home

The Democratic Cavein On Telecom Immunity

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

mcjoan has the details here, here and here:

It's developed from speculation to obliquely sourced possibility to pretty likely that the House is going to cave and give Bush his Protect AT&T Act. For no good reason at all.

Oh they have a reason - they are Democrats. And capitulating to the Republicans for the sake of High Broderist "post partisan unity" is what Democrats do. Anyone think Obama will change that? Me neither.

< Empty Threats | Obama Touts His Having Lived Overseas as Experience >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Democratic Cavein On Telecom Immunity | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Considering how much more money (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:08:14 PM EST
    the democratic congressional committees have raised than the GOP ones, for the life of me I don't understand why they aren't spending on trashing republicans for their "willingness to risk our national security to protect the phone companies".

    But something tells me that Rahm Emmanuel has something to do with it.

    And Steny Hoyer (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:09:08 PM EST


    Parent
    i fear the answer (none / 0) (#31)
    by sancho on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    is the one Gore Vidal gives. When it comes to corporate welfare, there is not much difference between the two parties. The fights the two parties stage are often costume dramas designed to elicit more campaign contributions. This FISA thing was never truly in doubt--and it sickens me to write that.

    Parent
    Emmanuel (none / 0) (#32)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:30:16 PM EST
    Has Rahm done a single laudable thing in his entire career?

    Parent
    The difference will be (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by s5 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:25:53 PM EST
    When we have a Democratic president, many (hopefully most) of these stupid ideas won't come up in the first place, so we won't have to worry about Congress shirking on their duties to fight them.

    Don't get me wrong, it certainly would be nice to return to a time when we had three branches of government.

    You're killing me (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by manys on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:35:11 PM EST
    When we have a Democratic president, many (hopefully most) of these stupid ideas won't come up in the first place, so we won't have to worry about Congress shirking on their duties to fight them.

    You're not being serious.

    Parent

    "When we have Majorities, Harry Reid (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:53:24 PM EST
    won't let these bills reach the floor."

    Who was that?

    Parent

    Feingold's birthday party yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    Gotta paraphrase, I was too busy chasing my grandaughter to take notes...

    'We need a President who'll lead, not just vote the right way on Feingold's amendments.'

    I took it as criticism of both Clinton and Obama.

    Well earned criticism (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Seriously BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:30:50 PM EST
    Why is it necessary to close with this?

    Anyone think Obama will change that? Me neither.

    As far as I can see the article linked to does not mention Obama. How is calling him out specifically on this issue germane and not just petty pro-Clinton pandering?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    Obama has been silent on this. You are right.

    Parent
    I don't think he's been entirely silent (none / 0) (#11)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:52:36 PM EST
    On 12 Feb when the Senate voted on the amendment involving retroactive immunity for telecom companies, Obama voted in favor of stripping the immunity. He may not have addressed the latest speculation about a Democratic capitulation, but I think he's made his position clear.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:01:29 PM EST
    right. That's leadership for you.

    Parent
    Clinton didn't even vote the last time (none / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    Criticize both of them or neither of them.

    Parent
    Yes sir (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama voted on the amendment (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM EST
    but not the final bill. He was gone by that time. This is well documented. In past posts, I've linked to the roll call votes. The bill passed easily. His vote against it would not have mattered.

    Both Obama and Hillary were there and voted a few weeks earlier on the cloture motion.

    Parent

    the attack is still petty (none / 0) (#13)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:55:46 PM EST
    To use this issue to make a snide comment about Obama is unnecessary. Neither candidate has been a vocal leader on this issue. The only candidate, or even Senator, that has been is Chris Dodd - who you may have heard endorsed Obama. You obviously know Clinton was the only Democratic Senator that didn't bother to show up at all to vote on it, but somehow you don't include her name. The decision you've made to snipe at and nitpick only one candidate is baffling. I'd like to think you're better than that.

    Parent
    I think it is entirely necessary (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Unreal (none / 0) (#21)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:13:17 PM EST
    For some reason you'd like to avoid giving any type of substantive response. But it's becoming increasingly hard to see how all your railing against other Left blogs for always singling out Clinton isn't just blatant hypocrisy on your part.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:24:30 PM EST
    I just expressed to you that I think it is entirely necessary.

    That is certainly a substantive response.

