Dodd and the FISA Filibuster

Does anyone know why Dodd has to actually filibuster whereas the Republicans only have to declare their intention to do so?

You're still missing the story. It's not that Dodd is missing campaign time. It's that he's heroically standing up for the privacy rights of Americans and for the rule of law. He is making it possible for people who had their privacy illegally violated by their telecom carriers to seek some legal recourse. All you did was write about why he's not in Iowa where everyone else is.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden are all senators. Don't ask why Dodd is not in Iowa. Ask they are not in DC, standing up for the rule of law alongside Dodd.

And KT -- have a great vacation. But I hope you understand how frustrating it is that the Dodd story has gotten so little mainstream coverage while politicians have been praised for being "principled" and "courageous" for doing so much less.

KT here:

Understood. Plus, as I have registered in this space before, I sort of like the idea of a REAL filibuster. I wonder if Harry Reid will ever make the Republicans stage one.

dodd is being a team player and this is the
correct thing for him to do

hillary has ordered it and he is following
her as he should

dodd knows he is not a viable candidate and
that his time is better used doing this
than running a campaign doomed to failure

hillary will reward him when she is madame
president

dodd is a shining example of what the weak
kneed sister democrats who support non viable
democrat candidates should do to further the
greater good

dodd is a true soldier of the dnc

i am proud of him and you should be too

Does anyone know why Dodd has to actually filibuster whereas the Republicans only have to declare their intention to do so?

I'll go with "Why is Harry Reid a Wanker?" for $500, Alex.

I think this is testament to the main criticisms of Dodd's campaign from the very beginning. That he's too Senatorial.

Engaging in a filibuster on a bill that few people understand to begin with, while it is a very courageous and proper thing to do, is not "the task at hand" for Dodd right now.

For his campaign it would be more worth his while to be in Iowa doing what he should do, but his roots as a senator continue to overpower his campaign.
Dodd will likely remain in the Senate, and perhaps he is using this as an opportunity to consolidate some of his support there because he will clearly remain there by mid-January at the latest.
Raising his profile is his priority now it appears - I don't think he expects to win the nomination, but perhaps he is lobbying himself as a potential running mate for whomever gets it?

Good post Karen

Karen, thank you.

Dodd's a good guy, and would make a good president, but he isn't going to be president.

He ought to move his family back to CT, and go for the increasingly useless Harry Reid's job.

Olufemi-- please consider the possibility that Dodd is doing this because he believes it's the right thing to do.

Elvis,

I have considered that:
Engaging in a filibuster on a bill that few people understand to begin with, while it is a very courageous and proper thing to do, is not "the task at hand" for Dodd right now.

I am merely suggesting that he may also have another reason for it in addition to believing that its right the right thing to do, or maybe entirely because he wishes to raise his profile in the Senate (not that he doesn't already have one). Either way, I have no way of knowing - only Dodd really knows why.

I like what he is doing myself. Politically, for his campaign, it probably does not make a lot of sense. But he certainly does answer to his responsibilities as a Senator and protector of the constitution. There are many reasons why he might be doing it, admittedly some may be more cynical than others; whatever they are I have no way of knowing, all I can do is speculate.

Either way, he is doing the right thing and his reasons for it should not be a concern.

It is a shame that Presidents are not elected for doing the right thing however. Talk to Dubya about that one...

Hey Karen, I appreciate the interactive feedback as much as the next guy, but how about actually responding to the substantive point?

Mike M. points out that you've written a horserace post about Dodd's filibuster while completely ignoring the substance of the issue (though he said it far more diplomatically than I have). You say, Understood... but then what? If you understand, why don't you write about it -- I mean, really write about it?

You're making an effort to be friendly and interactive, which is nice, but as far as I can tell based on your posts and articles, you just aren't terribly interested in actual political issues. I don't mean to be overly negative, but I just don't know what other conclusion a reader is supposed to come to. You often ask people to give you the benefit of the doubt, etc, but it would be much easier to do that if you actually came through on substance from time to time.

The Dodd filibuster is a real, meaty political story. What will it take to entice you to cover this story on the merits? Exhaustively catalogue every possible implication of Dodd's move on his primary campaign and his fundraising prospects if you must, but can't you also take a bit of time to consider the issues at stake?

What's so troubling about this is the casual --and apprently completely unshakable -- assumption at the highest levels of establishment journalism that the actual issues are totally irrelevant.

@KT....

Thank you.

It may be necessary for others to try to explain WHY the issue is sufficiently important for a candidate to interrupt his schedule to address it, but at least now the fact that he's doing so is out there.

KT here:
Understood. Plus, as I have registered in this space before, I sort of like the idea of a REAL filibuster. I wonder if Harry Reid will ever make the Republicans stage one.
Posted by Karen Tumulty

I'd also like Give'em Whatever-They-Want Harry to explain why Tom Coburn can put an effective hold on bills, but Chris Dodd can't.

Eric,

I think that is a good (and respectful) criticism.

It seems that in the game of electing Presidents, it is all about trying to tease apart who is putting on the better face for the grassroots of their parties rather than actually addressing the issues at hand. What Dodd is doing is more a service to his country than what any of the other candidates are doing, and it simply highlights what seems to be the case more often than not: that senators over the long term seem to contribute more and do more for the country than the President.

Dodd's service as a senator will likely continue, and he will likely keep doing a very fine job. But the media's apparent role these days is to promote the three-ring circus that is the Presidential Election, and not to address the issues that actually matter.

Dodd is doing exactly what he needs to be doing, and makes him a great candidate.

What I'd like to see is Edwards declare a campaign moratorium to allow Clinton and Obama to go back to Washingon to support the filibuster.

I personally like the longer campaigns. They allow more exposure of candidates and their actual beliefs as evidenced by their actions. Telecom amnesty or non-amnesty is a great example.

BTW Karen, did I miss a Times article on the Constitution and its provisions on warrants? Or are the warrant provisions so trivial they aren't worth mentioning?

KT,

I see in this god-awful NYT piece that you defended Perry Bacon's god-awful reporting:

Soon the Romenesko Web site was full of letters of support from Mr. Bacon’s past and present colleagues and other reporters, including Michael Barbaro and Adam Nagourney of The New York Times, Karen Tumulty of Time Magazine, and Peter Baker of The Washington Post.

Why would you defend someone who is such a lazy "journalist" that he prints a right-wing falsehood as fact and just one side of the story? Seriously, what is wrong with the Beltway chattering class?

Harry Reid is a disgrace as Sen. Leader and he should be ashamed of himself for selling out his parties faithful. KT, ITA, why the hell won't he make the Republican's put up or shut up? So many issues that the Democrats have been on the majority side of according to polling and Congress is scared to try and pull them away.

Sen. Dodd is a patriot and doing so much for his country by standing up for the Constitiution.

Forgot to post the link to said god-awful NYT piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/business/media/17romo.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I still like my phrasing.

Dodd is apparently the only candidate who's willingness to govern matches his desire to do so.

the others....not so much....

wrong wrong wrong

reid and pelosi are great leaders whose only
failings have been the direct result of
republican obstructionism

once more gopers are gone in 2008 you will
see pelosi and reed exceed all expectaions

KT here:

Eric, Paul, Mike M et al:

I appreciate the polite tone of your comments and take your point. I understand that our comments section is one of the few places where people can vent their frustrations at the media, which are well earned on our part, so I try not to take things (too) personally.

But I did want to address some of your points as to why I post about the things I post about. The issue here is not my interest in the subject. Here, for instance, is a cover story that I wrote about it back when it broke:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1194021,00.html

But my job here at TIME is as the national political correspondent, and considering that we are on the eve of the first contest in the most wide-open presidential race in memory, I've got to be giving a lot of attention to, well, the most wide-open presidential race in memory. Not to mention, I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, and so posting is something I am doing -- actually, come to think of it, I don't quite know why I'm doing it.

I'm not a columnist, so I try to stay away from opinion (which, I will admit, is sometimes only a hair's breadth from "analysis") or anything else that would compromise my ability and credibility in covering all the candidates. I also don't cover the Justice Department or intelligence. What I know on those subjects is what I get from reading the reviled MSM, just like most people. Where I do have sources, and where I think I can bring readers information and perspective they don't get elsewhere, is in the political world. This move is a dilemma for Dodd and his campaign, which I thought was interesting, so I did some poking around on it and posted it.

It would be wonderful if Dodd didn't have to halt his campaign to try to prevent the NSA from turning into the Stasi, but for whatever reason, that's not the case. The "campaign perspective" is only interesting if you're trying to make your readers as ignorant and docile as possible, so naturally it's the perspective taken here. The "let's don't let the Bush administration spy on journalists and 'opposition' party members and innocent Americans" perspective is infinitely more compelling, but that would imply a certain distrust of the saintly old GOP and government generally, and if TIME is going to be about instilling Pride in the Vaterland in the hearts of the volk, well it just can't talk that way, can it.

Karen, I'm sorry but your winks and nods about your understanding of the real stakes of Dodd's filibuster don't inspire much confidence.

i agree with acid j
if the msm had been doing their job
bush would not be president and there
would be no fisa and loss of civil liberties.

KT,

What makes you think superficial chatter about the campaign is more important than retroactively authorizing lawlessness in America? Are you saying that your duties as a citizen are irrelevant because your day job is never to be more than superficial. Just where does the "newsiness" of the campaign end and concern for the piecemeal destruction of the American Republic begin.

It is painful for me to have to teach a civics class here to a Time Magazine journalist, but you should understand that the US Congress is about to improperly immunize an entire industry for lawlessly obeying Presidential orders. This is a direct assault on the rule of law. If Bush decides to round up the Time Magazine reporters for "enhanced interrogation," there will be a precedent for retroactively legalizing anything he would do to you. This is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT.

Are you all just savants of the trivial? Doesn't it make you ashamed to say "This is not my job?" If this is not your job, who the hell in Time Magazine is responsible for speaking out as our Constitutional government is dismantled before our eyes?

KT,

What makes you think superficial chatter about the campaign is more important than retroactively authorizing lawlessness in America? Are you saying that your duties as a citizen are irrelevant because your day job is never to be more than superficial. Just where does the "newsiness" of the campaign end and concern for the piecemeal destruction of the American Republic begin.

It is painful for me to have to teach a civics class here to a Time Magazine journalist, but you should understand that the US Congress is about to improperly immunize an entire industry for lawlessly obeying Presidential orders. This is a direct assault on the rule of law. If Bush decides to round up the Time Magazine reporters for "enhanced interrogation," there will be a precedent for retroactively legalizing anything he would do to you. This is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS DEVELOPMENT.

Are you all just savants of the trivial? Doesn't it make you ashamed to say "This is not my job?"

That's fair enough, Karen.

As I said on the other thread, though, the criticism here isn't all targeting you alone. As you seem to note in your 11:35am comment, it's criticism about the blog and the magazine, and, fairly or not, the Main-Stream Media writ large.

So it's understandable that you have a narrow focus on the horserace... but is there anyone at the magazine, or the blog, who has a focus on substantive issues?

Take the CIA's destruction of their torture tapes, in violation of court orders and, maybe, violating subpoenas from the 9/11 Commission. How did Time's "news" coverage present it? "This is a moment fraught with peril for Democrats."

And why is that so? Because Time's straight news reporters say so, and their columnists will too-- regardless of the actual substance or polling data on the issue. (See, e.g., Joe Klein's FISA column of a few weeks ago).

So, you say you're just a cog in the wheel, and that's fair enough, as far as it goes. But the criticism is not only about your coverage. Will there ever be any article in Time magazine that points out that a district court judge has already rejected the argument that the telecoms could possibly have believed that they were acting in good faith when they turned over this info to the government? That there's zero support in polls for immunizing activity that was plainly unlawful at the time?

That's why there's frustration here. It's not your job to do a straight news story about the substance. Well, does anyone have that job? Why the heck not?

As always, your willingness to engage with commentors, respond to criticism, and respond in threads is greatly, greatly appreciated. In case your vacation actually starts sometime today, have a great Christmas.

i agree with hh even more the second time he posted the above

the press is there to protect america from bush and his dicatorial and illegal constitution shredding ways

"the press is there to protect america from bush and his dicatorial and illegal constitution shredding ways"

T4T has a quaint view of the modern American press. The five corporations who dominate American news coverage are corporate money machines that are significantly dependent on favorable government treatment. They enabled the Iraq War and they are now enabling the dismantling of civil liberties in the United States.

Time-Warner-Moloch Corporation is not using its considerable resources to attack the retroactive legalization of lawless conduct by the Bush administration. If the breaking of any law by the President can be retroactively "legalized," we are living in a dictatorship. TWM seems to be OK with that.

Thank you for posting this, Karen.

Commenters:
Maybe the effort of typing criticism of Karen would be better spent emailing US Senators' offices right now?

Not to mention, I'm on vacation for the next two weeks, and so posting is something I am doing -- actually, come to think of it, I don't quite know why I'm doing it.

Heh. Welcome to the intertubes, KT. It's like crack once you get going.

Dodd's opening statement on this vote was great:

"In 2002, we took the president's word and voted to go to war on faulty intelligence. What if we took his word again—and found, next year or the year after, that we had blindly legalized grave crimes?

"If this disastrous war has taught us anything, it is that the Senate must never again stack such a momentous decision on such a weak foundation of fact. The decision we're asked to make today is not, of course, as immense. But between fact and decision, the disproportion is just as huge.

"So I rise in determined opposition to this unprecedented immunity and all that it represents. I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century. I have spoken from this desk hundreds and hundreds of times. I have rarely come to the floor with such anger.

"But since I came to Washington, I have seen six presidents sit in the White House—and I have never seen a contempt for the rule of law equal to this. Today I have reached a breaking point. Today my disgust has found its limit.

"I don't expect every one of my colleagues to share that disgust, or that limit. I wish they did—but had that been the case, we would never have come to this point.

"I only ask them to believe me when I say if I did not speak today, my conscience would not let me rest."

Thanks for the perspective, KT. I still think that Dodd doing his job is less interesting than Clinton, Obama and Biden all being in Iowa despite previously pledging to back Dodd. You don't have to stray into opinion to report that. It's just a fact, all part of the public record.

Stuart_Z: I wrote Senators Schumer and Clinton last night.

I agree with Elvis:

Take the CIA's destruction of their torture tapes, in violation of court orders and, maybe, violating subpoenas from the 9/11 Commission. How did Time's "news" coverage present it? "This is a moment fraught with peril for Democrats."

When is there going to be someone who doesn't frame all of the major news stories in a partisan framework? There is a reason everything that goes on in the Senate is partisan bickering, its the only way for senators to get themselves into the papers of America!
Everything these days is boiled down to the lowest common denominator: red and blue. The country is at war on two fronts, the economy is on the verge of recession, there is a health care crisis, and a large disconnect between two halves of the country that seem to have entirely different values.
If we are looking for a President to come and unite the country as much as possible, then maybe it would begin with the press reporting on those issues objectively and how they matter to Americans, not to democrats or republicans.
Surely the constitution is worth more than that?

Karen, obviously the comments here are directed at MSM in its entirety and I am glad that you are willing to engage with commentors. Your point is well understood and I thank you for taking the time to continue to post despite being on holiday (which is testament to how much you must love your job).

Reid: 76 to 10 to stop debate and go forward with "adding amendments" to the hideous bill...

Reid: "I hope that everyone understands that we're going to do our very best to finish this bill tomorrow..."

Reid: "We've spent hours and hour on this last weekend..."

Reid: "It was a good weekend, and I don't mean this in a negative sense, but we didn't have to speak to the White House..."

Ted Stevens: " Ahh what about the appropriations bills, are they still subject to amendment?"

JESUS CHRIST!

"I only ask them to believe me when I say if I did not speak today, my conscience would not let me rest."

Chutzpah Joe, AMC, Jay Carney, and KT are conscience-free. It is a career advancement prerequisite at Time-Warner-Moloch. The US Congress is about to immunize corporations for breaking the law when ordered to do so by the President. Time-Warner-Moloch is OK with that.

I offer up this link for those who seem confused why someone would pull away from the dog-and-pony show long enough to actually participate in the process of governance:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/we-people-must-save-our-constitution-by.html

People like Al Gore and Chris Dodd and Martin Luther King are out of fashion these days. People laugh at passionate men of principle in this time when principles are considered something for chumps and fools. There's no angle on principle, no immediate political upside in saving the constitution when the Republicans are spending every minute of the day preaching fear and bloodlust and superficial political gossip rules our discourse. But they stand up anyway and suffer the taunts and jeers of people who think they are naive or narcissistic or crazy, because they believe in something. And I am exceedingly grateful for it.

I too - am grateful even if today's battle seems for naught.

Hey, I'm on the phone with Clinton's office right now. Chuck Schumer's line is continually busy.

