The House laid down like a dog to Bush, as well:
Congress in the US has backed a measure allowing the government to eavesdrop on foreigners suspected of having links with terrorism.
The House of Representatives approved the bill by a majority of 44 after its approval in the Senate, with the Democratic majority split on the issue. […]
The bill allows taps on foreign phone and internet communications routed via the US, without prior court approval.
The House voted late on Saturday 227-183 in favour of the bill, which updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. […]
But many House Democrats expressed strong reservations about the bill, saying it infringed constitutional rights.
“This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances,” said Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren during the debate preceding the vote.
“I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
I just wonder how many Democrats does it take to stand up to Bush. Obviously a 30+ majority in the House isn’t enough. I wonder if any number would be enough?
Congress is officially irrelevant.
Ps. To see how your representative voted, go to this LINK (hat tip to dada).
Update [2007-8-5 11:30:45 by Steven D]: danps in the comments provides us with a link to his site which gives you further links to the home web pages of those representatives who voted for this atrocity.
For “yes” votes and links to home pages go to:
http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/2007/8/5/house-fisa-yes-votes.html
Thanks. I’ll add the link to the main story.
laid down like a ‘blue’ dog.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Yes, surprise. I’m already looking forward to the even bigger surprise in store for us in September when David charms congress into signing on for another so-many months of surging in Iraq.
Months? I think you misunderestimate their audacity. Think years.
.
don’t forget the house
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Not just Iraq. There WILL be indisputable proof of weapons depots around Tehran, East, West, South and North somewhat, requiring us to invade. I suspect there’s also something of an overstock on the flower markets there, which will of course be ameliorated by our victory parades.
I am nothing but not surprised at my blue dog vote on any old thing this Adm has in store for us. I am becoming mroe agitated as days go by at his voting process, as well as the rest of the blue dogs. I think they all need to be thrown out and replace by progressives that truly understand the public as a whole. AGAIN, I wrote to him on issues, and primarily this one of the AG now being responsible to hold an open ear to my conversations no only to here in the States, but to my friends abroad. They are all sick or being blackmailed into their voting. They do not get their pet pork if they do not vote for the adm…do you hear me on this one?! We here in my district are about to get a big pork thingee, if it wasn’t for Tanner and Alexander, here in TN on the Mississippi river. See what I mean here? I could care less, if it means being blackmailed into his votes or their votes.
If “Congress is officially irrelevant”, doesn’t that mean that the Democratic Party is officially irrelevant, too?
And if that is the case, isn’t it about time to start discussing third-party strategies? I don’t see what we’ve got to lose.
I’m tired of talking about third party strategies. I want to see some enterprising folks take a third party candidate and get the 150,000 votes necessary to put them in Congress.
There has been too much talking and not enough action. And the third party movement has always wanted to jump to presidential elections first.
Hint: If you can’t generate 150,000 votes in a Congressional election, you are not likely to generate the 65 million votes required to win a presidential election.
And if you aren’t out to win, you are just out to spoil. And we know what happens when that happens–Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.
And you young romantics, let this geezer tell you: Making it worse won’t bring the revolution.
Good points. You’re right that there has not been enough action.
One of the things I find most frustrating about the netroots is how little inclination there is to develop and support third-party Congressional candidacies. The only case I am aware of where this has come up recently is Cindy Sheehan’s challenge of Nancy Pelosi, but many have reflexively denounced it. I think there should be more of that kind of thing.
And when it comes to candidates themselves, progressive Dem candidates should be willing to pull a Lieberman when they fail to get the Dem nomination, in cases where the law makes that possible.
This situation where the Rethugs are very aggressive and the Dems are pusillanimous has been going on since the 1970s, and we have seen yesterday and in May that it is continuing unabated, despite the fact that the public has moved to the left. The time really might be ripe for the emergence of a new party, but so far there is very little discussion of that. How can we continue in this way with both major parties being to the right of the electorate?
I really don’t see where a third party could emerge from if it isn’t the netroots. But no matter how many times the Dem Party stabs the American people in the back, the feeling remains that we have no choice but to be loyal to it.
To me it seems rather simple actually…we have a third party-The Green Party…all you have to do is read their platform which is amazing/progressive and everything I would have wanted to the dems to be.
If every disaffected dem signed on to the Green Party we’d be in business.
I was thinking about that, but decided not to mention it since I was under the impression that the Green Party is not really interested in gaining significant power, because of its lack of visibility.
But we know why it lacks visibility. I will read their platform.
Perhaps it is time for the progressive mainstream to stop vilifying the Green Party? As TarheelDem suggests, supporting a third party does not require backing a spoiler third-party presidential candidate.
BTW: is there any significance to green being the color of the BT?
If you can’t turn out the voters in a Congressional District.
Or if you don’t even try to build a local presence for a party.
That is my criticism of the Greens after long years of watching them. They are only good for a national platform that sounds good and a candidate who is there to send a message but who is not working to win.
My second criticism is the willingness of local Green Parties to ally with Republicans to try to defeat Democrats. That is not the way to fulfill the Green platform, if I accurately understand that platform.
