I have ZERO faith in Reid.

agreed! that tie... that haircut... that little wavy hand gesture...

*eugh*

(...principles aren't that strong either...)

Yam @ 2:

I have ZERO faith in Reid.

agreed! that tie... that haircut... that little wavy hand gesture...

*eugh*

(...principles aren't that strong either...)

That voice!

Give'em hell Harry LMAO!!

Harry/Nancy is why I am leaving the Democrat party...with friends like them who needs enemies? They ARE the corporate shills, I want nothing from them but their resignation.

I am Green party or Independent like Bernie Sanders or whatever party that is NOT the wasteland of the Democrats, they are a disgrace.

erkd1 @ 6:

Give'em hell Harry LMAO!!

Harry/Nancy is why I am leaving the Democrat party...with friends like them who needs enemies? They ARE the corporate shills, I want nothing from them but their resignation.

I am Green party or Independent like Bernie Sanders or whatever party that is NOT the wasteland of the Democrats, they are a disgrace.

That's where I'm at.

Harry ALWAYS barks loudly at the presentation of an issue, laying down threats.

Then he backs off and capitulates.

Get RID of Harry.

What petition? Could not find one of "No-Balls"-Harry's site...

i've heard this song and dance before...

and i ain't holding my damn breath that he will do anything i can tell you that.

Is it me, or does the phrase "retroactive immunity" sound sinister and cockamamie all at the same time?

me and myself @ 5:

I think Harry has seen the comments in the days leading to this, if immunity is passed Reid may be forced out of Majority leader seat.

That's just not true. There is a very good reason why Reid is the leader, and that reason hasn't changed (the D caucus is split 25-25).

I call bullshit. They ALL need to go. Reid, Pelosi, Rahm, Fienstein, etc....

Paul in LA @ 19:

L.P. Smith @ 16:

Is it me, or does the phrase "retroactive immunity" sound sinister and cockamamie all at the same time?

More accurately, it is blocking the public's access to the courts on this issue.

Simply put, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

L.P. Smith @ 22:

Simply put, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Right, sure, it's unconstitutional spying. But the 'immunity' is not a specific immunity -- it is blocking the courts so people can't go to court to find out what happened to them, or to punish the wrongdoers.

If Reid had brought the other committee's version of the bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity, to the floor instead of this one we wouldn't be having this fight at all.

We also would have been spared the sight of Reid telling members of his own party that he would force them to engage in an actual filibuster after a year of watching him not require that of the Republicans.

Reid is firmly on the side of the administration in all ways, anything he says that sounds confrontational is at best an attempt to create the appearance of opposition without the substance, and at worst an attempt to setup his own party so that he can sandbag them later.

Paul in LA @ 24:

L.P. Smith @ 22:

Simply put, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Right, sure, it's unconstitutional spying. But the 'immunity' is not a specific immunity -- it is blocking the courts so people can't go to court to find out what happened to them, or to punish the wrongdoers.

And keeping people in the dark helps the DUHcider and The Dick. Secrecy promotes tyranny.

Jack Ketch @ 26:

If Reid had brought the other committee's version of the bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity, to the floor instead of this one we wouldn't be having this fight at all.

I think you're wrong about the basis of that. The Senate is debating S. 2248, which is the Intel committee bill with the immunity sections struck out (removed).

In order to get immunity into the bill, it requires amendment. Were 2248 to be voted yea, it would result, IIAC, in a conference bill with no immunity. Thus the cloture.

I'm going out protesting. If anyone knows enough to clarify the issue for me, I would appreciate your time (and, no, calling Reid and Pelosi names is not a clarification).

Chris @ 28:

Paul in LA @ 24:

L.P. Smith @ 22:

Simply put, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Right, sure, it's unconstitutional spying. But the 'immunity' is not a specific immunity -- it is blocking the courts so people can't go to court to find out what happened to them, or to punish the wrongdoers.

And keeping people in the dark helps the DUHcider and The Dick. Secrecy promotes tyranny.

Yes, well said. Secrecy, and fear, are their best weapons. ...It's "We The People" vs. "We The Corporation."

Paul in LA @ 25:

abarts @ 20:

I call bullshit. They ALL need to go. Reid, Pelosi, Rahm, Fienstein, etc....