Here are the numbers:
Senator Hillary Clinton
Phone: 202-224-4451

Senator Charles Schumer
Phone: 202-224-6542

More to come...I saw Harry Reid on CSPAN lay down the "60 votes for Democrats to do anything" maneuver--Dodd objected!

More on that later...

Clinton's office phone rung endlessly and then disconnected--we've overwhelmed them!

So on to the next bunch:
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447
Fax (202) 969-0354

Let these people know they will never, ever get a penny from you unless Democrats do the right thing...

Just got off the phone with Senator Clinton's office. Here's what the rep said:

"I don't have the senator's schedule. She is in support of a filibuster, she is in support of Senator Dodd's filibuster."

I asked how Clinton could support the filibuster if she's not in D.C. to actually support the filibuster and the rep only repeated that "I don't have the Senator's schedule."

People like Al Gore and Chris Dodd and Martin Luther King are out of fashion these days. People laugh at passionate men of principle in this time when principles are considered something for chumps and fools. There's no angle on principle, no immediate political upside in saving the constitution when the Republicans are spending every minute of the day preaching fear and bloodlust and superficial political gossip rules our discourse. But they stand up anyway and suffer the taunts and jeers of people who think they are naive or narcissistic or crazy, because they believe in something. And I am exceedingly grateful for it.

Joe Klein ought to be forced to write this paragraph out longhand every morning.

This is it people!

This is the moment in "Miracle on 34th street" where Santa's on the stand, and those bags of letters from kids show up to save the day...

This is the moment in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" where Senator Rockefeller, er Paine comes out and says "It's me it's me!"

This is the moment in "Meet John Doe" where the John Doe Club president tells Gary Cooper not to jump, because he really made a difference in peoples' lives...

Senator Dodd is going to filibuster for us!

Please take f---ing 2 minutes and email and call your Senator(s):
Tell them to join other senators in blocking any bill that includes immunity for lawbreaking phone companies!

Go on their .gov site and look for a "contact" link.

It appears that millions, literally millions of us are doing this right now...

This is Dodd's filibuster whip count site:

http://chrisdodd.com/filibuster

Hey!

They've got a email letter-generator that you can sign and send to your Senator!

http://action.chrisdodd.com/t/41/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2050

Diane Feinstein on CSPAN2 right now:

She seems to be painting the telecoms as poor babies hurt by the Bush administration (instead of the recipients of obscenely generous spying contracts)...

http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

Mike M: It's funny how Hillary's office doesn't have her schedule when I do!

From her campaign web site:

* 12/17: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Johnston

* 12/17: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Davenport

* 12/18: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Ottumwa

* 12/18: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Donnellson

* 12/18: "Every County Counts Event" with Pres. Clinton and Magic Johnson in Davenport

* 12/18: "Every County Counts Event" with Pres. Clinton and Magic Johnson in Waterloo

* 12/18: "Every County Counts Event" with Pres. Clinton and Magic Johnson in Hampton

* 12/18: "Every County Counts Event" with Pres. Clinton and Magic Johnson in Fort Dodge

* 12/19: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Independence

* 12/19: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Elkader

* 12/19: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Clarion

* 12/20: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Tipton

* 12/20: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Grundy Center

* 12/20: "Every County Counts Event" with Hillary in Centerville

No mention there of a trip to D.C.

I appreciate the polite tone of your comments and take your point. I understand that our comments section is one of the few places where people can vent their frustrations at the media, which are well earned on our part, so I try not to take things (too) personally.

I am glad you realize this KT. I was IMing someone a while ago, and she mentioned that she'd seen my comments here, and wondered why I was, in her words, wasting my time.

I said that it is one of the very few venues available to those of us concerned about how the traditional media covers stories, what is chosen and how the narratives are written. In other web venues, such as the Washington Post chats, user input is filtered. Unless commenters do the rather strange thing of posting a comment to another blog, saying that they submitted a question to Howie Kurtz, but it is wasn't posted, they have no idea whether they are all alone, a crank flinging a shoe at the television.

These methods used by the traditional media have played a particularly large role during presidential contests. I think it is no exaggeration to say that the media bears a very large share of responsibility for the success of Bush's dishonest campaigning. And, in general, the press has enabled Republicans to dishonestly portray policy positions that are deeply unpopular with the American populace.

This is different from the complaints raised so successfully by the right wing, accusing the media of a liberal bias. The response to that complaint has been a pursuit of balance at the expense of accuracy, and the translation of reality into partisan questions.

This issue is a perfect illustration. There is no question that the telecom companies have violated the law. They would not be seeking amnesty otherwise. There is also very little evidence that their surveillance has done any good at all for American security. There certainly have been no terrorist plots stopped, and the one set of terrorism events that did follow the 9/11 attacks--the anthrax deliveries--remains unsolved.

Yet the news coverage of this legislation is minimal. To even rate a post on a blog a Senator had to leave the presidential campaign trail at a key moment to lead a filibuster. What coverage there is pits the Republican Bush against the weak Democrats in Congress, when, in fact, the correct narrative is populist versus the elites. And, worse, the current coverage feeds the inaccurate, or at least undocumented, claim that there is some kind of security issue involved that requires the routine surveillance of all Americans.

So, for all of kvetching, we do appreciate that there is a kvetching venue. We, or at least I, would really appreciate your considering these issues. Some people do understand--Krugman, Jay Rosen, Dan Froomkin are among them. And I believe that those who respond to these arguments--like Deborah Howell, James Harris, Howie Kurtz--by saying that they cover both sides and receive complaints from both sides, so they're doing their jobs are being disingenuous. The opacity created by that disingenuousness is very irritating, and leads to occasional outbursts. But, by and large, we are making a cogent argument that deserves your attention and respect.

Thank you for consideration, and with all best wishes.....(just saw the Philadelphia Story again.)

@Tomin:

Thanks. I guess every county counts but that serving her constituents in New York, not to mention keeping her promise to support Dodd's filibuster, counts for nothing.

Shorter Feinstein:

"Was it reasonable that people agreed to help the government break the law because they were acting in good faith? It's a question of fairness."

jackaroyd:

We don't just have the blogs to help us kjeep track of reality; we also have the comics.

Wow!

Feinstein is actually proposing in her amendment that the secret FISA court be the judge for all cases brought against the telecoms!

Every bit of the cases about our rights would be conducted in total secrecy!

She's effectively an attorney for the telecoms. That's basically it. She's literally arguing their case!!

How do you sue somebody in secret FISA court? Nobody even knows where secret FISA court is!

Feinstein:
"...the telecom communities did depend on the good faith of the government..."

i am so proud of the efforts of those calling
our esteemed democratic senators to win this
battle against bush and his dictatorial ways
we are fighting the important fight for
democracy and are proving that we are the real
americans by our heroic phone calls to our
senators.

go team democrat!

Ted Kennedy is arguing against the entire amendment; he doesn't want to revise FISA at all.

He especially doesn't like the "basked" provisions; he doesn't like the fact that the government can do what it wants for a year, and there are no penalties other than the court saying "now stop that".

He seems to be against the whole thing.

For those who do not know:
"Time4Tolerance" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake.

Kennedy has it right. First we need to get the government and private industry to follow the original FISA law to the letter. There's no cause to give anyone any more power. Then we need to start criminal investigations to find out who in private industry and government broke the law and they need to be punished. Don't revise FISA. Do enforce the law.

KT: Glenn Greenwald linked to you!

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

He even did so with only the slightest hint of criticism, and he specifically says "I'm not saying that Tumulty is doing that here" when he recounts your colleagues' sins.

Wow, you've really done well, Karen.
Thank you again.

Kennedy: "the telecom companies have always received immunity, all they needed was a FISA court order OR a letter from the Attorney General"

The problem here is that the NSA didn't trust the DOJ to validate the legality of the program?

Unbelievable!

This was an excellent, excellent comment at Greenwald's from CarolynC (Monday, December 17, 2007 07:51 AM):

"Very Serious Senators Rockefeller and Bond have been speaking on the floor

Senator Rockefeller wants to reassure people concerned about such arcane things, that the telecom immunity provision is "narrowly drawn," and then laughably states that it "only" covers the period from 9/11/00 to 1/00/07. I guess they plan to close the barn door now that the cows have escaped.

And he is proud it exempts public officials from the immunity clause. Of course, "executive privilege" will protect government officials from testifying in any court proceedings, as we've seen, so that provision is window dressing. It's important not to explicitly state you are stripping Americans of their rights; that might actually create public protest. Better to throw the public meaningless cake crumbs in order keep up a pretense of concern, without, of course, granting American citizens anything of value."

Kennedy: "Massive law-breaking is an argument against immunity, not for it."

Kennedy: "we're not talking about the weeks and months following 9/11, we're talking about an illegal program that went on for 5 years in total secrecy"...

Kennedy:

"...amnesty would stamp a congressional seal of approval on the administration's lawbreaking...voting for amnesty would be a vote for silence, secrecy and illegality..."

Kennedy:

"...if you take the President at his word [and he vetoes any bill without immunity], he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies..."

Chris Dodd's on fire!

Kennedy has done more for the country as a sentor then he ever would have as a president.

Dodd will be the same, and both are statesmen and patriots.

The office of the presidency is overrated.

Jesus I just can't get through to Schumer's office--busy signal...

Kit Bond:

"...Hey, isn't there an hour limit on these things...what's the procedure right now?"

He's arguing that this bill contains more protections for Americans' privacy than the original bill...

He's arguing that the Intelligence Committee's version of the bill (with telecom amnesty) is just great because they had secret meetings with the administration in which certain things were brought to light. Oh, and it's "bipartisan".

"Why providing immunity...and it's not amnesty! These people did nothing wrong!"

"Allowing court cases to go forward would risk revealing sources and methods to our adversaries..."

Senator Kit Bond, Missouri

Kit Bond:

"FISA could not encroach on the President's [Article II] power"

"The President does have the power under article II of the Constitution to conduct electronic surveillance..."

This is worth it, just so that the arguments for Monarchy can be exposed.

Jon Cornyn, R Texas:

Thanks Rockefeller for a "fine bipartisan product" from the "Select" Intelligence Committee.

"we must resist any tug that we might feel in a partisan direction"

Thanks, Joe Klein!

Jon Cornyn, R Texas:
Thanks Rockefeller for a "fine bipartisan product" from the "Select" Intelligence Committee.
"we must resist any tug that we might feel in a partisan direction"
Thanks, Joe Klein!

Yup. In a nutshell, Klein, Broder, Maureen Orth and all the other "bipartisan" fetishists are Bush's useful idiots.

Same goes of course for the elected ones: DiFi, Evan Bayh, Mark Pryor, etc etc etc

I just watched Diane Feinstein speak, and in her case it seems to have very little to do with "bipartisanship". She's arguing and acting in the capacity of third-party attorney for the telecoms.

Her whole deal was about how this bill must be "fair" to telecoms. That's it. That was her entire rationale. She argued exactly as if her client the telecom community was on trial. She went on and on--they did nothing wrong, they were acting in good faith, they can't defend themselves because of state secrets, irreparable damage to their reputations and public relations--absolutely everything that a telecom attorney would have said.

At no time did she even acknowledge a duty to represent her non-telecom constituents beyond the most cursory "we must give the intelligence community the tools to protect Amercians, 9/11 etc."

Imagine if we had an advocate of such talent and power using her position on our behalf...

I think it's "fair" for the telecoms to follow a law that they helped write 30 years ago.

Dodd again, about the Military Commissions Act:

"I regret not doing then what I am prepared to do today...

That Obama and Clinton are not here for this is not good...

From the Telephony Online blog

"Some say the carriers shouldn’t be punished for this activity because they were assured by the administration that the program was legal. AT&T and Verizon “are not experts on Article II of the Constitution,” Senator Diane Feinstein said on the Senate floor today, arguing for telecom immunity.

I have a short answer on this issue. I will happily listen to supporters of telecom immunity enumerate all the various arguments justifying and mitigating carriers’ actions in this case. And when they’re done, I’ll simply say this: “If your arguments are so reasonable, why don’t you trust a jury to see them?”"

From KT:
But my job here at TIME is as the national political correspondent, and considering that we are on the eve of the first contest in the most wide-open presidential race in memory, I've got to be giving a lot of attention to, well, the most wide-open presidential race in memory....What I know on [other] subjects is what I get from reading the reviled MSM, just like most people.

Which, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the way that the media covers the presidential campaigns --- candidates and campaigns are covered as if they were all but completely divorced from public policy -- issues are enumerated (Iraq! Health Care! Immigration!) and that's it.

And forgive me for saying so, but if the people covering the campaigns had spent the last three years covering real issues --- and doing more than reading the "reviled MSM" to understand them, there might actually be some value in reporting that you and your peers provide us.

But there is always another campaign to cover, isn't there? And even when an issue becomes important, there is always a "political" angle that demands to be covered, isn't there?

And lets face it, simply by assigning you to cover the presidential campaign literally two years before the November 2008 elections, your editors and their peers in other MSM outlets are defining the campaign themselves.

Karen, how many millions of words have you and your peers written for a national audience about people that the vast majority of us will never have a chance to vote for? Does it bother no one that the vast majority of these words are written about people that won't be in the running in November 2008 -- that understanding the candidates who most of us will never have a chance to vote for represents a massive waste of time, energy, and professional skills acquired over a lifetime?

Free phone cards for Osama?

Swell idea, Chris!

Stuart Zechman made an excellent point: we should contact our senators (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) before we contact Karen Tumulty.

I also sent another donation to Chris Dodd.

Time's view of its mission is very murky, but sometimes you read the MSM you have, not the MSM you wish you had.

Chris Dodd's alternatives to the FISA bill...

-- Viacommie

-- Cingulargexplosions Inc.

-- AT&Timid

-- Alltelltalesignsofwimpness

-- Southwestern Bellhop

-- Verizontheprizefordemocrapdolts

Jeff Sessions managed to link MoveOn's General Petraeus ad with opponents of telecom amnesty...

Bottom line: If you're not a flaming terrorist (at home or abroad), why worry about the FISA law?

I'm more concerned about insipid sales calls at dinner time, than I'll ever be about our federal police forces and their valid and necessary work under FISA.

More time on the Do Not Call program.

Less time tyeing up the hands of our intelligence services, and our armed forces.

MAKE IT SO, DEM WIMP SENATORS.

for those of you who do not know,
"stuart_zechman" is actually one of the
aliases that Joke Line uses when getting
on the comments section in order to pretend
that he cares what the rest of us think.

"Jeff Sessions managed to link MoveOn's General Petraeus ad with opponents of telecom amnesty..."

EXCELLENT.

Is Swampland closed today? Stuart Zechman has done all the work. And very well, I might add.

Bottom line: big government is a bad, bad Stalinist bureaucracy that can't be trusted to pay for your doctors' bills.

Unless, of course, that's the same big government that wants to declare everything it does in the name of "national security" perfectly legal and super-extra-bonus secret, in which case we are to assume it has the purity of Mary, Jesus' mother.

"...for those of you who do not know,
"stuart_zechman" is actually one of the aliases that Joke Line uses..."

Thanks for the obvious.

Russ Feingold is on now!

Uncle Sam has 1 Job, and 1 Job only: Our nation's defense.

Every other lib blessed event needs to be Powered Down to the lowest local level capable, including elder care, youth care, BJ Clixon offshore tax dodge care, welfare care, farmer care, Pell Grant care, way the hell too early AARP at Age 50 retiree care, and scum bucket trial lawyer care.

Anything less IS nationalized slavery.

"Bottom line: If you're not a flaming terrorist (at home or abroad), why worry about the FISA law?

I'm more concerned about insipid sales calls at dinner time, than I'll ever be about our federal police forces and their valid and necessary work under FISA."

Thank you, QH, for writing this and exposing the grand conservative lie that Republicans can be trusted with the job of protecting the rights of the citizen. Progressives always knew that conservatives could not be trusted and you have confirmed it.

Russ is making the case rather well for the Judiciary Committee's bill, independent of telecom amnesty.

The basic difference between the bills apart from amnesty has to do with the Intelligence Committee's simpleton trust of the government, vs. the Judiciary's "trust but verify" provisions that give the FISA court more than rubber-stamp power.

This means that when the NSA sweeps up everybody's emails and then "blacks out" people unrelated to a warrant, the FISA court gets to see proof that the blackout actually happened.

What could be more reasonable than that?

"Uncle Sam has 1 Job, and 1 Job only: Our nation's defense."

Uncle Sam's number 1 job is to protect the Constitution.

From the Presidential Oath of Office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The first job of the Federal government is to defend our liberty, nothing more, nothing less.

"Russ Feingold is on now!"

He'll be delivering the Al Zwahari talking points, on behalf of MeetUps.org and the Greater Camel Cave Chamber of Commerce.

Will somebody please tap Clinton and Obama's phones so I can know whether or not I should wait for either one of them to go do their jobs (and keep their words).

stuart_zechman - You are doing great work here today. Just wanted to throw a little good karma your way :)

"...I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States..."