Well, it’s time for the Greens to work to win. I think that chocolate ink’s point still stands, since if you want to build up a third party, starting with the Green Party is better than starting completely from scratch.
I don’t think that most Greens understand the degree to which the Dems share the goals of the Rethugs any more than most progressive bloggers do.
In order to “win” on topics of civil liberties one has to look beyond party affiliation.
You have to act as if those who support a more restrictive government truly believe this. Assume they are not being hypocrites and are not scared, but actually believe in a strong, hierarchical leadership model.
This is no different than when the Dixiecrats were part of the Dem party. They really were racists, but they stayed under the Dem umbrella because the rest of the party needed them for their votes in other areas.
If there is to be a successful progressive movement headed by the Dems then it is not sufficient to support anyone who runs as a Dem. This is especially true as the trend towards party switching continues.
Candidates should be supported because of their positions and if an incumbent is a DINO then serious consideration should be given to mounting a challenge.
Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.
The Congressional oath of office:I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Support and defend the constitution. Not give up the rights it contains every time they become frightened little children.
Support and defend the constitution. That’s it. Bottom line. They can argue about roads, and tariffs, and educational testing and what ever else. But, damn it, defend the constitution. That’s what they swore to do.
Cowards and liars.
It’s time for Pelosi and Reid to step down as “leaders”
They are not leaders, they are players. Their job is to play us.
They create the impression that their party provides an opposition to the policies of BushCo, which they in fact mostly approve of, to prevent real forces of opposition from emerging.
That, today, is the real function of the Democratic Party. Once you accept that, what has been happening for the last six months becomes a lot less puzzling.
Today I had the opportunity to talk briefly with Senator Schumer face to face. there was a street fair on Columbus Avenue in Manhattan. Not only did I not know Schumer would be there, I didn’t even know about the stret fair, I just came upon it while walking with my family. I was very depressed about the vote and all of a sudden my wife says, “Here’s your chance to talk to Schumer.” He was very approachable, obviously wanted to meet constituents. He was not surrounded by crowds or anybody else, I just waited quietly while he spoke to two other people, then he turned to me. I shook his hand and thanked him for not voting for “that FISA thing.” He made a face and said “that was bad.” I said, “What the hell was that about?” The following is as close as I can remember to the conversation.
Schumer: They don’t care about democracy. And some of my colleagues have no guts. But there’s one good — at least a little good thing– not even a good thing, but something — in it.
Me: What?
Schumer: It sunsets in six months. We won’t let them get our backs to the wall next time. We won’t let it happen again.
Me: I hope not.
I make no comment, just wanted to share this with the rest of the Boomaniacs.
No guts about sums it up. I never felt that Schumer lacked guts, though. He’s more of a brawler.
Pretty cool getting to meet and talk to Schumer. Thanks for sharing that.
I disagree with Booman about it being a matter of lack of guts. This has gone on for so long and becoming so extreme that lack of guts is no longer a plausible explanation. Progressives have to wake up and realize that most Democrats in Washington share more goals and attitudes with the Republicans in Washington than they do with us. Once you realize that, the behavior of the Dems since they took control of both houses becomes much less puzzling.
Schumer is one of the better ones, though. I can’t blame him for covering for his colleagues. And saying that his colleagues go along with the Rethugs because they have no guts is covering for them. The reason they go along with the Rethugs is that they agree with them. They just can’t admit that, because that would remove any reason for anyone to vote for them.
I hope that Booman will realize that sooner rather than later, because I like this site.
Alexander,
I think the “guts” thing is a little more complicated. It takes guts to stand up to Bush and the Republicans, yes, and Schumer has that, but what you leave out entirely is the question of constituents and other local pressure groups. There are some of these that Schumer himself has to stand up to in voting against a bill like that (AIPAC comes to mind), but if Bush’s nationwide approval is, charitably, 30%, and disapproval about 60%, in New York City and even New York State as a whole I’m sure the figures are much worse for Bush. From standpoint of voters, it’s a no-brainer to oppose Bush in NY — but what about in Louisiana or Mississippi? There it would definitely take guts. So when you make these sweeping statements about Democrats, remember that less than 1/3 of the Democratic senators voted for it.
As for Pelosi and the House, check this out:
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002567347.html
Booman, you wondered how many Democrats it takes to stand up to President Bush. rdf said: “You have to act as if those who support a more restrictive government truly believe this.”
Alexander has the answer: “Progressives have to wake up and realize that most Democrats in Washington share more goals and attitudes with the Republicans in Washington than they do with us. Once you realize that, the behavior of the Dems since they took control of both houses becomes much less puzzling.”
That, folks, is the truth. For many Democrats in Congress, it’s not about a lack of guts. They vote this way because they believe in these policies. With this “update” of FISA, we hear the voices of the people who are afraid of freedom and want authoritarian leadership. And yes, this means that they will violate the oath of office. Because they don’t really believe in the Constitution; it shows in this vote and in many other votes.
I wonder how these same Democrats will react when President H.R. Clinton controls this power.
But the important point is that they believe in power, not freedom. Don’t forget it. Judge them by their deeds and reward them accordingly.