One of these things is NOT like the other.

IF Pelosi was removed, Steny Hoyer, who DOES fit in that list, would be the Speaker.

Putting a Progressive Speaker in with the DLC corporatists is just incorrect.

Then tell Nancy Pelosi to put impeachment BACK ON THE TABLE! I will call Congress (and of course the Senate too, which is not part of Congress) EVERY FUCKING DAY! Or just speak in code, "No option is off the table when it comes to dealing with Preznit Bush."

I really wish he'd shut the hell up about the Republicans "not letting them" do things.

He's the god damned majority leader, and he could've won this thing without a fight if he'd wanted to. Those "procedural rules" he's so pathetically using as an excuse can be used alot easier by the majority than the minority.

I'm so sick of that sellout worm.

Paul in LA @ 30:

Jack Ketch @ 26:

If Reid had brought the other committee's version of the bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity, to the floor instead of this one we wouldn't be having this fight at all.

I think you're wrong about the basis of that. The Senate is debating S. 2248, which is the Intel committee bill with the immunity sections struck out (removed).

In order to get immunity into the bill, it requires amendment. Were 2248 to be voted yea, it would result, IIAC, in a conference bill with no immunity. Thus the cloture.

I could be wrong, but as I understand it Reid had sole discretion as to which version of the bill to bring to the floor, the version from the Judiciary Committee which did not contain an immunity provision or the version from the Intelligence Committee which did.

Reid chose to bring the version from the Intelligence Committee to the floor, which the actual Democrats are now trying to amend to remove the immunity provision.

Jack Ketch @ 38:

I could be wrong, but as I understand it Reid had sole discretion as to which version of the bill to bring to the floor, the version from the Judiciary Committee which did not contain an immunity provision or the version from the Intelligence Committee which did.

Reid chose to bring the version from the Intelligence Committee to the floor, which the actual Democrats are now trying to amend to remove the immunity provision.

Jack, that is my understanding also. If it was Reid's choice, then he is in fact disingenuous in his protest because he could have preempted this whole thing by bringing the bill WITHOUT the retroactive amnesty to the floor instead. If he's only pretending to care about civil liberties than he is a douche bag on a whole new level.

.

The real State of the Union speech will be addressed by Kucinich: “We know the State of the Union. It's a lie.”
"

.

Who's spine did Harry borrow? And when does he have to give it back?

SFnomad @ 44:

Who's spine did Harry borrow? And when does he have to give it back?

By midnight ? We'll see if he'll be standing come Monday. Somebody better have the wheelchair ready for him. Or, a body bag.

L.P. Smith @ 16:

Is it me, or does the phrase "retroactive immunity" sound sinister and cockamamie all at the same time?

If this is possible then retroactive taxes can be imposed on those who benifited under Bush's tax cuts can't they? Or let's impose new taxes on corporate profits retroactively.

Then there's what I did. Went to Obama's senate website and asked him to a)show up, and b)use the voice. Hillary probably won't even show, so Obama showing up and giving one of those bits like after Iowa or New Hampshire will set the talking heads all aflutter. It'd be nice if Harry stuck to his guns, but that'd require him to have a pair... of guns to stick to.

Obama's senate site is http://obama.senate.gov/. I didn't bother with his campaign site, because frankly, his actual job is Senator. If burning this stupid bill to the ground helps him win, fine, but this is what he got elected for.

me and myself @ 5:

I think Harry has seen the comments in the days leading to this, if immunity is passed Reid may be forced out of Majority leader seat.

I hope he is forced out regardless. He has already proven he has character issues.

Paul in LA @ 30:

Jack Ketch @ 26:

If Reid had brought the other committee's version of the bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity, to the floor instead of this one we wouldn't be having this fight at all.

I think you're wrong about the basis of that. The Senate is debating S. 2248, which is the Intel committee bill with the immunity sections struck out (removed).

In order to get immunity into the bill, it requires amendment. Were 2248 to be voted yea, it would result, IIAC, in a conference bill with no immunity. Thus the cloture.

I'm going out protesting. If anyone knows enough to clarify the issue for me, I would appreciate your time (and, no, calling Reid and Pelosi names is not a clarification).

