Final Vote Results for Roll Call 437
H R 6304 YEA-AND-NAY 20-Jun-2008 12:48 PM
QUESTION: On Passage
BILL TITLE: FISA Amendments Act of 2008
FISA amendments pass in the House 293-129.
Here's the list of people who sold you out. The names not in italics are the Democrats.
Hoyer and Pelosi are among them.
All eyes on the Senate - and the Presidential candidates.
Late edit:
Speaking of which - Emptywheel has heard from the Obama campaign on this issue. Looks like Sen. Obama is trying to split the difference.
There are more things going on in this bill than just immunity - a lot more.
If Sen. Obama is truly resigned to the existing bill - that's pretty weak. Sen. McCain will of course endorse this decision - so he's even less help, but we deserve better than that.
7 comments:
Perhaps what we need is a new party. We shall call them the Constitutional party. They shall take an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution.
What's that you say, oh right, guess that doesn't work...
People's house my ass. House of ill repute. Then again it's been that way for a loooong time. See railroads, US, 1800's.
I'm left to believe that the Dem leaders in the house were complicit in illegal wiretapping and want to keep it hidden.
The emperor true clothing revealed again. How hideous. What will the sheople do with this?
We throw more money into the political maw. That will tell them.
The best excuse (and mind you, it's still not a good one) that I've heard is that theory from bmaz over on Emptywheel.
The theory being:
No way in hell the Telecoms agree to do something that could open them up to civil liability without securing an agreement from the government to indemnify them for any losses.
If that were true, then if the suits went forward and the telcos were ordered to pay civil damages, they'd just hand the bill over to the government.
You could see a few Democrats seeing that looming bill and deciding that the taxpayers would rather their money be spent on something else.
Of course, that would only be an excuse for people who just now learned that this was the situation.
Anyone in on the earlier indemnification agreement would be completely complicit in everything up to this point.
I'm straining to find any scenario where a Democrat who (having been sworn to secrecy) could have maintained their integrity but be unable to comment in public.
It's beside the point, now.
The senate will go vote, Harry Reid has bought into this so I don't expect Sen. Dodd and Feingold to have any luck placing holds on the vote.
If the Dem's won't filibuster this - its all over but the shouting.
n. pelosi is a tool.
one solution to this evil mess might be to make the whole proposition too expensive to really implement.
thinking of calling all of my german friends and saying as many of the buzzwords as i can during each of the conversations. and getting as many others as i can find to do the same. nooooooiiiiiise. woo. star-bellied? plain-bellied? can the feds really sort them out? bets?
the thorn who is not visiting beegobug this weekend and is pouting about it and feeling sorry for herself.
I don't buy in on that one. If I understand clearly, Dems are worried about the costs of a program pushed by the pres? I would think that upon finding out how pissed their base was, they would have backed down. It also doesn't explain to my mind the last minute/midnight type behavior.
It was the leadership was pushing this one and the newbies seem to just be goalongs. The timing issue is less clear. Why put Obama into the middle? I can only surmise that they would rather pass while they can pawn it off on the previous congress with more evenly split houses and pressured by the evil pres?
I still think Dem leaders knew about it and don't want that out. Comey thing probably really surprised them.
Follow the illegal behavior, in the end that was what the money paid for.
Good points.
I'm just trying to picture what rationale someone like Sen. Jim Webb offers for voting in favor of immunity.
He's no fan of the administration, he hasn't been around long enough to have been complicit in the earlier decision - so what convinced him?
There are other like that. Sure, it's easy to say 'the Telcos got to them' or somebody paid them off, but I really wonder if there's some angle to all of this that doesn't pigeon hole well.
Webb on previous vote:
"Yesterday I supported two measures to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These measures were considered against the backdrop of heightened concerns from our nation's intelligence community abut the threat of international terrorism. The ramifications of the two amendments before us last night were not political. Instead they related to the urgent demands of national security. I chose to heed those warnings. We now have six months to work in earnest to bring full accountability to the process. This distinction and the threats to national security were stated clearly by Admiral McConnell as well as four of the eight Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. These members, Senators Feinstein, Mikulski, Bayh, and Bill Nelson, have extensive experience on intelligence matters and are respected champions of civil rights and liberties. They chose to give significant weight and deference to the intelligence community on FISA reform, and so did I."
If I recall he is from a relatively red district, this is a no loss for him. He may lose a little blue but still pleases a majority of his support. He seems to be mostly a "strong defense" Dem of Sam Nunn cloth.
Too lazy to link but Jonathan Turley of GWU seems to agree. I don't think they actually feared prosecution, just the truth and it's easy to see why most Dems would agree because they simply want to be the majority. That is their primary goal.
TO WIN THE GAME. (bonus: War Games allusion)
To continue the reference:
That is a very strange game.
The only way to win is not to play.
Post a Comment