Major, major kudos to Chris Dodd for pulling off an impressive win (if a temporary one) on the wretched FISA bill that would have granted retroactive immunity to the telcos. When it became clear that Dodd was serious about filibustering, Harry Reid decided to pull consideration of the bill until January. (Kind of a sorry commentary that Dodd was threatening to filibuster his own party. More on Reid’s appalling tactics from Greenwald.)
“Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy. The President should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecom companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I want to thank the thousands of Americans throughout the country that stood with me to get this done for our country.”
And we, Senator Dodd, want to thank you. You could have stayed in Iowa, like Senators Obama and Clinton. Or in New Hampshire, like Senator Biden. Instead, you set aside your campaign, went back to Washington, did your job, and accomplished something important in the process.
That’s leadership, folks. Like what you see? Why not send him a few bucks to thank him?
You just showed an example of integrity. Too bad most of your own party leadership can’t match you.
I called Kennedy and Kerry two weeks ago.
I called Reid last week, twice.
I called Kennedy and Kerry again this morning.
I emailed my friends here in Minnesota (where I am visiting for a few days) to call Coleman and Klobuchar.
<
p>And now, I just gave Chris Dodd contribution #3. I’ve given him more than any other presidential candidate this cycle.
I have been consistently impressed with Sen. Dodd for a while now. His stands on climate change and civil liberties are bold, progressive and light years ahead of the competition. But here’s the problem: Dodd’s chances of winning don’t look good, and I believe it’s incredibly important that we nominate a leader who rejects the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, aka not Sen. Clinton.
<
p>So, what do people think? Should I stick with Obama, who I think is by far the best option of the top three, or consider giving Dodd my vote?
Don’t fall for it. Basically, if you vote for someone because you think he or she is “electable,” you are allowing your vote to be decided based on your prediction of what other people, whose votes you cannot control, are going to do. Why would you do that? First, you can’t control them, and second, you might be wrong. (cough2004cough)
<
p>Primaries are the time you get to vote for the candidate who you think most closely reflects your values. In the general, more often than not you’re voting for an imperfect candidate who’s tons better than the
Republicanother candidate. But in the primary, if there’s someone you really like, vote for that person.<
p>If you think Obama would make the best president of all the Democrats running, vote for Obama. But if you think the best president would be Dodd, then vote for Dodd.
Electability is synonymous with, “Let the Party leaders and media decide who should be President.” The truth is those emperors have no clothes. Support whomever you think would be the best President.
You know, I bet he could support whoever he thinks will be the worst president, and it wouldn’t make any difference.
I mean, why bother? I’m convinced.
Has it previously been legal for the telecoms to hand over their records? Certainly I can see if a business receives a subpeona from the DOJ or other executive agency that it would assume it was a legal order with which it had to comply. If we now make it illegal and try to penalize these companies for previous actions, isn’t that an ex post facto law and thus unconstitutional?
<
p>That being said, on the merits this seems a no-brainer. Of course telecoms should not be compelled to provide these records except by warrant. Why had the DEMOCRATIC Senate leader be supporting this? It seems to go against what our party stands for?
Link
<
p>
…are you advocating punishment for the telcos who, post 9/11 (and in good faith), cooperated with the feds? Or are you advocating for more stringent standards for cooperation in the future?
a country governed by law.
But it sidesteps the question.
<
p>You may try again, or decline, no matter.
does not, repeat, not involve breaking the law. Or do conservatives only apply this principle to the indigent?
i don’t think anyone is asking to punish those companies that cooperated with feds immediately after 9/11 who did so in good faith. but the telecom amnesty bill would also protect companies who continued to be part of the program once it was publicly-known and clearly illegal. there are various other situations that need to be looked into in court, and shouldn’t be covered up.
First, he votes for the cloture, while Kerry (and Boxer, and Dodd, and Feingold) votes ‘Nay’. And then he delivers a great speech against retroactive immunity. So a ‘Yea’ vote???
He wouldn’t have the opportunity to give his “great” speech.
If he voted for cloture, that means less time for debate. Hence less time for great speeches — and for brilliant psychological insight, too.
his office had told me that morning with certainty that he was supporting the filibuster, so I was really confused by it, but I get the impression that cloture vote was called up as soon as they opened, and the filibuster plan was changed to happen during discussion on the bill. I’m not sure, but since it was the vote to look at the bill and discuss amendments, it didn’t end up being significant. but it definitely was strange.
was not on whether to pass the bill. I think it was on a “motion to proceed” or some other precursor. Dodd never got to his filibuster — it all derailed before it came to that. He never even offered his amendment. Yesterday was all parliamentary skirmishing.
I’d bet dollars to donuts Reid pulled the bill from the floor because he was pressured by the “front-runner” to not let Dodd remain in the limelight into another day. Most Americans are still oblivious, but given another few hours, the issue might have received beyond-the-beltway attention. It’s too late in the primary game to “allow” a hero to emerge.