For Christ's sake (or not), research the various bills out there. Reid brought forward a bill which contained retroactive immunity, when he could have brought forward a different bill which did not.

if the FISA bill gets passed with telecom immunity or feinstein's lame give it to bush admendemtn, then both of them need to have their political careers brought to
an immediate halt.

If Harry Reid actually gets up on his hind legs and forces the Republicans to talk turkey, I will be a very surprised chap. It may be that Harry, having been so abused and humiliated for such a long time, just can't eat any more drek. He has been well-paid by the telecoms to eat drek, but maybe he's finally a man. Naw, not in our lifetime.

Max-1 @ 42:

.

The real State of the Union speech will be addressed by Kucinich: “We know the State of the Union. It's a lie.”
"
.

Dennis is a live wire .. His plan is " to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush on Jan. 28 — the day of Mr. Bush’s State of the Union speech. ". Booosh will implode before the speech.
I hope Dennis has good security detail. Does he have any ?

reported by a NYT blogger w/this story: ""As for Impeachment.. Look what I found…

This week we should celebrate the anniversary of the Monica Lewinsky Scandal. It’s been 10 years since Drudge broke the scandal…
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/01/17/200 20117_175502_ml.htm ""

Will anybody demand candidate Hillary carries enough insurance to cover Bill's antics ? We, the people should NOT be liable. He's difficult to contain even by her campaign, very damaging to the dems at large.

Otay @ 54:

Paul in LA @ 30:

Jack Ketch @ 26:

If Reid had brought the other committee's version of the bill, which did not contain retroactive immunity, to the floor instead of this one we wouldn't be having this fight at all.

I think you're wrong about the basis of that. The Senate is debating S. 2248, which is the Intel committee bill with the immunity sections struck out (removed).

In order to get immunity into the bill, it requires amendment. Were 2248 to be voted yea, it would result, IIAC, in a conference bill with no immunity. Thus the cloture.

I'm going out protesting. If anyone knows enough to clarify the issue for me, I would appreciate your time (and, no, calling Reid and Pelosi names is not a clarification).

For Christ's sake (or not), research the various bills out there. Reid brought forward a bill which contained retroactive immunity, when he could have brought forward a different bill which did not.

Otay - pay no attention. He does it to everybody. Triangulator at large. He needs to find another site, fast. Exhausted all his picks here, nobody pays attention to him.

Johnny2Bad @ 33:

Reid is a milktoast. LBJ is rolling over in his grave...that SOB would be on the phone tearing 'em a new one.

We live in different times, my friend

We have a President who is much like his namesake King George, egged on by Cheney and all the other neo-cons that Bushsy can have around. Do you think that the situation might be a little bit harder than anything that LBJ had to contend with.

I am not trying to tell you that I think that Reed or Pelosi especially have done anything the easiest or best way, especially Pelosi co-opting an inquisition of Bush, (any I do mean inquisition)

And besides that I get the feeling that some of those folks who want to throw out Reed and Pelosi are from the other side of the aisle. No body checks IDs here.

On the other hand, throw out that bitch Fienstein. I want Barbra Boxer to be the 1st Ranking California Senator as soon as possible.

is that... are those... balls? naa just my imagination

that fucker will cave.

Dirty Harry-Please step down or leave our Party!

nightjar @ 59:

otay says

If it were true that Reid were playing this game, then I would say he has been outsmarted at every turn. He is not intelligent enough to play chess without sacrificing the queen and losing everything

I didn't say Reid doesn't deserve criticism and I did say he has ceded to much control of the Senate's business to repubs. But I firmly believe his motives were to honor the 06" campaign pledge to be bipartisan not that he's weak or pro-Bush. Of course, as expected repubs are their asshole selves with raw power politics and no intent on acting in good faith. Harry let it go to far, especially with ceding all votes be 60 vote majorities without making repubs object and filibuster. I also think he's crafty enough to change course having previously taken the high road with repubs and now getting tough. If you don't think Harry is a tough dude when he wants to be, go ask the former mobsters he helped run out of Vegas. Anyway, we shall see if you're right and if so he has to go.

i didn't know the mobsters left vegas, i thought they went corporate.

natisman @ 71:

Otay @ 67:

natisman @ 64:

And besides that I get the feeling that some of those folks who want to throw out Reed and Pelosi are from the other side of the aisle. No body checks IDs here.

That's a bit unfair. There may be some debate among progressives about "we are the leaders and you are the advocates" Pelosi, but there is little debate about "Give 'Em Head, Harry".

By the other side of the Aisle I was trying to be nice instead of saying what I believe in, that RePUGs would like to stir up the soup as much as they can. Ya know like secret agent troll time.

The way things are going, Repugs would like nothing better than for Harry Reid to stay in office doing exactly what he has been doing. Being the excessively forgiving person I am, Pelosi may turn out differently, but Reid is too stuck in the D.C. bubble.

Harry Reid took a tougher stance then we’ve seen..

tougher stance than before

Somebody count how many times he gives Bush a standing O a the State of the Union speech.

Chris @ 35:

My understanding was that the Judiciary Cmte. bill had NO immunity in it but the Intel Cmte. bill did because of Rockefeller. And they are using the Intel Cmte. bill. At least they were yesterday when I was watching C-SPAN2.

There are three versions of the bill at Thomas. The version 'reported' in Senate has the immunity parts struck out. That's what confused me. On checking the other versions, the version 'put on calendar' has those portions intact.

And I found this:

"

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Rockefeller, a backer of the immunity provision, said that he was confident he had the 60 votes needed to overcome any filibuster attempt by fellow Democrats.

The Senate was to resume the debate on January 28 with a set of key amendments that could affect the final outcome. These included an amendment offered by Specter and Whitehouse that would make the federal government liable for privacy violations instead of the companies; an amendment offered by Feinstein which would allow a secret intelligence court to determine whether companies should receive immunity; and an amendment by Dodd and Feingold to strip the immunity outright.[19]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=RESTORE_Act_%282007_FISA_bill%29

Otay @ 67:

there is little debate about "Give 'Em Head, Harry".

And little acknowledgement that he is presiding over a split Dem caucus.

With a 25-25 split, Chairman Rockefeller having 25 of those votes on his side (and all the Republicans), he "easily" has the 60 votes needed to ram through the immunity. There is basically fuck all that Reid can do about that.

He's weak -- but he is also the scapegoat of those who refuse to count the votes and look at the real picture, instead of their imagination that (D) after your name makes the leadership's slave.

CappuccettoRosso @ 62:

Otay - pay no attention. He does it to everybody. Triangulator at large. He needs to find another site, fast. Exhausted all his picks here, nobody pays attention to him.

Yes, ever since I outed you for LYING about Rahm Emanuel, you have been on a bash-PIL kick.

It was YOU who lied, not me, buddy. And not just lied -- you didn't do the simple task of finding out if your lie was even possible. If, as you said, Emanuel cut off his finger to avoid the draft, why did that event take place in 1979, when the draft ended in 73? It doesn't even make sense as a lie, but you just don't care.

You also claimed he goes to Israel to fight in the army every couple of years, which is utter nonsense. So while your speculations and slanders are factually absurd, your attacks on me are just icing on your shit cake. Eat up!

Pursang @ 85:

Amazing how the Dems had no power when they were in the minority and now they have no power as the majority.

That's because there are two forms of Congressional power: the agenda, and the vote.

We now control the agenda in both Housees. That's good, but it isn't enough votes to control the votes. Even with rarely matched caucus percentages voting with the leadership in the House, several legistlative acts were impossible, including stopping the Iraq invasion funding.

The Senate control is far, far worse. Reid leads a split caucus, 25-25, and one of those 25's votes with the R 50. So it's 75-25. While Reid opposes the profer of blanket immunity for major federal crimes, the fact is that 75 Senators DO NOT agree.

We have 25 Senators, and a weak leader who sides with the right, but is in the position BECAUSE of his passive, mild, maleable personality. He was leader under the R domination (achieved through criminality of various sorts), because he is who he is. On attaining the majority, he retained his post, and he has pretty much failed all down the line.

Blaming him, without recognizing the 75-25 split, is making him the scapegoat for the states who sent those 25 Bushco-siding Dems for him to deal with. And people pretend that their enemies have no institutional power--so every action is taken in a vacuum where perfect results are possible because there is no context, and especially no opposition context.

Paul in LA @ 84:

CappuccettoRosso @ 62:

Otay - pay no attention. He does it to everybody. Triangulator at large. He needs to find another site, fast. Exhausted all his picks here, nobody pays attention to him.

Yes, ever since I outed you for LYING about Rahm Emanuel, you have been on a bash-PIL kick.

It was YOU who lied, not me, buddy. And not just lied -- you didn't do the simple task of finding out if your lie was even possible. If, as you said, Emanuel cut off his finger to avoid the draft, why did that event take place in 1979, when the draft ended in 73? It doesn't even make sense as a lie, but you just don't care.

You also claimed he goes to Israel to fight in the army every couple of years, which is utter nonsense. So while your speculations and slanders are factually absurd, your attacks on me are just icing on your shit cake. Eat up!

Paul in LA @ 79:

VietVet8666 @ 31:

Paul in L.A.,

I think you've misquoted me at 23.

Sorry, unintentional.

Triangulator at large. Misquoting all the pple doesn't get you anywhere. Even in a week of charity for animals. Get a life. WHATEVER.

Che's Lounge @ 87:

Sounds like it's not the republicans who are the problem.

No, the problem is that there are 25 DINOs in the Senate, with Rockefeller as the King, and Feinstain as his Queen.

We in California didn't launch much of an effort to replace the Queen -- we're a little busy with a more general outrage. But Californians, in this instance, cannot blame the Senate Majority leader when one of OUR Senators is at the lead of this DINO giveaway of legal power.

And blaming the entire caucus of Democrats for those FEW members that is blocking Progressive goals is just wrong. We should work to remove Rockefeller from office (this year); we should have worked to remove Feinstain from office (2006).

They're in like Flynn. She's a Lame Duck, and so will he be in fifteen minutes. It's going around. They don't need to fear the public.

Paul in LA @ 25:

abarts @ 20:

I call bullshit. They ALL need to go. Reid, Pelosi, Rahm, Fienstein, etc....

One of these things is NOT like the other.

IF Pelosi was removed, Steny Hoyer, who DOES fit in that list, would be the Speaker.

Putting a Progressive Speaker in with the DLC corporatists is just incorrect.

You also said: "There is zero evidence that Pelosi is a 'corporate shill.

Comparing the Speaker to Reid is about as boneheaded a misconception as you can find."

Let me see now... exactly how long did it take Pelosi to cave on extending unemployment benefits and increasing food stamps in the stimulus package?

Oh yeah, right - if things get worse, she's gonna revisit the issue when she has zero leverage and can "fight the good fight" and lose. Maybe she's planning to attach it to another war supplemental? Like the minimum wage?

Yeah, Paul, count me among those boneheads.

I know you lurk here for the sole purpose of defending Nancy (sure would like the story on that) but it's wearing pretty thin. We can read.

Maybe it's been so long since you've heard a real progressive speak, you have no idea what one would actually say. Here is an example:

"Mr. President, the bulk of the inflation we have been experiencing during your term has been in food and energy prices - gasoline and milk have both tripled in price. Unemployment is rising - and if you think a so-called stimulus package that is nearly half more tax breaks for business has a chance of getting through the peoples house while I am speaker without including increases in food stamps, heating oil subsidies and extensions in unemployment insurance, you have completely lost touch with reality."

That's what Nancy didn't say.

Harry should be made to understand that if the
telecom immunity goes foward, preogressive will be sitting the
general elections out..What he may think is good for corporate America
is not what is good for America. I am sick of his tone deafness...

UnEasyOne @ 92:

Let me see now... exactly how long did it take Pelosi to cave on extending unemployment benefits and increasing food stamps in the stimulus package?

The point of that exercise is to get what she can now, rather than get a veto that wrecks lives. A lot of people sniff at her minimum wage accomplishment last year, but it means a lot to the people who got closer to a living wage.

It's always possible to find something to dislike about anything. It's displaced hostility and scapegoating in this case, because Speaker Pelosi, like Howard Dean, are from the Democratic part of the Democratic Party. They don't do magic shows, but they do work for positive change nonetheless.

Paul in LA @ 97:

UnEasyOne @ 92:

I know you lurk here for the sole purpose of defending Nancy (sure would like the story on that) but it's wearing pretty thin.

I got twenty years of being proud of Nancy Pelosi for what she accomplishes, and that isn't wearing thin because I don't blame her refusing the job of confronting a violent dictator, especially when he has 75 solid votes in the Senate, and a 5-4 Court.

You, it's a neutral playing field, she just needs enough ovary. Everything is possible, and there is no opposition that has any power beyond the rhetorical. So therefore blame whomever is magically required to prove your contextless theory right. I understand.

But don't expect me to stop reporting to people that you're slandering a good person because it makes you feel better. Same reason Rush does it, by the way.

I stated facts - call it slander if you choose - that's exactly what Rush does when confronted with inconvenient facts.

You don't quote my entire comment - easier to lie about it that way - just like Rush.

Paul in LA @ 96:

UnEasyOne @ 92:

Let me see now... exactly how long did it take Pelosi to cave on extending unemployment benefits and increasing food stamps in the stimulus package?

The point of that exercise is to get what she can now, rather than get a veto that wrecks lives. A lot of people sniff at her minimum wage accomplishment last year, but it means a lot to the people who got closer to a living wage.

It's always possible to find something to dislike about anything. It's displaced hostility and scapegoating in this case, because Speaker Pelosi, like Howard Dean, are from the Democratic part of the Democratic Party. They don't do magic shows, but they do work for positive change nonetheless.

10% (or less) of this "stimulus" which Bush desperately wants is going to the poor. Nothing to the disabled, elderly, or poorest. Half is going to corporations and the rest to the middle class. What a fabulous deal! What a fantastic negotiator!

The glacier is moving perceptively. DiFi made a statement Friday which sounded like she may have been influenced by…us. Reid made a statement late in the day in which he sounded like a whipped dog (good). Just shows that half a million emails and eleven thousand phone calls can get their attention.

If we can keep it up, we can win this thing. The house of cards could begin to fall right now. ‘Bout time.

bob @ 102:

The glacier is moving perceptively. DiFi made a statement Friday which sounded like she may have been influenced by…us. Reid made a statement late in the day in which he sounded like a whipped dog (good). Just shows that half a million emails and eleven thousand phone calls can get their attention.

If we can keep it up, we can win this thing. The house of cards could begin to fall right now. ‘Bout time.

I doubt it. DOn't people always say what you want to hear just before they screw the shit out of you?

I'm tired of this wuss who can't back up his own words. How long before he and Pelosi cave to the mad Chimp.

My problems with Pelosi lie in her leadership, not her history in Congress prior to her ascension to Speaker. On the one hand you can argue that she is effectively screwed thanks to the worthless bags of conservative, corporatist sh*t posing as Dems in the Senate, but on the other you can say that if she and the progressive Dems were better with their messaging, Reid and the other douche bags wouldn't be able to so effectively ram through disgusting legislation with nary a peep from anyone outside the Internets. All this business about working toward bipartisan solutions from Pelosi, Reid, and candidates like Obama just cements their position of weakness. It basically announces their intention to capitulate to the minorty party before any negotiations begin. Pelosi's apparent reticence to fight Bush over the 70 billion in corporate pork is a perfect example. She is so focused on getting something signed that she is throws any distinction between bad and good legislation out the window. The current stimulus package barely qualifies as more than another give away to the well heeled. The idea that innocents will suffer is precisely the mindset the GOP is hoping for. Why not put the issue to Bush and force him to do the hurting? Why cave and let him win...again (SCHIP fell prey to similar thinking). Now they will push through more corporate freebies that the tax payers, predominantly the middle class, will once again pay for. So much for that "stimulus." The GOP are again playing the Dems for saps (or simply working with the Bush Dogs since clearly they don't fear any reprisal from Reid). It's another case of "we have to rush or the a) economy crashes, b) the terrorists win, or c)you don't get your weekend getaway)!" Reid puts on a dog and pony show telling everyone he dislikes many aspects of the legislation but (a)we don't have enough votes, b)we need to act now, c)he's bound by the rules of the Senate...well, some of them...sort of. Progressives really need to give up on these tools because they KNOW you will hold your nose come November and keep them in power. Reid is also fully aware that for many people outside Left Blogistania, there is little understanding of what is transpiring right under their noses. Ignorance is indeed bliss. He goes on the record with his "gosh this sucks" routine while setting up the Bush Dogs and the GOP for another win, secure in the knowledge that most of the public haven't a clue. Keep in mind that this is the guy who STILL can't be bothered to kick Joe Lieberman to the curb and strip him of his "oversight" responsibilities.

fwacbar @ 104:

bob @ 102:

The glacier is moving perceptively. DiFi made a statement Friday which sounded like she may have been influenced by…us. Reid made a statement late in the day in which he sounded like a whipped dog (good). Just shows that half a million emails and eleven thousand phone calls can get their attention.

If we can keep it up, we can win this thing. The house of cards could begin to fall right now. ‘Bout time.

I doubt it. DOn't people always say what you want to hear just before they screw the shit out of you?

I’m not counting on Reid’s good intentions. We all know he’s a dry leaf blowing in the wind. This is an indication that the wind is shifting.

Otay @ 109:

Well, thanks to Harry Reid for bringing the wrong bill to the floor in the first place.

He brought both bills to the floor, and the SJC bill lost by a giant margin.

I know, Otay, that you want your scapegoat. But Reid is leader of a split caucus, and he's in that position BECAUSE we don't have the votes for someone better. It's the 75 Senators who want the telecom AMNESTY who are the force pushing Reid around like a ragdoll. Blame them -- at least Reid doesn't support it himself.

Da Spyda @ 105:

Go home, put on an apron, and go bake your grandchildren some cookies.

Ah, the sexism just leaps to the fingers.

Paul in LA @ 112:

Otay @ 109:

Well, thanks to Harry Reid for bringing the wrong bill to the floor in the first place.

He brought both bills to the floor, and the SJC bill lost by a giant margin.

I know, Otay, that you want your scapegoat. But Reid is leader of a split caucus, and he's in that position BECAUSE we don't have the votes for someone better. It's the 75 Senators who want the telecom AMNESTY who are the force pushing Reid around like a ragdoll. Blame them -- at least Reid doesn't support it himself.

Let Harry turn around and push you around like a rag doll. Reid has the power to choose to introduce or not introduce bills. Learn what happened here, instead of throwing out blank excuses for a weasel.

Otay @ 116:

Paul in LA @ 112:

Otay @ 109:

Well, thanks to Harry Reid for bringing the wrong bill to the floor in the first place.

He brought both bills to the floor, and the SJC bill lost by a giant margin.

I know, Otay, that you want your scapegoat. But Reid is leader of a split caucus, and he's in that position BECAUSE we don't have the votes for someone better. It's the 75 Senators who want the telecom AMNESTY who are the force pushing Reid around like a ragdoll. Blame them -- at least Reid doesn't support it himself.

Let Harry turn around and push you around like a rag doll. Reid has the power to choose to introduce or not introduce bills. Learn what happened here, instead of throwing out blank excuses for a weasel.

I want to see evidence that Reid was forced to bring the Senate Intelligence Committee bill to the floor. I also want an explanation of why Reid is forcing an actual filibuster from Dodd, when he has never (and I mean never) forced an actual filibuster from the Repubs on any of the legislation they passed.

clytemnestra @ 117:

nice words Harry .. now can you back them up?

No. He's trying to be political. It won't work, but it's not like he is required to admit that.

For a good assessment of why the Dem senators were angry at Mitchell, see below:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/26/immunity/index.html

The reason they were angry is that Mitchell would not let them capitulate in a timely manner, and wants to keep FISA ongoing long enough to use it against the Dems.

That's right, the Dems are angry that they were not allowed to "look tough on terrah", no, they were not angry at the unconstitutionality of this bill. It was a personal affront.

And PiL would do well to learn something about these bills. It does not pay to be ignorant. All it would have taken to override the motion to table the SIC bill would have been one vote from the 60 required to table. 59 and it would not have been tabled. That's right, the Dem leadership only had to sway one person. And "leadership" from Reid on the floor and in the media.

At this point it is almost certain that the telecoms will get immunity. It will only be concerted action and just plain good fortune otherwise.

Otay @ 122:

All it would have taken to override the motion to table the SIC bill would have been one vote from the 60 required to table. 59 and it would not have been tabled. That's right, the Dem leadership only had to sway one person.

I can see why you don't understand. If you think the actual opposition is polled in every vote, you're ignorant of how it works. They only need 60 votes, so that's all they put forward. They have SEVENTY-FIVE VOTES.

And a 5-4 Court. And the abundant remnants of the vote-fraud installation. And massive funding already paid out to every rightwing cause and secret gov't agency you can imagine.

So, yeah -- he's a joke. A baby with a strand of spagetti could make him cry, he's such a joke.

bill l. @ 127:

A solid record before attaining leadership positions is certainly a sound defense, particularly when faced with such prodigious achievements:

No progress on Iraq
Declare a branch of the armed forces of Iran a terrorist organization, effectively giving Bush yet another possible route to open a 3rd war? Woot!
Contempt citations for Bolton and Miers? Nope.
Got an independent prosecutor for those CIA tapes? No? Why did you confirm another Bush crony? Why, yes!
Stack the SCOTUS and many of the higher courts with right wing idealogues? Sounds good.
Bankruptcy bill? Sure!
Let the GOP off the filibuster hook with a "gentleman's" agreement that every bill meet a 60 vote threshold? No problem.
Honor every Republican hold no matter what? Sure.
Ignore your own party's holds and force them to filibuster? Yup!
Take your most powerful threat, impeachment, "off the table?" Oh, you better believe it!
Keep party turncoats like Lieberman chairing oversight committees where they effectively block any actual progress to keep them happy and caucusing with you? Absolutely! And does he ever, you know, actually come through for you? F*ck no!
Restore Habeas Corpus? Someday.
SCHIP? Hey now, millions of kids would have been left without bullets or armor if we didn't pass something...wait, that's the troops...sorry, I get my bullsh*t GOP framing confused.
Exercise your power as majority leader to block the telcom amnesty bill from ever reaching the floor? Uh, well, no.

If only there was some way to keep stray "dogs" in line, something like control of committee chairs, or the ability to block legislation from ever even reaching the floor, or influence over little things like the budget, appropriations bills, riders, and so on.

Oh well.

No kidding. But don't tell that to someone else here. He's convinced that the Dem leaders are modern day Joans of Arc. Figthing against every conspiracy imaginable. Oh yeah, and our Brave Leaders are just barely staving off disaster by avoiding being murdered. In fact, they would probably be murdered if they forced the vote on contempt citations against Bolten and Myers. We should bow down to these exalted ones.

The scapegoating is intact.

Here It Comes: The National Surveillance State
DEPARTMENT No Comment
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED January 23, 2008
With not a drum roll or flourish, the Bush Administration, with the full complicity of the Senate Democratic leadership, is going to try to push through retroactive immunity. Who are the recipients of this criminal law largesse? The telecommunications companies and internet service providers who collaborated with the Bush Administration, allowing it full access to the private communications of millions of Americans in violation of a federal criminal statute—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The importance of this measure cannot be understated. The Bush Administration is serving up immunity to anyone who works with it in creating the national surveillance state. This effort is being opposed by everyone with more than a gram of gray matter who has studied the legislation. Such radical organizations as the New York City Bar Association, home to the law firms that advise the telecom majors, made clear that the proposed legislation serves no legitimate purpose and establishes a horrendous precedent of bailing out serious transgressions against the public right of privacy.

Here’s a very good summary of the conduct which is being immunized, an NSA program, taken from an article in USA Today:

…The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews. For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. . .

The usefulness of the NSA’s domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.

We’re watching the telecoms use their lobbying muscle to accomplish quietly what they could not hope to accomplish in the light of day.

There’s no surprise that the White House is fully behind them. The surprise (though not to those who’ve kept a close tab on things) is that the Democratic leadership, which claims to be in opposition or at least neutral, is effectively in cahoots with the forces behind telecom immunity. Here’s what Harry Reid had to say:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

As Glenn Greenwald points out, Democrats have been pushing Reid to adopt just this defiant posture with respect to the filibustering Republicans for the past year. He has consistently refused to do so. Evidently his backbone only stiffens when it comes to a showdown over the telecoms and their right to facilitate criminal surveillance of millions of Americans without a warrant.

If you care about the Constitution and want to stop the erosion of its protections and the construction of the Bush Administration’s National Surveillance State, the time has come to act. Write your Congressman and Senators and ask them to oppose telecom immunity. More to the point, demand that your senators support the filibuster of the current legislation.

Senator Reid is threatening to bring it to the floor as early as tomorrow. Don’t wait.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002234