    Parent

    Forget it (none / 0) (#28)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:55:30 PM EST
    I'd love to see in your legal world how it would fly saying "I think it is entirely necessary" but not following up at all with any reasoning or explanation. But maybe that's just the way you roll. It's just hard to understand your blood thirst for raking Obama over the coals. You openly praise centrist politicians like Dean and Clark, yet obsess over anything mildly centrist Obama says. All the while staying blissfully silent about Clinton's long list of centrist qualities. If somehow you feel it's your job to counterbalance to the Left blogsphere embrace of Obama fine. But there's no need to be sophomoric about it. And if you're going to rip other Left blogs, make sure it's not for something you do - just with the candidates name switched.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    My apologies Your Honor.

    Parent
    Relax (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    Clinton stinks on this issue too.

    As for Obama, isn't the two parties coming together to craft legislation such as this exactly what Unity is all about?

    Parent

    It's the conservative Democrats (none / 0) (#6)
    by Joike on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    that will force the cave in.  I'm sure Telecomm donations to these guys has nothing to do with their support.

    Here is a security issue that is crumbling in the face of Bush and the GOP fearmongers, yet here come the Democrats to the rescue to give Bush another victory in the face of public opposition.

    Pelosi needs to use the power of her position to squash this self-inflicted wound.

    Won't happen - she's wielding the knife (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    and sticking it into her own leg.

    Parent
    I recently received Sen. Feinstein's (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    email reply to my urging her to vote against telecom immunity.  But what could she do?

    I understand Democrat's (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    so-called "caving" on some issues.  But this one makes no sense.

    This is an issue you not only fight, but crow about ... loudly!  This is exactly the type of issue which pulls more independents to the party.

    Ah well ...

    Anyone got cake?

    How disappointing (none / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:07:41 PM EST
    is it too late for me to make any difference by phoning my Congresscritter?  I have two at the moment.

    I don't get it. (none / 0) (#25)
    by kindness on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:26:07 PM EST
    The Democratic Leadership in the House & Senate I mean.  Here we have an issue that is a win/win for Democrats, yet they are amazingly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    The public doesn't believe the fear mongering ads the White House & Republicans have put out.  The public doesn't believe the Presidents weekly pronouncements of going to hell on this.  There really aren't enough Blue Dogs to change this.

    So why are both the House & Senate chasing their non-constituents?  It can only be the money as far as I can tell.  Lobbyist money.

    Honestly, I don't want to kill the telcoms with fines or lawsuits.  What I really want to be able to do is uncover the illegal/unconstitutional power grabs the bush43 Administration has made on this whole scenerio.  Any amnesty kill that.

    I just don't get it.  K Street money trumps voters wishes.  And this 8 months before the next election.  This is going to make who want to vote for Democratic candidates?  Nada.

    Indemnification agreements... (none / 0) (#26)
    by mike in dc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    ...have probably already been signed by the govt. to cover the telecoms' economic liability in case of lawsuits.  So, the "immunity" issue might actually be about the government trying to make sure they don't have to pay out any money either.

    There's also the issue of criminal liability, but that would require a federal government willing to prosecute telecoms which conducted surveillance at the request of someone in the government.

    I oppose telecom immunity, but have no illusions that we'll magically thwart the administration by winning on this issue.

    I doubt (none / 0) (#27)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    it's about money. Bush has had no problem spending tax payers' money on behalf of his friends.

    It's about keeping the details of what happened hidden from public view forever.

    Parent

    Potentially a trillion bucks (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    if I'm correct in speculating the Certification at issue in the Comey/Ashcroft hospital incident covered the datamining of all call records.

    Statutory damages of up to $10,000 per plaintiff, and over 100,000,000 potential plaintiffs.

    "Pen register orders" don't require warrants, but they do require periodic certification by the AG.


    Parent

    Remember back in 2001.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:21:52 PM EST
    ...before 9/11, when Congress didn't just fold when President Bush used the word "security" in a sentence?  

     Ugh.  

    But they folded anyway ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:36:59 AM EST
    ... and gave us tax cuts for the rich, and public school destruction bill, and so on.

    9/11 just reinforced and strengthened the pre-existing habit of Democrats to do the bidding of Republicans.

    Parent

    Actually the question should be ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by chemoelectric on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 12:33:32 AM EST
    ... can anyone who is not Barack Obama do it?

    Of course Barack Obama can't do it, anyway, simply because 4 or 8 years isn't very long to undo twenty-something years of ingrained habit.

    The Democratic Cavein On Telecom Immunity | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment