The Senate will debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act today. Despite the heroic efforts of Senators Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, all signs point toward capitulation by the Democrats.
Glenn Greenwald again tells you why you should care.
Daily Kos front-pager smintheus explains why the advocates touting this new, improved version of FISA are wrong about the oversight potential of inspectors-general.
The Barack Obama supporters against the FISA bill have been organizing at an incredible pace, but he indicated last week that he will vote for the bill. How far will he go in supporting various amendments offered by Senate Democrats?
I won’t be watching C-SPAN today, but if you are, feel free to “document the atrocities” in the comments (as Atrios might say).
UPDATE: mcjoan has more detail on the key votes that will take place today.
SECOND UPDATE: The FISA bill passed 69-28, with three not voting. McCain dodged another big vote.
The roll call vote is here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislat…
No surprises from the Iowa senators: Grassley voted yes, and Harkin voted no.
Obama voted yes, as expected. Hillary voted no.
3 Comments
a bad day for the DSCC to ask for money
I just returned their plea for cash with a “no $$ for FISA cave-in” written on it. At their expense. We are not amused, as Queen Victoria would have said.
riverdog9 Wed 9 Jul 9:37 AM
I turned down the DCCC over the phone
last week. I tried to save the guy time by telling him right away that I’m only giving to individual candidates and the DNC now, but he kept trying to change my mind.
I need to see better leadership in Congress before I start giving to the DSCC and the DCCC again.
I have donated to the DLCC, which is focused on state legislative candidates.
desmoinesdem Wed 9 Jul 10:26 AM
Devil's advocate
This may be one of the rare times I agree with Senator Obama and disagree with Senator Clinton.
Bear with me. Let me paint this picture:
I’m the Grand Pu-Ba of a communications company.
Representatives from the Oval Office come to me and ask my help in preventing impending terrorist attacks.
Then..
a) He overtly states that it is my patriotic duty to perform this necessary action for the good of the American people.
…or…
b) He implies that to not comply will draw the ire (and scrutiny) of my company and me by the bully pulpit. Perhaps a call to the IRS is in order…
…or…
c) The situation is urgent and people might die tomorrow of you don’t help us.
etc, etc..
===========
Can we really put it past this administration not to use strong-arm tactics and deception to lure an individual or even a small group to do something they would not normally do?
I think that immunity may have been called for in this case.. but this situation should also serve as a warning against future transgressions.
johnnyschad Thu 10 Jul 11:00 PM