So now Bush IS Uncle Sam himself?

You guys really IS paranoid.

FISA SHMIZA.

NO HARM, NO FOUL.

Next!

Shorter Russ:

If we grant amnesty, there will be no incentive for a company to refuse to help the government break the law.

Then, because all of this goes on in secret, the government no longer has to follow its own laws, ever.

Good times.

The very serious John Warner of VA is on.

"We must protect the telcom companies against costly and unnecessary litigation..."

That's a literal quote, folks.
The "protection" of telecom companies is right on up there with the defense of our nation.

Again, if the bill is needed to keep America safe, why would the President veto it simply because it did not contain amnesty?

We must keep America safe at all costs?
Telecom amnesty is more important than American lives?

I'll say IS again:

If you IS not a terrorist, what IS you worried about?

Same old lib loon retro-nuts, screaming other NOTHING, finding an Abu Ghraib under every rock, ignoring every Osama camp in the 90's for the sake of the Clixon Legacy, erasing WTC I, Khobar Towers, African embassies, Rwanda, Somalia, Taliban, Nepal, Tibet, Sudan, Somalia from heir collectivist beehive memory banks bit for the sake of Birkenstock and bad underarm hair days.

What IS a lib to do these halcyon Halliburton daze?

Oh well.

MCGOVERN GAS HAPPENS.

BTW Kos Klowns: How IS that impeachment thang goin fer ya? Any better than Cut & Run? French elections? Chavez Forever? SCOTUS picks? NOLA Senatorial election? Booboo Boxer's Cali fire control plans?

Oh my yes.

Pelosi well done!

Uncle Teddy: "...he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies..."

???

What did Dean Vermer say?

Oh yes:

"Fat, drunk, and stupid IS no way to go through life, Senator."

The very Serious John Warner on withholding telecom amnesty:

"They will suffer damage that is incalculable to their reputations in their communities."

That's right. The Very Serious view in Washington is that AT&T's reputation is above all else in importance to the country.

How are these people credible?

Imagine getting a bad rep just for breaking the law.

Presumably QH has no problem with a future President Hillary, President Barry Hussein Obama or President Hugo Chavez tapping his phone. "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

the high-pitched whirring you hear is the bones of President Bonzo spinning in his grave

How refreshing to see Senators openly advocating for the organizations that control them. Feinstein and Warner now are free of the pretense of protecting our liberties.

Can anything be plainer than the clout of the money flowing from the telecoms to the Congress? Does Time-Warner-Moloch think it can comment responsibly on this issue, when its AOL subsidiary may be one of the organizations facing legal jeopardy?

The tattered curtain behind which corporations manipulate the US Congress is now translucent because of the illuminating power of the Internet, and we see almost every dirty move. It is time to tear this curtain away completely and clean up the act.

The Republican line on this one of their very best simpleton's arguments, right on up there with "slow bleed", "cut & run" and "fight them over there".

I heard Cornyn, Hatch and Sessions spell it out.

Their argument is:

"We have a situation where the authorities asked a citizen for help to prevent a crime. It's as if there were a man running down the street, and a police officer running after him who yells for you to tackle the runner. You help the officer out, believing that a crime is occurring, and bring the man down, at which time the officer arrests him. Later it is found that the man that you tackled is innocent of robbery after all. Because you acted in good faith responding to an official authority's request for assistance, you should be given immunity against lawsuits against you by the man you tackled, because nobody would every have any incentive to help a police officer again."

That's the any-jackass-can-understand-it argument that they're rolling out. As usual, they have no respect for the facts, nor respect for Americans' intelligence. As usual, it is an argument that is designed for the media to spread unhindered by rigorous fact-checking or analysis, as opposed to the "complicated", "nuanced" arguments of the Democrats. As usual, they're relying on he-said/she-said "objective" reporting of "the controversy" to win support, because on yet another issue they have not supplied an actual logical justification, but a 15 second talking point created to "hit people's gut reactions". It's despicable.

You're going to hear this argument over and over again for the next few days. In all likelihood, nobody will respond as such:

"OK, well that's not the situation here at all. What if, instead, one day you were called to an office, and told by a person in a suit and mirrored sunglasses (who said they were from the CIA) that you were supposed to wait and hide outside of a certain 7-Eleven, and then rush up to and tackle every single person that came out and take the money in their wallets and purses. That means old ladies with walkers, children, employees, everyone. The CIA guy said that you were to continue doing so until further notice. He also offered to pay your rent and all your family's bills if you went along with the plan. He said it was super-secret and that nobody, not your mom, not your wife, and especially not the police could ever be told about the 'program' (as he called it). It comes out now that you've been attacking people indiscriminately and stealing their money for the past five years..."

Somebody can come up with a better one than mine, right?

Anyway, that's how this is going to go down. They're thoroughly prepared to spin this; the Democrats aren't (except to capitulate, it seems).

Thank God for Dodd, at least!

"I rarely come to the floor with this much anger," Dodd said. "I've never seen contempt of the rule of law such as this."

Hint to Time Magazine: there could be a political news story here.

Senator Bill Nelson:

"I want to compliment the Senator from Utah on a magnificent display of bipartisanship"

Senator Orin Hatch:
"I would like to thank the Senator for his kind remarks"

Incredible.

today is a great day for the swampland commenters

together we have made our voices heard

the msm now caters to our desires

the senators have felt our righteous anger

we have made america stronger today

great job everyone

kudos and good karma all around

and to you qh, ha ha ha-ha ha!

Bill Nelson:

"I voted to end cloture on this legislation because its truly important that we get along here!"

For those who do not know:
"Time4Tolerance" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake.

senator and future madame hillary's office called and asked me to thank all of you for your efforts today as she could not be there to support Dodd and his heroic actions.

good job team!

for those of you who don't know,

stuart_zechman is a troll who is actually joke line in drag.

don't be fooled.

Shorter Bill Nelson:

"Gotta have some kind of immunity...my and Feinstein's amendment to let the FISA court decide in secret what immunity to provide, is your best bet, 'cause you're not gettin' my vote otherwise..."

stuart, i mean, joe:

your attempts to support dodd are making strides to make up for what you did to the dnc over the FISA article, but you still have a long way to go before the swampland forgets.

I'm Joe Klein?

Well, I just wrote a rather hard-hitting piece on myself:

Commenters:

You folks do know that Joe Klein is as DLC as Terry McAuliffe, right?

From Joe's miserable "article":

"Some people say we've lost our standing," former Representative Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee, chairman of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), lamented at his organization's annual meeting in Nashville on July 30. "But if there ever was a time when the country needed the DLC... it's now." The statement was defensive but accurate. The DLC, which helped provide the intellectual ballast and political strategy for Bill Clinton's presidency, seems to have fallen on hard times, at least in the élite precincts of the national political cacophony."

"Intellectual ballast?" Oh! I see! Joe means himself!
He means such intellectual weightiness as:

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | May 17, 2006
The Early Politics of Evasion
A brief history of the intellectual cowardice that left Democrats hopelessly boggled on social issues.

By "the élite precincts of the national political cacophony", I guess he means the somehow Frenchified electorate of Connecticut in the Democrat party who wanted to elect a Democrat and not Joe Lieberman to the Senate. Wow--all of those people constitute the "élite"? Who'd have thought?!

Again from the hit piec--Sorry, "article":

"It is curious and noteworthy that the most powerful moderate organization in either party has become a pariah. In a way, this is just the latest edition of the fight between Northern liberals and Southern moderates that has befuddled the Democrats since... well, since Ted Kennedy challenged the incumbent President, Jimmy Carter, in 1980. But it's also a consequence of the smug ideological xenophobia that currently afflicts activists in both parties—although, in fairness, the Democrats are playing catch-up to the wing-nut avidity cultivated by Karl Rove as a conscious governing strategy in the Republican Party. The Republicans don't even have a DLC equivalent."

Where to even begin?
It sure is curious that the DLC has become a persona non-grata with Democrats who don't live in Washington. My my, what a strange state of affairs, when the power-brokers in DC who advise basing campaigns on triangulation away from average Democratic voters are (shockingly) despised by average Democratic voters!

"Southern Moderates"? You mean like Zell Miller? What incredible powers of perception Joe has, to see the former Dixiecrat wing of the party as "Moderates" instead of "hard core Conservatives as per normal in the South"! How ingenious his analysis...yes, the whole Lamont-Lieberman thing was about North vs South...just like Carter-Kennedy in 1980 (which is relevant in the extreme)!

Right...somehow the vast majority of people involved just don't see it that way, but that must be because they've been overtaken by:

"the smug ideological xenophobia that currently afflicts activists in both parties"

Yes, Joe just nailed the problem with our politics. The problem is that one side is largely composed of folks who will only vote for white evangelical Christians like themselves, and the other side...well...the other side is just as bad, although not in any way that can be described with facts that fit the word "xenophobia"!

Although, to be fair, because Joe's hit piec--sorry, "articles" are always nothing if not fair in describing people with whom Joe disagrees' point of view ("beyond stupid" is pretty fair), "The Republicans don't even have a DLC equivalent".

Yes, because everyone should have their very own DLC, so that they can vote and vote and vote in election after election, and be just as marginalized by Messrs Klein and Broder and Ignatius and Brooks! So that the Serious People in Washington can get down to the real business of government: telling us provincials what Serious policies we're going to have foisted upon us by our betters--and how the last set of policies they gave us were not mistakes, even though every prediction turned to be wrong, and every consequence was a disaster.

O the joy to imagine such a world, in which everybody had their own DLC. Every problem would be solved just like...well, like the Iraq Study Group solved the Iraq occupation!

Don't forget, whatever Joe writes these days, he is the very definition of the DLC and its slimy political methods. If you're not in 100 percent agreement with Joe's "intellectual ballast", then you're a Dirty F---ing Hippie who should go back to Russia.

Holy Crap!

We won...for now:

Senate to return to controversial FISA update after new year

After nearly 10 hours of discussion Monday, the Senate decided to delay a final vote on a controversial domestic spying bill until the new year, under the threat of a protracted filibuster from Sen. Chris Dodd.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spent the afternoon Monday huddling with Senate leaders and fellow Democrats to try to work out a deal over an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As the FISA update was written, it included a provision for legal immunity to telecommunications companies that facilitated a warrantless wiretapping scheme that Dodd and other Democrats said was illegal.

Taking a page out Time's quality reporting, they couldn't actually tell the readers the truth: that the legality of the program(s) has yet to be determined. This is precisely because the Bush administration has claimed state secrets privileges and will not officially release any information about the program (or its predecessors), so that the court cases against the telecoms are effectively the only way to know if they have broken the law as non-partisan whistleblowers allege.

It's funny, because the article lays that fact out itself several paragraphs later:

Granting immunity to the telecoms -- as President Bush has demanded -- would invalidate some 40 lawsuits that have been filed against telephone and internet companies. Plaintiffs in those suits say the telecommunications industry acted illegally and ignored the constitution in facilitating warrantless government wiretaps aimed at Americans.

...and then contradicts its own statement by quoting Dodd directly:

Accusing telecommunications companies of "betraying millions of customers trust" by handing over phone records to the government for construction of a massive database, Dodd said blocking lawsuits against the companies would eliminate the last bastion of oversight of the president's warrantless wiretapping program.

"Was it legal?" Dodd asked. "That