatening to change the rules of the Senate - to completely shut out Dems. Well, that oft threatening and scary boogeyman conjured up by Jon Kyl and his smarmy ilk just got it's nose whacked. And the whacker was none other than Chris Dodd. A gentleman. One who learned from his father's experience and lived it out at the podium yesterday. Oh, and he's a candidate for President. Leadership by example? Has that concept gotten out to Iowa and New Hampshire and all those that think they're "tested" or "vetted" or those that would be an "agent of change"? Don't tell me what you're gonna do when you got all the power- just show me how you handle a little power- like your voice and your vote- against the machine.
A few weeks ago I said that any Dem worth my vote had to have the guts of a Pakistani lawyer.
Thanks, Sen. Dodd, for restoring a bit of our souls as Americans. If there was a T-Shirt for it, I'd buy it and never give it away. I'd let 'em bury me in it. Same to all the Senators that have worked so hard, made their positions known and rose in opposition to this bogus piece of pander.
So Harry, are ya listening? Do you really understand what happened? The boogeyman isn't so scary anymore. Nobody thinks it's unpatriotic to question this President- hard! You should withhold the FISA bill until everyone that has to vote on it has read the supporting legal foundations that this program was based on. Everybody knows it happened. What type of collection method, what channel the communications followed is not as important as the legality of the opinion that supported it. If the FISA bill expires, so be it. We would revert to the old FISA statutes that required warrants. That would be ok with me.
Just sayin'
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
December 18, 2007 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am an employee at a telecom.
I oppose telecom amnesty.
At work, every "management" (i.e., non-union) employee is required to take a refresher course each year on our responsibilities regarding the protection of customer privacy. We are told that violations of the rules will lead to disciplinary action and even the loss of employment.
It is simple reasoning to understand trust lies at the foundation of the telecommunications business.
If the leadership of the company is as observant of the rules as they require us to be, then I do not believe that they have broken any laws. My bet is that what Sen. Feingold wrote above will turn out to be the case - the telecoms have been told that the "Attorney General certifies that a court order is not required and all statutory requirements have been met".
To me, telecom amnesty is an attempt to cover-up the Bush administration's phony certifications. For telecoms that spend billions in burnishing their brand names, the cost of demonstrating in court that they acted in good faith is trivial. But the real culprits will be shown up and "national security" will be used as an argument even against the telecoms not to reveal what they know.
To me it would seem amnesty is against the telcos' interests, it puts a stain on their records that they can never remove.
Of course, there is the possibility that telco leadership did break the law. In which case punishment is due. I do not know what financial liability that opens up for the corporation, but I would ask Congress to limit the damage to the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of innocent workers who work hard and within the law and within the very strong corporate ethical guidelines that they are drilled in, to bring you the communications services you so rely on, that bring you these words.
December 19, 2007 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least in the Telecommunications Act of 1934 language on pen register (i.e., the predecessors of Call Detail Records -- CDR) surveillance, the language states that they can be obtained with a warrant, or the Attorney General's certification. My impression, from industry material (including the EFF) is that no warrant request was made to the FISA Court, which would be the logical place to request a warrant.
I would not be surprised, however, to find that the Attorney General did not formally certify the requirement. It may well have been an NSA request that then was argued to the telcos by the White House.
My immediate goal would be that the appropriate committees, not just the "Big 8" members, be fully briefed -- and that they can involve qualified but independent observers. In the past, the Senate Intelligence Committee brought in a panel of respected experts, all of whom had the appropriate security clearances.
I would ask Senator Feingold if he believes that the Congress has adequate information on what was actually requested and done, since it will be hard to address any culpability, in the government or the telcos, without understanding what happened. My gut tells me that unreasonable actions were taken because someone waved the bloody shirt of "terrorism and national security", but my gut often is hungry, for food, information, and sometimes antacids.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 19, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
At a very personal level - though I like to gripe, in my heart I know I love to work at my telco workplace. Some months ago I was trying to understand it, and I think at the root is that the people that I work with form a productive, ethical community. Maybe I am naive, or maybe I have blinders on, but I do believe that the people around me are working in the right way for the right things, to sustain their customers, themselves and their families, their communities, their corporation. We are creating and earning a shared good.
There is something inspiring about that to me, that occasionally converts the mundane into the sublime.
It makes me extremely angry and hurt that Bush & co have managed to reach even into there and besmirch it somehow. If there is a God, I call upon Him for justice. Congress will suffice, though. :)
December 19, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your personal level resonates with me. I do a lot of work in Internet core engineering, which can be fascinating and frustrating, often both at the same time.
One of the things that motivates me, however, is thinking of Martin Luther King's dream of a future in which his children would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. In many ways, that is the way of the Internet, where we judge character by words. For all the complaints about television, I can think of memorable occasions where it felt that the whole world was watching, together, when Neil Armstrong first stepped on the Moon.
The long history of telecommunications has been an enabler for people to talk to one another, to reach outside their locality. Without the telegraph and telephone, the technology of the Internet would never have happened.
--
Howard
"The Bell system was founded on broad lines of "one system, one policy, universal service" on the idea that no aggregation of isolated independent systems not under common control, however well built or equipped, could give the country the service. One system with a common policy, common purpose and common action; comprehensive, universal, interdependent, intercommunicating like the highway system of the country, extending from every door to every other door, affording electrical communication of every kind from every one and every place to every one at every other place." [Theodore Vail, 1906]
Now, our technology allows multiple systems to follow common technical standards and give that communication without monopoly.
December 19, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink